Alasbarricadas - We echo this historical review on the various positions that the CNT-FAI took along the Spanish Revolution. It is not usually easy to understand the complexity of a historical moment in which so many things were happening at the same time. We consider basic to understand the tactical ups and downs of any revolutionary movement in a historical moment in order to be able to learn something for our future struggles.

The article is not an academic one, but it sheds light on some little-known facts about how the CNT navigated 1938, in terms of tactics and strategy. This period has usually been completely erased, automatically branded as obscure, shameful, claudicating or bureaucratic without any attempt to understand what the libertarian organisations were actually doing. It is assumed that the drift of the war and, as the article says, the pessimism that surrounded the organisation from mid-1937 onwards, resulted in a shift in the strategic line of the libertarian movement to approaches as different from libertarian communism as could be the "trade union state" or corporate socialism.

We know that this article is the tip of the iceberg of a world that cannot be explained in a struggle of the good guys against the bad guys. Everything is full of nuances. We miss an explanation on the opposition to this shift. But to have treated that opposition as it deserves would have diverted the article from conveniently (and at a manageable length) presenting us the official line of the Movimiento Libertario Español (MLE) of '37 and '38.

And by the way, even if this history presents us with an unclear evolution towards bureaucratism and centralism, we are still amazed at with the enormous capacity of those people who built up our organisations and managed the daily lives of millions of people. Because, it must be said, when there was supposedly no social revolution any more, there were still hundreds of thousands of people living in collectivisations and a large part of industry was still under workers' control.

In order to give you an insight into the debates and to be able to elaborate further in-depth studies, https://mega.nz/folder/FwRXkQBS#xk2IN6lpYZmEJYP-IaTW3g.

Miguel G. Gómez (@BlackSpartak)

The aim of this article is to shed light on the political-economic project followed by the National Confederation of Labour (CNT) during the Spanish Civil War. We will avoid giving a reading by refering to fetish words such as "betrayal of principles" or "opportunism", that do not explain the reality of the internal processes and even less the strategic turns of a mass organisation.

When the CNT came out of the Zaragoza Congress in May 1936 it seemed that the internal debates on how to apply ideology to the specifity of Spanish reality had been definitively settled. At this congress the most important thing, on a theoretical level, was the https://sindicalismo.org/2021/01/02/concepto-confederal-del-comunismo-libertario/. In this document an outline was made of what a society governed by anarchist principles should be like.

The general atmosphere in the spring of 1936 was one of strong social contestation at all levels and spirits were certainly very high. The possibility of revolution was by no means a chimera. Anarchist theorists such as https://www.solidaridadobrera.org/ateneo_nacho/libros/Christiaan%20Cornelissen%20-%20Comunismo%20libertario%20y%20regimen%20de%20transicion.pdf, https://es.scribd.com/document/383847137/Isaac-Puente-El-Comunismo-Libertario, http://memorialibertaria.org/content/orob%C3%B3n-fern%C3%A1ndez-valeriano or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B14Synwe1mHzeEE3aDlFODhHZFU/edit?resourcekey=0-jnTO1rT4IVk5zXcTSX02GA had been sketching out models of a libertarian communist society for years, but they did not quite agree among themselves. In Saragossa, a model of libertarian communism based more on the ideas of Isaac Puente than on those of the others was advocated.

The general characteristics of the model were the abolition of private property and the establishment of communes as fundamental elements of the new society. At the industrial level, each production centre would have a technical-administrative council appointed in assembly by the company's staff. They would coordinate with other centres through the federations of industry - which in 1936 were very little developed. In their description they do not make clear the role of the trade unions from this point onwards, and it is understood that they would be dissolved given the achievement of libertarian communism.

Some sectors such as education, transport, construction, among others, would escape general industrial planning and would be more linked to local or communal spheres.

The basic point, as has been said, was the commune, which would have to confederate territorially in an Iberian Confederation of Libertarian Autonomous Communes. This would be the body that would replace the state at the administrative level. The communes would be in charge of governing the problems affecting life in a democratic way, from the bottom up, always taking into account the interests of those affected.

As for distribution, the Saragossa Congress did not accept the Kropotkinian concept of "the seizure of the heap". Instead, it opted for a charter of the producer and the consumer which would have to be managed by the communes by means of purchasing vouchers. It is worth noting that they did not mention the figure of the cooperative.

For the time being, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treintism had been silenced. It accepted this decision of the libertarian trade union movement. They also supported the proposal of the CNT to initiate a rapprochement with the UGT to form a trade union alliance of a revolutionary character. For the Opposition trade unionists (treintistas), the important thing of the Congress was to reintegrate into the anarcho-syndicalist trade union centre.

All this was the theoretical basis for the Spanish Revolution of 1936. At the beginning of June there was the great wave of factory occupations in France. It was thought that the social revolution was going to break out in that country. But in the end it took place in Spain when the Fascist military uprising was defeated in much of the country.

The great dilemma facing the Cenetistas in the early days of the war was whether to seize power, as Joan García Oliver proposed in his "go for everything", or whether to establish an anti-fascist pact, as Federica Montseny or Mariano Vázquez proposed. However, the proposal that received most support was that of Manuel Escorza, which assumed the anti-fascist pact in the public and formal spheres, while the economy and the militias would remain under workers' control. In other words, it was decided to carry out the social revolution while collaborating in the defeat of fascism with others.

This decision was taken because of the difficulty of foreseeing what was going to happen in other Spanish territories. If in Catalonia the CNT was hegemonic and had the upper hand, in other areas of the Peninsula (since the islands and north Africa had come under the control of the fascist rebels) the CNT did not see itself capable of imposing the libertarian revolution. We say impose, precisely because that was what García Oliver was proposing, and although they could do it in Catalonia, it was quite another thing to try to do it in Madrid or Valencia. Let us also understand that at that time military victory was taken for granted. It was worth waiting.

So it was the libertarian movement that proposed to the rest of the anti-fascist forces the creation of a new body called the Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias, which gradually took on other powers beyond the purely military question, for example, the War Industries Commission. But this body was not a dual power, it duplicated the existing power, the Generalitat (the catalan governmnet), without questioning or threatening it. Moreover, the anarcho-syndicalist movement collaborated with the Generalitat to manage whole areas of society, such as the economy and education. Thus, in August, both the Consell d'Economia de Catalunya and the Consell de l'Escola Nova Unificada were created, both led by personalities from the libertarian movement. In addition, let's note that the CNT did not formally participate in the Government of the Generalitat until the Regional Plenum of Trade Unions on 24 September. In other words, anarcho-syndicalism was participating in (and directing) ministries of the Generalitat before it formally belonged to the Consell de la Generalitat.

In this first period, the "brief summer of anarchy", there was a multitude of voluntary expropriations of companies. Many bosses had left the country, because of their sympathy for the fascists coup plotters and their fear of being arrested and executed by the masses of workers. When their companies were left without management, many were simply confiscated. In the Official Gazette, the DOGC, the Generalitat itself accepted these collectivisations and even accepted the occupation of land owned by the people who had disappeared from their villages. This was the practical origin of a multitude of land collectivisations in Catalonia. Even the ERC-controlled town councils accepted this situation without major problems [ERC was the governing political party in Catalonia].

At the same time, other areas of the peninsula caught the contagion of the social revolution (until september it had been largely political, in the form of a democratic rupture). While in many Valencian industrial towns and cities things happened in a similar way to Catalonia, in other places the revolution was driven from outside (Aragon), or was driven both by a minoritarian CNT and by a majoritarian UGT radicalised by its ranks (Asturias, Andalusia, Castile, Extremadura, or Murcia). In any case, the revolution was such an indisputable fact that almost all the republican organisations supported it verbally. They differed in the model of revolution. The revolution was not the same for Esquerra Republicana (ERC) than for the Marxists of the POUM or even for the Soviet communists (who also used the term of National Revolution). But the majority model was the one promoted by the CNT. In many places where collectivisation was carried out in the name of both CNT and UGT the accepted formula was the one of the first organisation.

This plurality of initiatives had to be systematised in some way. The CNT itself recognised this and held union plenary meetings very frequently to establish criteria for functioning, clarify misunderstandings and resolve the resulting conflicts of interest. The flood of affiliation was such that many people came from new affiliations without knowing either the CNT principles or the previous agreements.

A major step in bringing order to this revolutionary process was the https://colectivizaciones.blogspot.com/2009/05/2-el-decreto-de-colectivizaciones.html of 24 October [https://dogc.gencat.cat/.content/continguts/serveis/republica/1936/19360302.pdf]. It was drafted by Joan P. Fábregas and is a model for establishing a transition to trade union-based socialism. First of all, it regulates collectivised companies, which will have a Works Council. If they are not collectivised, and ownership remains private, a Workers' Control Committee would be set up. All those enterprises whose owners had been declared fascists, all those employing more than a hundred workers and those between 50 and 100 workers if three quarters of their workers so decided in a general assembly, would be collectivised. The rest would only be collectivised if accepted by the owner.

The trade unions would be represented on the Works Council according to their location and would assume responsibility for the management of the company. General Councils of Industry would exist in all branches of industry in order to plan production. In order to facilitate the organisation of these General Councils, the figure of the Grouping of Industries (Agrupación) was accepted. Similar industries could be united under the same legal formula.

The acceptance of an auditor from the Generalitat in all the collectivised companies could be seen as a controversial point. We'll go there now. Another factor of state interventionism could be seen in the Industry Councils themselves, which would have to have 4 delegates from the councils of the companies in that branch, 8 from the trade unions (according to their affiliation) and 4 from the Generalitat appointed by the Economy Council, which would preside over this Industry Council.

We said that this was a controversial point, since while the Consell d'Economia was directed by Joan P. Fábregas there was a clear direction towards socialisation. Therefore, the representatives of the Generalitat also came with this task, breaking any isolationism and corporatism or overcoming workers fears and reluctancy to manage companies.

But everything changed on 17 December 1936, when Fábregas was dismissed by the new President of the Generalitat, Tarradellas. The new Consell de la Generalitat replaced Fábregas with Diego Abad de Santillán, who did not share his same vision and did not have the same technical skills for the job. In addition, a few weeks later Tarradellas launched the battery of https://gredos.usal.es/bitstream/handle/10366/79963/Aproximacion_a_los_decretos_de_S%C2%B4Agaro.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, substantially modifying Catalonia's financial and fiscal character. The collectivisations would be subject to a kind of syndical capitalism controlled by the Generalitat, without going as far as socialisation, which was what the CNT wanted. In a report in the autumn of 1938, the cenetistas said that the Generalitat had only legalised about a hundred of the 500 or so grouping of industries that existed in Catalonia. The government boycott of the revolution was manifest.

At the time, there were two apparently contradictory dynamics. On the one hand, there was strong pressure to unify the CNT and UGT unions into a single central. During November and December 1936 there were some local branch unions that were CNT-UGT, as if they were one and the same. However, this process came to a screeching halt in the winter, and the unions went their separate ways again. The other process was the spread of the collectivist revolution over large territories in Aragon, Valencia and Castile, places where anarchism at the local level had been marginal and where libertarian collectivities were now being formed non-stop.

At the end of February 1937 the CNT held a Regional Plenum of Trade Unions in Catalonia. On the one hand, it reorganised the structure of the Industry Unions and favoured the reappearance of the Industry Federations. On the other hand, it continued to hold out its hand to the UGT, which did not seem to take notice. The truth is that in Catalonia the UGT was dominated by the stalinist PSUC, so reaching out to that trade union centre was not going to work, not even by appealing to the rank and file. In any case, there was also a general commitment to socialise the economy as much as possible. This project could only be carried out at the local level in a few cities and at the general level it was quite advanced in the wood industry. And in half of Aragon, of course.

But the political situation did not help these economic reorganisation projects. The May Days 1937 brought all these revolutionary advances to a halt. The CNT even lost the ministry of Economy of the Generalitat, Santillán being replaced by the stalinist Joan Comorera. The CNT in Catalonia reacted by centralising and creating a Political Advisory Commission in July to manage day-to-day decisions of a political-strategic nature.

In September the momentous National Plenum of the Libertarian Movement took place in Valencia. The importance of this plenary session lays in the change in the Confederation's strategic line. The context was the defeat in Barcelona in May Days, the attack on the collectives in Aragon in August, the presence of thousands of cenetistas in Republican prisons, and in short the pessimistic realisation that the CNT could only count on its own forces and that nobody would help it. And in this "nobody" they included both the IWA and the international libertarian movement, given its small size. They could not offer more help than they had done in 1936-37, and it was not enough. That is why they created a few months later the SIA, Solidarity International Antifascist, in order to broaden this international sympathising base a little more.

The Plenum accepted the reality that it was not possible to impose a single economic system in Spain and that various socio-economic projects (republican, liberal, marxist socialist or cooperativist) would have to coexist. It was proposed to create a Technical Advisory Council made up of representatives of workers' organisations, the state and the municipalities. The idea was that some branches of the economy should be nationalised and others municipalised. The monopoly of foreign trade was also intended, in line with the project of Fábregas himself in the previous autumn. Another aspect was the acceptance of cooperativism as a necessary link between consumer and producer in order to avoid speculation.

This opinion, which came out of the Plenary, was in line with the report accepted at the National Plenary of the Regionals, also held in Valencia that same month. A war economy was imposed and a sort of merger with the State was accepted. These decisions were applauded by other political forces. The CNT was prepared to change its political line in order to win the war, something that any other organisation could say, however much they may have written against the CNT for making the revolution, which was its historical project.

In this sense, we see how this programme fits more with http://federalistesdesquerres.blogspot.com/2018/04/joan-peiro-la-seva-visio-federal-de.html's theory or proposal of the Iberian Federal Social Republic. This is a federalism not only on a territorial basis but also on an economic basis. Peiró accepted that there could be territories managed in the way the socialists or republicans wanted if in exchange there were others that could be managed in the way anarcho-syndicalism proposed.

The CNT https://es.scribd.com/doc/310213666/CNT-FAI-Manual-Del-Militante-1937">Militant. Ángel Pestaña had broken away from Treintismo a few months earlier in order to create his Syndicalist Party in January 1934 and therefore remained on the sidelines of all these debates and eventually had no influence on the strategic line of the CNT, while Treintismo eventually did.

The next milestone was the http://cgtcatalunya.cat/memoriahistorica/fonts/libros/madrid-2576.pdf. As far as the economy was concerned, the most important thing was the restructuring of the industrial federations and above all the creation - formally on 15 February - of the Confederal Economic Council, CEC. The CNT argued that there should be an National Economic Council at spanish state level like the one that existed in Catalonia, but since neither Negrín's government nor the UGT had any intention of making a move in this direction, at least the Libertarian Movement would do it on its own. Thus, the CNT promoted Local and County Councils of Economy, which would be federated at the Regional level and then confederated in the CEC. We would add that at this time the CAP changed to the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Movement, which was part of this process of centralisation.

Proposed by https://archive.org/details/C002606272_201803/page/n9/mode/2up, the CEC served to organise the large number of collectivised companies, collective workshops, socialised industries, gardens and fields, warehouses, cooperatives, agricultural unions and economic initiatives of all kinds controlled or promoted by the Libertarian Movement. By then the movement was an economic power. The most important matters dealt with by the CEC were legislation and arbitration; currency, credit and welfare; exploitation of industries and services; raw materials and substitutes; and distribution and foreign trade. Each of these subjects had a commission. Each Regional was to have its own CEC which would be coordinated at state level.

They held a large number of meetings and controlled a huge amount of resources. And their projects went beyond these remits. For example, there was the proposal for an Iberian Trade Union Bank (Banco Sindical Ibérico). This project apparently never materialised, but there were several papers in that direction. Many collectivist and cooperativist projects always suffered from great economic hardship and a monetary credit would have allowed the consolidation of important initiatives. A confederal mutual fund was also envisaged as a kind of "social security" for the Confederation's membership.

The Banco Sindical had also been envisaged at the Iberian level, including the UGT. But as we have said, the UGT was never interested in unitary projects of a revolutionary character, so everything was left in the hands (and on the shoulders) of the CNT. The Bank was better posed in the National Plenum of Regionals in August 1938, a plenum which considered the total centralisation of the Confederal economy. Thus, for a local company to buy a product from another town which was not in its district, it had to go to the Regional Committee of Economy, which would be the mediator of the purchase. If a product needed to be purchased from abroad, then it would be the same CEC that would be in charge of dealing with it. We can see the bureaucratic danger in these practices. Returning to the issue of the Trade Union Bank, it should be said that the Central Region developed a Central Confederal Compensation Fund as a previous step to the creation of the Bank.

In August, steps were taken to create Technical-Industrial Schools to train professionals to be able to carry out this task, given that in many localities it was not possible to set up Local Economic Councils because there were no militants with the capacity to do so. And as an exceptional measure, the training of women was encouraged so that they could replace the increasing number of men on the Front in production. This last point was expressly approved by Mujeres Libres. Another opinion adopted at that time was the "intensification" of consumer cooperatives.

Other issues dealt with in these 1938 plenary sessions were family wages and even a definition of what was meant by the "economic concept of the family". The aim was to delink production from the individual workers and pay they according to the nature of their work, disregarding their family and their needs. The family was extended to all persons living under the same roof without the need for kinship. A Technical-Administrative Commission was also formed, which came to have labour inspectors at the disposal of the CEC, to check the conditions of each workplace.

We can conclude by noting that the Libertarian Movement had created a new body, the CEC, with an economic-productive character, detached from the trade unions. In a way, the CNT trade union and the entire Libertarian Movement functioned under the logic of economic management, acting as a real syndicalist state within the Republic.

In short, the CNT of 1938 arrived at a kind of corporative socialism or "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_socialism" (not in the medieval sense but in the sense of trade union control) which advocated the control of the economy by a trade union corporation for each branch of production. Since the Spanish Republic was defeated in 1939, this development could not be tested to its full extent.

The CNT made a balance in the post-war period, which led it to completely reject the turn of 1937 and to return to its libertarian communist line of 1936, which it defended in exile. The praxis of 1938 fell into oblivion, was condemned as a deviation resulting from the context of the war and it has hardly ever been studied in libertarian circles. There is room for many more studies on this subject, since it was a first-class experiment in economic planning, managed by libertarians.

madera.png 0.05 Mb grafico.png 0.17 Mb plano.png 0.27 Mb

Una crítica anarquista vietnamita al llamado “socialismo” de Vietnam. A translation of Mèo Mun's article “The Broken Promises of Vietnam” into Spanish. Translated by Grupo Anarquista Aurora., an anarchist group (linked to IFA/IAF) in Murcia.

Vietnam, año 2021, el ambiente parece ser de optimismo. La incesante búsqueda del gobierno de una estrategia de “cero-COVID” le ha valido la aprobación generalizada tanto a nivel nacional como internacional. La economía ha logrado un crecimiento positivo, mientras que muchos de sus vecinos han sufrido el declive de la pandemia. Sin embargo, debajo de toda esta bravuconería, se puede percibir que algo falla. Hay una sensación persistente que nadie parece ser capaz de identificar. Casi como si hubiera un fantasma rondando Vietnam, el fantasma del comunismo, el verdadero, sin campanas ni silbatos.

Como observó astutamente Emma Goldman, en la URSS no había comunismo. Lo mismo puede decirse del Vietnam actual. El partido en el poder –el Partido Comunista de Vietnam (PCV)– se ha desviado durante mucho tiempo de la senda del comunismo.

Antes de que el actual líder del partido asuma su tercer mandato (2020-2025), formuló una ambiciosa hoja de ruta, en la que para 2045 Vietnam se convertiría en un país “desarrollado”, a la altura de Japón, Corea del Sur y Singapur. Para nosotros, los radicales, esto es una traición a la clase obrera, a los pueblos indígenas y a los grupos marginados que tanto sacrificaron por la revolución de Vietnam. Pero como dirían los marxistas-leninistas de ojos brillantes y convicción inflexible, todo eso forma parte del plan™ y 2045 será el tan esperado año en que Vietnam avance finalmente hacia un país sin clases, sin dinero y sin Estado.

Sin embargo, una mirada más atenta a la sociedad vietnamita actual mostraría que el plan no es más que una ilusión, y las promesas son una mera justificación para que la clase dominante y la clase capitalista sigan chupando la vida de Vietnam durante un tiempo más. La diferencia entre lo que predican las élites del partido y lo que permiten que ocurra en la realidad es la que existe entre el día y la noche.

A medida que la economía de Vietnam crece a pasos agigantados, también lo hace el abismo entre los ricos y los pobres. Y ninguna cantidad de bienestar y regulación puede detener la acumulación de capital o invertir el flujo de riqueza de las manos de muchos a las de unos pocos. En ningún lugar se manifiesta esta acumulación de forma más generalizada que en el sistema de propiedad de la tierra. Este sistema permite arrebatar el control de la tierra a los campesinos y a la gente común a cambio de una escasa compensación y entregarla a los capitalistas, que a menudo obtienen muchos más beneficios. Por todo el país surgieron lujosos edificios residenciales, pero pocos de los desplazados por ellos pueden permitirse mudarse. El multimillonario Phạm Nhật Vượng, cuya familia posee tanta riqueza como 800.000 vietnamitas, no podría haber construido su imperio sin que las propiedades públicas le llegaran al bolsillo de esta manera.

El ya precario ecosistema de Vietnam y las comunidades indígenas también pagan un alto precio por este rápido desarrollo económico. El plan para el sector eléctrico hasta 2045 daba alguna concesión a las energías renovables mientras apoyaba la construcción de muchas nuevas centrales de carbón, ignorando su enorme huella de CO2 y las numerosas advertencias sobre la relación entre la energía del carbón y la niebla de PM2,5 que cubre las grandes ciudades, amenazando el bienestar de millones de personas.

A mediados de la década de 2010, cientos de pequeñas centrales hidroeléctricas surgieron en la zona montañosa que rodea el país para saciar a las ciudades y fábricas ávidas de energía. Estas centrales no sólo perturbaron la red fluvial y privaron de sedimentos esenciales a las tierras agrícolas situadas aguas abajo, sino que también causaron daños incalculables a las comunidades indígenas durante su construcción y funcionamiento. Las plantas de energía solar en Ninh Thuận despojaron a los indígenas Chăm de sus tierras de cultivo. El delta del Mekong, principal zona de cultivo de arroz de Vietnam, se enfrenta a una amenaza existencial por las numerosas presas que se están construyendo aguas arriba en Tailandia y China. Y al mismo tiempo que se ratifica un proyecto nacional para plantar mil millones de árboles, se conceden numerosas autorizaciones a los capitalistas para que puedan transformar miles de hectáreas de tierras agrícolas y forestales en complejos turísticos y campos de golf.

Detrás de todo esto hay un fuerte sentimiento de nacionalismo, una herramienta eficaz para silenciar cualquier crítica significativa contra el Estado, un valor que puede utilizarse para socavar la lucha de otras personas en nombre de un abstracto bien mayor. El nacionalismo se ha convertido en el valor que determina la valía de un ciudadano vietnamita.

Fue el nacionalismo lo que catapultó al Việt Minh al poder durante la década de 1940. Fue el nacionalismo lo que motivó a millones de jóvenes vietnamitas a poner el interés de la nación por encima del suyo propio al lanzarse contra el imperialismo extranjero. Desde los primeros días del Partido, se ha hecho un esfuerzo constante por cultivar un fuerte sentimiento de nacionalismo en todas partes.

El nacionalismo está en el plan de estudios de los niños vietnamitas, en nuestras canciones, poemas, arte y en todos los medios de comunicación. Uno de los mayores éxitos del Partido ha sido la fusión de la identidad nacional y la lealtad al partido. Los capitalistas vietnamitas modernos, como VinGroup o BKAV, han seguido el ejemplo de la maquinaria de propaganda estatal y han incorporado elementos nacionalistas en la comercialización de sus productos.

Irónicamente, son los nacionalistas los que se declaran herederos de la revolución “comunista” de Vietnam, y sin embargo son el grupo que más se manifiesta en contra de todos y cada uno de los ideales radicales, como la liberación de los animales, la liberación del género y la sexualidad, la autonomía indígena, la despenalización del trabajo sexual y la solidaridad con las luchas internacionales, como las de Hong Kong o Myanmar. La persuasión nacionalista se transformó, como era de esperar, en una fuerza contrarrevolucionaria y reaccionaria que se vestía de rojo.

Las víctimas vulnerables del nacionalismo vietnamita son, entre otras, las siguientes:

Las personas queer, que siguen sufriendo un alto grado de discriminación en Vietnam. Los recientes avances en la liberación del género y la sexualidad han venido en gran medida de la mano de elementos liberales, como el movimiento del Orgullo, que no es más que una estratagema de marketing para empresas extranjeras y locales. Cambios sustanciales, como el reconocimiento de las familias homosexuales y de las necesidades médicas de los transexuales como derechos, se han retrasado una y otra vez para dar prioridad a “asuntos más urgentes”.
Las trabajadoras del sexo, estigmatizadas y señaladas por la policía. A ojos de la sociedad patriarcal vietnamita, el trabajo sexual no se reconoce como un trabajo, sino como una mera dolencia inmoral que hay que eliminar. En consecuencia, se culpa al trabajo sexual de la propagación de enfermedades de transmisión sexual como el VIH, y los trabajadores del sexo, especialmente los queer, son arrojados al margen de la sociedad.
Las comunidades indígenas, que han sido el blanco de las políticas expansionistas de Kinh (o Việt) desde la época del feudalismo, no encuentran ninguna seguridad bajo el gobierno “antiimperialista” del Estado actual. Y lo que es peor, la opresión a la que se enfrentan se ha intensificado, ya que el Estado dispone de nuevas y más eficaces herramientas para neutralizar cualquier resistencia, así como para patrullar proactivamente a la población indígena.

En el extranjero, muchos defensores del “socialismo” vietnamita han sido testigos de estas evidentes señales de alarma y las han ignorado, ya que todo se justifica en nombre del desarrollo de su Estado “socialista” favorito. Esto demuestra una apatía e ignorancia hacia la continua lucha del pueblo vietnamita por una sociedad justa, por no hablar del abrazo al capitalismo, siempre que se cubra con una bandera roja y se diga que está en contra de las ambiciones imperialistas de “Occidente”, especialmente de Estados Unidos, incluso cuando todos los indicios muestran que el comunismo no está ni estuvo nunca en la agenda.

Al final, existir es en sí mismo una victoria, por lo que se manifiesta un papel, un papel para representar las voces de los radicales vietnamitas. Nos dirigimos a la futura clase obrera, a la juventud, que está perpetuando y a la vez oprimida por el capitalismo y el Estado, para que pueda romper sus cadenas opresivas.

Vietnam 2021, l’humeur général semble être à l’optimisme. La poursuite sans relâche d’une stratégie Zéro-Covid a reçu une approbation répandue autant à l’intérieur du pays qu’à l’international. L’économie a réussi à s’en tirer avec une croissance positive là où ses voisins ont souffert d’un déclin en raison de la pandémie. Mais en dessous de toutes ces fanfaronnades, quelqu’un aurait raison de sentir qu’il y a quelque chose qui cloche. Il y a ce sentiment tenace que personne ne semble être capable de mettre le doigt dessus. Presque comme s’il y avait un spectre qui hantait le Vietnam, le spectre du communisme – le vrai communisme, sans cloche, ni sifflet.

Article de Mèo Mun, traduit par le blogue du Blogue du Collectif Emma Goldman et reproduit ici à leur aimable proposition

Comme Emma Goldman l’avait astucieusement noté, il n’y avait aucun communisme en URSS. La même chose peut être dite du Vietnam d’aujourd’hui. Le parti au pouvoir – le Parti Communiste du Vietnam – a depuis longtemps dévié du chemin vers le communisme.

Avant que le présent chef du Parti ne commence son troisième mandat (2020-2025), il a formulé une ambitieuse feuille de route dans laquelle en 2045 le Vietnam deviendrait un pays « développé », à égalité avec le Japon, la Corée du sud et Singapour. Pour nous, les radicaux et radicales, il s’agit d’une trahison envers la classe ouvrière, les peuples Autochtones et les groupes marginalisés qui ont tant sacrifié pour la révolution vietnamienne. Mais, comme les marxistes-léninistes aux yeux clairs et aux convictions inflexibles vous le diraient, tout cela fait partie du plan© et 2045 sera l’année tant attendue où le Vietnam évoluera finalement en un pays sans classe sociale, sans argent et sans État.

Quoiqu’il en soit, un regard plus approfondi sur la société vietnamienne d’aujourd’hui démontre que ce plan est complètement illusoire et que les promesses ne sont que de simples justifications pour la classe dirigeante et la classe capitaliste pour continuer de vampiriser le Vietnam encore plus longtemps. La différence entre ce que les élites du Parti prêchent et ce qu’ils permettent d’arriver dans la réalité est comme le jour et la nuit.

Tandis que l’économie du Vietnam croît par bonds, ainsi croît l’écart abyssal entre les riches et les pauvres. Et aucun montant d’aide sociale et de régulation ne peut arrêter l’accumulation du capital ou le flot inversé de la richesse des mains de la majorité vers celles de quelques-uns. Nulle part cette accumulation ne se manifeste de manière aussi omniprésente que dans le système de propriété des terres. Ce système permet que le contrôle des terres soit arraché des mains des paysans et des gens ordinaires en échange de compensations minimes et donné aux capitalistes qui font souvent plusieurs fois plus de profit grâce à celui-ci. Partout dans le pays, de riches bâtiments résidentiels ont poussé, mais très peu parmi les gens déplacés par eux peuvent se permettre d’y emménager. Le milliardaire Pham Nhât Vượng, dont la famille possède la même richesse que 800 000 Vietnamiens et Vietnamiennes, ne pourrait avoir bâti son empire sans que des propriétés publiques soient glissées dans ses poches de cette façon.

Les écosystèmes et les communautés Autochtones déjà précaires du Vietnam paient également un lourd tribut pour ce développement économique rapide. Le plan pour le secteur de l’électricité jusqu’en 2045 a octroyé certaines concessions aux énergies renouvelables tout en soutenant la construction de nouvelles centrales électriques au charbon, soit en ignorant leur énorme empreinte de CO² et les nombreux avertissements quant au lien entre l’énergie du charbon et le brouillard de PM 2.5 [Ndt. les particules fines] qui couvre les grandes villes, menaçant le bien-être de millions de personnes. Vers le milieu des années 2010, des centaines de petites centrales hydroélectriques ont été construites dans les zones montagneuses à travers le pays pour rassasier l’appétit en électricité des villes et des usines. Ces centrales n’ont pas seulement perturbé le réseau de rivières et privé les terres agricoles en aval des sédiments essentiels, mais elles ont aussi causé de grands ravages dont on ne parle pas dans les milieux où vivent les communautés Autochtones durant leur construction et leur opération. Les centrales d’énergie solaire à Ninh Thuận ont volé aux Autochtones Chăm leurs terres de pâturage. Le Delta du Mékong, la principale zone de culture du riz du Vietnam voit présentement son existence menacée par les nombreux barrages qui sont construits en amont en Thaïlande et en Chine. Et, en même temps qu’un projet national de planter un milliard d’arbres est ratifié, les capitalistes ont reçu un grand nombre d’approbations pour leur permettre de transformer des milliers d’hectares de fermes et de forêt en des terrains de golf et des stations balnéaires.

Derrière tout cela se cache un profond sentiment de nationalisme – un outil efficace pour restreindre au silence toute critique significative contre l’État, une valeur qui peut être utilisée pour saper les autres luttes populaires au nom d’un intérêt supérieur abstrait. Le nationalisme est devenu la valeur qui détermine ce que vaut un citoyen Vietnamien / une citoyenne Vietnamienne.

C’est le nationalisme qui a catapulté le Việt Minh [NDT. Ligue pour l’indépendance du Viêt Nam] dans les années 1940. C’est le nationalisme qui a poussé des millions de jeunes Vietnamiens et Vietnamiennes à placer l’intérêt de la nation au-dessus de leur propre intérêt alors qu’ils et elles se sont battu-e-s corps et âme contre l’impérialisme. Depuis les premiers jours du Parti, il y a eu un effort constant pour cultiver un fort sentiment de nationalisme partout. Le nationalisme fait partie du curriculum des enfants du Vietnam, dans nos chansons, nos poèmes, notre art et partout dans les médias. L’un des plus grands succès du Parti a été de semer la confusion entre identité nationale et loyauté au Parti. Chez les capitalistes Vietnamiens contemporains comme VinGroup ou BKAV, on peut observer l’inspiration tirée de la machine de propagande de l’État et l’incorporation d’éléments nationalistes dans le marketing de leurs produits.

Ironiquement, ce sont les nationalistes qui affirment être les héritiers de la révolution « communiste » du Vietnam alors qu’il s’agit pourtant du groupe le plus fermement opposé aux idées radicales comme la libération animale, le genre et la libération sexuelle, l’autonomie des peuples Autochtones, la décriminalisation du travail du sexe et la solidarité internationaliste, avec des luttes comme celles de Hong Kong ou du Myanmar par exemple. La persuasion nationaliste s’est prévisiblement transformée en une force contre-révolutionnaire et réactionnaire se drapant de rouge.

Les victimes du nationalisme vietnamien incluent (non exhaustivement) :
- Les personnes Queer, qui continuent d’être confrontées à un haut niveau de discrimination au Vietnam. Les progrès récents en lien avec le genre et la libération sexuelle sont en grande partie venus d’éléments libéraux, comme le mouvement de la Fierté, qui n’est rien d’autre qu’un stratagème de marketing pour les compagnies locales et étrangères. Des changements substantiels, tels que la reconnaissance de l’homoparentalité et la reconnaissance des besoins médicaux des personnes trans comme des droits passent toujours après « les enjeux qui pressent davantage ».
- Les travailleuses et travailleurs du sexe, qui sont stigmatisé-e-s et ciblé-e-s par la police. Aux yeux de la société patriarcale vietnamienne, le travail du sexe n’est pas reconnu comme du travail, mais comme une simple pathologie morale à éradiquer. En conséquence, le travail du sexe est blâmé pour la propagation d’infections transmissibles sexuellement comme le VIH et les travailleuses et travailleurs du sexe, tout spécialement celles et ceux qui sont Queer, sont marginalisé-e-s.
- Les communautés Autochtones, qui ont subi les assauts des politiques expansionnistes des Viêt depuis la période féodale, ne retrouvent aucune paix sous le régime « anti-impérialiste » de l’État actuel. Pire encore, l’oppression qu’elles subissent s’est intensifiée alors que l’État se dote de nouveaux outils plus efficaces pour neutraliser toute résistance ainsi que pour surveiller proactivement la population Autochtone.

À l’étranger, plusieurs défenseurs et défenseuses du « socialisme » au Vietnam ont été témoins de ces signaux d’alarme évidents, mais les ont ignorés en les considérant comme justifiés au nom du développement de leur État « socialiste » préféré. Cela démontre l’apathie et l’ignorance témoignée envers la lutte continue du peuple Vietnamien pour une société juste, ainsi qu’un soutien au capitalisme tant qu’il est drapé d’un drapeau rouge et qu’il se prétend être opposé aux ambitions impérialistes de « l’Ouest », particulièrement celles des États-unis, même si tout indique que le communisme n’est et n’a jamais été dans les plans.

En terminant, exister est en soi une victoire, voire ainsi un rôle manifeste, un rôle de représenter les voix des militantes radicales et militants radicaux au Vietnam. Nous nous portons vers la prochaine classe ouvrière, la jeunesse, qui à la fois perpétue et est opprimée par le capitalisme et l’État pour qu’elle puisse se libérer des chaînes de l’oppression.

Mèo Mun
Traduction du Blogue du Collectif Emma Goldman

Deux affiches de propagande à Hanoï. Celle de gauche se lit ainsi: « Célébrons le printemps 2021 ». Celle de droite illustre une femme issue d’une minorité ethnique avec son enfant célébrant le Parti. 0.04 Mb confrence_vietnam_1.jpeg 0.04 Mb

This article is about the relation between the state and business. It shows how powerful the business is by imposing its conditions with the help of the rest of economic and financial institutions on the government and the state. The article also highlights the importance of fighting the state by the anarchists.

The State and the Power of Business
By Zaher Baher
March 2021
Recently I was involved in a long discussion with a close friend of mine who is not an anarchist. He believes that the destination of human beings is a kind of socialism but not necessarily the one that anarchists want.
My friend thinks the needs of the state gradually decrease, to the point where it will no longer be necessary to run society by any separate authority, as its members will be fully aware, conscientious and responsible so that all care for each other and society too. Finally, he concluded by saying, "Since society would be run by its members, law makers will become unnecessary”.
Of course, anarchists talk about socialism but in a wider form as it will be a classless and non-hierarchical society. Anarchists do not design the map for future society and how it should be managed. We think and work to create a society that would be controlled by all, where there would be no one in charge to dominate and exploit us; no bosses, no landlords and no government from above. We do not elaborate on how it will be in the future. That would be the task of those who live in that society, how they would organise it and how they would manage themselves.
There are fundamental questions arising here. Will the role of the state diminish when capitalism gets stronger? Will the state disappear gradually or dismantle itself? Has neoliberal theory failed to reduce some or all functions of the state? If so, why do we see the state stronger than ever? There are many more questions to be asked on this subject.
To begin with, I must, very briefly, look at the recent history of the state, liberalism, and neoliberal theories. Many of us know that the state is very old, dating back some 10,000 years, maybe longer it developed through various stages and functioned differently in accordance with the society that the state had emerged from.
However, it took a long time for the modern state to emerge and reach its mature stage.
Whatever stage the state went through, historically or as it is now, there was always a vital struggle between the business sector and the state. Although neither could live without the other, each wanted to subdue the other for its own benefit.
At present the state looks to have completed its functions, its essence once embraced the liberal economy and then the neoliberal theories. While the state was not completely compatible with the business sector in general and with the big corporations in particular, the corporations always tried to find ways to reform the state for their benefit in meeting their aims.
One of the major attempts to reform the economic system, in the last century was neoliberalism. A group of liberals who helped to shape the social market economy put forward a program at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek. They believed in the opportunity of individualism. They found government a major barrier as it prevented individualism. The neoliberal embraces individualism and is opposed to “the collective society,” as Margaret Thatcher put it. In 1944 Hayek, in The Road to Serfdom argued that, “Government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control”
In 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism and it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.
Neoliberalism’s doctrine is very exclusive in aiming to liberate the major sections of the state and privatising them. In short, Hayek’s view is that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies. The ideology of neoliberalism brought financial meltdown, environmental disaster and even the slow collapse of public health and education. Clearly it was waging a war on every front against society; it not only created economic crises, but also caused political crises.
On the other hand, there is Keynesian economic policy, which was developed by the British economist John Maynard Keynes during the 1930s. His theories were a response to the Great Depression and he was highly critical of previous economic theories, which he referred to as “classical economics”. He stated that intervention is necessary to moderate the booms and busts in economic activity.
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Keynes's influence was at its peak, as the developed and emerging capitalist economies enjoyed an exceptionally high rate of growth and low unemployment. Later this was echoed by the then U.S. President Richard Nixon, "We are all Keynesians now"
Keynesian policies did not last long. By the end of the 1960s there was a big change and، the balance began to shift towards the power of private interests. According to the journalists Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson, “1968 was the pivotal year when power shifted in favour of private agents such as currency speculators”. Keynesian economic policies were officially abandoned by the British Government in 1979. So, gradually, Keynesian policies began to crumble, and economic crises deepened. At that time Milton Friedman remarked, “When the time came that you had to change ... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up”.
Once Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services were all supported or promoted by multilateral bodies and treaties, like the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent. Remarkably these policies were adopted among parties that once belonged to the left, including the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. This was expected. As John Major, when he was elected Prime Minister in 1992, famously said “1992 killed socialism in Britain.… Our win meant that between 1992 and 1997 Labour had to change.”
The Chicago School, also known as Chicago boys designed packages for several countries including Egypt and others in South America, particularly Chile. On a visit to Pinochet’s Chile – one of the first nations in which the programme was comprehensively applied, Hayek told a Chilean newspaper that it was possible for a “...dictator to govern in a liberal way...” and that he preferred a “...liberal dictator to a democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism”.
We should not be shocked when Friedman and Hayek happily embraced neoliberal policies as documented by Naomi Klein in 'The Shock Doctrine'. “Neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted: for example, in the aftermath of Pinochet’s coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, which Friedman described as “an opportunity to radically reform the educational system”
After almost forty years, the 2008 financial crash and the Great Recession derailed neoliberalism which lost its force and fell apart. Some governments and economists wanted to go back to Keynesian solutions to tackle the crises of the 21st century. They could not or did not want to understand or simply ignored the reality that last century’s solutions cannot resolve a crisis of the present century. The reason for this is quite clear; it is fundamental to the nature of capitalism itself that, whatever name or shape it takes, it will not work anymore.
Neoliberalism has gone too far and, wherever it was implemented, it brought total disaster. One of these countries was the US where data shows that, “During the neoliberal era, the racial wealth gap did not fare much better. In 1979, the average hourly wage for a black man in the U.S. was 22 percent lower than for a white man. By 2015, the wage gap had grown to 31 percent. For black women, the wage gap in 1979 was only 6 percent; by 2015, it had jumped to 19 percent. Homeownership is one of the central ways that families build wealth over time, yet homeownership rates among African Americans in 2017 were as low as they were before the civil rights revolution, when racial discrimination was legal". The situation was so bad that leading political scientists declared that, “...the U.S. is no longer best characterized as a democracy or a republic but as an oligarchy—a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich”.
Some economists, including Paul Krugman, also argued that economic conditions are like those that existed during the earlier part of the 20th century.
In light of the above, we can see that government and business institutions in any country, in many ways, are interrelated and interdependent. Their unity is much stronger than their division, their conflicts are nothing more than efforts to unite against society. They are inseparable. Corporate executives, political leaders and government officials are all of the same social class.
The state is the main pillar of the system and its economy. It works to facilitate the function of business and increased profits. It is government which shapes business activities, providing a suitable and workable environment for business. The aim of business is to make profit, while government’s goal is to ensure economic stability and growth. Business has a big influence on government when investing heavily in large-scale projects.
Government, directly and indirectly, implements rules and regulations which dictate what business organisations can and cannot do and tries to influence those organisations’ policies with taxation measures.
The main goal of business is to make a profit and the government provides everything for them. Government is even helping to establish companies' production facilities by offering them tax incentives in less developed regions in the country.
As government and politicians want to return to power in coming elections, they need support from business. They want to satisfy corporations and corporations want to play a role in government and have a great influence.
Corporations and the rest of business know very well that the establishment that can protect and maintain them is the government, the state. They know that the police, the laws, the courts, the army, the spy networks, and the education system are all under the control of the state. They know that once they face bankruptcy, the state can bail them out or when they face threats by their own workforces, the state will protect them by whatever means.
They need one another desperately. In today’s global economy, businessmen and entrepreneurs are the driving forces of the economy states have long been the most powerful force in the economy.
Therefore, anarchists insist that the struggle against the system, the ownership of the economy, and the elites, to bring about a classless and non-hierarchical society cannot happen without a struggle against power, authority and the state.
Zaherbaher.com

Mientras la burguesía se prepara para un nuevo plan de ajuste para salir de la crisis económica profundizando la precarización y explotación laboral, el movimiento obrero y popular se muestra ineficaz y replegado. La síntesis de situaciones que se presentan y desaprovechan en la coyuntura de negociación del salario mínimo sigue siendo excepcional, y hay pocos momentos de mayor y más general politización clasista, sentido de comunidad y crítica antigubernamental entre una clase trabajadora precarizada y dividida, que en su mayoría no participa de negociaciones sectoriales o convenciones colectivas de trabajo y por lo tanto tiene en la negociación del salario mínimo su única instancia reivindicativa. Aprovechar esta coyuntura en un sentido clasista y libertario sigue siendo una tarea urgente, y hacer de esto un elemento clave, para resistir mejor la ofensiva patronal en curso.

---

El pasado 29 de diciembre de 2020 el gobierno de Iván Duque decreto un aumento del salario mínimo mensual vigente para el 2021 en Colombia del 3.5%. Esto lleva la remuneración más baja permitida por la ley a 908.526 pesos mensuales, un incremento de 30.723 pesos. El auxilio al transporte se fijó en 106.454 pesos, un incremento de 3.600 pesos. Estas dos cifras que no siempre son pagadas por los empresarios, suponen un aumento de 34.323 pesos netos, fijando el valor del salario mínimo con transporte en 1´014.980 pesos[1]. Esto supone un salario diario de 30.248 pesos y un pago de 3.785 pesos hora ordinaria[2] en un país donde es habitual extender la jornada más de 8 horas sin remuneración adicional y donde las horas extras, nocturnas y dominicales son frecuentemente desconocidas.

El gobierno argumenta que este aumento es de más del doble del crecimiento de la inflación en el año estimada en 2020 que es 1.5% y por lo tanto supondría un incremento neto de 2%. Sin embargo en el promedio general que arrojan las cifras del propio Banco de la República, se registra una inflación al consumidor del 2.5% anual para el año, por lo que en realidad el aumento supondría un incremento del 1%[3]. Según datos de esta misma institución, este es el aumento porcentual más bajo de la historia desde que este piso salarial fue establecido en 1983[4]. El salario mínimo actual equivale a 261.36 dólares y 216.62 euros mensuales, tasas inferiores por efecto de la depreciación de la moneda al promedio de hace 5 años[5], e incluso a la conversión obtenida el año pasado.

Frente a esto, demagógicamente Duque planteo que esta cifra representaba el cumplimiento de la promesa de campaña, que llega con solo tres años de retraso, de un salario mínimo que superara el millón de pesos, lo que por un lado es falso porque el auxilio al transporte no hace parte del salario base y por otro, supondría un logro pírrico en medio de la pérdida del valor de la moneda[6]. Por su parte, el segundo Ministro de Trabajo del gobierno Duque, el político uribista Ángel Custodio Cabrera, asesor bancario y barón clientelista del ICBF[7], sostuvo que este era el gobierno que más había aumentado el salario mínimo en términos reales desde 1985 y que se acumularían 5% de aumento por encima de la inflación en los últimos tres años. Sin embargo, el hecho es que como advierten medios gobiernistas como El Tiempo, el salario mantiene congelado su poder adquisitivo con respecto al último año y de hecho ha perdido hasta un cuarto de su valor en los últimos 5 años.

La decisión gubernamental se da tras un nuevo fracaso de la ineficaz Comisión Permanente de Concertación de Políticas Laborales y Salariales, de estructura tripartita, creada en 1997. Así los representantes patronales agrupados en el Consejo Gremial Nacional (CGN) esbozaron una pobre propuesta de aumento del 2% que elevaron hasta el 2.7%, mientras los sindicatos reunidos en el Comando Nacional Unitario (CNU) presentaron una propuesta unificada de aumento de 13.9%, para dejar el salario mínimo en 1 millón de pesos. En la Comisión que tuvo 7 rondas de negociación en noviembre y diciembre sin mayores avances[8], las centrales sindicales y pensionales, que de forma anómala y por segundo año seguido no se dividieron en la negociación, también plantearon la renta básica, el incremento pensional y su rechazo a los decretos laborales de emergencia que flexibilizaban condiciones de contratación[9], generando una negativa cerrada de parte de los patrones y el gobierno nacional.

Esto en medio de una política de Estado que retóricamente busca un equilibro entre aumentar el poder adquisitivo y estimular la generación de empleo, mientras en la práctica mantiene una política de bajos salarios sin generación de empleos durables. Sin embargo, la prensa empresarial y los “especialistas” neoliberales, azuzan por aumentos aún más bajos y esbozan un discurso de ajuste económico en el que sostienen contra toda evidencia, la fracasada receta ortodoxa de salida de la crisis mediante salarios bajos e incremento de la explotación laboral[10].

Esta situación se da en el marco general de una profunda crisis económica generada por la pandemia y las medidas aislamiento, en la que el gobierno estima que el PIB del país pudo haberse contraído en -6.6% en 2020, cifra que el Fondo Monetario internacional (FMI) elevaba hasta -8.2%. En la actual crisis se llegó también a un promedio de desempleo anual hasta noviembre del año pasado de 16.3% y 3´797.900 personas sin trabajo, estimación que el FMI sube hasta el 17.3%[11], desempleo que como es habitual golpea más duramente a las mujeres y la juventud precarizada. Hay además un importante déficit fiscal que llega al 9% del PIB y una deuda externa que se incrementó más de 10 puntos y llego al 54.82% del PIB, que el Fondo Monetario estima hasta en 68.2%[12].

En este complejo panorama, los representantes empresariales consideran que la crisis puede suponer una oportunidad histórica para realizar una doble reforma económica neoliberal, que por un lado adelante la parcialmente derrotada reforma laboral que abarate el costo del empleo por medio de la reducción salarial y la precarización más profunda de las condiciones de contratación y una reforma tributaria, que manteniendo los esquemas de exenciones a las empresas y los altos ingresos, aumente los impuestos regresivos e indirectos sobre la mayoría de la población[13].

El DANE registra que en los primeros 10 meses de 2020 el 63.8% de los trabajadores ocupados y 12.4 millones de personas, ganan hasta un salario mínimo o menos, un incremento de 3 puntos frente a 2019. Esto es además más dramático pues el 48.6% de los ocupados, la mayor proporción en 3 años, gana menos del 0.9 del salario mínimo, una muestra del empeoramiento general de las condiciones salariales en medio de la crisis[14]. En total para 2020 el 88.6% de los trabajadores ocupados y 17.3 millones, gana hasta 2 salarios mínimo, una muestra de la relativa precariedad de la clase trabajadora ocupada en el país, que se agrava para las mujeres o la población negra. Y esto sin mencionar a las personas trabajadoras informales, migrantes o pensionadas, que estructuran sus salarios y beneficios también a partir del salario mínimo.

Aunque la situación estructural de debilidad de los sindicatos en una mesa de concertación donde los patrones adentro y afuera del gobierno son la mayoría, las organizaciones sindicales no convocaron ninguna actividad de movilización específica por el salario mínimo, volviendo a los cauces habituales que solo la jornada de protesta nacional de noviembre-diciembre de 2019 había logrado romper temporalmente[15]. Y aunque la Central Unitaria de Trabajadores (CUT) desarrollo una campaña comunicativa para explicar la propuesta de aumento, estas acciones simplemente no pueden remplazar la acción colectiva de las trabajadoras.

Mientras la burguesía se prepara para un nuevo plan de ajuste para salir de la crisis económica profundizando la precarización y explotación laboral, el movimiento obrero y popular se muestra ineficaz y replegado. La síntesis de situaciones que se presentan y desaprovechan en la coyuntura de negociación del salario mínimo sigue siendo excepcional, y hay pocos momentos de mayor y más general politización clasista, sentido de comunidad y crítica antigubernamental entre una clase trabajadora precarizada y dividida, que en su mayoría no participa de negociaciones sectoriales o convenciones colectivas de trabajo y por lo tanto tiene en la negociación del salario mínimo su única instancia reivindicativa. Aprovechar esta coyuntura en un sentido clasista y libertario sigue siendo una tarea urgente, y hacer de esto un elemento clave, para resistir mejor la ofensiva patronal en curso.

¡Arriba las que luchan!

Grupo Libertario Vía Libre

---

[1] Ministerio de Trabajo. Trabajadores colombianos tendrán salario mínimo de 908.526 más auxilio de transporte de 106. 454 en 2021. En Mintrabajo.gov. En Eltiempo.com. Diciembre 29 de 2020.

[2] Salariomínimocolombia. Salario mínimo 2021 mensual Colombia. En salariominimocolombi.net.

[3] El Banco registra una inflación anual del 1.61%. Sin embargo esto solo corresponde con la información de diciembre de 2020. Según los propios datos de la entidad en cambio en 4 meses hubo una inflación por el encima del 3%, en 2 por encima del 2% y en 2 por encima del 1.9%. Cálculos propios con base en Banco de la República. Boletín de indicadores económicos. 18 de enero de 2021. En barrep.gov.co.

[4] El Tiempo. Salario mínimo: ¿Ha mejorado o empeorado su poder adquisitivo? Diciembre 30 de 2020.

[5] Anexo: Salario mínimo en Colombia. En Wikipedia.org.

[6] El Tiempo. ¿Qué se compra con los 30.000 de aumento del salario mínimo? En Eltiempo.com. Diciembre 31 de 2020.

[7] La Silla Vacía. Ángel Custodio Cabrera. En Lasillavacia.com. 18 de abril de 2020.

[8] Comando Nacional Unitario. Nuevamente fracasa la concertación sobre el salario mínimo. En Cut.org. Diciembre 18 de 2020.

[9] Comando Nacional Unitario. Movimiento sindical presenta propuesta unificada para la presentación del salario mínimo 2021. En Cut.org. Noviembre 13 de 2020.

[10] La República. Salario mínimo para 2021 sube 3.5% y queda en 1.014.980 con auxilio de transporte. En larepública.co. Diciembre 29 de 2020.

[11] Cálculos propios con base en Banco de la República. Boletín de indicadores económicos. 18 de enero de 2021. En barrep.gov.co.

[12] Portafolio. Desempleo, deuda y menor PIB, así será la economía del país al 2025. En portafolio.co. Noviembre 12 de 2020.

[13] Así por ejemplo. Portafolio. Economía colombiana crecería un 5.3% en 2021. En portafolio.co. Diciembre 3 de 2020.

[14] La República. Salario mínimo para 2021 sube 3.5% y queda en 1.014.980 con auxilio de transporte.

[15] Como señalábamos en Vía Libre. Reflexiones sobre el salario mínimo para 2020. En grupovialibre.org. Enero 28 de 2020.