Germany: "Far-right unionists gain popularity despite rising wages"

This is what happens when left forgets to fight for popular sovereignty and to keep a welfare state. Far right is occupying the position of European left. Are we anarchist doing something to confront this? This is not about creating a big "antifa" movement but speaking to our working class communities and struggling for a future.

Can you explain what you mean by 'popular sovereignty', I've never seen that used in a way that wasn't incredibly reactionary so would like to understand how you're using it here.

Sovereignty is part of the political language of working class organisations, until 60-70s aprox. You can check it very easily in the Commune de Paris. They use a language full of sentences like "the monarchists are traitors" "they've given our country to foreing invadors". Quite the same you may read in spanish Solidaridad Obrera in 1936. Franco is supported by fascist foreing powers, the 'true spaniards' are fighting against them all. Or you may see it the second world war in the left revolutionary newspapers...

Anyway. In Spain and latinamerica you may see this concept all around leftist press: industrial sovereignty, personal sovereingty, alimentary/food sovereingty, technological sovereingty... all of these basicly represent the desire for real independence and not depending on others. As for communists and anarchists, we prefer to use 'popular' sovereignty instead of 'national' sovereingty, meaning that we don't want to depend on decisions made in Brussels or in the IMF, word bank, Davos and so on.

syndicalist

Any German comrades want to comment on this? Add an on-the-ground perspective that would place some of this in context, etc.

I can try to give an "on the ground" perspective, but I guess you have to ask more specific questions. But some comments on the article:

- If you read this article, you come to believe that everything in Germany is "thriving". But that is not the truth: In the last years the low wages sector was rising rapidly and the wages were in some parts of Germany really low. Few years ago the government created the minimum wage, in parts to regain some control over this sector. (The minimum wage is currently 8,84 Euro, the lowest hourly wage in the collective contract for leasing workers is 9,49 Euro (west Germany) and 9,27 Euro (East) - that is the defacto minimum wage in western and southern Germany, at least at bigger companies. Because of this growth of the low wages sector, a lot of working families rely on welfare payments. The overall wage growth also is really slow.

On the other side a lot of costs are exploding, most importantly rents, which are a bigger and bigger share of the incomes of working class households.

- obviously there is a drift to a nationalist populist right in the German society, which also exists at the workplaces. Interestingly but I guess also typically this drift to the right is especially visible in the high wage metal and chemical industries. Two factors play a role: on the one hand those workers have given in a lot in the last decades, not to get cut themselves they accepted lower wages for new permanent workers, even lower wages for leasing workers, and thirdly even lower wages for workers employed over sub contractors. Those developments destroyed a lot of solidarity on shop floor.

On the other hand the workers see that there kids and relatives are struggling with the economic realities in Germany.

This mixture of allowing the destruction of a homogeneous shop floor, no perspective of solidarity and collective fighting power, and the reality that all lot of people are worse of play a big role in the orientation of a significant majority to the right. From this ground it is possible for those nationalist but often fascist shop floor cadres to act.

- at least at Daimler in Stuttgart, the "new" shop floor cadres are explicit fascists, who were active in the strategic discussions around the beginning of the century, which led to the foundation of the "new" fascists right we see today. (Autonomous nationalist, casa pound, Identitarians, the diverse "third way" factions, … ).

They went into the Daimler Untertürkheim plant, kept their head down and were active in Christian union group at the plant. (Also in other plants this years right wing candidates were part of Christian union groups before). 2010 they founded Zentrum Automobil, the organisation which was the motor of this years right wing council election drive.

Salvoechea

As for communists and anarchists, we prefer to use 'popular' sovereignty instead of 'national' sovereingty, meaning that we don't want to depend on decisions made in Brussels or in the IMF, word bank, Davos and so on.

We equally don't want to depend on decisions made in the German parliament (or the British etc. though) right?

Part of what has left a space open for right wing populism is an extremely moribund, social democratic left-wing populism, which counterposes national capitals to the EU. In the UK this was primarily expressed through 'lexit'. There's some discussion of how many parts of the left are increasingly talking about managing national capitals while trying to retain some kind of radical rhetoric (especially post-autonomism) here: https://libcom.org/blog/poverty-luxury-communism-05042018

In Germany Die Linke has started trying to gain ground from the far right by supporting an anti-immigration agenda - see Jacobin's fairly positive coverage of Wagenknecht's line here: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/die-linke-germany-sahra-wagenknecht-immigration-xenophobia-afd/ (I'm not up-to-date on how this is playing out in Die Linke now).

What I tend to see happening is that these left parties accept the right wing framing of national capital and immigration, and simply offer a more humane, rational approach to managing it. What it does is validate a narrative of national vs. international capital and blaming immigrants for lower wages and higher rents, whereas as communists we should be attacking the basis of those claims altogether.

'Popular sovereignty' really sounds like trying to pull ground away from this kind of left-populism, again rather than undermining the basis of it.

Salvochea

Far right is occupying the position of European left. Are we anarchist doing something to confront this?

Or is it that what the left is often doing is opportunistically tail-ending the rightward shift?

As for communists and anarchists, we prefer to use 'popular' sovereignty instead of 'national' sovereingty, meaning that we don't want to depend on decisions made in Brussels or in the IMF, word bank, Davos and so on.

So political independence of ‘your own’ ‘sovereign’ state is preferable. Good old CNT statism displayed again. As there is precious little economic sovereignty in the trade networks & capital flows of today’s global multi-national economy this is simply a defence of the political state and its supposedly sovereign local decision making & management of ‘its own’ class society.

This is a fetish of democratic decision-making procedure; it is implied that there will be a trickle down effect whereby winning sovereignty of the bourgeois political state will water the seeds of working class democracy. This miserably fails to grasp the difference between working class self-organisation as opposed to national citizens acting as constituents choosing between rival bourgeois goals and representatives. None of which encourages anti-statism but rather encourages faith in bourgeois political processes and ends. But when bureaucratic organisations view the working class as ‘a constituency’ that they must compete to capture against rival political competitors then opportunism and deceit are inevitable.

It seems a common idea that increased political engagement – even with reactionary goals of nationalism – is seen as an opportunity by leftists to implant their message by sleight of hand. This is both patronising and counter-productive, only playing into the hands of the right by encouraging a rightward shift in the political discourse and in the definition of what is ‘radical’ and progressive for the working class by sowing nationalist illusions. It’s the left helping shift the political arena rightwards. But this is nothing new and we can conclude that the CNT is as bad as other leftists in this regard.

Salovochea has come closest above to outright admitting nationalist sentiment as compatible with CNT goals. That there have been left-nationalist arguments in many previous struggles is not a justification. Salvochea & co’s defence seems to be; “the rest of the left has embraced increasingly crude nationalism so why would we let ourselves get left behind and miss out on the cheap gains our competitors make from it?”

For those who read Spanish. https://lasoli.cnt.cat/25/05/2018/catalunya-y-las-anarquistas/
Clarification: CNT-R side, not CNT-AIT.

It's quite unfortunate that left national populism has been infecting anarchists. This is something which has been strong in some countries of Eastern Europe and also has roots in the populist anti-imperialism of the left.

Of course some are tempted to push their movements towards the right to "influence" more people. Not only is anti-nationalism affected, but we see more and more people claiming other things as wedge issues and watering down revolutionary politics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW02A4olx_o

On the Catalan Republic, with a deputee of CUP.

It doesn't - it just a thin attempt at ambiguity of language to try to deflect questions like yours that point out the obvious contradictions.

akai

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW02A4olx_o

On the Catalan Republic, with a deputee of CUP.

Secretary of AIT, stop telling lies, It´s not good for your health.
That person is not a member of the CUP, he is a member of national parliament, and is from ERC. In Spain, the anarchists and cenetists have no problem in making a round table to discuss other trends on the left on any subject, in that case it was about history in the 30s.
One more sample of how little or nothing you know about what happens in Spain.

It´s clear that in Spain we are a bit classic and we continue to use people, popular ... popular sovereignty means the ability to decide for the people their future, how they want to organise the economy, politics, ultimately society.
Quiet, we didn´t leave what Kropotkin, Malatesta, Bakunin and so on said when they talked about the working classes as a people.

In my opinion, an effective antifascism is to strengthen the communities of the working class from positions of struggle for basic and material issues, health, education, housing, work and wages, food sovereignty. That is where we can reject in practice xenophobic attitudes or activities of fascist groups.

It´s fine, don´t worries. Which part of the meaning do you don´t understanding about what did I said? About that how rol antifascism in the communities of the working class??

New attempt to explain myself ;)

As it happens with all the concepts born from the ranks of socialism (in its broad and primogeneo concept) they are disputed by anarchist, social democratic, social-liberal, marxist tendencies, etc ...
Well, just as there are differences of understanding between what the social revolution is for a marxist-leninist and an anarcho-syndicalist. The same happens with popular sovereignty, if you ask a Chavista that it will surely tell you that the control of the country, the economy, culture and politics by the Venezuelan State, but for our tendencies within anarchism means to act so that control has it the working people, the neighborhood / union, the community.
For example, within the popular sovereignty is the food sovereignty which is defined: "it is the right of peoples to nutritious and culturally adequate food, accessible, produced in a sustainable and ecological way, and their right to decide their own food and productive system."
The distribution, production and consumption we say that it is the working people who have to have that capacity, that power.

Make sense?

In spanish... well we don't usually do so much theory, we do more article or opinion texts about issues related to things that happen, are occurring or could be made.
For example the last one I saw that speaks about this may be this:
http://www.alasbarricadas.org/noticias/node/40043

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty

"To speak of popular sovereignty is to place ultimate authority in the people. There are a variety of ways in which sovereignty may be expressed. It may be immediate in the sense that the people make the law themselves..."

--

Speaking of an 'anarchistic sense' of popular sovereignty implies a continuous exercise of empowerment, consciousness, responsibility of the problems of each community. Every community (be a country, a town or a neighborhood) need to be sovereign of its owns affairs, not depending of the decisions made by others.

Well, at least in the spanish translations, Bakunin uses this term quite a lot.

"people" or "the people" is not a class concept. it is a concept of leftists and nationalists. bakunin said many things (btw., I tried to quickly google it and found no quotations...). still, argumentation based on "authority" is silly.

another interesting thing is - what is the source fo the concept? a common sense of individuals? an ideology of the leaders? is it what the media say? and if there are different concepts, how can one tell that the one that you mean is understood by the "people" in the anarchist way. is part of the concept the neighbour employing other neighbours in his or her shop? i believe it is, but then it hardly can be an anarchist concept.

which leads me to question - isn't it strange that anarchists use such concept? isn't there any better? a more traditional one, like the concept of self-organization and self-management? why the sudden change towards the use of such populist and empty concepts like sovereignty? and does is really have nothing to do with the sudden outburst of nationalism related to situation in catalonia and elsewhere?

Well, you said "people" or "the people" are not anarchist concepts... If I tell you that Bakunin, Kropotkin, Anselmo Lorenzo, Luigui Fabri, Malatesta, etc ... used them, it´s not because they say that they have the authority in that matter, it´s only to point out to you a fact.

How to know in what sense it is used? How do you know in what sense you use a concept like the self-management that Tito's Yugoslavia also used? The point is that in Spain we are a bit privileged to have a strong history behind us. In any case, the concepts are used in speeches generally coming from some organization and framed in the activity that you perform daily, in that way it is quite complicated that they understand each other differently as we understand it. Outside of the social context I understand that this supposes confusion, as it happens here, but at the foot of the canyon that doesn´t happen.

By the way, I don´t know of any example in which when anarchism has managed to be massive and have a powerful organization hasn´t been in one way or another populist. So thinking about the history of anarchism in Mexico, Argentina, Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Spain ... you can trace the speeches, the texts, the acts and I think they also had populist speeches to attract the working people sentimentally.

Linking the theme with the thread. We need something more than logical, clear and calculated reasoning. Humans are not robots, we have feelings, an irrational component. That is why it is not enough for us to elaborate and implement rational proposals and solutions. We need to connect with motivations, with feelings, as if it were poetry or art. So we can create a story while acting against the eviction of our neighbors for a high rent, while fighting for better wages and working conditions, while working through networks of local social cooperatives and urban gardens, etc ... In this context if the fascists try to install it will have complicated.

I honestly prefer to be linked to truely popular struggles of selfdetermination than to a vacuum ideology in which every word is put in question for not being pure.
Enough.

This is anarchism to me:

Participación del Consejo Supremo Indígena de Michoacán en el 2do Encuentro por la Autodeterminación de los Pueblos.

13 de mayo de 2018
Nahuatzen: Autodeterminación, Autogobierno y Autonomía.

La comunidad originaria de Nahuatzen, es histórica y orgullosamente una comunidad p’urhépecha, así se demuestra en su titulo primordial, el “Lienzo de Nahuatzen”, documento pictográfico que proporciona información geográfica, histórica y social, y en el que se confirma que Nahuatzen mantiene orígenes prehispánicos, es una comunidad que fue fundada por Señores del linaje uacúsecha y guerreros p’urhépecha de Sevina y Cheran.

En este pueblo p´urhépecha se celebra hoy el 2do Encuentro por la Autodeterminación de los Pueblos. En este marco, los pueblos originarios mantienen el derecho legítimo e histórico a la autodeterminación, el autogobierno y la autonomía. Autodeterminación para decidir política, económica y socialmente lo que mejor consideren.

La no instalación de casillas electorales y la expulsión de los partidos políticos son expresiones concretas de su autonomía, no es algo que se encuentre fuera de la ley, ni es un acto revolucionario, es la exigencia de un derecho colectivo.

En muchas comunidades originarias, tal como aquí, se mantiene también una lucha por el autogobierno, por conformar Consejos de Gobierno Comunal, organización que mantiene sus raíces en una profunda historia de resistencia de más de 525 años.

Autogobernarnos por medio de consejos es regresar a nuestras raíces, es nuestro gobierno por usos y costumbres, el primer consejo de gobierno indígena en México sucedió alrededor del año 550 de la era común en Teotihuacan, donde existió un consejo de gobierno que estaba formado por cuatro principales, toda vez que la ciudad estaba organizada en cuatro sectores o barrios, el barrio de la serpiente emplumada gobernaba la parte sureste, el de los jaguares el noreste, el de los coyotes el suroeste, y el de las aves de presa el noroeste. Este consejo se desarrollaba en una sociedad multiétnica, donde no se privilegiaba los individuos sino las colectividades, por ello, historiadores y arqueólogos explican que en esta ciudad-Estado no hay representaciones de gobernantes, ni tumbas reales.

En Michoacán, el Cazonci o Irecha, era elegido por un consejo de notables, de ancianos y de valientes que eran convocados para elegir a los gobernantes, los criterios para seleccionarlos eran que mantuviera ciertas virtudes, como que no se emborracharan, que tributaran e hiciera oraciones a sus dioses originarios, principalmente a “Curicaueri”, ser los más esforzados, y sobre todo, que fueran discretos en sus acciones. Este es el antecedente histórico de todos los consejos de gobierno comunales que hay en la entidad y el 1er Consejo de Gobierno Comunal contemporáneo se dio en el 2005 en la comunidad de Nurío, mediante lo que ellos denominaron la “autonomía sin permiso de nadie”.

De igual forma, en el aspecto militar y de seguridad, los uacúsechas a la hora de delinear estrategias para la expansión o consolidación del Señorío, se reunían en un Consejo para planear las acciones a seguir y mantenían su seguridad por medio de las rondas comunales, la cuales representan una visión de mundo prehispánica.

Antes de la Conquista, los pueblos originarios en el estado se organizaban comunalmente por medio de barrios para la defensa o la guerra entre los Señoríos, la organización barrial era vital, tanto para la conformación del ejército p’urhépecha, como para división y distribución durante la guerra. A través de la representatividad de los barrios se reclutaba a los guerreros p´urhépecha, y durante la batalla o defensa, eran divididos en barrios o pueblos.

Los pueblos originarios han resistido y luchado por la defensa de sus recursos naturales, por la tierra y el trabajo comunal, por la defensa de su territorio y en los últimos años, también luchan por la entrega y administración del presupuesto directo. Derecho que se encuentra instituido en el artículo 2 de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, pero que tiene sus raíces profundas en los Acuerdos de San Andrés Larraínzar que manifiestan en el Documento 2 de Propuestas Conjuntas que, “las autoridades competentes realizarán la transferencia ordenada y paulatina de recursos, para que ellos mismos administren los fondos públicos que se les asignen, y para fortalecer la participación indígena en el gobierno, gestión y administración en sus diferentes ámbitos y niveles”. El presupuesto directo es un sueño de muchas comunidades indígenas, establecido desde hace 22 años en estos acuerdos, mismo que ya es realidad en muchas comunidades originarias.

Finalmente, no podemos dejar de mencionar la lucha de la mujer p’urhépecha, las mujeres p’urhépecha, han participado activamente en todos los grandes procesos sociales de Michoacán, sin embargo, la historia oficial, nada o poco habla de ello. En distintos momentos históricos, las mujeres p´urhépecha, han dado ejemplo de lucha, jugando un papel central como sujeto histórico, capaz de trasformar su realidad y con ello generar historia.

Es mentira que no hubo mujeres p’urhépecha gobernantes en tiempos prehispánicos, en el siglo XII Quenomen gobernó Zacapu y en condiciones adversas, logró cambiar el sistema patriarcal de mando. En la época actual, también es mentira que las mujeres no son elegidas para mantener cargos en sus comunidades, existen jefas de tenencia en Zirahuén y Jucutacato, y concejalas en Cheran, Pichátaro, San Felipe de los Herreros, Arantepacua, y aquí en Nahuatzen.

En su lucha por la autodeterminación Nahuatzen no está solo, reciban un fraternal saludo y abrazo sincero del Consejo Supremo Indígena de Michoacán y recordemos las palabras del EZLN: No hay propiedad privada de la lucha.

“La semilla que cada quien elija, no implica una propiedad, ni de quien la origina, ni de quien la toma, sembrada en la tierra, la propiedad privada de la lucha, del pensamiento, de la rebeldía, de la resistencia, se diluye, desaparece, es destruida.

Tal vez les toque ser semilla, o abono, o agua que alivia y fortalezca, o tal vez les toca cuidar la planta que emerja de la tierra, no hay propiedad, su impacto, su semilla, se diluye en la conjunción con otras semillas, y se produce algo que no tiene que ver con ninguna de sus partes, algo terrible y maravilloso, una nueva semilla que es de todos, todas y no es de nadie”.

Muchas gracias.

Consejo Supremo Indígena de Michoacán.

They use the words people, selfdetermination, self-govern... they have 'communitarian police' and of course they are for direct democracy, direct action, sovereignty, communal property, etc.

The triumph of the republicans shows which is the will of the people

Translation of CNT paper Solidaridad Obrera;

the triumph of the republicans has demonstrated what the will of the people is

it has been voted for amnesty and for the republic, which, if it does not improve proletarian problems at all, at least it will serve to satisfy the victims of the many outrages and injustices that the monarchy is committing.

The 1931 front page announcing the results of the election for the 2nd Republic doesn’t support your claims at all, quite the opposite. It describes “the will of the people” as being expressed in the election result; ie, a vote of the national population of all classes – "people" is clearly not referring to the working class, as you’d like us to believe. This is made obvious by the comment below the headline where it doubts that the Republic will benefit the “proletariat” much at all. So they’re making a clear distinction between the general voting population and the specific class of the proletariat. Which is the opposite of the usage you’re trying to defend - ie, your opportunist failure to make that distinction - and claim historical precedent for.

CNTistas here remain blind to the fact that the only real remaining “sovereignty” is of the reign of the global economy. They imagine that siding with one national faction of its officer class will actually help make them masters of that economy – whereas they actually make themselves slaves of the false choices that protect the sovereignty of capitalist economy.

Yes, Red Marriott, it´s clear that support what we said again and again since 1868 in Spain, also because the working class, the working people also vote whether we like it or not.
I think that if you read Solidaridad Obrera again you will give us the reason, it does not need that publicly. If you want to browse the entire collection, here is a link:
http://www.cedall.org/Documentacio/Castella/cedall203503000_Solidaridad%20Obrera.htm

Congratulations, that last paragraph is signed by an ultraliberal, the Spanish right thinks the same, the PP and Cs like that of the big transnational capitals. Because the privatization of the economy is better, right? Surely that helps the unions and the working people have more control over issues such as education, health, energy, agriculture ...

Ragnar is not really responding to what I said but just parroting the evasive party line again. The CNT paper clearly proves that by “people” they meant the electorate, not the proletariat as you claimed. So not proof of any historical precedent, quite the opposite. But even if you could show evidence of a precedent it would be a bad one to follow in present circumstances. And as syndicalist points out, your claims are even less convincing given the 1931 political context.

Congratulations, that last paragraph is signed by an ultraliberal, the Spanish right thinks the same, the PP and Cs like that of the big transnational capitals.

You’re again claiming anyone criticising Catalan nationalism and pointing out the global nature of the economy must be right wing. But it’s not me expressing right wing views; you appear to see a smaller nationalism and working class allegiance to it as a defence against multi-national capital – a common right-wing myth. You equate working class loyalty to a local capitalist state as an exercise of some vaguely defined ‘working class sovereignty’ – indicating that you understand little of the anarchist (or other) critique of the state or of class relations.

Because the privatization of the economy is better, right? Surely that helps the unions and the working people have more control over issues such as education, health, energy, agriculture ...

You also apparently see state nationalisation as a path leading towards anti-statism & ‘working people’s sovereignty’! Seeing the stupidity of that is not to defend privatisation. Any protectionist measures giving a supposed “sovereignty” for the working class would be dependent on existence of a Catalan state; but even then, would the new Catalan ruling class really have a priority of refusing global corporate investment and imports so as to protect the local working class? And how would “the unions ... have more control over issues” except by being integrated into this new state? Presumably that’s your goal, a reward of greater union recognition & influence within the state you wish to loyally help ascend to sovereignty.

With every post you make your nationalist agenda clearer; I wonder how endemic is your nationalism within the CNT? Or are you just opportunistically peddling populist myths? Dream on. How an exploited class can gain its own “sovereignty” within a hierarchical class society remains unexplained.

yes, every single day I wake up and song "Cara al sol..." and kiss the spanish flag or the catalan flag although I'm not catalan, i´m castilian by the way.

http://acracia.org/historico/Acracia/Lo_publico_y_la_autogestion.html

I really step to repeat the same thing again for you, is like discuss with a wall.

answering to RM, I'd said that all the strategic sectors of economy (energy, transport, communications, mining, oil, etc.) must be public far from present day dictatorship of markets. I don't think this is essentially revolutionary, but common sense. Thatcher did a good job in anarchists supporting neoliberalism! We defend expropriations and self-management, but it is to be noted that it's far more easy to organize in the public sector than in private companies.

Anarcho-syndicalism defend the seizure of the means of production, right? So, our organizations need to organize workers in base of something apart from mere defense of our jobs. In CNT we struggle to revert 90's privatizations:

[Madrid] Concentración por la Remunicipalización de los Servicios Públicos
http://cnt.es/noticias/madrid-concentraci%C3%B3n-por-la-remunicipalizaci%C3%B3n-de-los-servicios-p%C3%BAblicos

[Gráficas-Madrid] Por una gestión directa de Madrid Destino del servicio de acomodación en los teatros de Madrid
http://www.cnt.es/noticias/gr%C3%A1ficas-madrid-por-una-gesti%C3%B3n-directa-de-madrid-destino-del-servicio-de-acomodaci%C3%B3n-en-lo

But also CGT is doing some work in this direction:

La subrogación en los procesos de remunicipalización
http://www.cgtmurcia.org/sindical/sectores/adm-publica/2311-la-subrogacion-en-los-procesos-de-remunicipalizacion

http://www.cgtaytozar.com/historico/enero-2016.html

Nacionalización, privatización, socialización, autogestión Cuestionar el derecho a la propiedad
http://www.rojoynegro.info/articulo/ideas/nacionalizaci%C3%B3n-privatizaci%C3%B3n-socializaci%C3%B3n-autogesti%C3%B3n-cuestionar-el-derecho-la-prop

Or we're even asking for nationalizations:
http://cnt.es/noticias/valladolid-cr%C3%B3nicas-del-1%C2%BA-de-mayo

http://cnt.es/noticias/declaraci%C3%B3n-del-sindicalismo-de-clase-y-alternativo-convocatoria-de-jornada-de-lucha-para-e

It is important to create a different alternative to neoliberal model even if it's not exactly what we want. In Spain cooperativism is growing quite a lot, which is good, but it is highly dependent of state money in subsidies, which is dangerous. In fact in Barcelona it is being used as a tricky way to privatize parts of the public sector.

In short, CNT (and CGT and Soli) want that trade unions to be a part in the control and the management of all the public sector. We aspire to manage it one day, but at first we don't want it to be destroyed or cut into parts. We organize better when we're seen by other workers in these struggles to defend the company. This gives a us sense of responsibility.

Coming back to what sovereignty is, in other words it is to stop globalization, as this model benefits the rich countries and prejudices the poor ones. For instance:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/dec/29/vintage-clothing-ban-rwanda-sparks-trade-dispute-with-us-united-states-secondhand-garments

why is this bad? Is it wrong to have a national industry? The point is to have later strong unions to be able to control these new industries. How are workers to be organized in a stagnant survival economy?

Glad to see there are still a few principled internationalists who have held out here. But the OP was on another subject. Maybe the discussion could be taken to this thread:

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/myths-national-autonomy-01062018

admin - split to https://libcom.org/forums/theory/myths-national-autonomy-01062018

Salvoechea

answering to RM, I'd said that all the strategic sectors of economy (energy, transport, communications, mining, oil, etc.) must be public far from present day dictatorship of markets. I don't think this is essentially revolutionary, but common sense. Thatcher did a good job in anarchists supporting neoliberalism! We defend expropriations and self-management, but it is to be noted that it's far more easy to organize in the public sector than in private companies.

At the height of nationalisation in the UK in the '40s-'60s, there were British anarchists writing critiques of it:

https://libcom.org/history/neither-nationalisation-nor-privatisation-1945-1950-anarchist-approach
https://libcom.org/history/nationalisation-new-boss-tom-brown

There are now ex-anarchist and ex-Trotskyist Labour Party activists calling for nationalisation of the arms industry in the UK as well as increasing national funding for it: https://libcom.org/blog/poverty-luxury-communism-05042018 / https://libcom.org/blog/paul-masons-workers-bombers-13102017

Salvochea

why is this bad? Is it wrong to have a national industry? The point is to have later strong unions to be able to control these new industries.

'Strong unions' didn't arise from nationalisation, nationalisation was a response to strong unions (and/or the existential threat of 'communism'). If you just conflate nationalised industry with workers organisation it's mixing up correlation and causation.

Could also look at autogestation in Algeria, where nationalisation was taken as a measure to neutralise/co-opt working class expropriations of plantations and factories.

Savolchea

Thatcher did a good job in anarchists supporting neoliberalism! We defend expropriations and self-management, but it is to be noted that it's far more easy to organize in the public sector than in private companies.

Learn some history; Thatcher's greatest single victory in the class struggle - which paved the way for most others - was in defeating the 1984-85 miners strike in what was a fully nationalised industry.

Also in the '60s the Labour government under Harold Wilson closed a lot of mines and laid off a lot of workers from what was a nationalised industry then too. The actual number of job losses was similar, but it was 43% of mining jobs lost in the '60s, compared to 80% in the '80s, and there was very low unemployment in the '60s meaning it was easy for laid of miners to find other work, so apart from a wildcat strike in '69, no resistance to this compared to the '80s.

A lot of the Beeching closures (hundreds of miles of railways) were also under Labour in the same period, rail was nationalised then too.

Then in the '70s, British Leyland was nationalised, there was wage stagnation, lay-offs and then it closed:

https://libcom.org/history/red-rose-nissan-john-holloway
https://libcom.org/library/an-interview-with-tony-mcqade-former-shop-steward