The Official Socialism/Democratic Socialism/Communism/Marxism Thread

Tate

Kae☭ernick Loyalist
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
4,274
Reputation
800
Daps
15,040
Nope. Don't need too, I have a background in political science.

This is a silly post

The spoiler is 100% right. There's no way to have a centrally planned economy without the state dominating all decisions.

Debatable. Certainly not true depending on what we mean when we say socialism. However economies are increasingly centralized regardless

I think the best argument socialists have is wealth that gets accumulated in family lines makes some children much more likely to succeed in life then others, all other factors such as intelligence or hard work held the same.

People would be much more receptive to cradle to college socialism then cradle to grave socialism. Too many modern leftists focus too much on redistribution during adult lives. Admittedly, I'm not sure how you would ever actually achieve cradle to college socialism, because you know, families spend discretionary money on their kids. Socialists will win once they figure it out.

The problem with cradle to college socialism is that it's building snowmen in 50 degree weather. I think you allude to this but to expand;

Poor kids don't do worse in school and college mainly because their teachers suck or their school food is bad or thier textbooks are out of date(though all these things are factors) they do worse because thier families are poor.

They don't build up the same level of social skills from birth because their parents are at work or absent. They don't enter school with reading or writing skills because their parents aren't there to teach them that. They lose ground in the summer because their parents can't continue to educate them evaluate they aren't there. They live in poor communities with other poor kids facing the same issues and become drawn into destructive behavior, that unlike their wealthy peers, they lack the support system to avoid the worst consequences.

Providing aid to kids necessitates helping thier adult parents. We in America don't like that because poor people deserve to live on scraps. The answer to improving education and the lives of kids is really basic; give their parents money .

I've also yet to have any of my points actually refuted, only "YOU HAVEN'T READ THE WHOLE THREAD, HAVE YOU?"

Maybe socialists lose because they can't argue/debate people with differing opinions.

For the record I'm on page 14 of the thread.

Nonsense we're good folks here, we've lost before because we're over eager and fighting the strongest class system thus far.
 

CHL

Superstar
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
13,456
Reputation
1,480
Daps
19,580
I've also yet to have any of my points actually refuted, only "YOU HAVEN'T READ THE WHOLE THREAD, HAVE YOU?"

Maybe socialists lose because they can't argue/debate people with differing opinions.

For the record I'm on page 14 of the thread.
Let us know when you are finished
 

Scoop

All Star
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
6,054
Reputation
-2,685
Daps
9,556
Reppin
Tampa, FL
The problem with cradle to college socialism is that it's building snowmen in 50 degree weather. I think you allude to this but to expand;

Poor kids don't do worse in school and college mainly because their teachers suck or their school food is bad or thier textbooks are out of date(though all these things are factors) they do worse because thier families are poor.

They don't build up the same level of social skills from birth because their parents are at work or absent. They don't enter school with reading or writing skills because their parents aren't there to teach them that. They lose ground in the summer because their parents can't continue to educate them evaluate they aren't there. They live in poor communities with other poor kids facing the same issues and become drawn into destructive behavior, that unlike their wealthy peers, they lack the support system to avoid the worst consequences.

Providing aid to kids necessitates helping thier adult parents. We in America don't like that because poor people deserve to live on scraps. The answer to improving education and the lives of kids is really basic; give their parents money .

I agree with your overarching point here. But I think you actually missed the most important reasons why poorer kids are more likely to do worse long term:

1. Poor parents raise poor kids: their parents haven't lived successfully so there is no example set that doing good in school is important.
2. A quick buck or pay check to pay check living is prioritized over life planning when you're poor, and instilled in children's minds that as long as you afford the next two weeks you're good. (aka saving up isn't really taught)
3. More likely to have to work during high school which means less time for studies
4. "Can't afford college" - I hear this a lot but it's sort of a debatable point. Federal loans cover the full cost attendance and while you have to pay that back with interest eventually, it at least allows you to go to college. College loans charging interest is of course a whole other discussion in itself.
5. People are a product of their environment. If poorer people perform worse in school, and you live in a poor area where education isn't as prioritized for reasons #1-3 then other kids in the classroom aren't pushing each other as hard to succeed.

I don't think it has much to do with educating over summer (lets face it rich people just vacation and send their kids to camps) or the social skills before school.

And yeah, like I said, you can equalize education, housing and public transportation but rich families will still spend more on their kids then poor families.

The issue with "give their parents money" argument is everyone becomes a parent. They may live 5-10 years between school and being a parent. It doesn't give people enough incentive to aim high in school and their career if it's all going to become equalized again when you become a parent. (What's the point of earning straight A's versus straight C's in socialism?) You give kids a chance to be especially successful by giving them a great education only to take it away once they become parents to help the next generation. It becomes a cycle that never pays dividends for the individual, instead you just keep passing opportunity down once you have kids. It also doesn't give people much liberty or leave motivation to innovate. Would smart phones exist without capitalism? Just the fact that the answer might be no is pretty concerning.
 

Tate

Kae☭ernick Loyalist
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
4,274
Reputation
800
Daps
15,040
I agree with your overarching point here. But I think you actually missed the most important reasons why poorer kids are more likely to do worse long term:

1. Poor parents raise poor kids: their parents haven't lived successfully so there is no example set that doing good in school is important.
2. A quick buck or pay check to pay check living is prioritized over life planning when you're poor, and instilled in children's minds that as long as you afford the next two weeks you're good. (aka saving up isn't really taught)
3. More likely to have to work during high school which means less time for studies
4. "Can't afford college" - I hear this a lot but it's sort of a debatable point. Federal loans cover the full cost attendance and while you have to pay that back with interest eventually, it at least allows you to go to college. College loans charging interest is of course a whole other discussion in itself.
5. People are a product of their environment. If poorer people perform worse in school, and you live in a poor area where education isn't as prioritized for reasons #1-3 then other kids in the classroom aren't pushing each other as hard to succeed.

I don't think it has much to do with educating over summer (lets face it rich people just vacation and send their kids to camps) or the social skills before school.

And yeah, like I said, you can equalize education, housing and public transportation but rich families will still spend more on their kids then poor families.

The issue with "give their parents money" argument is everyone becomes a parent. They may live 5-10 years between school and being a parent. It doesn't give people enough incentive to aim high in school and their career if it's all going to become equalized again when you become a parent. (What's the point of earning straight A's versus straight C's in socialism?) You give kids a chance to be especially successful by giving them a great education only to take it away once they become parents to help the next generation. It becomes a cycle that never pays dividends for the individual, instead you just keep passing opportunity down once you have kids. It also doesn't give people much liberty or leave motivation to innovate. Would smart phones exist without capitalism? Just the fact that the answer might be no is pretty concerning.

Agree with most of what you say here. The summer gap is real, studies back that up. Social skills thing is also very real, I've taught in kindergarten class rooms and worked with pre-school age children. Barring things like developmental disorders and unstable parents, it's easy to tell a poor kid from a middle/upper class kid usually just by how they interact with others.

I think you underestimate people here. Profit motive isn't the end all be all in pursuit of excellence.

Smart phones were invented pretty much solely based on government financed research, largely US military research. That goes for most modern technology as well. And capitalism is necessary. It's a step in human development. It is not permanent though.
 

Scoop

All Star
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
6,054
Reputation
-2,685
Daps
9,556
Reppin
Tampa, FL
Agree with most of what you say here. The summer gap is real, studies back that up. Social skills thing is also very real, I've taught in kindergarten class rooms and worked with pre-school age children. Barring things like developmental disorders and unstable parents, it's easy to tell a poor kid from a middle/upper class kid usually just by how they interact with others.

I think you underestimate people here. Profit motive isn't the end all be all in pursuit of excellence.

Smart phones were invented pretty much solely based on government financed research, largely US military research. That goes for most modern technology as well. And capitalism is necessary. It's a step in human development. It is not permanent though.

The summer gap might be real if you're comparing poor kids to those rich kids sent away to boarding school, but the average middle/upper middle class family just lets their kids mess around over summer.

I think social skills is real but more because of reasons I mentioned in my post. Poor people that live in poor areas are surrounded by people not as educated, doing activities that don't require as much cognitive thinking or formal human interaction. Not just because they're poor.

I think other then a select few people who decide to be "intellectuals", people primarily go to school to get a job to primarily make money. Some people have passions beyond that, but it's certainly the minority of people when you look at the population as a whole. I think you're mistaking "pursuit of excellence" (which in many cases is just working to get a higher paying position anyway) for "well, if I'm going to get a job I might as well get one I like."

Quickly scanning the wiki page for history of smart phones, almost all smartphone precursor technology and smartphones themselves were invented by private companies. I'm not really interested in the history or if the technology for them would exist though, more interested if they would be widely available without capitalism.
 

Scoop

All Star
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
6,054
Reputation
-2,685
Daps
9,556
Reppin
Tampa, FL
Violence as anti-capitalist march hits London

2 hours ago


.

View gallery

London (AFP) - Activists set a police car alight and scuffled with riot police in central London as thousands took part in a "Million Mask March" anti-capitalist demonstration on Thursday night.


Many activists wore the white masks associated with the international Anonymous network at the march, an annual anti-establishment protest that takes place on Britain's Guy Fawkes night.

Demonstrators threw fireworks and bottles at police, some of whom were knocked from their horses, while several bleeding protesters were treated for injuries as authorities tried to contain the march.

Three men "acting suspiciously" were arrested before the demonstration got underway, and were found to be in possession of knives, lock picks and smoke grenades, police said.

Protesters chanted "One solution: revolution" and "Whose streets? Our streets" and split into different factions, confronting lines of police outside Buckingham Palace and the office of Prime Minister David Cameron.

Some demonstrators ran through London's major shopping district around Oxford Street, smashing window and engaging in running scuffles with police as shops closed their doors.

View gallery

An anti-capitalist protester wearing aGuy Fawkes mask holds a lit flare during the "Million Mas …
One protester who emerged from the crowd with blood pouring from his head close to the headquarters of the ruling Conservative party said he had been caught between a surge of demonstrators and police batons.

"I was at the front, I was chatting with the officers asking them what their agenda was and why they were trying to stop us walking down the street," said Terry Small, 20, from the southern English city of Plymouth.

"I got pushed in the back by people trying to move forward... I couldn't move."

One group of activists gathered outside the British premiere of the finale of the "Hunger Games" in Leicester Square, as stars Jennifer Lawrence and Julianne Moore walked the red carpet.

Mexican anarchist Aztecarna Peatonito said the march was a protest against inequality.

"We tried for six years to get the press to take us seriously. It is only when we wore the masks that we started getting attention," Peatonito said. "Anyone who is violent is not with us."

Police had put in place special security measures ahead of the march, which also saw scuffles and arrests last year.

Under the measures demonstrators were to be confined to certain areas of central London and to be required to remove their masks if asked by police.

Violence as anti-capitalist march hits London
 

JahFocus CS

Get It How You Get It
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
20,462
Reputation
3,740
Daps
82,453
Reppin
Republic of New Afrika
fitch-wandy.0.jpg


That budding class consciousness :banderas:
 

JahFocus CS

Get It How You Get It
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
20,462
Reputation
3,740
Daps
82,453
Reppin
Republic of New Afrika
Rosa Luxemburg and the pathway to socialism
June 5, 2014

luxemburg2-recropped.jpg
Rosa Luxemburg

THERE CAN be no denying the brilliance and heroism of the great revolutionary Marxist Rosa Luxemburg. And it is quite easy to refer to and offer substantial quotations from Luxemburg in order to make what seem to be crushingly convincing points within the periodicals and political gatherings of the far left.

But to be satisfied with that, given the present-day realities of the United States, means to be satisfied with the marginalization of her ideas and commitments--which she herself would have deemed intolerable.

It should be intolerable for us as well, given the fact that growing percentages of the population of our country, especially among the rising sectors of the young, according to public opinion polls, are questioning capitalism and tilting in the direction of socialism. The spirit of the Occupy movement, far from being a flash in the pan, seems to be permeating more and more struggles for social and economic justice, equal human rights for all, and against various manifestations of cultural and environmental destructiveness.

Festering crises and discontent even cause major establishment media outlets to muse about the genuine relevance of Karl Marx's analysis of capitalism – something that would have been unthinkable as the 20th century came to a close. It is possible that socialism might become not an abstract idea, but a material force in the debates and struggles of the near future.

Yet at the present time, for most people, the popular understanding of socialism has more in common with the notions of Luxemburg's adversaries on the left, rather than with her own insights and understanding.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I THINK it's worth starting off with a look at the words of Bill Maher, the iconoclastic comedian and HBO host, and Lawrence O'Donnell, the controversial commentator of MSNBC, both of whom have recently spoken out in favor of what they conceive of as socialism. I think they both offer a piece of the truth, but they also seem to misunderstand the nature of capitalism.

Among other things, this is what Bill Maher has to say:

Americans say they hate socialism but when it comes to Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, corporate welfare, bailouts, and farm subsidies, what we really say to socialism is I can't quit you. Americans don't want less spending on health care--by almost two to one, they want more. Only 7 percent of Americans are willing to do away with either Social Security or Medicare, and even 62 percent of Tea Party members say those programs are worth the cost...

Voters say they love the idea of small government, but in practice, it's a no go. When the Ryan budget passed, many usually Republican voters absolutely freaked out over the possible gutting of Medicare...The same result happens anytime privatizing Social Security is mentioned...Americans love their socialism. In fact, when asked about the fate of socialistic entitlement programs they always respond that they would like more.

That's Bill Maher. Maher's comments have something in common with the approach of Lawrence O'Donnell, who tells us:

[T]here is no capitalist economy anywhere in the world, and there is no socialist economy anywhere in the world...We are all mixed economies; that is, mixes of capitalism and socialism, and we all vary that mix in different ways...Our socialist programs [in the United States] include the biggest government spending programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, as well as welfare, and the socialist program I hate the most, agriculture subsidies.

Yes, I'm a socialist, but I hate bad socialism, and there is plenty of bad socialism out there, just like there is plenty of bad capitalism out there, like the capitalism that pollutes our rivers or makes health care too expensive for so many people...That's why we have a mixed economy, an economy in which we are trying to use the best, most efficient forms of capitalism, and the best, most efficient forms of socialism, where necessary.

That's Lawrence O'Donnell.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE WAY Maher and O'Donnell use the terms capitalism and socialism seems to be similar to the way sophisticated conservative ideologists frame the question. Writing in Forbes magazine in 2012, for example, economist Paul Roderick Gregory, who is a research associate at the Hoover Institution, acknowledges that Obama is hardly a Leninist, but argues that he does fall "within the mainstream of contemporary socialism as represented...by Germany's Social Democrats, French Socialists" and others of that stripe.

Michael Kazin, obviously disappointed with Obama's failure to advance an even moderately-left agenda, responded to this kind of thing in the liberal New Republic with an article entitled: "Obama a European Socialist? I Wish!" Which is the sort of thing one could imagine Bill Maher and Lawrence O'Donnell saying as well.

For them, and for many others, socialism means the government, through taxing the wealth of the citizens and trying to meet the needs of society. In contrast, capitalism means privately owned businesses (competing with each other to make profits) providing goods and services that people need. If these are the right definitions, then O'Donnell's call for a mixed economy makes sense. And there are many "progressives" on the moderate left who are inclined to see things this way.

In fact, in some ways, this is also consistent with the orientation of the great-grandfather of social-democratic reformism, Eduard Bernstein, in the late 1890s and early 1900s.

At that time, great gains were being made through trade unions, social legislation and democratizing the German state. According to Bernstein, the Social Democratic movement could and should focus on piling up more and more and more reforms, to gradually bring about, in the capitalist here-and-now, the kinds of improvements that socialism was supposed to bring. Rather than working-class revolution, Bernstein insisted, the German Social Democratic Party "strives after the socialist transformation of society by the means of democratic and economic reform."

So perhaps what we really need is simply a tougher, more effective version of Barak Obama – a left-leaning Democrat who really does embrace and advance the present-day program of "European socialism" or reformist social democracy.

But really, as Rosa Luxemburg demonstrated in her debates with Bernstein, and even more in her 1913 classic The Accumulation of Capital, capitalism is a far more dynamic system than this, and that must inform our understanding of what socialism actually means. For her socialist democracy is not the same thing at all as what is represented by present-day social democracy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CAPITALISM MEANS the economy is privately owned and controlled by a minority of the population, a sort of economic dictatorship, utilized to maximize profits for the owners. It is a system of generalized commodity production--which means that more and more things (the things people need, the things people want, the various dimensions of people's lives) are transformed into commodities, things that are produced for the purpose of selling them. More and more of reality becomes part of a buying and selling economy, driven forward by the profit motive of the business elite that owns the economy.

The process is one of capital accumulation. For example, the capitalist, invests capital (in the form of money) to buy such commodities as raw materials, tools and machinery, and the labor power of his or her employees (all of which is the new form his capital takes). Mixing these things together results in the production of new commodities (goods to be sold, which is a new incarnation of capital), and the money (or capital) that comes from such sales must be greater than the amount of capital originally invested.

But to stay in business, the capitalist must invest most of this capital in order to create more and more commodities that will bring in more and more capital, which means increased capital (which involves maximizing profits)--which is what is meant by capital accumulation. The economic system of capital must continue to turn more and more things into commodities, must continue to maximize profits, must voraciously keep going round and round and round, embracing and engulfing more and more and more of reality.

As you can guess, this voracious process--unbound by any constraints of morality or social responsibility--can be incredibly destructive in regard to the environment, in regard to human culture, in regard to the individual lives of masses of human beings, all of which are pulled into the vortex of this mighty economic whirlpool.

This is essential to the very nature of the capital accumulation process. And until or unless the capitalist system is replaced by socialism, in 99 cases out of 100, any government in a capitalist society will feel compelled to try to make sure that, one way or another, the capitalist economy functions well. Because it is the only economy we've got, the economy that dominates our society and our planet.

Those liberal-minded politicians who push for the positive, social welfare reforms that Lawrence O'Donnell identifies as "good socialism" (things like Social Security, unemployment insurance and Medicare) can in no way prevent the capitalist system from being inexorably driven forward by the capital accumulation process. Those reforms add up to adjustments, designed to help sustain the capitalist system. All too often they are, in fact, meant to help perpetuate an economic structure and process that is profoundly undemocratic and destructive.

Socialism--the way that those of us who are Marxists understand that term--is inherently revolutionary. It means replacing the economic dictatorship of capitalism with an economic democracy. The resources and the technology on which we are all dependent, and the collective labor that transforms the resources and technology into the collective wealth of society, should be under the control of the majority of the people.

That wealth, instead being amassed to maximize colossal profits for the few, would be utilized to meet the human needs of all people--for their survival and health, for genuine community, for freedom and creativity, for the dignity and individual development of each and every person. Instead of a blind and voracious capital accumulation process, there would be a commitment to respect and sustain the natural environment and the human cultures that are essential for human life on our planet. This is the revolutionary change that the word socialism represents for us.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE QUESTION is: How do we get from here to there? What is the power that can overturn the incredibly powerful capitalist system?

Those of us who want to see the economic democracy of socialism are inclined to embrace the old Marxist answer: the power of the people, the power of the laboring majority, the power of those whose lives and labor are the basis for any economy, the power of the working class.

This is the heart and soul of the 99 Percent--the working class, in all its diversity of occupations, of race and ethnicity, of gender and sexuality, of age and cultural preferences, of religious and philosophical outlooks. When you get right down to it, all of us in this room, and almost all of the people we know, are part of this entity that has the great potential power to bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old.

But the question still remains: How can this potential force for socialist democracy become an actual force that can bring about socialist democracy--because that won't happen automatically?

Those of us who would like to see this happen will first of all need to organize ourselves in order to work together effectively to do two things. One is to share our understanding--the information and ideas we have about the destructiveness of capitalism and promise of a socialist alternative--with more and more other people.

But no less important is the need to help build struggles, also involving more and more people, to push forward for our common needs and interests, against various forms of oppression and destructiveness in the here and now, and for positive changes in the here and now. Which means that, mixed in with socialist educational efforts, we need to build substantial struggles and movements for reforms--changes for the better within our own capitalist society.

To the extent that we can work with others--with more and more people from our diverse working class--to win victories (defending and extending democratic rights, defending and extending human rights, defending and extending economic justice), the more that sections of the working-class majority will gain the experience and confidence needed to move forward to even more profound social change.

cont.
 

JahFocus CS

Get It How You Get It
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
20,462
Reputation
3,740
Daps
82,453
Reppin
Republic of New Afrika
Quebec's strike wave rolls toward a showdown
Ashley Smith reports from Montreal as a new round of public-sector strikes begins.

November 9, 2015
Montreal%20demonstration%20against%20austerity-a.jpg
Students march against austerity in Montreal

WORKERS IN the Canadian province of Quebec are mobilizing the largest struggle against austerity in North America.

Public-sector workers across Quebec have hit the picket lines for a wave of strikes to defend jobs, wages, working conditions and public services. In the first round of rotating regional strikes from October 26-29, more than 400,000 unionists organized in the Common Front shut down schools, hospitals and government offices in and around Montreal.

Independently, the Fédération autonome de l'eseignement (FAE) led its 34,000 French language teachers in three days of rotating strikes on October 26-28. A third union, the Fédération interprofessionnelle de la santé du Québec (FIQ), which represents 65,000 nurses and health-care workers, has also staged a series of protests.

The Common Front called out its supporters for a second round of strikes this week, to be followed by a third round on November 16-17. If no settlement is reached, it plans to call for a general strike of public-sector workers on December 1-3 across Quebec. If the FAE and FIQ join in, that would mean more than half a million workers would be on strike.

The struggle led by the three union federations has found increasing support from the broader working class--despite polls that show as many as 50 percent of people in Quebec think unions have too much power.

"The picket lines were amazing," said one striking teacher in the FAE, Benoit Renaud. "Everyone driving by was honking their horns in solidarity. It shows that whatever Quebecers think about unions in the abstract, they like teachers, nurses and workers in local government. And they are realizing that our fight is also their fight."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE LIBERAL Party government of Philippe Couillard triggered this working class upsurge. Driven by Quebec's anemic economy and an ideological commitment to neoliberalism, Couillard wants to balance the budget by cutting government workers' wages and benefits and gutting the vital services they provide.

He has proposed no wage increase for the first two years of a five-year contract, to be followed by a mere 1 percent annual increase for the following three years. With inflation factored in, that would amount to a massive wage cut. In addition, he is attacking pensions and trying to increase the age of retirement for all public-sector workers.

In education, Couillard wants to increase class sizes; count children with special needs as one child, instead of three, as has been the norm; and increase the workweek from 32 to 40 hours. In health care, the government wants to raise the number of patients taken care of by each nurse, increase forced overtime and deny any increase in bonuses for working night shifts. Conditions are so bad that 47 percent of active nurses over 50 years of age are considering retirement.

The unions' proposals are in direct opposition to Couillard's. They want raises of 13.5 percent over the life of a five-year contract, increased investment in public services and improvements in working conditions.

Perhaps overconfident that he rules Quebec with a large majority in the provincial National Assembly and faces no election for several years, Couillard attacked not only the unions but also many other sectors of society dependent on government funding.

But the scale of his assault is backfiring. It is driving everyone together into mass struggle. As Philippe de Grosbois, a teacher and elected member of his local union executive, stated:

The government attacked everyone, pitting us one against the other, in the hope that each would separately agree to a rotten deal. But the opposite is happening. Everyone is realizing that we are in the same boat, and that austerity is hurting us all. That's why there is such solidarity among unions, students, community organizations and parents.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE STUDENT union, Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante (ASSÉ), has played a pivotal role throughout the whole struggle. Indeed, ASSÉ initiated the fight against austerity with the famous Maple Spring protests of 2012.

The student union, organized in a broader student union coalition called CLASSE, staged an unlimited student strike that shut down colleges and universities for months to stop tuition increases and demand free higher education as a social right. The students even defied a special law restricting their right to strike and demonstrate, setting off an explosion of social resistance against then-Liberal Party Prime Minister Jean Charest.

ASSÉ succeeded in stopping Charest from increasing tuition and drove him to call elections, which he and his party lost in their worst defeat ever. But the Liberal Party's successor, Parti Québécois (PQ), betrayed expectations of reform, continued neoliberal attacks and soon lost support again to a revitalized Liberal Party under Couillard.

Once in power, Couillard turned to austerity to balance the budget. Some activists organized a group Spring 2015 to get ASSÉ to call a strike in the hopes of spurring workers, whose contracts were expiring, to launch an unlimited social strike.

But the groundwork had not been laid among students for such a call, and unions were not yet legally able to strike. As a result, Couillard and his allies in university administrations were able to isolate and repress the militants, especially at one of ASSÉ's key bases Université du Québec à Montréa (UQAM).

Despite this setback, ASSÉ and the broader movement have recovered. They built successful May Day demonstrations and laid out plans for actions this fall in solidarity with the union strike wave. On November 5, ASSÉ staged a one-day student strike of 52,000 and led a mass march through Montreal of several thousand students. They rallied behind the slogan: "We Know We Are Not Alone: For a Massive Reinvestment in Public Services."

They are fighting to stop $70 million in cuts to higher education and are instead demanding that the government tax the rich, invest in the public sector and guarantee good-paying jobs that provide services to the broader working class and students. "Students are suffering both directly and indirectly from the government's austerity agenda," ASSÉ spokesperson Hind Fazzazi said. "We have to stand in solidarity with the unions in their fight because it is also our fight."

Importantly, union leaders lent their solidarity to the protest. In his speech at the rally, the FAE's Sylvain Mallette declared, "We support students because they are fighting the same battle we do as teachers, to protect public services and have more money for education."

Parents have also joined the protests against Couillard. They have organized a group called Je protège mon école publique, with over 20,000 members.

Most have never been involved in activism before. But they are creative and militant. On the first day of September and October, they formed human chains in front of schools to symbolically defend them against Couillard's budget cuts. This month, on November 2, they again formed chains at over 250 public schools and are promising more direct actions in December.

In perhaps the most unprecedented development, 1,300 community organizations went on strike on November 2-3. These organizations are not unions and don't have a tradition of work stoppages. But faced with facing drastic cuts in government support, they shut down their services for two days, culminating in a mass march in Montreal on November 3 numbering more than 10,000. Couillard's government was shocked enough by the protest to promise to restore some of the threatened funding to certain community organizations.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DESPITE THIS gesture, Couillard has largely dismissed the rising tide of strikes and protests, refusing to relent from his hard-line stance in negotiations with the unions. He continues to maintain the fiction that there is simply no money to meet workers' demands and expand funding for public education and services.

But his actions completely undermine his claim. Just last month, Couillard came up with $1 billion to bail out Quebec's troubled plane manufacturer, Bombardier. Just like during the 2008 financial crisis, the state finds the money that capital needs, while it sells workers and social services down the river.

Ironically, Couillard's determination to balance the budget is out of step with his own Liberal Party, which just won federal elections. New Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised to reverse Stephen Harper's austerity program and instead pursue three years of deficit spending to get Canada's economy out of recession. Couillard could do the same and find the money to meet union demands for good jobs for public-sector workers and social services.

But he remains intransigent, and as a result, negotiations are at a standstill. The FAE recently walked out of the negotiations, announcing that the government's "obsession with austerity" risks "sacrificing an entire generation of students." At a press conference, FAE President Sylvain Mallette declared, "We hope to send a clear and strong message. We will not accept a deterioration of our working conditions."

Last week, after the first round of strikes, Couillard claimed to present a new offer to the unions. But it was a public relations stunt. All he did was repackage the same proposal, keeping two years of wage freezes and three years of 1 percent increases, but changing the sequence. "It is essentially the same proposal," President Daniel Boyer of the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec (FTQ) told reporters. "We understand that a zero was moved, from the second to the fifth year, but for us, it is really not something that is significant--far from it."

Couillard tried to bait the hook of his offer by promising to gear wage increases to workers' education levels and introduce what is in essence a two-tier wage structure, with lower pay increases for new hires. He hoped to lure union leaders and higher-skilled, better-paid workers with seniority into selling out the rest of their brothers and sisters.

"What the government is saying is, 'I'm not going to add money, I'm going to play in the salary scales, create new scales, and freshly hired nurses will be paid less,' countered Régine Laurent, president of the FIQ. "The government is telling the older, more experienced nurses 'you are going to get more, but it will be financed by the younger nurses.'"

Leaders from the FAE and FIQ declared that the government's most recent proposal was merely posturing before the government turned to hardball tactics. They suggested Couillard was pretending to bargain in good faith, while planning to impose a contract through the provincial parliament and pass a special law banning the unions' right to strike before parliament closes on December 4.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WHERE THE struggle will go from here is unclear. So far, both sides have refused to budge, and each has cards to play.

Will Couillard stonewall negotiations and follow the precedent of state repression like Jean Charest did to the students in 2012? Is he willing to risk the social explosion that toppled Charest's government? Or will he make concessions in the hopes that the union leadership in the Common Front, FAE and FIQ will agree to a less severe but still concessionary deal? What will the union membership do if union leaders do agree to such a proposal?

These questions will be answered in the next few weeks. Everyone in Quebec's union, student and social movements are now engaged. Flush with popular support and growing in confidence, union leaders have continued to prepare for regional strikes in the run-up to the threatened general strike in the first week of December.

Union militants organized in Lutte Commune are organizing in the rank and file to push the unions to stick to their promise to lead an unrelenting fight against austerity. They initiated a letter signed by over 400 union militants calling for unions to form local strike committees to unite workers locally and plan actions democratically.

These militants have also organized panel discussions in Gatineau, Montreal and Quebec City to discuss how unions should respond if Couillard imposes a special law. While they remain a minority current in the movement, they are agitating for union locals to follow the example of ASSÉ and, if Couillard imposes a special law, organize a broader social resistance.

If the union leaders accept a concessionary deal, they are also planning a campaign for a "no" vote to continue the struggle for a better contract. Their organizing is gathering some of best union activists in the beginnings of a rank-and-file movement to develop combative, social-justice unionism, in which unions fights not just for their sectoral interests, but for all workers.

The broader social forces in the movement are also planning further actions. The Red Hand Coalition, which brings together unions, community organizations and ASSÉ, has called a march and rally against austerity on November 28 in Montreal. If the government imposes a special law, the coalition has promised to turn this into a demonstration against it and in defense of the unions' right to strike.

If no deal is reached by the end of November, the Common Front, most likely to be joined by FAE and FIQ, will shut down the province with a public-sector general strike, almost certainly the largest in decades. ASSÉ has also announced a student strike and rally in solidarity with the general strike in Quebec City for December 2.

cont. :whoo:
 
Top