Anarchoblogs

March 29th saw a one day general strike in Spain that eclipsed previous general strikes in magnitude if one is to judge by the drop in energy consumption, often the best way of estimating the impact of general strikes on the economy as a whole. According to this measure this strike was much more popular than that of September 2010 being actually the largest in 30 years in Spain. There are actually quite important differences between this event and previous strike protests in Spain. Not only was this the largest demonstration of working class resistance to state plans in Spain. It was also set against a background of conservative governments in both Spain and the Catalan region.

Even more importantly this strike was not a project of the so-called "majority unions", the UGT and the CCOO. As far as I can determine the date of this strike was more or less set originally by the "nationalist" unions in Euskadi and Galicia. This timing was then agreed to by the CGT and then by the other libertarian unions (the CNT-FAI, CNT-Catalunya, Solidaridad Obrero). The UGT and CCOO were late comers to the endorsement. It happened only after they could gain nothing by their preferred method of bureaucratic negotiation.Then they "signed on" at the last moment. This had its effect. Not only were the so-called majority unions very much a minority vis-a-vis the local unions in Galicia and Euskadi. In several places in Catalonia the gatherings of the UGT/CCOO were less numerous than that of the libertarian unions (who allied themselves to a rainbow of community groups).

No doubt looking at the country overall the UGT/CCOO "mafia" are still the most popular unions in Spain, and their turnout was higher overall than that of their libertarian and nationalist competitors. Still, the very fact that they have lost the initiative and have to play catch-up is significant. In previous general strikes the libertarian unions tailed the UGT and CCOO.

What does this mean ? When I look at this from over here in Canada where anarchists in unions are a tiny minority it is easy to be sceptical. I think the fact that the socialist (UGT) and so-called "reformed" communist (CCOO) unions are still a majority amongst Spain's workers is still very significant. Yet....looking at the buildup to the general strike (in my case mostly info from the CGT and the CNT-AIT) I get the distinct impression of watching "people who know what they are doing and have a plan". The libertarian unions, especially the CGT, took the evidence of the past (previous general strikes) and distilled it into a plan for opening a new front against the conservative government. They have also understood very clearly that politics is a process rather than any sudden conversion. Hence the plans already mooted for a two day general strike in the future.

Personally I think is is an historic opportunity for the libertarian unions in general and the CGT in particular. Anarchosyndicalism has always contained an Utopian element with the advent of "libertarian communism" easily following the "general strike". This easy stepwise proposal has been repeatedly disproved in history. In order for the anarchosyndicalist unions to become even major competitors with other unions, let alone usher in a free society, they first have to prove that their tactics are more effective in the here and now in advancing the rights of workers. Spain today is a perfect example of where this is possible. The "program" of the libertarian unions is actually very circumcised- opposition to the austerity of the conservative government. Prove that more militant libertarian tactics are better than the treacherous negotiations of the UGT/CCOO, however, and all sorts of possibilities open up.

What will happen in the future ? Who knows. Yet I see the actions of the Spanish anarchists as great evidence that libertarians in at least one country understand their task as a process that requires planning and intelligence.

True to form our present federal Conservative government is quite content to see funding for "social housing" (co-op, non-profit and public housing) gradually wither away as the following article demonstrates. The Harperites must be particularily happy that this is a trend inherited from previous Liberal administrations and that the removal of this social policy requires no grandstanding legislation that might shine the light of day on what is happening. Well now there's a campaign to bring this erosion out of the shadows. The Front for Popular Action on Urban Restructuring (FRAPRU) in Québec alongside with the Red Tents group in English Canada are mounting a campaign of opposition. Here's the story.

○○○○○○○○○○
Defend Our Social Housing

About the Campaign



Across Canada, hundreds of thousands of co-op, non-profit and public housing units have been receiving subsidies for decades from the federal government. These subsidies, which allow very low-income families to be housed, are beginning to run out, and this phenomenon will accelerate over the next five years. The number of housing units benefitting from long-term agreements decreased from 630,000 in 2006 to 613,500 in 2010. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) predicts this number will go down to 540,800 in 2015. This trend will continue, so that by 2032, the federal government will no longer fund any housing units. All social housing units built before 1994 will be affected. This represents a loss of $1.7 billion in funding per year.

The withdrawal of federal funding will have dramatic consequences. Low-income tenants living in co-op and non-profit housing will lose CMHC funding that allows them to pay rent geared to their income. These tenants will face steep rent increases, forcing them to leave, and be replaced by more affluent tenants.

If nothing is done, the housing crisis in Canada will be aggravated. Already, there are 982,000 Canadian tenant households facing core housing need. This loss of federal funding comes on top of cuts to federal funding for the creation of new affordable housing, which is at its lowest level in decades.

We need to preserve existing social housing, not only for current tenants, but for all households who will need it in the future. FRAPRU (Front for Popular Action on Urban Restructuring of Quebec) which brings together over 100 organizations working for the right to housing, supported by its allies of the Red Tent Campaign (http://redtents.org/) , a Coalition of housing groups from different provinces, are working to put pressure on Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. The Red Tent campaign is demanding that the federal government immediately commit to maintaining funding for social housing, after the termination of long-term funding agreements signed when these units were originally built.

To do so, we call on all committees, tenants associations, co-op federations, social housing groups, social justice and anti-poverty organizations in all provinces to organize demonstrations, rallies or actions on the weekend of May 25-27,2012. On this weekend, there will be a big demonstration in Montreal, where at least one thousand people are anticipated. Check the tab with your province( at http://defendoursocialhousing.com ) to see what is happening where you live. If nothing is planned, contact Red Tent and we can support you in organizing with us.

Meanwhile, we ask all those who are either directly affected, such as tenants of co-op, non-profit or public housing, or those concerned about the preservation of our social housing stock, to print, sign and circulate the petition asking the government of Canada to:
■immediately commit to an adequate budget that ensures the renovation, improvement, and modernization of all social housing units (low-cost housing, cooperatives, and non-profit housing);
■immediately commit to maintaining the long-term subsidies granted to social housing units created before 1994, in particular those that allow low-income tenants a rent that is geared to their income (corresponds to their capacity to pay).

The original copies of the petition must be returned to FRAPRU by April 30, 2012, in order for them to be delivered to the House of Commons.