Open World Conference of Workers

In Defense of Trade Union Independence & Democratic Rights

(Part 2 of 3-Part Series)

ATTAC, THE "TOBIN TAX," AND THE WORLD SOCIAL FORUM OF PORTO ALEGRE (BRAZIL):

IS THIS A WAY FORWARD TO FIGHT GLOBAL CAPITALISM?



The Tobin Tax and its eventual distribution

 In our view, the introduction of the Tobin Tax raises a third question: Who is going to distribute the supposed US$40 billion to US$50 billion it is intended to channel into development and the fight against poverty, and according to which criteria?

For Bruno Jetin, a member of ATTAC's Scientific Council, the Tobin Tax "must not become the palliative for every economic and social shortcoming in the world. If a country restricts its budget deficit by cutting back its social spending, good sense would demand that it should establish a policy aimed at reducing any shortfall in revenues. The Tobin Tax should be complementary to this kind of provision, and not a substitute."

So the Tobin Tax is to be complementary to plans that start with a "reduction of budget deficits." But what is the root cause of those deficits if not the payment of the debt ,which soaks up 40 percent or 50 percent of state budgets, and in some cases more? Can there possibly be a "social dimension" in such plans?

Susan George, vice chair of ATTAC, gave the following reply to the same question at the seminar organized by ATTAC in Paris on Jan. 25, 1999:

"We do not think that money should be granted to governments, whether they are corrupt or not, without certain conditions."

Conditions? But for what purpose and in whose name?

Is not the path that will allow the workers and peoples to advance toward their political and social emancipation from global capitalism the very same path that will lead to a break with regimes of "conditionalities" - where "conditionalities" most often are called "Structural Adjustment Plans (SAPs)"? Are these to be SAPs "with a human face?"

Let us take this one step further: Who will distribute the $40 billion, $50 billion or $100 billion dervied from this (potential) tax?

Describing the content of the January 25, 1999, seminar, Bernard Cassen, chair of ATTAC, gave this response to 300 ATTAC members:

"The money will be disbursed by an international agency or regional agencies under democratic control, with the participation of trade unions, NGOs, etc."

Trade unions with NGOs? But aren't the NGOs just an extension of the activities of the international financial institutions and the world's major powers?

Doesn't this scenario play right into the new plans of the international financial institutions of global capitalism to "provide a human face" to the destructive policies of globalization? Doesn't ths scenario fit right in with their proposal to create service NGOs, which, as we shall see below, are simply an adjunct to their overarching policies aimed at destroying public and social services?

These are just some of the questions that come to mind concerning this quest by ATTAC to create "another world" on the basis of the "Tobin Tax." To our eyes, quite frankly, the projected "other world" looks very much the world that already exists today.

ATTAC, Social Gains, Job Cuts and Privatization

We think that we can give one component of the answer to these various questions by quoting the positions defended by ATTAC on the two key questions of job cuts and deregulation of labor.

In a document presented by ATTAC to its members in the French National Assembly in May 2001, we read the following:

"A society cannot function on the principle of the absolute preservation of the jobs that exist at any given moment."

One can recognize in this statement by ATTAC the "principle" that forms the basis for every policy of "social modernization," of "mobility," of "flexibility," of removing legal obstacles to redundancy - all policies that lie at the heart of the bosses' policies all over the world.

What does the following passage from the same document mean when it says: "Our own wish is that redundancy becomes the measure of last resort, once every other possibility for guaranteeing the survival of the company has been exhausted."

A last resort? Under what conditions? In a document of "ATTAC's Scientific Council" dated June 2000, titled "Employment or Finance: A Choice for Society," we read: "Workers' representatives and company committees must have the legal means to intervene in the companies' economic choices that can impact on employment."

Is this not a "new formulation" for a policy that has nothing new about it - that is, "the policy of associating labor with capital"? It is a policy aimed at involving the trade unions directly in the implementation of job cuts - as we witnessed recently with the airline AOM-Air Liberté, where the trade unions got involved in "the companies' economic choices that can impact on employment" by taking part in the decision as to which of the 1,800 were to be laid off!

Are we not seeing what lies at the heart of the policy of associating the trade unions with plans for labor flexibility when ATTAC proposes to the "ATTAC Parliamentary Group," in the document referred to above, that:

"The broadening of the scope of the employment contract should focus on a range of situations that are not directly linked to employment and/or to an explicit employment contract. For the employees, this would mean the right to a continuity of income and to training opportunities for life, as well as the duty to offer their labor for a minimum period during their active life. For the employers, this would mean the right to hire and fire, but also the duty to contribute to the maintenance of income and training of those workers who are temporarily unemployed." [ See Appendix 2: ATTAC and the Union Network International (UNI)]

In concrete terms, for example within the framework of the European Union Directives, this statement by ATTAC would mean the reduction or even cancellation of redundancy procedures, the obligation of employees made redundant to attend training for re-grading, the obligation of employees (in the name of ATTAC's principle of "the duty to offer their labor for a minimum period during their active life") to accept the first job offer received at the end of that re-training for fear of having all their entitlements withdrawn.

At a time when the question of the renationalization of the railways and electricity is being raised by the workers and peoples across Europe and beyond, what does the following position, developed by ATTAC under the heading "Proposals" (published on its website), mean:

"Well-considered and well-managed investment can make a useful contribution to the lives of citizens. Investors also have rights, among others the right to transparency in regulations concerning them and the right to 'just and due' compensation in case of expropriation, as provided in law." (Citizens and People Agreement on Investments and Wealth)

And what does it mean when in that same document ATTAC puts forward as "an alternative to job cuts" the proposal of "favoring the possibility for employees to take over their companies?" Have we not seen in Russia, as well as elsewhere, companies that have been privatized, then "managed" (in reality mismanaged) by not renewing plant machinery or paying wages for years, and then "offered" to the workforce by the owners who go off calmly to enjoy their retirement, supported by incomes gained from the social disasters they themselves have organized?

This passage under review would not be complete without mentioning that ATTAC claims to have "an alternative economic plan."

In the "Scientific Council" document we have already quoted, "Employment or Finance: A Choice for Society," we read:

"For a job in an extended non-commercial sector. S� High praise should go out to employment in the non-commercial sector. S�" This is particularly the case in sectors where the "multiple needs today remain unsatisfied because the private sector does not consider them profitable. S� In that extended commercial sector where, notably, associative, not-for-profit structures would no longer be the poor relatives. S�"

What does this mean? Some Spanish unionists of the International Liaison Committee (ILC) have sent us the following account:

"What people call Non-Governmental Organizations actually play an important economic role. The 11,000 Spanish NGOs have 284,000 employees, some 2.1 percent of the working population in Spain.

"NGOs are taking up more jobs in the public services sector, and they are doing this with financing provided essentially by the State (53 percent of their income, as compared with just 11 percent to 14 percent provided by members' subscriptions).

"According to a report by the Tomillo Foundation, prepared by the Ministry for Social Affairs, the average wage in the NGOs is lower than the average wage for equivalent professional categories in other spheres of activity, despite the fact that 55 percent of their employees have attended higher education. According to the report, these lower wages are 'the result of the feminization of the workforce.'

"78 percent of employment contracts are part-time and 45 percent are temporary.

"In addition to the 284,000 employees, the NGOs employ one million volunteers on an unpaid basis and have used hundreds of thousands of conscientious objectors.

"For all their sermonizing about 'solidarity,' the real picture is distressing: low wages, exploitation of women, high level of temporary and insecure contracts, replacement of jobs with volunteer work and conscientious objectors. And to top it all, they are taking the place of 'real,' pubicly funded social services. Rather than just being organizations for solidarity, they are acting more and more like formidable machines for spreading deregulation."

It will be clear by now that we are witnessing the implementation of the most deregulated forms of labor - all in the name of the fight against "globalization" and "opposition to the dominant trends," of course.

After being laid off, some Senegalese unionists of the International Liaison Committee have today been forced to take on "casual jobs" which are not protected by employment legislation.

They have sent us a document published on the website of Senattac (ATTAC Senegal), which contains the following eulogy for the conditions resulting from deregulation and job cuts:

Under the heading "Articles by Senattac," there is an article titled "The creation of the euro, the CFA franc and the popular economy."

This article argues for an alternative. It says that African countries "already have at their disposal an important tool for trying to obtain results: the popular economy, both urban and rural."

What does it consist of? According to Senattac, it consists of an evolution that "has seen a growth in the number of family or community activities in the production of goods and services. ... And even if this popular economy does not really appear capable of producing the surplus that would be necessary for rapid and diversified growth, it nevertheless allows broad layers of the population to cope more or less successfully with the changes being imposed on them. [our emphasis]

"The small retail trade thus allows many poor people to provide for their consumer needs at a lower cost - and not only because almost all the goods are perfectly divisible. ...

"What is more, one is most often dealing with family businesses which provide jobs and incomes for a number of people."

We have a question: Does not this "new economy" bear a strange resemblance to the current one - that is, the one that is being established through developing unemployment and privatization? The one that is organizing the "distribution" of poverty and misery like the "distribution" of unemployment?

The world according to ATTAC: Regarding "Participatory Democracy"

"Strength in opposing the establishment, but also strength in proposing." This is how the representatives of ATTAC define their movement. As an alternative to the world we live in today, they propose "another world," which would be built in part by the "Tobin Tax." Although they do not claim to have a complete vision of that "other world," we think it is important to draw attention to its main elements as explained in the writings and proposals of ATTAC's representatives.

ATTAC's leaders place at the center of their action "for another world" what they call "participatory democracy." The prototype of what they are looking to is what exists today in the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil. What does this involve?

The Porto Alegre "World Social Forum" was held in Brazil on Jan. 25-31, 2001.

ATTAC was one of the main organizers of that gathering. The experience of "participatory democracy" as implemented in the town council of Porto Alegre and in the administration of the state of Rio Grande do Sul (of which Porto Alegre is the capital city) were held up as an example to be emulated worldwide. ATTAC's leadership saw this "participatory democracy" as a model of democracy pure and simple, and the running of the city of Porto Alegre as a model "for another world," where the citizens would truly participate in the decision-making regarding budget choices and their applications.

First, some facts. Porto Alegre, the capital of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, has a population of 1.29 million out of a total of 3.3 million in the greater metropolitan area. How many of these people actually take part in this "participatory democracy"? Let us hear what Raul Pont, member of the federal assembly and former mayor of Porto Alegre, has to say:

"Since 1991, the participatory budget has grown broader and broader, mobilizing the communities in every area. In 1994, more than 11,000 people took part in meetings and plenary assemblies which were directly coordinated by the town council. In 1995, there were more than 14,000, and in 1997, the number grew to 20,000. If we add the people who took part in the countless meetings organized by popular associations and entities, then around 50,000 people were involved in drawing up the municipal budget."

A very small minority, then.

But what exactly did they participate in? The former mayor of Porto Alegre states that "a tax reform carried out in Porto Alegre has resulted in an important increase in ciy income, and today more than half of the town's total revenues come from the recovery of taxes."

How does the "participatory budget" work? Here is an account provided by a Brazilian member of the International Liaison Committee (ILC):

"Each year the municipality of Porto Alegre (and the same is true for state government of Rio Grande do Sul) decides its annual budget. The first thing they do is earmark a big chunk of the budget to repaying their portion of the country's $225 billion foreign debt.

"The decision to continue paying the debt is hard and fast; it is not up for discussion - given that the city and state officials have faithfully pledged to the federal government that they will pay back their share of the national debt to the international creditors - as stipulated by the federal government's "Law on Fiscal Responsibility."

"It should be pointed out that the repayment of the debt is in itself a violation of the mandate of the people, who elected the Workers Party to head the government of the state of Rio Grande do Sul in 1999 - as it did the municipality years before - with the demand that their social services be fully funded. Obviously, to the extent that the state and municipal governments agree to pay their portion of the federal debt, an amount that can reach the sum of hundreds of millions of dollars each year, they must reduce the amount of money allocated to schools, housing, healthcare and municipal services.

"Then, once the foreign debt allocation is taken care of, all the 'grassroots organizations' - that is, the associations (including the employers' associations), the NGOs, and the trade unions - are invited to 'participate' in a marathon assembly to determine the priorities of the budget. This is the 'Participatory Budget,' which was first introduced many years ago by the PT-led City Council of Porto Alegre and which today serves as the model for the state government of Rio Grande do Sul.

A trade union representative in Porto Alegre who had thought he could present the demands of his union within this "participatory budget" framework, explains how things are done in practice:

"I had the chance to participate in an assembly for the participatory budget of the state of Rio Grande do Sul in October. The leadership of my union and party both told me what they tell everyone who puts forward any kind of demand: "Go to the participatory budget." Suddenly, that has become the place where many people make their requests.

"What happens is that when you arrive at the assembly, you join a crowd of people, who themselves have all sorts of demands. There were people making requests for their schools, police officers requesting bullet-proof jackets, and so on. Everything that depended on the state budget. For example, there was a head teacher there from a public sector school asking desperately for the roof to be repaired before it fell in on her pupils and teachers.

"Among others, there were also some people who were living in a favela of Porto Alegre, Vila Dique, who had been asking for years for the right to own the land they live on and for this fund to be earmarked in the budget.

"The assembly for the participatory budget works like this: Each person arrives, presents his or her request and receives a number. At the end, we all vote to decide the 'priority' of requests for the assembly. Each person votes for one 'priority.'

"Whoever gets the most votes, in other words whoever manages to bring along the most people, sees 'their' priority registered. But be careful, 'priority' does not mean that the demand will be met necessarily. That still depends on other elements, such as available funds, the project's 'feasibility' and a whole stack of other criteria.

"In the assembly itself, I was able to see just how confused things were. In order to get onto the list of 'priorities,' everyone dives into a free-for-all. The people from Vila Dique, for example, were asking everyone: 'For the love of God, vote for our demand, we have been coming for years, and we still have got nothing.' It was a desperate appeal which led a number of participants to give up their own demand in favor of a 'priority' for Vila Dique, to allow it to be one of the three "priorities" retained by that assembly.

"At the end, everyone leaves. Some 'delegates' are elected, on the basis of one for every ten people present. They attend the other phases of the participatory budget. There they must choose between repairing the sewage system (whose collapse regularly results in deadly catastrophes in the favelas) and paying the civil servants (who sometimes are not paid for up to eight months). They must choose between closing the emergency rescue centers in the neighborhoods (which are sometimes the only place where tens of thousands of working families can receive minimum health care) and putting off again until next year the installation of a running water system.

"Meanwhile, the people who participated in the first phase of the budget process are convened in a year's time to hear what was done about the "priorities" by the higher-up bodies of the participatory budget, and to formulate new ones."

And what the people will hear in a year's time is what they always hear: They are told that in the name of city and national priorities, the participatory budget had no choice but to allow the demands of the World Bank and the IMF to be met - beginning with the repayment of the debt from the coffers of the public treasury.

Regardless of what budget "priority" item is finally funded, if it is funded at all, what is clear is that the World Bank and IMF's work has been carried out: The cuts in wages and social services, the attacks on housing, pensions, schools and healthcare - everything demanded by the IMF and World Bank has been imposed with the full "democratic participation" of the workers and community.

This basic point was stated in surprisingly blunt terms by a spokesperson of ATTAC. At a summer school organized by ATTAC for its members in 2000, one of the presentations on "participatory democracy" gave the following definition of its role and place, and those of the "citizens' budgets":

"It is clear that a reduction in budget deficits, which is indispensable in numerous situations, often involves unpopular measures: It remains the case that choices are possible and that the options to be decided should be discussed and appreciated. The success of a policy of austerity rests on the legitimacy of power and popular support for its policy. Imposing a structural adjustment is certainly one of the worst ways of responding to the necessities." (Gustave Massiah, ATTAC Summer University, August 2001)

And, on the international level, what about ATTAC's attitude toward those institutions that are at the heart of the policy of pillaging the peoples - the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and the European Union?

At a seminar organized by ATTAC, AITEC and other organizations on June 22-23, 2001, titled "Regulation of the international system: What place for the IMF?" it was stated that "while there is no unanimous point of view on this fundamental question, in the immediate short term, it is important to emphasize democracy and transparency as the necessary basis for the functioning of all the international institutions."

Let us ask ourselves a quick question: What does this call for transparency mean? Is noone aware of the murderous character of the policies of institutions like the IMF and the World Bank? Do the peoples not know the place and the role those institutions play in privatization and the dismantling of public services? Of course they do. Those institutions and their policies are the target of a growing rejection by the peoples, who say: "IMF out! World Bank out!"

So what does it really mean? It's a call for "participatory democracy" - but this time at the top. This was the "request" formulated, for example, in one of the documents ("On openness and democracy in international commerce") preparing the demonstrations on Nov. 8-10, 2001, called by ATTAC at the time of the WTO Summit in Qatar. The document states: "Meetings of the WTO authorities should be open to observers from other multilateral organizations and NGOs. ... NGOs should be able to put forward written or oral analyses and proposals to the different arms of the WTO according to methods to be defined for each one."

The NGOs and this so-called "civil society": Can anyone believe these are legitimate representative of the peoples? Most of them were set up "from the top down" by institutions like the World Bank and by the governments in their service.

A World Bank document titled "The World Bank and Civil Society" gives precise figures showing the financial commitment of the World Bank to keep the NGOs and so-called "civil society" alive:

"More than 70 percent of projects supported by the World Bank and approved last year have involved non-governmental organizations (NGO) and civil society in some way, whereas five years ago this was the case with less than half, which indicates a general upward trend over the last two decades.

"NGOs can also receive aid in the form of co-financing of projects from other bilateral, multilateral and international sources. Moreover, an NGO can be directly engaged by the Bank to carry out a specific function, such as helping in the design, implementation and follow-up of projects.

"In 1999, grants allocated to NGOs rose to a total of US$1.8 billion , almost double the amount in 1998. NGOs and other groups in civil society can request grants of US$1,000 to US$15,000 to cover activities such as conferences and seminars, expenses for launching publications or other innovatory efforts." ("The World Bank and Civil Society," September 2000)

These impressive figures speak volumes about the trickery that consists of presenting the sudden growth of NGOs and "civil society" as the result of a spontaneous movement of the peoples. To those amounts should be added the credits allocated by other institutions like the IMF, European Union, etc.

An OECD study (Kathermini, October 24, 1999) tells us: "The total of financial aid by OECD countries to the humanitarian movement via the NGOs grew from 0.7 percent in 1975 to 3.6 percent in 1985, to over 5 percent in 1995 (equivalent to US$2.3 billion). This figure is underestimated. It does not include financing of NGOs by the U.S. government, which represents more than half of the total aid in all the previous years."

It is important to point out that, as a rule, this aid is not a gift. The financing of NGOs resembles the way the foreign debt is constituted and repaid.

So much for the NGOs. But what about the representatives of "civil society," who also claim to be the "democratic representatives of the peoples." Who are they, and where do they come from?

Ricardo Petrella, whose writings appear regularly on ATTAC's website, explains in a contribution published in June 2001 that "civil society" is made up of "oppositionists who have shown a willingness to give up the arena of protest in order to build a new future. They are innovators-experimenters who are engaged in the process of building new spaces for 'living together,' new methods of agriculture, of building neighborhoods, of creating mutual benefit societies, of founding a school and a new form of teaching, of developing the internet. S�"

This is a "social experiment" which, one will readily agree, looks very much like the management of disengagement from the State, similar to the process organized in Africa by the Structural Adjustment Plans of the IMF. S� But there is more.

Ricardo Petrella believes that "the innovators-experimenters who manage to 'make history' not only in their own environment, but also in other countries, often find a positive echo and support, if only indirect, from dominant members of society. These are circles which could be described as 'enlightened.' S�"

Among these "enlightened" circles one can find "entrepreneurs" who "are in a small minority, but exist in small and medium businesses. ... A high proportion of the enlightened are members of the 'bureaucracy,' especially in international and global organizations. In a certain number of countries, one can see that the enlightened come from the world of churches, or religious communities. S� They occupy a place that every day is more innovative and stimulating. No doubt, the rebirth of the spiritual sphere benefits those who are from the great global religions and who display citizen's values. S�"

Are these "enlightened minorities" the "democratic" representatives of society?

We wonder. Do these "representatives" represent the peoples?

For example, 657 NGOs and "civil society organizations" have "qualified" for participation in the WTO Summit in Qatar to represent "international public opinion."

Do you know any of them?

Do we know what mandate they will received from the world's working and oppressed peoples as the basis for their participation in the Qatar Summit? Did you elect them? Who are their leaders? Where is that famous transparency? Where is democracy?

The Workers Party considers, for its part, that political democracy expresses a range of diverse, multiple and contradictory choices within society, and that, far from forming a homogeneous bloc of people welded together in the same "body," political democracy is premised on the existence of groups with opposing interests, and therefore is subject to the harsh reality of the class struggle.

A crucial element of the concept of political democracy is that it must respect the independence of the trade union movement, leaving it free to act on the strict economic plane; that is, the plane of the defense of class interests, in defense of the specific interests of all wage-earners. Political democracy guarantees the trade union movement the freedom to discuss, negotiate, and enter into collective bargaining, including using its right to strike.

In practice, "participatory" democracy is an idea resurrected by the World Bank. James Wolfensohn gave the following definition of "participatory democracy" at a seminar of 2000 NGO representatives organized by the World Bank:

"[It is necessary] to give people the possibility of participating actively in the definition, design and implementation of the World Bank's projects and loans, to allow them to understand what participation in structural adjustment loans means." (Sept. 22, 2000)

In fact, according to the president of the World Bank, in addition to its antisocial and anti-democratic role, "participatory democracy" is the means "to alleviate [social divisions] by placing opposing parties face to face within the framework of formal or informal forums, and by channelling their energies through political processes, rather than leaving them with confrontation as their only outlet."

By way of a (provisional) conclusion

The aim of this contribution is to open a discussion and not to conclude one. The whole of humanity is living through a difficult situation, made even more difficult by the increase in the number of wars and imperialist attacks on the peoples.

The path that will lead the peoples who are fighting for the survival of their gains, for their own survival in fact, to forge "another world" is not mapped out in advance.

On the contrary, we think that the path that will lead the peoples and the workers to their own emancipation is and will be inseparable from:

- the struggle in defense of all the social and political gains won through their class struggles;

- the struggle to defend the independence of the labor organizations as organizations representing the "specific interests" of all those whose labor force is exploited by the private holders of the means of production;

- the right of the peoples to decide for themselves, in relation to their interests, and to do so against the policies and diktats of institutions like the World Bank, the IMF, and the European Union - whose function is inextricably linked to the exploiters and the pillagers.

The widest and freest possible discussion on these questions is needed among those who claim to promote the struggle for the political and social emancipation of the peoples. 

Back to ILC Newsletter Index                       Back to ILC Debate over WSF Index