The Communist Party, no.52, June - July 2023
Source: http://www.international-communist-party.org/English/TheCPart/TCP_052.htm
Archived: 2026-04-23 17:20
The Communist Party, no.52, June - July 2023
Paper of the
International Communist Party
All
issues
Issue 52
June-July 2023
pdf
-
printable
Last update May
5, 2023
WHAT DISTINGUISHES OUR PARTY – The line
running from Marx to Lenin to the foundation
of the Third International and the birth
of the Communist Party of Italy in Leghorn
(Livorno) 1921, and from there to the struggle
of the Italian Communist Left
against the degeneration in Moscow
and to the rejection of popular fronts
and coalition of resistance groups
– The tough work of restoring the revolutionary
doctrine and the party organ, in contact
with the working class, outside the realm
of personal politics and electoralist manoevrings
Contents:
1.
The Banking Crisis, Failure of the Capitalist Regime, Besieges All the Sanctuaries of Finance
2.
Germany’s Regime Unions Struggle to Contain Militancy
3.
Anti-strike legislation fails to stop workers struggles in the UK
4.
The Growing Wave of Strikes Against Amazon in the UK
5.
May Day 2023: No to Bourgeois Militarism - For the Unconditional Defense of the Working Class
6.
War in Kosovo?
7.
Life of the Party
PUBLIC PARTY MEETINGS IN THE USA
To contact us, email:
icparty@interncommparty.org
The Banking Crisis, Failure of the Capitalist Regime, Besieges All the Sanctuaries of Finance
Introduction
The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) is the latest episode of the
broader capitalist crisis developing in the United States following the
Covid-19 pandemic. Increased consumer spending, caused by the $4 trillion
of Covid-19 stimulus, has driven inflation since 2021. In 2022, after the
Russian invasion of Ukraine, it got even worse as the price of oil and
other commodities skyrocketed. In the war between the classes, the
solution for the capitalists was to raise interest rates: the Silicon
Valley Bank was the expected and accepted victim for the maintenance of
the labor-capital ratio, necessary to feed its insatiable thirst for
accumulating more and more profits.
Labor and inflation
In the booming economy of 2021, after years of rising labor demand, as
businesses reopened after the Covid-19 lockdown, capitalists could not
find a sufficient reserve army to meet the increased demand for labour.
Conversely, years of intensified expulsions of immigrant workers and
hundreds of thousands of proletarians who died from Covid-19, resulted in
a massive labor shortage: everywhere on the external windows of the
companies “workers wanted” signs were read while the bourgeois complained
that “nobody wanted to work anymore”.
Throughout the following year, capitalists’ anxiety about increasing the
bargaining power of workers in the face of these conditions grew. The
bourgeois press became concerned about the "great resignations" when
workers began to flee in large numbers from jobs with indecent wages or
working conditions. At the same time, in 2022, new unionization campaigns
at Amazon and Starbucks have raised fears of a resurgence of the union
movement.
To get jobs back on track and prevent hyperinflation, which could have had
dire consequences for the economy as a whole, the Federal Reserve launched
a maneuver similar to the one it used in the 1970 OPEC crisis to attack
the bargaining power of workers and at the same time contain inflation. By
raising interest rates, thus making it harder for businesses to borrow,
the Fed hoped to slow economic growth. As businesses downsized or closed,
resulting in mass layoffs, the reserve army of labor would grow larger,
thus driving down wages by putting more workers in competition for fewer
jobs, thus reducing their power in the sale of their work. The plan is
aimed at preserving profits while deflating the economy enough to avoid a
hyperinflationary spiral.
Tech Industry
The tech industry hit an all-time high in 2021 with revenues from Amazon,
Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook reaching $1.2 trillion as a boom in
tech “start-ups” broke all records. But the Fed’s announcement of interest
rate hikes in the spring of 2022 led to a sharp decline, and the industry
lost billions of dollars on the stock exchange in a matter of days. Today
what the bourgeois press calls the "white-collar crisis" is in full swing.
The technology sector is hardest hit, with more than 120,000 layoffs last
year and 148,000 in recent months. Similarly across the industry there has
been a return to more oppressive management styles, aimed at getting the
maximum profit out of each worker, under a return to a ’revenue per
employee’ model. Capital injection into innovative companies in the last
three months of this year is about a third of that of last year in the
same period, falling from $151 billion to just $56.3 billion: even for
start-up capitalists, praised as "founders" by the press, it is
increasingly difficult to find funding.
SVB collapse
These factors played a role in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, the
financial center for the tech industry and its economy. The SVB had
benefited from growth in the tech sector in 2021, holding $189.2 billion
in deposits, $89 billion more than a year earlier, and tripling its share
price since 2018. When the Federal Reserve announced plans to raise rates
last spring, trouble began for Silicon Valley Bank. As interest rates
soared, startups began pulling more money out of their accounts to meet
rising expenses as venture capital investments stalled. The bank, taking
advantage of low interest rates, had invested 75% of its assets in
long-dated government bonds, which are more profitable in times of low
interest rates, whereas banks of its size usually invest only 6%. As the
withdrawals continued throughout the year, the bank was forced to devise a
plan to obtain enough liquidity to cover the withdrawals. When the bank
admitted that it needed to raise fresh capital to cover the drawdowns,
which would have required the sale of most of its bonds at a $1.8 billion
loss, it triggered the crisis of confidence that led to the massive bank
run, with withdrawals of over 42 billion in a single day, which led to the
failure of the bank.
On a global scale
With central banks raising interest rates since the start of 2021,
everyone was expecting a recession. How did it go? In industrial
production in recent months we have seen not only a sharp slowdown in the
United States, Poland and elsewhere, but above all a recession in the
United Kingdom, Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Belgium and France. Not to
mention China, which is hit hard in real estate and car manufacturing. The
recession hits Asian countries and the UK more than continental Europe.
This recession corresponds to a general slowdown in consumption linked to
high inflation in the prices of raw materials, energy and agricultural
products. However, the large international groups are doing very well.
Energy producers and distributors have made unprecedented profits over the
past two years. But large industrial groups, especially in the automotive
sector, have also made huge excess profits by raising prices, especially
by refocusing on luxury or high-end products. And with them, some big
banks, such as BNP for example. For large industrial groups, raising
interest rates is not so harmful at the moment, as high inflation causes
real interest rates to be negative or very low.
The situation is different for small businesses, and in particular for
start-ups; it is becoming more difficult for them to obtain loans and a
number of them find themselves in difficulty or even bankrupt. The risk
that arises with the increase in interest rates is therefore the
multiplication of unpaid debts, which in turn, if their mass increases too
much, can only lead to bank failures. Initially, the increase in interest
rates is favorable to the banks: not only can they lend at higher rates,
but it also increases the remuneration of deposits in central banks.
However, as we see, this increase in interest rates is double-edged: on
the one hand, it leads to a devaluation of previously purchased bonds, now
with a much lower yield, to the point that today a gigantic mass of bonds
worth several trillions, which are part of the monetary reserves of banks
and financial organizations, such as insurance companies, pension funds,
etc., depreciate between 20 and 30%! As long as the financial institution
does not need to sell these bonds to obtain liquidity, the loss in value
remains purely virtual, because these bonds will be repaid at their
purchase value at maturity. However, the situation is very different if
the financial institution, needing liquidity, is forced to sell part of
it; the sale therefore takes place at market value, with heavy losses.
This is what happened to SVB, Credit Suisse and several US regional banks.
And now Deutsche Bank itself is under threat. Furthermore, rising
delinquencies are forcing banks to raise cash. In response to this danger,
the FED, together with the central banks of Great Britain, Japan, Canada
and the ECB, has decided to provide dollars to commercial banks, which in
turn will be able to lend them to large companies. In times of crisis, the
dollar remains the safe haven currency and its demand explodes. On the
foreign exchange market, the demand for dollars is around 450 billion, but
at the height of the crisis in 2020 the demand suddenly rose to 5,000
billion. In financial terms we are dealing with a house of cards, or more
precisely with a gigantic "Pyramid of Ponzi". Everything holds up as long
as capital continues to accumulate in production. But if the recession
comes, if the sale of products stops, if unpaid debts explode, the whole
pyramid ends up collapsing if the crisis explodes. Everything will depend
on the strength of the recession in China, the United States and Europe in
the coming years.
Germany’s Regime Unions Struggle to Contain Militancy
Germany has the largest, and one of the strongest, economies in Europe
and strikes have been rare throughout most of the post-war period thanks
to longstanding agreements between the government, employers’ federations
and trade unions. In recent months, however, workers have been impacted by
the fall in real wages as the cost of essentials has skyrocketed and wage
levels, negotiated by the unions in binding agreements, have failed to
keep pace. The year 2022 saw many strikes, but for the most part these
have been so-called “Warnstreiks”, or warning strikes – one-day strike
actions restricted to certain sectors and often limited by state or
region.
The Railway and Transport Workers’ Union (EVG) called on Deutsche Bahn
(DB) employees to go on a day-long warning strike from midnight on 26/27
March. The railway declared that, as a result, long-distance traffic would
be completely suspended. There would also be no trains in regional and
suburban rail services. Freight traffic was largely held back on Monday to
allow trains to start running quickly after the strike, the railways
announced.
Together with the simultaneous strike by Verdi in the public sector, this
so-called mega-strike brought large parts of air, rail and local transport
to a halt throughout the country. Airports, municipal public transport
companies, municipal ports, motorway companies and water and shipping
management are at a standstill.
With this latest strike, the EVG reacted to an initial offer made by the
railway company on 14 March. At the first round of negotiations at the end
of February, the company, represented by the personnel director Martin
Seiler, had initially refused to meet the demands of the EVG.
The EVG demanded wage increases of 12% for the 180,000 workers it
represents, but at the least an increase of 650€ per month, for a period
of twelve months. It is also demanded some minor structural changes in
collective agreements. DB described these demands as the equivalent of an
increase of 25%, which is nonsense.
The “offer” from DB is far worse and amounts to a huge cut in living
standards. The wages of railway employees are, according to the offer, to
be raised in two steps by a total of 5%: from 1 December 2023 by 3% and
from 1 August 2024 by 2%. In addition, there would be a so-called
inflation compensation premium subsidized by the federal government. This
is a one-off, so it will not permanently improve the wage level with
rising inflation, and would amount to only 2500€.
The EVG called the strike for one reason only and that is the mood of its
membership. There is a widespread willingness among workers to fight. In
the face of skyrocketing prices, they are refusing to accept further real
wage cuts.
DB is 100 percent state-owned, which means the railway workers are
directly confronted by the federal government, currently a so-called
“traffic light” coalition of SPD, FDP and Greens.
However, as a member of the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB), the
EVG is a regime union “par excellence” with close links to the government.
In October 2020, it signed an early collective agreement with a zero
increase in the current year. In Germany, such agreements are intended to
make strike action illegal. Train drivers and conductors organized in the
Gewerkschaft Deutscher Lokomotivführer (GDL) were similarly subjected to
agreements that lowered real wages and prevented strike action for 32
months, up until autumn 2023. The GDL is not affiliated with the DGB but
is no less in the pocket of the employers.
Today, the regime unions find it more difficult to keep a lid on things.
First, because there have been strikes in other sectors such as the postal
service; second, because German workers in general are feeling the
pressure of falling living standards; and third, because workers are
engaged in struggle internationally. This makes it difficult for the
bosses to divide and rule with the usual rhetoric about “staying
competitive”.
Moreover, the bosses’ argument that increased wages means less investment
in the railways has also been exposed as false. Successive coalition
governments have been dismantling the railway network for decades,
irrespective of wages, to make it more attractive to private investors,
i.e., removing the parts deemed insufficiently profitable. Anyone who
relies on the railways can see this. Cancellations and delays have become
the norm.
This is not only true of the railways. Other public services, including
healthcare and education, are also underfunded as the rate of profit falls
and federal resources are diverted to military rearmament. Meanwhile, the
salaries and “bonuses” of those at the top of large enterprises continue
to rise, as is the case in all major economies.
In Germany, the supervisory boards of large companies include
representatives of the regime unions. The deputy chairman of the DB
supervisory board is Martin Burkert, who is President of the EVG. He sat
in the Bundestag for the “red” SPD from 2005 to 2020. Cosima Ingenschay,
who is federal executive director of the EVG, also sits on the supervisory
board, as do the works council chairpersons of DB subsidiaries.
In effect, this means that members of the trade union bureaucracy base
their remuneration on that of senior management, not that of rank and file
members. They also identify with the class interests of the bosses rather
than those of the working class. At the same time, they must serve as a
valve on the pressure cooker of working class anger. Hence the need to
call the occasional “Warnstreik” when the situation gets critical – even
the so-called “mega-strike” of 27 March.
As the strike wave generalizes, the pressure will become increasingly
difficult for the regime unions to contain. For German workers to succeed
they must break from the cozy boardroom deals and organize independently,
across various industrial sectors and form class unions. And in a Europe
that is increasingly integrated (for example, the main rail networks cross
international borders) it is more important then ever to coordinate with
workers in the nine countries bordering Germany – and beyond.
Anti-strike legislation fails to stop workers struggles in the UK
On February 1st, teachers, train drivers, civil servants, university
lecturers, bus drivers and security guards from seven unions walked out
and mounted a massive demonstration in London. It was the biggest day of
industrial action for more than a decade in the UK. But as well as being a
protest against low pay it was also a protest against the government’s
proposed new anti-strike legislation which has been passed in the House of
Commons, and is now due to go to the House of Lords before becoming law.
It is estimated that roughly half a million workers took part in the
strike and the demonstration, consisting of roughly 100,000 Public and
Commercial Services Union (representing striking civil servants), 300,000
teachers from the National Education Union, and 70,000 lecturers from the
University and College Union, along with ASLEF union train drivers and
London bus drivers.
The strike left almost no trains running in England and thousands of
schools were shut. Museums and galleries were closed and Border Force
checkpoints were manned by army personnel.
The PCS chief, Mark Serwotka, anticipates many more such strike days as
it “makes sense” for different unions to work together to get results. He
added that there were more than a million workers who fell under live
strike mandates.
In the health sector what is underway is the biggest wave of strikes in
the history of the National Health Service. The nurses had already gone
out on strike on the 10th, 18h and 19th of January, the ambulance staff on
the 11th and 23rd of January, and on the 26th physiotherapists and support
staff from thirty NHS services – one in seven – staged a 24 hour walk out.
On 6 February ambulance workers and nurses struck together for the first
time, breaking with the traditional professional divisions that have
characterised so many strikes. The nurses were called out by the Royal
College of Nursing union.
An important fact was that the ambulance workers didn’t give in to the
government’s request to let the hospital managers know if and when they
were striking, meaning that the army had to be called in at very short
notice to cover them.
On 6 January it was announced that junior doctors would go on strike for
72 hours in March if their forthcoming ballot produced a majority for
industrial action, with the doctors’ union, the British Medical
Association (BMA) declaring that junior doctors had suffered a “staggering
and unjustifiable” 26.1% cut in their incomes since 2008. On 9 January the
union started balloting more than 45,000 junior doctors on taking
industrial action and this could eventually lead to an escalation of the
mounting wave of walkouts by NHS staff over their salaries.
On 25 January 300 workers employed by Amazon to work in their Coventry
warehouse staged their first ever UK strike in a protest over pay and
conditions, walking out over a “derisory” offer of a 5% pay rise to £10.50
an hour, whereas as far as the workers are concerned, an acceptable
figure, that goes some way to covering the rising cost of living, is no
less than £15 an hour.
The Trade Union Act of 2016
In response to the wave of strikes, which is unlikely to let up any time
soon, the UK government recently announced their plan to introduce a new
anti-strike law: the Strikes, (Minimum Service Levels) Bill 2022-23. The
new law is designed to allow the bosses of key public services (health,
fire, ambulance service, rail and nuclear commissioning) to sue unions and
sack employees if minimum service levels are not met. The Guardian
reported that “the new law will also back employers bringing an injunction
to prevent strikes or seeking damages afterwards if they go ahead”.
Pat Cullen, General Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing (the main
nurses’ union) pointed out that “safe staffing levels, that are set in
law, are what we want to see year-round, not just in these extreme
circumstances. Sara Gorton (The Unison unions’ head of health) reiterated
this point, stating: “the public and health staff would welcome minimum
staffing levels in the NHS every day of the week. That way people wouldn’t
be lying in agony on A & E (Emergency Room) floors or dying in the
backs of ambulances. But limiting legal staffing levels to strike days and
threatening to sack or fire health workers when there are record vacancies
in the NHS show proper healthcare isn’t what ministers want. The
government is picking ill-advised fights with NHS employees and their
unions to mask years of dismal failure to tackle pay and staffing.”
Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, was quick to say that it
would repeal the new legislation if elected back into power; somewhat at
odds with his prohibition of a member of his shadow cabinet appearing on
picket lines back in the Autumn, and with his recent description of the
Labour Party as “the party of business”.
Indeed his predecessor at the head of the Labour Party had similarly
pledged to repeal the previous batch of anti-strike legislation that was
introduced a few years ago (the Trade Union Act 2016), something Keir
Starmer has been curiously silent about until now!
When the 2016 Act was first introduced, it was thought by its supporters
that it would severely hinder the ability of the unions to mount effective
actions, but the sheer determination of the striking sectors to fight back
has meant that this has not been the case.
As the current strikes are largely circumscribed by this legislation, it
is worth taking a look at some of its key provisions:
1) as opposed to what happens in Italy, strike action has to be
previously approved by a vote among the members of the trade union
promoting it. The 2016 law raised the threshold of how many members need
to approve a strike for it to go ahead: at least 50% of those with the
right to do so would now have to vote in order for their results to be
legally valid, and of those voting in a ballot on strike action at least
40% would have to support it.
The International Communist Party advises workers that they shouldn’t
subordinate their struggles to democratic formalities and shouldn’t make a
fetish of it. The strike is not a manifestation of opinions but an action
that takes place within an ongoing social war, a fire which, once lit, can
either spread further or be extinguished. A strike, even if it is a
minority that sparks it off, can, in given circumstances, grow and achieve
victory.
Class trade unionism does not submit to the absolute principle of vote
counting, which is to defer to individual calculations and orientations.
The final outcome of the war between classes will be determined by force,
not by forms of representation.
2) The vote to approve strike actions happens at the moment by means of a
postal ballot, and not in assemblies in which workers are physically
present. This practice, too, is opposed to class trade unionism. Votes to
decide on whether or not to undertake, continue or interrupt an action are
certainly necessary and serve to enhance the morale and confidence of the
workers themselves, and to indicate to the union leaders what the best
decisions might be. But such voting, when possible, should be by means of
assemblies, in workers’ meetings and with a clear vote for or against.
This means that those who attend the assemblies and who are prepared to
openly take a position in front of their work colleagues will be selected.
On the other hand, in secret, or postal, ballots, the vote of a blackleg
has the same value as a worker prepared to sacrifice himself for the
collective interest. Certainly the French practice of “renewable”
(reconductible) strikes is preferable, in which workers meet in assemblies
and make decisions by a show of hands.
And in a stroke of irony, it is to be noted how difficult it is to vote
by postal ballot during a postal strike!
3) Another key point in the 2016 law is the two weeks notice which the
unions must give to employers before taking strike action. This rule is
analogous to the one introduced in Italy with Law 146 of 1990, which over
the years has gradually been made more stringent, in some cases resulting
in even longer notice periods. For the ruling class it is an excellent
means of dampening workers’ combativity and making struggles less
effective. What’s more, it allows companies to make adjustments in their
production schedule, hire blacklegs, and prepare media campaigns and other
actions against the workers’ struggle. Class trade unionism combats such
restrictions: the workers go out on strike without warning, their
intention being to hit the employer and his business.
4) The Trade Union Act of 2016 also wants there to be “supervision of the
trade unions on the picket line”, and it provides a series of rules whose
lack of clarity offers further opportunities to declare the pickets
illegal due to simple bureaucratic errors.
5) And finally, there is the “opting in” or “opting out” issue: a
keystone of the traditional opportunism in the British labour movement.
The issue concerns whether a contribution is made to a union’s political
fund by a union member automatically or not. The 2016 Act decreed that
union members now need to “opt in” to the fund, rather than, as before,
paying into it being the default position. And since the body which stands
to gain most from the various political funds is the Labour Party, it’s no
wonder then that Starmer recently announced he would abolish this
legislation if the Labour Party got in at the next election.
Or was it just this clause he was thinking about? It is not difficult to
predict that the collaborationist leaderships of the unions that are hand
in glove with the regime will do their utmost to present as a big gain
what are in fact just minor changes to the law, precisely such as making
paying into the political fund once again the default position.
* * *
The present wave of strikes in Great Britain confirms that, despite these
restrictions, the class struggle cannot be suppressed, and that it is not
a thing of the past, as the scribbling of the many hacks sold out to the
regime would have us believe. The bourgeoisie has an interest in such lies
being reinforced, but it knows very well what rubbish it all is. Indeed it
is very conscious of the inevitable return of the struggle of the
proletarian class, in order to fight for its immediate economic needs. And
it is because of this that the bourgeoisie certainly doesn’t just rely on
ideological arguments but adopts legal instruments as well. But it is
walking a narrow path: on the one hand it limits as far as possible the
right to strike, forcibly holding back the general movement of the working
class. On the other hand, it fears that if such measures are too
excessive, they could have the opposite effect to that desired, that is,
restrictions that are too restrictive could push the defensive movement
onto the terrain of illegality, which could favour its radicalisation and
its passage onto the terrain of political class struggle.
The level at which its suits the ruling class to set the bar of
illegality varies according to the historical period and the balance of
class forces. In certain contexts, the bourgeoisie may see itself
constrained to abolish the liberty to strike and also the trade union
organisations. This generally happens in wartime, but also when the
workers’ struggle assumes greater breadth and strength.
The ruling class will do anything to preserve its political domination.
It prefers to use the democratic lie, but it will never hold back, when
that is not enough, from throwing itself into the arms of fascism in order
to resist the communist revolution, and in order to defend capitalism to
the very end.
The Growing Wave of Strikes Against Amazon in the UK
Throughout 2023, worker strikes at Amazon facilities in the United
Kingdom gained significant momentum, as employees rallied for improved
wages and better working conditions. Heavily fueled by concerns over the
cost of living crisis and inhumane treatment, these strikes have seen
increasingly widespread participation.
The Coventry Warehouse Strikes
The first strike against Amazon in the UK took place on January 25, 2023,
at the Coventry warehouse, marking a pivotal moment. Approximately 300
workers took part, rejecting an offer of a derisory 5% wage increase,
which would have raised their pay to £10.50 per hour. Led by the GMB Union
(formerly the General, Municipal, Boilermakers’ and Allied Trade Union –
then shortened to GMB in 1987), the workers demanded a more substantial
raise, advocating for a minimum wage of £15 per hour. Despite initial
resistance, the strike gained traction, inspiring further Amazon workers
across the country.
March Strikes and Union Recognition
On 2 March, further strikes occurred at the Coventry Amazon warehouse.
This was followed by a five-day strike from 13-17 March, effectively
disrupting operations and amplifying their demands for better wages and
improved working conditions. With the support of the GMB Union, over 600
new members joined from the Coventry warehouse alone, showcasing a growing
sense of unity among workers. This surge in union membership paved the way
for the pursuit of statutory recognition, a critical milestone in the
workers’ campaign for collective bargaining rights.
Expansion of Strikes at Rugeley and Mansfield
Inspired by the successes in Coventry, workers from additional Amazon
facilities joined the strike movement. The GMB union conducted ballots at
five new sites, including Mansfield in Nottinghamshire, Coalville and
Kegworth in Leicestershire, and Rugeley and Rugby in Staffordshire and
Warwickshire. These ballots allowed workers to express their willingness
to strike against Amazon’s proposed 50p pay rise. The strike actions
escalated, culminating in a total of 14 strike days across multiple Amazon
locations by the end of April.
At the Rugeley fulfillment centre in the Towers Business Park, an
overwhelming 98% of union members voted in favor of escalating the strike,
while at Amazon Mansfield, 100% of members backed strike action. These
resounding results highlighted the deep dissatisfaction among workers and
their unwavering determination to fight for higher wages and recognition.
This was followed by workers in Rugeley and Mansfield preparing for a
binding vote on further strike action.
Amazon’s Response
In response to the escalating strikes, Amazon issued a statement
emphasising its commitment to periodically reviewing pay rates to ensure
competitiveness. They cited recent pay increases, stating that the minimum
starting pay would range between £11 and £12 per hour, depending on the
location. Amazon further highlighted the benefits, positive work
environment, and career growth opportunities it offers, presenting itself
as an appealing employer.
However, the GMB Union argued that these increases fell short of the
necessary measures and called for Amazon to recognize the union and engage
in negotiations. The union recently lodged a complaint with the UK’s
employment watchdog, the Advisory, Conciliation, and Arbitration Service
(ACAS), alleging that Amazon unlawfully threatened workers participating
in strike action with dismissals. The GMB Union sought an injunction as a
result.
Developments and Union Recognition Efforts
On 16-18 April, more than 560 workers at Coventry warehouse, up from 300
in January, halted operations (despite Amazon claiming only a few workers
were involved). The latest figures show that almost 700 Amazon Coventry
workers are now GMB members, a number the union believes is more than half
of workers at the site – the usual threshold for mandatory union
recognition in a workplace. This was followed by further strikes on 21-23
April which brought the total number of strike days to 14.
The strikes received significant attention from the media, amplifying the
workers’ message and increasing public awareness of their struggle against
Amazon.
On 27 April, the GMB Union announced it had started the process for union
recognition at the Coventry centre. Amazon bosses have 10 days to respond
and agree to voluntary recognition. If there is no agreement, GMB Union
will start the statutory process through the Central Arbitration Committee
(CAC).
The union argued that recognition would provide a platform for workers to
negotiate collectively for fairer wages, improved working conditions, and
a stronger voice in decision-making processes. They highlighted the
importance of addressing power imbalances within the workplace and
ensuring that workers’ concerns are taken into account.
In May, Amazon threatened to flood the Coventry warehouse with 1000 new
staff in order to avoid recognising the union. On 11 May, the GMB Union
officially submitted a bid for formal recognition at Amazon Coventry to
the CAC; if successful, this would be the first time workers at an Amazon
site have won recognition of a trade union for collective bargaining over
pay, terms and conditions in the United Kingdom.
This has been followed by further strikes at the Coventry warehouse from
the 24-26 May, bringing the total number of strike days to 16. Amazon has
since offered school term-time only working to employees, to which the GMB
has already responded by reiterating that a decent wage settlement is the
workers’ main priority.
Critiques of the GMB and Pseudo-Left Groups
The worker strikes at Amazon’s Coventry warehouse, which later expanded
to Rugeley and Mansfield, have not been without their fair share of
internal criticism and debate. One target of criticism has been the GMB
Union, which has faced accusations of collaboration with Amazon and a
reluctance to support more militant actions that could potentially ignite
a broader, politicised strike movement throughout the country. Skepticism
has arisen from the GMB’s track record of prioritizing sustainable
business success and its willingness to compromise with employers, as
demonstrated in previous agreements with companies like Deliveroo. These
circumstances have raised doubts about the union’s true commitment to
genuine class struggle and its willingness to push for radical change on
behalf of workers.
Moreover, pseudo-left groups have come under scrutiny for overlooking and
obscuring the role of the union bureaucracy. These groups tend to
uncritically praise the role of unions, including the GMB, while
neglecting their complicity in suppressing broader class struggle
movements. By overlooking the potential for more militant actions and
acquiescing to the status quo, these groups are diminishing the existing
problems, failing to challenge the underlying issues faced by workers and
promoting an illusory perception of the supposed neutrality when it comes
to regime unions.
The future of labor relations in Amazon and its significance
Despite the critiques and internal debates surrounding the GMB and
pseudo-left groups, the worker strikes at Amazon’s Coventry warehouse,
Rugeley and Mansfield stand as a testament to the growing determination
among workers to demand fairer wages and improved treatment in the face of
mass worker control and union busting engaged in by modern corporate
behemoths such as Amazon. The overwhelming majority of workers voting in
favor of strike action demonstrates the substantial support these strikes
have garnered.
The ongoing efforts of the GMB Union to secure union recognition through
the statutory process, coupled with the negotiations with Amazon, carry
immense significance for how workplace legislation is sculpted and
recognised within Amazon’s operations in the United Kingdom. The outcomes
of these strikes will shape the landscape of labor relations and play a
vital role in the fight for higher wages and improved working conditions
not only within Amazon but also within the broader UK labor market and
Amazon internationally.
If successful, union recognition could pave the way for collective
negotiations on wages, working hours, health and safety measures and other
crucial aspects of employment.
In parallel with the strikes, a burgeoning movement of pro-worker
sentiment has emerged on social media platforms, particularly on Twitter.
Pro-union and worker action accounts have utilised these digital platforms
to disseminate information about the strikes, raise awareness of the
challenges faced by Amazon workers and to rally support for the
unionisation effort.
The strikes at Amazon UK are not isolated events but rather part of a
broader trend of worker militancy occurring in the UK and around the
world. In recent years, there has been a noticeable increase in strikes
and labor unrest as workers demand better pay, improved conditions and
more control over their work.
The strikes at Amazon UK represent a significant development within this
trend and their impact is likely to reverberate across other industries
and alter the public perception of class militancy within the corporate
workplace.
While the ultimate outcome of the strikes at Amazon UK remains uncertain,
their effects on the company and the labor movement in the UK have already
been profound. By raising awareness of the issues faced by Amazon workers
and demonstrating the willingness of workers to take collective action,
these strikes have highlighted an already explosive sense of urgency for
improved treatment among large employers.
They have also prompted further discussions on the nature of labor
relations within workplaces such as Amazon’s which exert a huge amount of
technological and ideological control over their workforce.
The consequences of these strikes will be closely monitored by workers
and employers alike as they are an important factor in the future of class
struggle in the UK as well as within Amazon’s expansive theater of
operations across Europe and beyond.
May Day 2023
No to Bourgeois Militarism - For the Unconditionsl Defense of the Working Class
War in Kosovo?
The geopolitics of the Balkans has been drastically affected by the last
phase of the "cold war" between Russia and the West. The protracted war in
Ukraine is spreading its fetid effluvia in this region in very serious
economic and social crisis. In recent weeks there have been important and
somewhat surprising developments in Kosovo, which have degenerated into a
serious crisis.
Serbia apparently remains neutral and opposes joining the economic
sanctions against Russia, which allows Russian financial capital to use
Serbia as the main bridge to Europe to circumvent the sanctions. Despite
constant pressure from the West, the Serbian government, led by the
Serbian Progressive Party (SPP) refuses to introduce sanctions, largely
due to the interests of a part of the ruling clique in Russian capital
(especially Gazprom).
In March 2023, the EU pressured Serbia to align its foreign policy with
that of the EU, under the threat of freezing the accession process. The
conditions were the imposition of economic sanctions on Russia or
acceptance of a Franco-German proposal for an agreement with Kosovo, which
would lead to its effective recognition.
Serbia accepted the latter.
Implementation of the agreement stalled on the issue of the Association
of Serb Municipalities: an association of Serb-majority municipalities
with executive and financial autonomy, which had been agreed as part of
the 2013 Brussels Agreement. Present-day Kosovo is governed by the
hard-line, nationalist Vetevendosje! (Self-Determination!) party, which
comes from a leftist and post-Maoist background. Despite the politics of
the West, Vetevendosje! pursues a more nationalist and anti-Western policy
than the other Kosovo Albanian parties seeking a union with Albania. The
prime minister of Kosovo, Kurti opposes the activities of the Association
of Serb Municipalities and anything that stands in the way of the full
unity of the state and considers the 2013 agreement null and void, which
has complicated the normalization of relations envisaged by the new
agreement. It has also led to a souring of relations between Kosovo, on
the one hand, and the EU and the United States, on the other.
On April 23, 2023, Kosovo held local elections in the region’s four
Serb-populated northern municipalities. Local Serbs (97 percent of the
population) decided to boycott the elections until the process of
implementing the Association of Serb Municipalities was completed.
The elections were held anyway, with 2-3% of local Albanians voting by
electing Albanian nationalists as mayors. The Serbs, in response,
barricaded the town halls, preventing the new mayors from taking office.
For a month the situation remained a stalemate.
Meanwhile, a school shooting occurred in Belgrade, Serbia, on May 3,
which immediately triggered another mass shooting and several other
violent incidents, resulting in a total of 20 deaths within a single day.
The outrage and grief soon turned into "mass protests against violence",
which called for more censorship in the media. The wave of protest was
immediately exploited by the opposition, which gave the demonstrations an
anti-government character by mobilizing between 50,000 and 60,000 people.
President Vučić responded by trying to organize even larger protests,
encouraging supporters from all over Serbia, as well as from the
Serb-inhabited northern provinces of Kosovo.
On May 26, a large pro-government counter-demonstration was held in
Belgrade, bringing many Vučić supporters from Kosovo, leaving the
barricades erected in front of city halls half-empty. This gave Kosovar
special police forces the opportunity to storm the four municipalities and
suppress the protest with the use of extreme violence, despite calls from
the West to reduce tensions without the use of force.
Not surprisingly, this led to a catastrophe, with five uninterrupted days
of melee-a-trois between Kosovo Albanian special police, KFOR international peacekeepers, and armed Serbian civilians. The Serbs involved in the conflict are mostly local, but the
involvement of a group of organized provocateurs is almost certain. It is
not certain that they were sent by the Serbian government, but the hats
they were wearing are associated with a criminal organization whose
contact persons in the ruling CHC Party (ruling Serbian Progressive
Party), have recently switched to the opposition. It is very likely,
therefore, that they were sent by that part of the opposition that is
supported by the West.
In response to the violence, the Quintet made up of the U.S., UK,
Germany, France and Italy but led by the U.S. initially issued a joint
condemnation of the "violence by the authorities in Priština" (a huge
rhetorical precedent), drafted by the U.S. State Department. This was
quickly followed by symbolic sanctions imposed by the U.S. on Kosovo: the cancellation of the planned "Defender 23"
military exercise and Kosovo’s expulsion from the initiative, a diplomatic
boycott of any kind of official contact between U.S. and Kosovo
representatives, and a demand to immediately block Kosovo’s membership in
international institutions and to block any new international recognition.
It seems clear that the United States has decided to betray its allies in
Kosovo in exchange for greater bargaining power with Serbia on the issue
of sanctions on Russia. A strong possibility is that this will be achieved
through regime change in Serbia.
The diverse, extremely broad-based but mostly liberal opposition has been
much warmer toward the possibility of sanctions, but it has also largely
adopted nationalist rhetoric toward the ruling party, particularly in
relation to its policy toward Kosovo, which is seen as overly
concessionary. In addition, the progressive party currently in power has
had a very large number of defections, and many adherents joined the ranks
of the opposition last week-a clique that had been discredited over the
Krušik arms factory affair, ties to organized crime, and high-profile
corruption scandals, and had been quietly ousted from any meaningful
position of power.
Partly because of its private interests, this clique is the most
pro-Western faction in the government. The opposition has naturally
decided to welcome it into its ranks with full honors.
It is therefore likely that in the coming weeks the United States will
favor the united opposition in its efforts to undermine the current
government, overthrow it and assume power. The U.S. will give carte
blanche to the new government to "protect the Serb minority" against a
possible repetition of an event like the ethnic pogrom of March 2004, and
it will probably even result in a change of the current borders. This will
provide good support for the new government, which in return will have to
adhere to sanctions against Russia. Of course, the current government, and
also Moscow, are aware of this danger and therefore the situation is
absolutely critical and, for the first time in 15 years, after the
constant "crying wolf" by the international media, there is now a real
risk of significant escalation and even possible armed conflict (although
this time the international media is surprisingly silent).
In all this dirty game between opposing imperialisms, the proletariat of
Serbia and Kosovo is crushed and voiceless. Its living and working
conditions are continually worsening while the bourgeois parties blame all
evils on the "enemy" at the gates to hide the fact that the enemy is at
home: The enemy is the bosses, their parties, their newspapers and
television, who use all means, including organized crime to increase their
profits and will not stop even at the prospect of unleashing a general war
in order to maintain their power.
June 2, 2023
Life of the Party
It’s been a 3 month (March-May) break in our publication cycle. We will
return to an every other month schedule with issue number 53 – August 1st.
Hopefully with a bigger format soon.
The ICP held its 146th General Meeting at the last weekend of May attended by participants from 16 nations. Reports were presented on a wide range of subjects and a summary of them will be presented in Communist Left 52.
May Day 2023: The ICP published its annual May Day call in 20 languages.
We distributed party materials at workers marches in Belgrade, Chicago,
Denver, Milan, Rome, Zagreb.
In Portland, Oregon we participated in the first public meeting of the
Class Struggle Action Network - a coordination of militant workers in that
region.
A full report by an ICP involved in
the major Rutgers University strike will be published in the next issue.
There will also be an article from the ICP in Tblitsi, Georgia regarding
strikes and unrest there.
On Sunday, April 30, The ICP held a
public meeting at the COBAS hall in Turin, Italy on the subject of the
strikes waves in France, Britain, Germany And Greece and calling for workers
in Italy to join the strike wave.
– Informal Party Meetings:
- email icparty@interncommparty.org to arrange meeting or let us
know you will be attending.
-
Chicago, IL
- First Saturdays; Bourgeois Pig Cafe, 738 W Fullerton Ave:
2pm
-
Denver, CO
- First Saturdays at Copper Door Cafe, 2890 Fairfax St, 80207:
11 am.
-
Portland, OR
- May meeting postponed a month.
Yakima, WA - Saturdays at Northtown Coffeehouse (32 N Front St): 3 pm
(PST)
-
Meetings can be arranged in: Albuquerque, Akron/Cleveland,
Bethlehem, Chapel Hill, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Richmond,
Raleighy.
to index
Paper of the
International Communist Party
All
issues
Issue 52
June-July 2023
-
printable
Last update May
5, 2023
WHAT DISTINGUISHES OUR PARTY – The line
running from Marx to Lenin to the foundation
of the Third International and the birth
of the Communist Party of Italy in Leghorn
(Livorno) 1921, and from there to the struggle
of the Italian Communist Left
against the degeneration in Moscow
and to the rejection of popular fronts
and coalition of resistance groups
– The tough work of restoring the revolutionary
doctrine and the party organ, in contact
with the working class, outside the realm
of personal politics and electoralist manoevrings
Contents:
1.
The Banking Crisis, Failure of the Capitalist Regime, Besieges All the Sanctuaries of Finance
2.
Germany’s Regime Unions Struggle to Contain Militancy
3.
Anti-strike legislation fails to stop workers struggles in the UK
4.
The Growing Wave of Strikes Against Amazon in the UK
5.
May Day 2023: No to Bourgeois Militarism - For the Unconditional Defense of the Working Class
6.
War in Kosovo?
7.
Life of the Party
PUBLIC PARTY MEETINGS IN THE USA
To contact us, email:
icparty@interncommparty.org
The Banking Crisis, Failure of the Capitalist Regime, Besieges All the Sanctuaries of Finance
Introduction
The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) is the latest episode of the
broader capitalist crisis developing in the United States following the
Covid-19 pandemic. Increased consumer spending, caused by the $4 trillion
of Covid-19 stimulus, has driven inflation since 2021. In 2022, after the
Russian invasion of Ukraine, it got even worse as the price of oil and
other commodities skyrocketed. In the war between the classes, the
solution for the capitalists was to raise interest rates: the Silicon
Valley Bank was the expected and accepted victim for the maintenance of
the labor-capital ratio, necessary to feed its insatiable thirst for
accumulating more and more profits.
Labor and inflation
In the booming economy of 2021, after years of rising labor demand, as
businesses reopened after the Covid-19 lockdown, capitalists could not
find a sufficient reserve army to meet the increased demand for labour.
Conversely, years of intensified expulsions of immigrant workers and
hundreds of thousands of proletarians who died from Covid-19, resulted in
a massive labor shortage: everywhere on the external windows of the
companies “workers wanted” signs were read while the bourgeois complained
that “nobody wanted to work anymore”.
Throughout the following year, capitalists’ anxiety about increasing the
bargaining power of workers in the face of these conditions grew. The
bourgeois press became concerned about the "great resignations" when
workers began to flee in large numbers from jobs with indecent wages or
working conditions. At the same time, in 2022, new unionization campaigns
at Amazon and Starbucks have raised fears of a resurgence of the union
movement.
To get jobs back on track and prevent hyperinflation, which could have had
dire consequences for the economy as a whole, the Federal Reserve launched
a maneuver similar to the one it used in the 1970 OPEC crisis to attack
the bargaining power of workers and at the same time contain inflation. By
raising interest rates, thus making it harder for businesses to borrow,
the Fed hoped to slow economic growth. As businesses downsized or closed,
resulting in mass layoffs, the reserve army of labor would grow larger,
thus driving down wages by putting more workers in competition for fewer
jobs, thus reducing their power in the sale of their work. The plan is
aimed at preserving profits while deflating the economy enough to avoid a
hyperinflationary spiral.
Tech Industry
The tech industry hit an all-time high in 2021 with revenues from Amazon,
Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook reaching $1.2 trillion as a boom in
tech “start-ups” broke all records. But the Fed’s announcement of interest
rate hikes in the spring of 2022 led to a sharp decline, and the industry
lost billions of dollars on the stock exchange in a matter of days. Today
what the bourgeois press calls the "white-collar crisis" is in full swing.
The technology sector is hardest hit, with more than 120,000 layoffs last
year and 148,000 in recent months. Similarly across the industry there has
been a return to more oppressive management styles, aimed at getting the
maximum profit out of each worker, under a return to a ’revenue per
employee’ model. Capital injection into innovative companies in the last
three months of this year is about a third of that of last year in the
same period, falling from $151 billion to just $56.3 billion: even for
start-up capitalists, praised as "founders" by the press, it is
increasingly difficult to find funding.
SVB collapse
These factors played a role in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, the
financial center for the tech industry and its economy. The SVB had
benefited from growth in the tech sector in 2021, holding $189.2 billion
in deposits, $89 billion more than a year earlier, and tripling its share
price since 2018. When the Federal Reserve announced plans to raise rates
last spring, trouble began for Silicon Valley Bank. As interest rates
soared, startups began pulling more money out of their accounts to meet
rising expenses as venture capital investments stalled. The bank, taking
advantage of low interest rates, had invested 75% of its assets in
long-dated government bonds, which are more profitable in times of low
interest rates, whereas banks of its size usually invest only 6%. As the
withdrawals continued throughout the year, the bank was forced to devise a
plan to obtain enough liquidity to cover the withdrawals. When the bank
admitted that it needed to raise fresh capital to cover the drawdowns,
which would have required the sale of most of its bonds at a $1.8 billion
loss, it triggered the crisis of confidence that led to the massive bank
run, with withdrawals of over 42 billion in a single day, which led to the
failure of the bank.
On a global scale
With central banks raising interest rates since the start of 2021,
everyone was expecting a recession. How did it go? In industrial
production in recent months we have seen not only a sharp slowdown in the
United States, Poland and elsewhere, but above all a recession in the
United Kingdom, Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Belgium and France. Not to
mention China, which is hit hard in real estate and car manufacturing. The
recession hits Asian countries and the UK more than continental Europe.
This recession corresponds to a general slowdown in consumption linked to
high inflation in the prices of raw materials, energy and agricultural
products. However, the large international groups are doing very well.
Energy producers and distributors have made unprecedented profits over the
past two years. But large industrial groups, especially in the automotive
sector, have also made huge excess profits by raising prices, especially
by refocusing on luxury or high-end products. And with them, some big
banks, such as BNP for example. For large industrial groups, raising
interest rates is not so harmful at the moment, as high inflation causes
real interest rates to be negative or very low.
The situation is different for small businesses, and in particular for
start-ups; it is becoming more difficult for them to obtain loans and a
number of them find themselves in difficulty or even bankrupt. The risk
that arises with the increase in interest rates is therefore the
multiplication of unpaid debts, which in turn, if their mass increases too
much, can only lead to bank failures. Initially, the increase in interest
rates is favorable to the banks: not only can they lend at higher rates,
but it also increases the remuneration of deposits in central banks.
However, as we see, this increase in interest rates is double-edged: on
the one hand, it leads to a devaluation of previously purchased bonds, now
with a much lower yield, to the point that today a gigantic mass of bonds
worth several trillions, which are part of the monetary reserves of banks
and financial organizations, such as insurance companies, pension funds,
etc., depreciate between 20 and 30%! As long as the financial institution
does not need to sell these bonds to obtain liquidity, the loss in value
remains purely virtual, because these bonds will be repaid at their
purchase value at maturity. However, the situation is very different if
the financial institution, needing liquidity, is forced to sell part of
it; the sale therefore takes place at market value, with heavy losses.
This is what happened to SVB, Credit Suisse and several US regional banks.
And now Deutsche Bank itself is under threat. Furthermore, rising
delinquencies are forcing banks to raise cash. In response to this danger,
the FED, together with the central banks of Great Britain, Japan, Canada
and the ECB, has decided to provide dollars to commercial banks, which in
turn will be able to lend them to large companies. In times of crisis, the
dollar remains the safe haven currency and its demand explodes. On the
foreign exchange market, the demand for dollars is around 450 billion, but
at the height of the crisis in 2020 the demand suddenly rose to 5,000
billion. In financial terms we are dealing with a house of cards, or more
precisely with a gigantic "Pyramid of Ponzi". Everything holds up as long
as capital continues to accumulate in production. But if the recession
comes, if the sale of products stops, if unpaid debts explode, the whole
pyramid ends up collapsing if the crisis explodes. Everything will depend
on the strength of the recession in China, the United States and Europe in
the coming years.
Germany’s Regime Unions Struggle to Contain Militancy
Germany has the largest, and one of the strongest, economies in Europe
and strikes have been rare throughout most of the post-war period thanks
to longstanding agreements between the government, employers’ federations
and trade unions. In recent months, however, workers have been impacted by
the fall in real wages as the cost of essentials has skyrocketed and wage
levels, negotiated by the unions in binding agreements, have failed to
keep pace. The year 2022 saw many strikes, but for the most part these
have been so-called “Warnstreiks”, or warning strikes – one-day strike
actions restricted to certain sectors and often limited by state or
region.
The Railway and Transport Workers’ Union (EVG) called on Deutsche Bahn
(DB) employees to go on a day-long warning strike from midnight on 26/27
March. The railway declared that, as a result, long-distance traffic would
be completely suspended. There would also be no trains in regional and
suburban rail services. Freight traffic was largely held back on Monday to
allow trains to start running quickly after the strike, the railways
announced.
Together with the simultaneous strike by Verdi in the public sector, this
so-called mega-strike brought large parts of air, rail and local transport
to a halt throughout the country. Airports, municipal public transport
companies, municipal ports, motorway companies and water and shipping
management are at a standstill.
With this latest strike, the EVG reacted to an initial offer made by the
railway company on 14 March. At the first round of negotiations at the end
of February, the company, represented by the personnel director Martin
Seiler, had initially refused to meet the demands of the EVG.
The EVG demanded wage increases of 12% for the 180,000 workers it
represents, but at the least an increase of 650€ per month, for a period
of twelve months. It is also demanded some minor structural changes in
collective agreements. DB described these demands as the equivalent of an
increase of 25%, which is nonsense.
The “offer” from DB is far worse and amounts to a huge cut in living
standards. The wages of railway employees are, according to the offer, to
be raised in two steps by a total of 5%: from 1 December 2023 by 3% and
from 1 August 2024 by 2%. In addition, there would be a so-called
inflation compensation premium subsidized by the federal government. This
is a one-off, so it will not permanently improve the wage level with
rising inflation, and would amount to only 2500€.
The EVG called the strike for one reason only and that is the mood of its
membership. There is a widespread willingness among workers to fight. In
the face of skyrocketing prices, they are refusing to accept further real
wage cuts.
DB is 100 percent state-owned, which means the railway workers are
directly confronted by the federal government, currently a so-called
“traffic light” coalition of SPD, FDP and Greens.
However, as a member of the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB), the
EVG is a regime union “par excellence” with close links to the government.
In October 2020, it signed an early collective agreement with a zero
increase in the current year. In Germany, such agreements are intended to
make strike action illegal. Train drivers and conductors organized in the
Gewerkschaft Deutscher Lokomotivführer (GDL) were similarly subjected to
agreements that lowered real wages and prevented strike action for 32
months, up until autumn 2023. The GDL is not affiliated with the DGB but
is no less in the pocket of the employers.
Today, the regime unions find it more difficult to keep a lid on things.
First, because there have been strikes in other sectors such as the postal
service; second, because German workers in general are feeling the
pressure of falling living standards; and third, because workers are
engaged in struggle internationally. This makes it difficult for the
bosses to divide and rule with the usual rhetoric about “staying
competitive”.
Moreover, the bosses’ argument that increased wages means less investment
in the railways has also been exposed as false. Successive coalition
governments have been dismantling the railway network for decades,
irrespective of wages, to make it more attractive to private investors,
i.e., removing the parts deemed insufficiently profitable. Anyone who
relies on the railways can see this. Cancellations and delays have become
the norm.
This is not only true of the railways. Other public services, including
healthcare and education, are also underfunded as the rate of profit falls
and federal resources are diverted to military rearmament. Meanwhile, the
salaries and “bonuses” of those at the top of large enterprises continue
to rise, as is the case in all major economies.
In Germany, the supervisory boards of large companies include
representatives of the regime unions. The deputy chairman of the DB
supervisory board is Martin Burkert, who is President of the EVG. He sat
in the Bundestag for the “red” SPD from 2005 to 2020. Cosima Ingenschay,
who is federal executive director of the EVG, also sits on the supervisory
board, as do the works council chairpersons of DB subsidiaries.
In effect, this means that members of the trade union bureaucracy base
their remuneration on that of senior management, not that of rank and file
members. They also identify with the class interests of the bosses rather
than those of the working class. At the same time, they must serve as a
valve on the pressure cooker of working class anger. Hence the need to
call the occasional “Warnstreik” when the situation gets critical – even
the so-called “mega-strike” of 27 March.
As the strike wave generalizes, the pressure will become increasingly
difficult for the regime unions to contain. For German workers to succeed
they must break from the cozy boardroom deals and organize independently,
across various industrial sectors and form class unions. And in a Europe
that is increasingly integrated (for example, the main rail networks cross
international borders) it is more important then ever to coordinate with
workers in the nine countries bordering Germany – and beyond.
Anti-strike legislation fails to stop workers struggles in the UK
On February 1st, teachers, train drivers, civil servants, university
lecturers, bus drivers and security guards from seven unions walked out
and mounted a massive demonstration in London. It was the biggest day of
industrial action for more than a decade in the UK. But as well as being a
protest against low pay it was also a protest against the government’s
proposed new anti-strike legislation which has been passed in the House of
Commons, and is now due to go to the House of Lords before becoming law.
It is estimated that roughly half a million workers took part in the
strike and the demonstration, consisting of roughly 100,000 Public and
Commercial Services Union (representing striking civil servants), 300,000
teachers from the National Education Union, and 70,000 lecturers from the
University and College Union, along with ASLEF union train drivers and
London bus drivers.
The strike left almost no trains running in England and thousands of
schools were shut. Museums and galleries were closed and Border Force
checkpoints were manned by army personnel.
The PCS chief, Mark Serwotka, anticipates many more such strike days as
it “makes sense” for different unions to work together to get results. He
added that there were more than a million workers who fell under live
strike mandates.
In the health sector what is underway is the biggest wave of strikes in
the history of the National Health Service. The nurses had already gone
out on strike on the 10th, 18h and 19th of January, the ambulance staff on
the 11th and 23rd of January, and on the 26th physiotherapists and support
staff from thirty NHS services – one in seven – staged a 24 hour walk out.
On 6 February ambulance workers and nurses struck together for the first
time, breaking with the traditional professional divisions that have
characterised so many strikes. The nurses were called out by the Royal
College of Nursing union.
An important fact was that the ambulance workers didn’t give in to the
government’s request to let the hospital managers know if and when they
were striking, meaning that the army had to be called in at very short
notice to cover them.
On 6 January it was announced that junior doctors would go on strike for
72 hours in March if their forthcoming ballot produced a majority for
industrial action, with the doctors’ union, the British Medical
Association (BMA) declaring that junior doctors had suffered a “staggering
and unjustifiable” 26.1% cut in their incomes since 2008. On 9 January the
union started balloting more than 45,000 junior doctors on taking
industrial action and this could eventually lead to an escalation of the
mounting wave of walkouts by NHS staff over their salaries.
On 25 January 300 workers employed by Amazon to work in their Coventry
warehouse staged their first ever UK strike in a protest over pay and
conditions, walking out over a “derisory” offer of a 5% pay rise to £10.50
an hour, whereas as far as the workers are concerned, an acceptable
figure, that goes some way to covering the rising cost of living, is no
less than £15 an hour.
The Trade Union Act of 2016
In response to the wave of strikes, which is unlikely to let up any time
soon, the UK government recently announced their plan to introduce a new
anti-strike law: the Strikes, (Minimum Service Levels) Bill 2022-23. The
new law is designed to allow the bosses of key public services (health,
fire, ambulance service, rail and nuclear commissioning) to sue unions and
sack employees if minimum service levels are not met. The Guardian
reported that “the new law will also back employers bringing an injunction
to prevent strikes or seeking damages afterwards if they go ahead”.
Pat Cullen, General Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing (the main
nurses’ union) pointed out that “safe staffing levels, that are set in
law, are what we want to see year-round, not just in these extreme
circumstances. Sara Gorton (The Unison unions’ head of health) reiterated
this point, stating: “the public and health staff would welcome minimum
staffing levels in the NHS every day of the week. That way people wouldn’t
be lying in agony on A & E (Emergency Room) floors or dying in the
backs of ambulances. But limiting legal staffing levels to strike days and
threatening to sack or fire health workers when there are record vacancies
in the NHS show proper healthcare isn’t what ministers want. The
government is picking ill-advised fights with NHS employees and their
unions to mask years of dismal failure to tackle pay and staffing.”
Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, was quick to say that it
would repeal the new legislation if elected back into power; somewhat at
odds with his prohibition of a member of his shadow cabinet appearing on
picket lines back in the Autumn, and with his recent description of the
Labour Party as “the party of business”.
Indeed his predecessor at the head of the Labour Party had similarly
pledged to repeal the previous batch of anti-strike legislation that was
introduced a few years ago (the Trade Union Act 2016), something Keir
Starmer has been curiously silent about until now!
When the 2016 Act was first introduced, it was thought by its supporters
that it would severely hinder the ability of the unions to mount effective
actions, but the sheer determination of the striking sectors to fight back
has meant that this has not been the case.
As the current strikes are largely circumscribed by this legislation, it
is worth taking a look at some of its key provisions:
1) as opposed to what happens in Italy, strike action has to be
previously approved by a vote among the members of the trade union
promoting it. The 2016 law raised the threshold of how many members need
to approve a strike for it to go ahead: at least 50% of those with the
right to do so would now have to vote in order for their results to be
legally valid, and of those voting in a ballot on strike action at least
40% would have to support it.
The International Communist Party advises workers that they shouldn’t
subordinate their struggles to democratic formalities and shouldn’t make a
fetish of it. The strike is not a manifestation of opinions but an action
that takes place within an ongoing social war, a fire which, once lit, can
either spread further or be extinguished. A strike, even if it is a
minority that sparks it off, can, in given circumstances, grow and achieve
victory.
Class trade unionism does not submit to the absolute principle of vote
counting, which is to defer to individual calculations and orientations.
The final outcome of the war between classes will be determined by force,
not by forms of representation.
2) The vote to approve strike actions happens at the moment by means of a
postal ballot, and not in assemblies in which workers are physically
present. This practice, too, is opposed to class trade unionism. Votes to
decide on whether or not to undertake, continue or interrupt an action are
certainly necessary and serve to enhance the morale and confidence of the
workers themselves, and to indicate to the union leaders what the best
decisions might be. But such voting, when possible, should be by means of
assemblies, in workers’ meetings and with a clear vote for or against.
This means that those who attend the assemblies and who are prepared to
openly take a position in front of their work colleagues will be selected.
On the other hand, in secret, or postal, ballots, the vote of a blackleg
has the same value as a worker prepared to sacrifice himself for the
collective interest. Certainly the French practice of “renewable”
(reconductible) strikes is preferable, in which workers meet in assemblies
and make decisions by a show of hands.
And in a stroke of irony, it is to be noted how difficult it is to vote
by postal ballot during a postal strike!
3) Another key point in the 2016 law is the two weeks notice which the
unions must give to employers before taking strike action. This rule is
analogous to the one introduced in Italy with Law 146 of 1990, which over
the years has gradually been made more stringent, in some cases resulting
in even longer notice periods. For the ruling class it is an excellent
means of dampening workers’ combativity and making struggles less
effective. What’s more, it allows companies to make adjustments in their
production schedule, hire blacklegs, and prepare media campaigns and other
actions against the workers’ struggle. Class trade unionism combats such
restrictions: the workers go out on strike without warning, their
intention being to hit the employer and his business.
4) The Trade Union Act of 2016 also wants there to be “supervision of the
trade unions on the picket line”, and it provides a series of rules whose
lack of clarity offers further opportunities to declare the pickets
illegal due to simple bureaucratic errors.
5) And finally, there is the “opting in” or “opting out” issue: a
keystone of the traditional opportunism in the British labour movement.
The issue concerns whether a contribution is made to a union’s political
fund by a union member automatically or not. The 2016 Act decreed that
union members now need to “opt in” to the fund, rather than, as before,
paying into it being the default position. And since the body which stands
to gain most from the various political funds is the Labour Party, it’s no
wonder then that Starmer recently announced he would abolish this
legislation if the Labour Party got in at the next election.
Or was it just this clause he was thinking about? It is not difficult to
predict that the collaborationist leaderships of the unions that are hand
in glove with the regime will do their utmost to present as a big gain
what are in fact just minor changes to the law, precisely such as making
paying into the political fund once again the default position.
* * *
The present wave of strikes in Great Britain confirms that, despite these
restrictions, the class struggle cannot be suppressed, and that it is not
a thing of the past, as the scribbling of the many hacks sold out to the
regime would have us believe. The bourgeoisie has an interest in such lies
being reinforced, but it knows very well what rubbish it all is. Indeed it
is very conscious of the inevitable return of the struggle of the
proletarian class, in order to fight for its immediate economic needs. And
it is because of this that the bourgeoisie certainly doesn’t just rely on
ideological arguments but adopts legal instruments as well. But it is
walking a narrow path: on the one hand it limits as far as possible the
right to strike, forcibly holding back the general movement of the working
class. On the other hand, it fears that if such measures are too
excessive, they could have the opposite effect to that desired, that is,
restrictions that are too restrictive could push the defensive movement
onto the terrain of illegality, which could favour its radicalisation and
its passage onto the terrain of political class struggle.
The level at which its suits the ruling class to set the bar of
illegality varies according to the historical period and the balance of
class forces. In certain contexts, the bourgeoisie may see itself
constrained to abolish the liberty to strike and also the trade union
organisations. This generally happens in wartime, but also when the
workers’ struggle assumes greater breadth and strength.
The ruling class will do anything to preserve its political domination.
It prefers to use the democratic lie, but it will never hold back, when
that is not enough, from throwing itself into the arms of fascism in order
to resist the communist revolution, and in order to defend capitalism to
the very end.
The Growing Wave of Strikes Against Amazon in the UK
Throughout 2023, worker strikes at Amazon facilities in the United
Kingdom gained significant momentum, as employees rallied for improved
wages and better working conditions. Heavily fueled by concerns over the
cost of living crisis and inhumane treatment, these strikes have seen
increasingly widespread participation.
The Coventry Warehouse Strikes
The first strike against Amazon in the UK took place on January 25, 2023,
at the Coventry warehouse, marking a pivotal moment. Approximately 300
workers took part, rejecting an offer of a derisory 5% wage increase,
which would have raised their pay to £10.50 per hour. Led by the GMB Union
(formerly the General, Municipal, Boilermakers’ and Allied Trade Union –
then shortened to GMB in 1987), the workers demanded a more substantial
raise, advocating for a minimum wage of £15 per hour. Despite initial
resistance, the strike gained traction, inspiring further Amazon workers
across the country.
March Strikes and Union Recognition
On 2 March, further strikes occurred at the Coventry Amazon warehouse.
This was followed by a five-day strike from 13-17 March, effectively
disrupting operations and amplifying their demands for better wages and
improved working conditions. With the support of the GMB Union, over 600
new members joined from the Coventry warehouse alone, showcasing a growing
sense of unity among workers. This surge in union membership paved the way
for the pursuit of statutory recognition, a critical milestone in the
workers’ campaign for collective bargaining rights.
Expansion of Strikes at Rugeley and Mansfield
Inspired by the successes in Coventry, workers from additional Amazon
facilities joined the strike movement. The GMB union conducted ballots at
five new sites, including Mansfield in Nottinghamshire, Coalville and
Kegworth in Leicestershire, and Rugeley and Rugby in Staffordshire and
Warwickshire. These ballots allowed workers to express their willingness
to strike against Amazon’s proposed 50p pay rise. The strike actions
escalated, culminating in a total of 14 strike days across multiple Amazon
locations by the end of April.
At the Rugeley fulfillment centre in the Towers Business Park, an
overwhelming 98% of union members voted in favor of escalating the strike,
while at Amazon Mansfield, 100% of members backed strike action. These
resounding results highlighted the deep dissatisfaction among workers and
their unwavering determination to fight for higher wages and recognition.
This was followed by workers in Rugeley and Mansfield preparing for a
binding vote on further strike action.
Amazon’s Response
In response to the escalating strikes, Amazon issued a statement
emphasising its commitment to periodically reviewing pay rates to ensure
competitiveness. They cited recent pay increases, stating that the minimum
starting pay would range between £11 and £12 per hour, depending on the
location. Amazon further highlighted the benefits, positive work
environment, and career growth opportunities it offers, presenting itself
as an appealing employer.
However, the GMB Union argued that these increases fell short of the
necessary measures and called for Amazon to recognize the union and engage
in negotiations. The union recently lodged a complaint with the UK’s
employment watchdog, the Advisory, Conciliation, and Arbitration Service
(ACAS), alleging that Amazon unlawfully threatened workers participating
in strike action with dismissals. The GMB Union sought an injunction as a
result.
Developments and Union Recognition Efforts
On 16-18 April, more than 560 workers at Coventry warehouse, up from 300
in January, halted operations (despite Amazon claiming only a few workers
were involved). The latest figures show that almost 700 Amazon Coventry
workers are now GMB members, a number the union believes is more than half
of workers at the site – the usual threshold for mandatory union
recognition in a workplace. This was followed by further strikes on 21-23
April which brought the total number of strike days to 14.
The strikes received significant attention from the media, amplifying the
workers’ message and increasing public awareness of their struggle against
Amazon.
On 27 April, the GMB Union announced it had started the process for union
recognition at the Coventry centre. Amazon bosses have 10 days to respond
and agree to voluntary recognition. If there is no agreement, GMB Union
will start the statutory process through the Central Arbitration Committee
(CAC).
The union argued that recognition would provide a platform for workers to
negotiate collectively for fairer wages, improved working conditions, and
a stronger voice in decision-making processes. They highlighted the
importance of addressing power imbalances within the workplace and
ensuring that workers’ concerns are taken into account.
In May, Amazon threatened to flood the Coventry warehouse with 1000 new
staff in order to avoid recognising the union. On 11 May, the GMB Union
officially submitted a bid for formal recognition at Amazon Coventry to
the CAC; if successful, this would be the first time workers at an Amazon
site have won recognition of a trade union for collective bargaining over
pay, terms and conditions in the United Kingdom.
This has been followed by further strikes at the Coventry warehouse from
the 24-26 May, bringing the total number of strike days to 16. Amazon has
since offered school term-time only working to employees, to which the GMB
has already responded by reiterating that a decent wage settlement is the
workers’ main priority.
Critiques of the GMB and Pseudo-Left Groups
The worker strikes at Amazon’s Coventry warehouse, which later expanded
to Rugeley and Mansfield, have not been without their fair share of
internal criticism and debate. One target of criticism has been the GMB
Union, which has faced accusations of collaboration with Amazon and a
reluctance to support more militant actions that could potentially ignite
a broader, politicised strike movement throughout the country. Skepticism
has arisen from the GMB’s track record of prioritizing sustainable
business success and its willingness to compromise with employers, as
demonstrated in previous agreements with companies like Deliveroo. These
circumstances have raised doubts about the union’s true commitment to
genuine class struggle and its willingness to push for radical change on
behalf of workers.
Moreover, pseudo-left groups have come under scrutiny for overlooking and
obscuring the role of the union bureaucracy. These groups tend to
uncritically praise the role of unions, including the GMB, while
neglecting their complicity in suppressing broader class struggle
movements. By overlooking the potential for more militant actions and
acquiescing to the status quo, these groups are diminishing the existing
problems, failing to challenge the underlying issues faced by workers and
promoting an illusory perception of the supposed neutrality when it comes
to regime unions.
The future of labor relations in Amazon and its significance
Despite the critiques and internal debates surrounding the GMB and
pseudo-left groups, the worker strikes at Amazon’s Coventry warehouse,
Rugeley and Mansfield stand as a testament to the growing determination
among workers to demand fairer wages and improved treatment in the face of
mass worker control and union busting engaged in by modern corporate
behemoths such as Amazon. The overwhelming majority of workers voting in
favor of strike action demonstrates the substantial support these strikes
have garnered.
The ongoing efforts of the GMB Union to secure union recognition through
the statutory process, coupled with the negotiations with Amazon, carry
immense significance for how workplace legislation is sculpted and
recognised within Amazon’s operations in the United Kingdom. The outcomes
of these strikes will shape the landscape of labor relations and play a
vital role in the fight for higher wages and improved working conditions
not only within Amazon but also within the broader UK labor market and
Amazon internationally.
If successful, union recognition could pave the way for collective
negotiations on wages, working hours, health and safety measures and other
crucial aspects of employment.
In parallel with the strikes, a burgeoning movement of pro-worker
sentiment has emerged on social media platforms, particularly on Twitter.
Pro-union and worker action accounts have utilised these digital platforms
to disseminate information about the strikes, raise awareness of the
challenges faced by Amazon workers and to rally support for the
unionisation effort.
The strikes at Amazon UK are not isolated events but rather part of a
broader trend of worker militancy occurring in the UK and around the
world. In recent years, there has been a noticeable increase in strikes
and labor unrest as workers demand better pay, improved conditions and
more control over their work.
The strikes at Amazon UK represent a significant development within this
trend and their impact is likely to reverberate across other industries
and alter the public perception of class militancy within the corporate
workplace.
While the ultimate outcome of the strikes at Amazon UK remains uncertain,
their effects on the company and the labor movement in the UK have already
been profound. By raising awareness of the issues faced by Amazon workers
and demonstrating the willingness of workers to take collective action,
these strikes have highlighted an already explosive sense of urgency for
improved treatment among large employers.
They have also prompted further discussions on the nature of labor
relations within workplaces such as Amazon’s which exert a huge amount of
technological and ideological control over their workforce.
The consequences of these strikes will be closely monitored by workers
and employers alike as they are an important factor in the future of class
struggle in the UK as well as within Amazon’s expansive theater of
operations across Europe and beyond.
May Day 2023
No to Bourgeois Militarism - For the Unconditionsl Defense of the Working Class
War in Kosovo?
The geopolitics of the Balkans has been drastically affected by the last
phase of the "cold war" between Russia and the West. The protracted war in
Ukraine is spreading its fetid effluvia in this region in very serious
economic and social crisis. In recent weeks there have been important and
somewhat surprising developments in Kosovo, which have degenerated into a
serious crisis.
Serbia apparently remains neutral and opposes joining the economic
sanctions against Russia, which allows Russian financial capital to use
Serbia as the main bridge to Europe to circumvent the sanctions. Despite
constant pressure from the West, the Serbian government, led by the
Serbian Progressive Party (SPP) refuses to introduce sanctions, largely
due to the interests of a part of the ruling clique in Russian capital
(especially Gazprom).
In March 2023, the EU pressured Serbia to align its foreign policy with
that of the EU, under the threat of freezing the accession process. The
conditions were the imposition of economic sanctions on Russia or
acceptance of a Franco-German proposal for an agreement with Kosovo, which
would lead to its effective recognition.
Serbia accepted the latter.
Implementation of the agreement stalled on the issue of the Association
of Serb Municipalities: an association of Serb-majority municipalities
with executive and financial autonomy, which had been agreed as part of
the 2013 Brussels Agreement. Present-day Kosovo is governed by the
hard-line, nationalist Vetevendosje! (Self-Determination!) party, which
comes from a leftist and post-Maoist background. Despite the politics of
the West, Vetevendosje! pursues a more nationalist and anti-Western policy
than the other Kosovo Albanian parties seeking a union with Albania. The
prime minister of Kosovo, Kurti opposes the activities of the Association
of Serb Municipalities and anything that stands in the way of the full
unity of the state and considers the 2013 agreement null and void, which
has complicated the normalization of relations envisaged by the new
agreement. It has also led to a souring of relations between Kosovo, on
the one hand, and the EU and the United States, on the other.
On April 23, 2023, Kosovo held local elections in the region’s four
Serb-populated northern municipalities. Local Serbs (97 percent of the
population) decided to boycott the elections until the process of
implementing the Association of Serb Municipalities was completed.
The elections were held anyway, with 2-3% of local Albanians voting by
electing Albanian nationalists as mayors. The Serbs, in response,
barricaded the town halls, preventing the new mayors from taking office.
For a month the situation remained a stalemate.
Meanwhile, a school shooting occurred in Belgrade, Serbia, on May 3,
which immediately triggered another mass shooting and several other
violent incidents, resulting in a total of 20 deaths within a single day.
The outrage and grief soon turned into "mass protests against violence",
which called for more censorship in the media. The wave of protest was
immediately exploited by the opposition, which gave the demonstrations an
anti-government character by mobilizing between 50,000 and 60,000 people.
President Vučić responded by trying to organize even larger protests,
encouraging supporters from all over Serbia, as well as from the
Serb-inhabited northern provinces of Kosovo.
On May 26, a large pro-government counter-demonstration was held in
Belgrade, bringing many Vučić supporters from Kosovo, leaving the
barricades erected in front of city halls half-empty. This gave Kosovar
special police forces the opportunity to storm the four municipalities and
suppress the protest with the use of extreme violence, despite calls from
the West to reduce tensions without the use of force.
Not surprisingly, this led to a catastrophe, with five uninterrupted days
of melee-a-trois between Kosovo Albanian special police, KFOR international peacekeepers, and armed Serbian civilians. The Serbs involved in the conflict are mostly local, but the
involvement of a group of organized provocateurs is almost certain. It is
not certain that they were sent by the Serbian government, but the hats
they were wearing are associated with a criminal organization whose
contact persons in the ruling CHC Party (ruling Serbian Progressive
Party), have recently switched to the opposition. It is very likely,
therefore, that they were sent by that part of the opposition that is
supported by the West.
In response to the violence, the Quintet made up of the U.S., UK,
Germany, France and Italy but led by the U.S. initially issued a joint
condemnation of the "violence by the authorities in Priština" (a huge
rhetorical precedent), drafted by the U.S. State Department. This was
quickly followed by symbolic sanctions imposed by the U.S. on Kosovo: the cancellation of the planned "Defender 23"
military exercise and Kosovo’s expulsion from the initiative, a diplomatic
boycott of any kind of official contact between U.S. and Kosovo
representatives, and a demand to immediately block Kosovo’s membership in
international institutions and to block any new international recognition.
It seems clear that the United States has decided to betray its allies in
Kosovo in exchange for greater bargaining power with Serbia on the issue
of sanctions on Russia. A strong possibility is that this will be achieved
through regime change in Serbia.
The diverse, extremely broad-based but mostly liberal opposition has been
much warmer toward the possibility of sanctions, but it has also largely
adopted nationalist rhetoric toward the ruling party, particularly in
relation to its policy toward Kosovo, which is seen as overly
concessionary. In addition, the progressive party currently in power has
had a very large number of defections, and many adherents joined the ranks
of the opposition last week-a clique that had been discredited over the
Krušik arms factory affair, ties to organized crime, and high-profile
corruption scandals, and had been quietly ousted from any meaningful
position of power.
Partly because of its private interests, this clique is the most
pro-Western faction in the government. The opposition has naturally
decided to welcome it into its ranks with full honors.
It is therefore likely that in the coming weeks the United States will
favor the united opposition in its efforts to undermine the current
government, overthrow it and assume power. The U.S. will give carte
blanche to the new government to "protect the Serb minority" against a
possible repetition of an event like the ethnic pogrom of March 2004, and
it will probably even result in a change of the current borders. This will
provide good support for the new government, which in return will have to
adhere to sanctions against Russia. Of course, the current government, and
also Moscow, are aware of this danger and therefore the situation is
absolutely critical and, for the first time in 15 years, after the
constant "crying wolf" by the international media, there is now a real
risk of significant escalation and even possible armed conflict (although
this time the international media is surprisingly silent).
In all this dirty game between opposing imperialisms, the proletariat of
Serbia and Kosovo is crushed and voiceless. Its living and working
conditions are continually worsening while the bourgeois parties blame all
evils on the "enemy" at the gates to hide the fact that the enemy is at
home: The enemy is the bosses, their parties, their newspapers and
television, who use all means, including organized crime to increase their
profits and will not stop even at the prospect of unleashing a general war
in order to maintain their power.
June 2, 2023
Life of the Party
It’s been a 3 month (March-May) break in our publication cycle. We will
return to an every other month schedule with issue number 53 – August 1st.
Hopefully with a bigger format soon.
The ICP held its 146th General Meeting at the last weekend of May attended by participants from 16 nations. Reports were presented on a wide range of subjects and a summary of them will be presented in Communist Left 52.
May Day 2023: The ICP published its annual May Day call in 20 languages.
We distributed party materials at workers marches in Belgrade, Chicago,
Denver, Milan, Rome, Zagreb.
In Portland, Oregon we participated in the first public meeting of the
Class Struggle Action Network - a coordination of militant workers in that
region.
A full report by an ICP involved in
the major Rutgers University strike will be published in the next issue.
There will also be an article from the ICP in Tblitsi, Georgia regarding
strikes and unrest there.
On Sunday, April 30, The ICP held a
public meeting at the COBAS hall in Turin, Italy on the subject of the
strikes waves in France, Britain, Germany And Greece and calling for workers
in Italy to join the strike wave.
– Informal Party Meetings:
- email icparty@interncommparty.org to arrange meeting or let us
know you will be attending.
-
Chicago, IL
- First Saturdays; Bourgeois Pig Cafe, 738 W Fullerton Ave:
2pm
-
Denver, CO
- First Saturdays at Copper Door Cafe, 2890 Fairfax St, 80207:
11 am.
-
Portland, OR
- May meeting postponed a month.
Yakima, WA - Saturdays at Northtown Coffeehouse (32 N Front St): 3 pm
(PST)
-
Meetings can be arranged in: Albuquerque, Akron/Cleveland,
Bethlehem, Chapel Hill, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Richmond,
Raleighy.
to index