A-Infos (en) Italy, FAI, Umanita Nova #36-25 - Protests Under Attack. The Right to Strike and the Right to Strike (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The amendment that would have required public transport workers to give 
one week's written notice, with no right to withdraw, of their 
participation in strikes-an amendment that was aborted before it even 
came to light-has sparked a chaotic array of reactions, debates, and 
controversies. These exchanges often serve the now-established and 
tiresome game of one-upmanship rather than an objective analysis of the 
proposal and the consequences of yet another attack on the freedom of 
expression and dissent, which is increasingly being stifled and tamed. 
Controlling all forms of real opposition and effective protest has 
always been a goal of every authority. Indeed, authority fears the 
streets and popular participation, because the desire to cease being 
mere followers or ultras can lead individuals and groups to become 
protagonists of public affairs, making their voices heard and voicing 
their opposition to those in power who consider it their exclusive 
prerogative. The means adopted to maintain the established order and the 
status quo, functional to the preservation of domination, have 
historically always been the same: legislative, physical, and 
ideological repression, and the regimentation of forms of protest deemed 
legitimate, which are codified and permitted only in the ways and times 
established by the authorities. Further elements of the strategy of 
weakening the destabilizing power of dissent include the attempt to 
fragment the protest front, achieved by creating specious conflicts 
within it. The authorities set themselves up as the sole defender of 
popular interests, identifying internal and external enemies as the true 
cause of the deterioration of the living conditions of the masses: a mix 
of populism, paternalism, and propaganda that very often leads the 
exploited themselves to sacrifice themselves as the first and most 
ardent supporters of those who can maintain their privileges and their 
superior status precisely thanks to the oppression perpetrated upon them.

This incident represents yet another attack by this government on the 
right to strike, repeatedly made manifest by exploiting loopholes in 
already restrictive legislation and resorting to indiscriminate and 
unmotivated injunctions. More generally, this constitutes a further 
attempt to reduce and suppress any unwelcome form of public dissent, as 
the entry into force of the now infamous security decree clearly 
demonstrates. Let's also ignore what should be considered stand-up 
comedy remarks about strikes called on Fridays and Mondays to extend the 
weekends. These jokes, however, have a certain impact on the public and 
contribute to discrediting and obscuring the real reasons for the 
demonstrations. They also ignore the significant financial sacrifice 
that each abstention from work entails for the strikers. These remarks, 
incidentally, come from people whose hours and salaries are certainly 
not even remotely comparable to those of the vast majority of workers. 
The main reason given for arguing that strikes are inappropriate in 
general, and in public sectors in particular, is the harm they cause to 
citizens, who are unable to access the services that should always be 
guaranteed in a civil society, particularly transportation, healthcare, 
and education. Curiously, these are precisely the sectors massively 
penalized and devastated by government policies that, in addition to 
diverting economic resources to areas that have little or nothing to do 
with the general interest, such as military spending and rearmament, are 
constantly and scientifically neglected and rendered increasingly 
inefficient to make way for incessant privatization. Poor public 
transportation services, especially for commuters, interminable waiting 
lists in healthcare, collapsing public education, uncontrolled 
procurement and subcontracting, private state-approved schools and 
universities, and supplementary healthcare are inextricably linked, two 
sides of the same coin designed to make our society increasingly 
stratified and discriminatory based on class and economic means.

The apparent institutional opposition, be it political or trade union, 
participates fully in these dynamics, taking on increasingly polemical 
or conciliatory tones as the opportunity arises. This demonstrates the 
full instrumental nature of its position, which often boils down, aside 
from ineffective individual exceptions, to either a demand for greater 
participation in the division of the spoils or the support of power 
groups and lobbies other than those of the adversary in question. This 
is without ever questioning the assumptions of the prevailing model, but 
is content to suggest small and marginal changes that serve its own 
interests. This attitude of feigned opposition to the system and 
substantial complicity with it manifests itself, beyond the slogans and 
catchphrases shouted to cajole the public and gain easy consensus, in 
the decisions made from time to time, such as endorsing warmongering and 
neocolonial exploitation policies internationally and renouncing basic 
demands such as effective economic adjustment and reduced working hours 
while maintaining equal pay in contract renewals. The use of street 
protests is promoted and tolerated only if they occur under the 
direction and for the desired purposes of "institutional opponents," 
who, however, rush to align themselves with those they challenge 
whenever the demands transgress the rigid boundaries delineated or take 
uncodified forms that are instantly branded as illegal and violent, and 
from which they are immediately distanced. Once again, the hypocrisy of 
an attitude that condemns, with the now overused formula of "without ifs 
and buts," every alleged illegal action by protesters is exposed, with 
no regard for the brutal violence of a system that "legally" forces 
people to die on the job in the name of profit, to choose between 
employment, health, or environmental protection, to accept inadequate 
wages with the threat of no wage at all, and generally to endure 
conditions of economic, social, and human exploitation, considering it 
completely normal, without possible alternatives, immutable, and 
unquestionable. Breaking a window or setting fire to a dumpster is 
branded a terrorist, criminal, and intolerable act, while 
simultaneously, and without any embarrassment, the massive export of 
weapons and their use against defenseless civilians is calmly and 
condescendingly accepted. Consistency these days is clearly an 
unacceptable luxury, just as the goal advocated by Benni's Saltatempo 
has become unattainable for many: "We must be true to the words we say, 
perhaps not word for word, but we understand each other."

Much of the confusing debate and apparent controversy surrounding the 
proposed amendment has revolved around the concept of the violation of a 
right, particularly an acquired right. On the one hand, this is 
considered a sort of privilege, granted and always revocable or 
modifiable at will; on the other, it is considered an established, 
indisputable, unalterable, and eternal fact; both positions share an 
ahistorical and anti-political conception of law, its origins, and its 
value. Those in power never grant a right, which in effect limits their 
prerogatives, whether spontaneously or out of the goodness of their 
heart. A right is always the result of a struggle between two opposing 
factions, one seeking to maintain a privilege and the other seeking more 
favorable conditions. It arises from the balance of power between groups 
fighting for different and opposing goals.

When a right is formally "granted," it is because, in fact, it has 
already become such. Its transition from "de facto" status to legal norm 
is the recognition of the outcome of a conflict in which a victor forced 
the other side to accept as lawful what was previously considered 
unlawful. The right thus won will remain "immutable" only to the extent 
that the balance of power that generated it is preserved and does not 
permit its revocation. It is quite clear that from this perspective, a 
right is not important in itself, but rather as the product of a 
struggle, often bloody and brutal, and of the balance of power that has 
established its value. These struggles and balances of power must be 
continually reaffirmed if we are not to lose what has been achieved. 
Every attack on an "acquired" right is an attempt by the ruling class to 
raise its head and reclaim spaces that have been taken away by the will, 
intransigence, determination, and reasoning of their opponents. It is 
equally clear that only a daily struggle that does not rest on the 
laurels of what has already been achieved, but reaffirms at every 
opportunity the strength and justice of the demands of emancipation and 
freedom, can be an effective antidote to the abuses of power. Every 
single right must be won, reaffirmed, and exercised with determination 
and without fear, to ensure that it is not first considered a 
concession, then a privilege, and finally denied, because, it is worth 
remembering, each person has the power that others allow them to take.

Alessandro Fini

https://umanitanova.org/proteste-sotto-attacco-diritto-di-sciopero-e-sciopero-del-diritto/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en