by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
History has placed the BRICS nations on the path of confrontation with a superpower in decline. Washington is prepared to strangle the world into submission, or drown it in chaos. “Objectively, the United States has positioned itself as the great and implacable impediment to global development.”

“They have no choice but to resist Washington’s policies of coercion and the threat of strangulation.”

The meteoric rise of the BRICS nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – now concluding their fifth annual summit meeting in Durban, became inevitable once the imperial powers began moving the world’s industrial production to the Global South, decades ago. From that point on, the options available to the “West” began to shrink, leading inexorably to the current historical juncture, in which U.S.-led imperialism relies almost entirely on its overwhelming military superiority to maintain itself.

“By 2020,” according to United Nations Development Program, “the combined economic output of three leading developing countries alone — Brazil, China and India — will surpass the aggregate production of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the U.K. and the United States.” The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, comprised of the world’s richest countries, predicts that China will surpass the United States as the world’s biggest economy by the end of 2016. By some measures, China actually overtook the U.S. back in 2010.

“The essential question facing the Global South, is to what extent, and how long, will they shore up the crumbling old Euro-American edifices.”

Brazil’s economic development bank is bigger than the World Bank. Last year, BRICS nations sent $75 billion to the IMF [21] to help bail out European financial institutions – so, these countries can well afford to capitalize a BRICS development bank, as they agreed to do, in principle, this week in Durban. It is a question of political will.

U.S. and western European economic decline is an irreversible fact. The essential question facing the Global South, with the BRICS in the lead, is to what extent, and how long, will they shore up the crumbling old Euro-American edifices – in which they also have huge investments and which are backed by a war machine that strives for full spectrum dominance of the planet.

We are living at a crossroads of history. The productive center of the world is shifting back to where it was before western Europe began its 500-year war against the rest of humankind: to China and India, the economic powerhouses of the pre-colonial planet. Europe used force to organize the world to its own, absolute advantage, depopulating a whole hemisphere and much of Africa in the process. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, which was fueled by colonization and slavery, most of the world’s people enjoyed similar living standards. The great global imbalance in the human condition, largely along lines of color, is the product of half a millennium of predation.

The gory enterprise could not, however, forever contain the human impulse toward self-determination, or escape the laws of political economy. Unable to export the contradictions of dwindling rates of profit in a decolonizing world, western financial capitalists exported their industrial capacity, instead. Power must shift, as well. This is the central quandary of the BRICS, and of U.S. imperialism.

“Washington is betting its global hegemony on military coercion, pure and simple.”

The United States, firmly in the grip of hyperactive finance capital, has acquiesced to its diminishing role in world trade. It doesn’t seriously attempt to directly compete with the core BRICS countries in Africa and Latin America. Washington is betting its global hegemony on military coercion, pure and simple. The U.S. is now the “indispensable nation” only in the sense that it refuses to tolerate a world in which it is not treated as such. Under Presidents Clinton, Bush and, especially, Obama, the U.S. has waged an escalating war against international legal order, largely under the pernicious doctrine of “humanitarian” military intervention. National sovereignty is treated as a dead letter, and trade sanctions are quickly followed by armed, barely covert assaults on unoffending governments. The U.S. publicly announces possession of new systems of warfare that can annihilate targets with a conventional weapon anywhere on the globe in half an hour [22]. The message is clear, repetitive and meant to be terrifying: No nation, or combination of nations, will be allowed to challenge U.S. dominance in the world, as defined by Washington.

“The U.S. swarms over Africa, to secure political obedience despite its economic eclipse on the continent.”

The superpower in decline is not only willing to throw the world into chaos to preserve its artificial position at the top, it is actively doing so in Syria, following up its decapitation of Libya. It swarms over Africa, to secure political obedience despite its economic eclipse on the continent. Objectively, the United States has positioned itself as the great and implacable impediment to global development.

Therefore, when the BRICS say that their summit is motivated by “a shared desire for peace, security, development, cooperation, respect for international law and sovereignty,” as was announced [23] at the 5th BRICS Academic Forum, earlier this month, they are placing themselves in opposition to the U.S. juggernaut. It is not a place that these nation’s governments want to be. But, if they are to continue on the road to self-determination and achievement of their own national goals – including their capitalistic aspirations – they have no choice but to resist Washington’s policies of coercion and the threat of strangulation.

It is not up to the BRICS to save the world. But, in order to save their own parts of the planet, they will be forced to confront U.S. imperialism. The monster must be removed from humanity’s path. Only then can we truly begin to clear out the rubble of the 500-year war, and build a new global society.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com [24].

[25]
Source URL: http://blackagendareport.com/content/throwing-brics-us-empire
Links:
[1] http://blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/war-against-syria
[2] http://blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/war-against-libya
[3] http://blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/us-imperial-wars
[4] http://blackagendareport.com/taxonomy/term/1439
[5] http://blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/humanitarian-military-intervention
[6] http://blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/clinton-wars
[7] http://blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/bush-wars
[8] http://blackagendareport.com/category/africa/south-africa
[9] http://blackagendareport.com/category/africa/colonialism
[10] http://blackagendareport.com/category/african-america/slavery
[11] http://blackagendareport.com/category/african-america/global-south
[12] http://blackagendareport.com/category/asia-europe-and-middle-east/russia
[13] http://blackagendareport.com/category/asia-europe-and-middle-east/india
[14] http://blackagendareport.com/category/asia-europe-and-middle-east/china-biggest-economy
[15] http://blackagendareport.com/category/asia-europe-and-middle-east/china
[16] http://blackagendareport.com/category/political-economy/diminishing-profits
[17] http://blackagendareport.com/category/political-economy/brics
[18] http://blackagendareport.com/category/americas/brazil-development-bank
[19] http://blackagendareport.com/category/americas/brazil
[20] http://blackagendareport.com/sites/www.blackagendareport.com/files/brics396.jpg
[21] http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/86651
[22] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063117/Pentagon-tests-hypersonic-weapon-travels-5-times-speed-sound.html
[23] http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/86653
[24] mailto:Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com
[25] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblackagendareport.com%2Fcontent%2Fthrowing-brics-us-empire&linkname=Throwing%20BRICS%20at%20the%20U.S.%20Empire
_______

War Against Syria [1] | War Against Libya [2] | U.S. imperial wars [3] | Obama wars [4] | humanitarian military intervention [5] | Clinton wars [6] | Bush wars [7] | South Africa [8] | colonialism [9] | slavery [10] | Global South [11] | Russia [12] | India [13] | China biggest economy [14] | China [15] | diminishing profits [16] | BRICS [17] | Brazil Development bank [18] | Brazil [19]

EDITORIAL SUGGESTION BY MARY PISHNEY

Emanuel with his big pal. Both are corporate Democrats (stealth Republicans) committed to the dismantlement of public education.—Eds

by Stephen Lendman

It’s on the chopping block for elimination. It’s happening nationwide. Chicago perhaps reflects the epicenter of what’s wrong.  Mayor Rahm Emanuel spent years waging war on progressive politics. He’s a former investment banker. He’s a corporate predator turned politician. He’s an unindicted war criminal. He belongs in prison, not City Hall.

He’s Obama’s former White House Chief of Staff. Becoming Chicago’s mayor fulfilled his longtime ambition. He’s notoriously anti-populist. He believes anything government does business does better so let it.  He wants corporate profiteers running as many city functions as possible. He bullies, pressures and bribes union officials to go along.

His schemes involve infrastructure projects, city water, airports, public transportation, parks, community colleges, and public schools. He’s harming Chicago the way Obama and Congress wreck America. Privatizing public schools is prioritized.

Richard M. Daley began it during his mayoral tenure. He called it Chicago’s Renaissance 2010 Turnaround strategy.  He planned 100 or more new “high-performing” elementary and high schools by that date.

Under five year contracts, they’re “held accountable….to create innovative learning environments under one of three “governance structures:”

ending public education in America, turning it over to profiteers, and letting them run schools by market-based rules.

Doing so destroys what Horace Mann called “the greatest discovery ever made by man.” He meant the “common” public school. He believed all students should be educated equally and responsibly.

It reflects democracy. Privatization means the tyranny of bottom line priorities. Commodifying education assures it. Preparing kids for better futures won’t happen. Why bother when profits alone matter and high-pay skilled jobs moved abroad. Public education’s a morally mandated right. In America, it’s disappearing. Privatization schemes assure it. Separate and unequal follow.

Human capital is destroyed. Budgets are slashed. Teachers are laid off or fired en masse. Poor kids and parents are hung out to dry. Republicans and Democrats are in lockstep on policy. It’s true at the federal, state and local levels.

Since 2009, over 300,000 teachers lost jobs. More than 4,000 schools were shut. Popular needs don’t matter. Expect much more ahead. Public education’s gravely compromised. It’s fast becoming a wasteland. It may be entirely gone in a decade.

Doing so reflects class warfare. Equal opportunity and freedom are dying. Democratic principles don’t matter. Corrupt union bosses do nothing to reverse things. Collective bargaining rights are eroding. America’s no longer fit to live in. Chicago’s perhaps the epicenter of what’s wrong.

Emanuel and complicit union officials want teacher rights compromised. They want kids denied education. Last September’s strike action ended irresponsibly. CTU head Karen Lewis accepted a deal she should have rejected. Core issues were ignored. Contract terms did nothing to stop privatizations.

Much more damage was done. Principles got the right to hire and fire teachers. Non-tenured ones can be sacked immediately. Others can be terminated in a year. Classroom sizes increased. So did school hours. No additional pay was offered. Other measures agreed on facilitate school closures.

Emanuel called contract terms “an honest compromise.” They reflected sellout. Teachers, parents and kids lost. Power brokers and profiteers won.  Chicago public education’s a shadow of its former self. It’s been that way for years. It’s worse than ever now. It’s fast disappearing.

It reflects what’s happening nationwide. What’s too important to lose is vanishing. It’s happening in plain sight.

Monied interests matter most. They’re wrecking America for profit. Nothing’s done to stop them. Future generations will suffer. Earlier times were better. They no longer exist.

_{ABOUT THE AUTHOR}

_{http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html}

_{Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.  Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.}

_{http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
http://www.dailycensored.com/destroying-public-education-in-chicago/}

The Republicans have stripped down their constituency to only “the worst of the worst” Americans: “white supremacists, misogynists and other dead enders.” Obama’s Democrats have absorbed the rest of the GOP, to become the New Republican Party of austerity and war.

By Alex Lantier, wsws.org

His own bioblurb admits, “David Ignatius, a prize-winning columnist for The Washington Post, has covered the CIA and the Middle East for many years. He is the author of the bestsellers Body of Lies and The Increment.” The conflict of interest represented by his open links to the CIA is apparently no reason for the WaPo to exclude this shameless agitator for war from its columns. Indeed, it is that talent which makes him valuable to the Post and its oligarchic clientele. —Eds.

Multiple car bombs hit Shiite targets across Iraq yesterday, the tenth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, killing 65 and wounding 200. It was a bloody reminder of the effects of the neo-colonial US occupation of Iraq, including Washington’s inflaming of ethno-sectarian conflict and of the escalating Syrian war.

Yesterday’s bombings came after a series of anti-Shiite attacks by affiliates of Al Qaeda in Iraq, a group tied to the Al Nusra Front—currently the leading force in the US-backed Syrian opposition fighting to topple President Bashar al Assad.

Against the backdrop of these continuing atrocities, one can only be disgusted by the US media’s deceitful and perfunctory retrospectives on the Iraq war. They present the war as safely in the past, after the election of an Iraqi government and the formal withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in December 2011. The lies and criminality with which US imperialism prosecuted the war—which devastated Iraq, leading to the deaths of an estimated 1.2 million Iraqis and nearly 4,500 American soldiers, and costing $2 trillion—are either ignored or dismissed as “intelligence failures.”

The American population was railroaded into an unpopular war, despite mass protests, based on lies for which no one has been held accountable. Evidence to show Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was fabricated by US officials, including in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s 2003 presentation at the UN. US President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney falsely claimed that the US had to attack Iraq to prevent it from allying itself with Al Qaeda—which now serves as a US proxy force in Syria.

Given the scale of the crimes and the devastation wrought by the Iraq war, the reaction of the American media has an Orwellian character. Ten years after a massive media campaign to pressure the public to support a war of aggression, there is not one serious review of the events that led to this catastrophe. The story is consigned to two-minute news spots and brief articles.

The New York Times carried a list of brief comments by US academics and state officials, titled “Was it Worth It?” Harvard University professor and former Deputy National Security Advisor Meghan O’Sullivan made the filthy argument, “Believe it or not, we’re safer now” after the war. Reprising the WMD lies, she argued that without invading Iraq, “It is at least conceivable that [former Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] would have a nuclear weapon today.”

The Washington Post wrote that Iraq is “teetering between progress and chaos,” acknowledging ongoing sectarian warfare but citing Najaf Governor Adnan Zurfi’s comment that, “Most people now have a good job and lots of opportunities.” Besides the fact that this is a lie, even if it were true, it would not justify a US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The pundits who most prominently promoted the war—including the New York Times ’ Thomas Friedman and Richard Cohen and David Ignatius of the Washington Post —did not comment on the anniversary. Friedman felt no obligation to give any accounting for his infamous statement that he had “no problem with a war for oil” in Iraq.

The Post columnists were for their part too busy calling for war with Syria to write on their record in Iraq. Welcoming the sending of anti-aircraft missiles to Syrian opposition fighters, Ignatius advocated a US-led occupation of Syria, writing, “Let’s be honest: when Assad is gone and Syria is finally rebuilding its state, it will need massive foreign economic and military assistance—probably including peacekeeping troops from the Arab League or even a NATO country such as Turkey.”

In 2003, Cohen enthused that Colin Powell’s lies on Iraqi WMD at the UN were “a reasonable man making a reasonable case”—a judgment that, as the WSWS noted, he made while “typing away before Powell even finished speaking” in a rush meet his newspaper deadline. He is again rushing to dismiss concerns, this time about “blowback” or unintended consequences from arming Al Qaeda in Syria.

The US should just get on with attacking Assad, Cohen writes. “Blowback is now a given. There is no sure way to avoid it, only to contain it. That can be done only by swiftly arming the moderates and pressing for as quick an end to the war as possible.”

Cohen’s warmongering remarks reflects the emergence of an enthusiastic pro-war constituency in the former liberal, pro-Democratic Party press.

The media’s promotion of aggressive war, now the unquestioned basis of American Middle East policy, is open to the same condemnations as those issued against top operatives of the Nazi propaganda machine. UN Resolution 110, passed after the Nuremburg trials, censured “all forms of propaganda in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breech of the peace, or act of aggression.”

Despite the untold human and financial costs of the war, some have done very well from Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The war bankrupted the United States and devastated Iraq, whose oil fields are now looted by Western firms—including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Shell, and Cheney’s firm, Halliburton. Iraq even faces an energy shortage, with many Iraqi civilians still lacking electricity and running water, as 80 percent of Iraq’s oil is exported by foreign firms. They work closely with the massive US embassy, hidden in Baghdad’s still-fortified Green Zone, to oversee Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

US war plans in Iran and Syria flowed inevitably from the initial crime in Iraq. Concerned that its installation of a Shiite regime in Iraq tilted the regional balance of power too far towards Iran, the US let the Persian Gulf monarchies arm right-wing Sunni forces led by Al Nusra against Syria, a key Iranian ally. As yesterday’s bombing showed, Iraq again finds itself in the middle of these war plans.

Ten years after the Iraq war began, US imperialist wars in the Middle East continue, new ones are being prepared, and the political criminals responsible for the wars and their media propagandists go unpunished.

Alex Lantier is a senior political analyst with wsws.org, the informational arm of the Social Equality Party.

An interview with Asbjørn Wahl

Vladimir Simovic and Darko Vesic (VS and DV): Norway is considered as one of the most successful (economically, socially, etc.) countries in Europe and beyond. As such Norway is usually taken as a model for other countries to look up to. But the real question would be is Norway an exception in this age of neoliberal capitalism and the crisis it generated?

Asbjørn Wahl (AW): Norway is currently in a better position than most other countries in the world. There are two important reasons for that. Firstly, Norway is well-endowed by nature. Particularly, we are for the time being a wealthy oil-producing country (but also rich in fish resources and hydro-electric energy). This gives the government a huge annual surplus which most countries can envy us. The oil and oil-related industries also create jobs at a rate which keeps unemployment among the lowest in the world, at about or under 3 per cent. This low unemployment rate means that the trade unions are still relatively strong at the bargaining table.

Secondly, Norway was already among the most developed welfare states when oil was first found (in the 1960s). The balance of power in society was in other words of a sort which made it possible to socialize most of the oil revenue, different from the situation in many other oil-producing countries where big oil companies and/or local elites are able to expropriate most of the extraordinary high economic rent and profit from this industry. There has therefore neither been necessary, nor politically possible, to implement the same sort of harsh austerity policies in Norway as we can see in most of the rest of Europe. The relatively big public sector then, contrary to mainstream neoliberal theory, also contributed to stabilizing the economy and reducing the negative effects of the financial crisis from 2008, and extra oil revenue was put into the public economy in 2008-2009 to further dampen the effects of the crisis.

On the other hand, also in Norway we have seen more or less soft neoliberal policies pursued by governments – both right and so-called left – over the last 30 years. Liberalization, deregulation and privatization have taken place. The pension system has been reformed and thus weakened (reduced pensions for most people, less redistribution from the top to the bottom, more individual risk etc.). So-called New Public Management methods have been introduced in the public sector, so that for example the hospital sector has been more market-oriented; inequality and child poverty has increased, and so on. All this has taken place in a more modest way than in the rest of Europe, but the direction is the same.

My view is that the currently favourable situation in Norway is rather fragile. The country is deeply integrated in the European and World economy and thus strongly influenced by the neoliberal offensive. A further set-back in the world economy can hurt Norway’s export heavily. If so, unemployment will increase rapidly and the trade union movement can thus be weakened considerably, a trade union movement which is still deeply embedded in the social partnership ideology, and thus less able to mobilize for more confrontational struggles if and when that becomes a necessity. I often frame the Norwegian situation in this way: Yes, it is true that the Norwegian welfare model for the time being stays on the upper deck of the global ship. But it may be the upper deck of Titanic.

VS and DV: Similarly to this specific position of Norway today, we can say that specific historical conditions enabled the rise of welfare state after Second World War. Can you tell us something about the emergence of the welfare state?

AW: The history of the welfare state is very much linked to the class compromise between labour and capital which developed in most of Western Europe in the 1930s or immediately after World War II. [Ed.: see “Rise and Fall of the Welfare State”] Thus the rise of the welfare state also in Norway was strongly influenced by global power relations (including the Russian revolution and the following existence of another, competing economic system in Central and Eastern Europe – including the need for capitalists in the West to gather support from its own working-class in the Cold War against the Soviet Union). Simultaneously, there were also many national peculiarities which gave the welfare states different forms and contents in the various countries – and also different levels of developments. Even if there were many similarities in the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Sweden and Norway), there were therefore also differences here.

Norway has historically never had a strong upper class, neither during feudalism nor under capitalism. In a small and sparsely populated country small peasants have formed an important, independent and self-confident group. In the 1930s, we had a very strong growth and strengthening of the trade union and labour movement – based on a class alliance of workers, small peasants and locally based fishermen who owned their own boats. One of the effects of this development was that fascism never became strong in Norway. Another effect was that the main employers’ association decided to strike a deal with the trade union movement (in 1935) – the then formalization of a mature class compromise. At about the same time, the Labour Party won sufficient support to form its first government in Norway. It was on the basis of this compromise and these power relations that the welfare state was developed in Norway.

At the global level it was the threat of socialism which made capitalists in Western Europe go for a class compromise (as a lesser evil in their view). We should also have in mind that the welfare state was never the demand of the working-class before it was established. What the working-class fought for was socialism. ”

Thus, global and national circumstances played together to form the preconditions of the welfare state. At the global level it was the threat of socialism which made capitalists in Western Europe go for a class compromise (as a lesser evil in their view). We should also have in mind that the welfare state was never the demand of the working-class before it was established (not even the notion ‘welfare state’ existed). What the working-class fought for was socialism. As we know, this was not achieved. The welfare state then became the result of the historically very specific development which rather led to the historic compromise between labour and capital. Thus the welfare state itself is a compromise of interests. That is also the reason why the welfare state is so many-facetted and full of contradictions. While it represented enormous social progress for most ordinary people, it is maybe time now also to remind a rather modest labour movement that the welfare state does not represent, and has never represented the emancipation of the working-class.

VS and DV: In the given circumstances of contemporary class dynamics is it realistic to expect the return of welfare system which was dominant in the third quarter of the 20th century?

AW: My view is that the era of the welfare state is over, or at least it is coming to an end now. What we see particularly in the most crisis-ridden countries of Europe, is the systematic destruction of the welfare state. The rise of the welfare state was, as mentioned above, the result of a historically very specific development which can hardly be copied in any way. The welfare state then became possible due to comprehensive regulations and restrictions which were imposed upon capital (capital control, regulation of financial markets, bank regulation, a rapid expansion of public ownership in many countries and – not to forget – democratic reforms which gave ordinary people more influence in politics). The changes of power relations in society which we have experienced since the neoliberal offensive started around 1980 have abolished most of these regulations, so the power structure on which the welfare state was based, has already disappeared.

What we experience now is more or less the harvesting period of capitalist and right wing political forces, in which they exploit the new balance of power to get rid of the best parts of the welfare state (not all of it – it was the result of a compromise, so it does also reflect capitalist interests here and there). To fight for a re-establishment of the welfare state in the current situation is therefore relatively meaningless. Of course we have to defend what we achieved through the welfare state, but our more long-term task is to re-establish our vision of another society, a society which is directed toward meeting peoples’ needs – and the strategies to get there.

VS and DV: For the time being it is certain that the system is moving in the different direction – austerity measures, imposed under the pretext of crisis, eliminate the last trace of welfare state. Is the crisis used as an excuse to concentrate the power in the hands of the dominant class?

AW: Yes, it certainly is. I see that many politicians and trade unionists, also on the left, today say that the austerity policy of the Troika (the EU Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund) as well as of most governments in Europe is mistaken, because it will not contribute to regaining economic growth and creating jobs. They therefore try to convince the Troika and EU politicians to change policy. I think that is a grave misinterpretation of the situation. The short term aim of the Troika is not economic growth and jobs, it is actually to abolish the welfare state and defeat the trade union movement. At least, that is what is going on.

VS and DV: Dominant interpretation of the post-socialist reality in Serbia is that we are still on our way to the “genuine capitalism” and that EU integration is going to resolve most of the economic and social problems of our society. From your point of view what does the EU represent today?

AW: This sounds like a political fairy tale to me. What is “genuine capitalism”? Is it the post World War II welfare capitalism (which is now history), or is it the much more harsh, brutal and crisis-ridden capitalism we see unfolding around us today (and which Samir Amin has named “generalized monopoly capitalism”)? To believe that EU integration will create a prosperous future for Serbia, given what is now going on in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, the Baltic countries, Hungary, Bulgaria etc., really requires a big portion of unfounded optimism.

Even if the EU was established already in 1958 (the EEC), and with more positive aims, the EU of today has got most of its form (pacts and institutions) and contents during the neoliberal era, something which is strongly reflected in its power structure, its policies and legislation. It therefore aggressively acts in the interest of capital. Neoliberalism and austerity policies are more or less constitutionalized in the EU today, and Keynesianism (or traditional social democratic policies) is banned by law (interestingly enough supported by all the social democratic parties in the EU). The fact that the EU already from the outset had a deep democratic deficit, has given it an important advantage in this regard. Furthermore, over the last couple of years the EU has moved rapidly toward a more and more authoritarian supranational state body in the interest of primarily financial capital – a development which is extremely dangerous seen in the light of recent history in Europe.

VS and DV: We witness mass mobilizations and protests all around EU. Trade unions have major role in these events. Can you tell us how much have trade unions and their strength and position in society changed in last half a century? How much austerity measures, imposed by the troika, further paralyze trade unions and leave workers without their basic weapon for protection of their rights?

AW: The trade union movement is under enormous attacks in Europe today. The European Court of Justice has limited the right to strike. Collective agreements in the public sector have been set aside by governments in at least ten EU member countries, while wages have been cut, all without negotiations with trade unions. Legislation is being introduced at national level in a number of countries in order to limit the right to strike and to be able to use more extreme measures to curb strikes by police forces and so on.

In addition to this, capitalist forces are given ever more power in society, and regulations are introduced at the EU level, something which makes it easier to exploit the enormous wage gap between Eastern and Western Europe for social dumping in the west.

This has provoked increasing mobilization and struggles from trade unions and social movements in many countries. However, the trade union movement in Europe has been strongly weakened during the neoliberal era and fights from a very defensive position. High unemployment and enormous loss of union members represent an important part of the picture. So far there has therefore not been possible to develop a coordinated cross-European resistance, even if the 14 November actions last year represented an important step in the right direction – when trade unions in six EU countries (Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Malta) carried out a joint general strike while unions in many other countries mobilized for demonstrations.

Both at the European and national level, most trade union confederations are strongly influenced by the social partnership ideology, putting a meaningless high priority on so-called social dialogue in a situation in which employers mainly have withdrawn from the class compromise and gone on the offensive to attack – day and night – what they previously accepted in the name of the social pact. In the current situation, this represents a dead end for the trade union movement.

The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) has even launched a new ‘Social Compact,’ that is a new class compromise, as its main aim for campaigning. It seems as if they aim to convince employers and politicians that a new class compromise (of the post World War II sort) will be “in everybody’s interests.” Given the enormous struggles and the shift in the balance of power which took place prior to the previous compromise, this sounds pretty uninformed, to put it mildly.

VS and DV: What would be your suggestions for further organizing? Is it possible to bend the stick, which is now significantly on the side of capital, back to balance? But in the end should we be satisfied with the balance or continue to push things forward?

AW: I should have liked to say that I have the answer, but there is no quick fix. We are very much on the defensive today, and it will take time to organize, to mobilize and to build the social strength necessary to be able to meet the confrontational attacks from capital and states – and thus to turn the tide. There is a lot of organizational work to do among workers, including the growing groups of precarious and informal workers, unemployed, youth and so on. Then we have to build strong social alliances, firstly in the trade union movement itself – and then with other social movements (the on-going Alter Summit process is an interesting project in this regard at the European level). Based on what I have already mentioned, the trade union movement will also have to break with its social partnership ideology, which in reality today represents an un-workable reminiscent of a class compromise which is already history. This will require quite a lot of internal discussions in the trade union movement.

However, reality itself will assist us in this discussion, as the massive attacks which are now being launched upon the best parts of the welfare state, upon workers, women, youth – and not least upon the trade union movement, will provoke resistance in ever more groups in society. This is the start of a new era of social struggle. Social models, however, cannot be copied, neither from previous phases in history, nor from country to country. Social models are the concrete results of struggles and power relations in society. Therefore, there is no ‘back to balance,’ in the meaning of a re-establishment of the post war class compromise and the welfare state. That is what we did have, but we do not have it any more, exactly because such a social compromise was not, and can never be, a stable balance. The reality that we are now losing the welfare state is proof enough that we did not go far enough last time. The main problem was that the question of ownership was not addressed in full. Social ownership of banks and other financial institutions as well as of the means of production will therefore have to be put on the agenda again – and democracy, real democracy, to correct previous mistakes in the emancipatory struggles of the working-class. •

The interview was conducted by Vladimir Simovic and Darko Vesic from Centre of the Politics of Emancipation (CPE), Serbia, and translated by the Transform Network.