Log in

View Full Version : Argentine Factory Wins Legal Battle: FASINPAT Zanon Belongs to the People



KurtFF8
16th August 2009, 19:07
Source (http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/2052/1/)


Written by Marie Trigona Friday, 14 August 2009 http://upsidedownworld.org/main/images/stories/August09/fasinpat1.jpgThe workers at Argentina's occupied ceramics factory, FASINPAT (Factory Without a Boss), won a major victory this week: the factory now definitively belongs to the people in legal terms. The provincial legislature voted in favor of expropriating the ceramics factory and handing it over to the workers cooperative to manage legally and indefinitely. Since 2001, the workers at Zanon have fought for legal recognition of worker control at Latin America's largest ceramics factory which has created jobs, spearheaded community projects, supported social movements world-wide and shown the world that workers don't need bosses.

"This is incredible, we are happy. The expropriation is an act of justice," said Alejandro Lopez the General Secretary of the Ceramists Union, overwhelmed by the emotion of the victory. "We don't forget the people who supported us in our hardest moments, or the 100,000 people who signed the petition supporting our bill."

Hundreds of workers from the FASINPAT factory waited anxiously until the late hours of the night for the legislature's decision. The expropriation law passed 26 votes in favor and 9 votes against the bill. Thousands of supporters from other workers' organizations, human rights groups and social movements, along with entire families and students, joined the workers as they waited outside the provincial legislature in the capital city of Neuquén. Enduring the Patagonian winter weather, activists played drums and shouted: "here they are the workers of Zanon, workers without a boss."

FASINPAT has operated under worker control since 2001 when Zanon's owners decided to close its doors and fire the workers without paying months of back pay or severance pay. Leading up to the massive layoffs and plant's closure, workers went on strike in 2000. The owner, Luis Zanon, with over 75 million dollars in debt to public and private creditors (including the World Bank for over 20 million dollars), fired en masse most of the workers and closed the factory in 2001-a bosses' lockout. In October 2001, workers declared the plant under worker control. The workers subsequently camped outside the factory for four months, pamphleteering and partially blocking a highway leading to the capital city of Neuquén. While the workers were camping outside the factory, a court ruled that the employees could sell off remaining stock. After the stock ran out, on March 2, 2002, the workers' assembly voted to start up production without a boss. Since the occupation, the workers renamed the factory FASINPAT (Factory without a Boss).

The workers set up a stage with a giant screen for the thousands of supporters to view the legislative vote. As the decision was read, workers embraced one another in tears in disbelief that after 8 years of struggle they finally won legal control of the factory. "This decision reflects an organized struggle that won the support all of society," said Veronica Hullipan from the Confederation of Mapuche. She said that the network of Mapuche indigenous communities in the Patagonia have supported the Zanon workers' struggle and said legal decision is a "political triumph of workers' organization."

Zanon workers reminded their supporters that the struggle of Zanon, was also the struggle of Carlos Fuentealba, a public school teacher from the province of Neuquén killed by a police officer during a peaceful protest in defense of public education. The Zanon workers have not only created jobs, but they have supported workers struggles locally, nationally and internationally. Workers from FASINPAT were present at the protest where Fuentealba was shot point blank in the head with a tear gas canister, in police repression ordered by the conservative ruling coalition of Neuquén MPN, which has ruled the Patagonian province since the 1976-1983 military dictatorship.

"This is an important chapter in the struggle of the Zanon workers, who have been fighting in the streets for more than 9 years. First they tried to evict us in order to auction off the factory, the workers' struggle and the community pressured the government to expropriate the factory," Raul Godoy, Zanon worker told the national news daily Página/12. Today, the plant exports ceramics to 25 countries.

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/images/stories/August09/fasinpat2.jpgMany legislative representatives wanted to demand that the workers at the self-managed factory "guarantee a pact for social peace." But for the workers, the pact for social peace is broken when businessmen fraudulently go bankrupt and throw hundreds of workers out into the street. "The capitalists are constantly declaring war with tariff increases, by privatizing public companies and with firings. Before this situation, the workers must defend themselves; and the workers at Zanon commit to defending ourselves, in the street, however we have to."

According to the legislation passed, the FASINPAT cooperative which employs 470 workers and exports ceramics to more than 25 countries, will remain under the control of the cooperative. The state would pay off 22 million pesos (around $7 million) to the creditors. One of the main creditors is the World Bank - which gave a loan of 20 million dollars to Luis Zanon for the construction of the plant, which he never paid back. The other major creditor is the Italian company SACMY that produces state of the art ceramics manufacturing machinery and is owed over $5 million. However, the workers have resisted the state pay-off, saying that courts have proven that the creditors participated in the fraudulent bankruptcy of the plant in 2001, because the credits went directly to the owner Luis Zanon and not investments into the factory. "If someone should pay, Luis Zanon should pay, who is being charged with tax evasion," said Omar Villablanca from FASINPAT.

Victory, then an eviction

While the victory of FASINPAT brings hope to many of the 200 occupied factories currently operated under worker self-management in Argentina, many are still facing legal attacks. Early yesterday morning, just hours after the Zanon victory, a police operative evicted the factory Textil Quilmes, a thread factory occupied in the new wave of factory occupations in 2009. The four workers on night guard were evicted violently. The Buenos Aires provincial government is currently debating an expropriation bill for Textil Quilmes and several other new occupations in the Buenos Aires province. The textile workers are resisting the eviction at the factory's doors, rallying support to re-enter the factory despite police presence. They also had temporary legal protection, following an expropriation bill that was approved unanimously by the lower house in the provincial legislature.

The workers occupied the plant on February 11, 2009. "We camped outside the plant to avoid the bosses' liquidation of the machinery. And the workers decided to take a direct action, occupy and form a cooperative," said Eduardo Santillán, a Quilmes textile worker. With the remaining cotton left in the plant, the workers immediately began to produce cotton thread. At the time of the firing, more than 80 worked at the plant. In a common practice for business owners who file bankruptcy despite an increased demand for their product, the owner Ruben Ballani of Febatex owed the workers months of unpaid salaries, unpaid vacation time and social security. The workers also reported that the owner would force his employees to work 12 hour shifts, a practice outlawed nearly 100 years ago.

Six months after the workers were fired and the union (Sindicato Textil - AOT) failed to intervene, the workers at Textil Quilmes started up production. They claim that the union, who turned their backs on the workers once they were fired, is now negotiating on behalf of the bosses.

The occupations in Argentina continue to rise as the global economic crisis hits the South American nation. The Arrufat chocolate factory, Disco de Oro empanada pastry manufacturer, Indugraf printing press, Febatex thread producer and Lidercar meat packing plant joined the ranks of the worker occupied factory movement from 2008 to 2009. Textil Quilmes has fought along with workers from other factories occupied since the onset of the global economic crisis to demand expropriation laws; none have a definitive legal future.

Many independent analysts expect the global recession to hit Argentina's real economy. Unemployment rates have gone up and industry growth has halted, while the financial sector remains unaffected because it already took a major blow in 2001. Those who benefited from Argentina's economic recovery of course are now those who are using this crisis as an excuse to downsize and lay-off workers with the promise of public bailout packages and government credits.

The phenomenon of worker occupations continues to grow as the world falls deeper into the current recession. Nearly 20 new factories in Argentina were occupied since 2008. This may be a sign that workers are confronting the current global financial crisis with lessons and tools from previous worker occupied factories post-2001 economic collapse and popular rebellion. Today, some 250 worker occupied enterprises are up and running, employing more than 13,000. Many of these sites have been producing under worker self-management since 2002, providing nearly a decade of lessons, experiments, strategies and mistakes to learn from.

Zanon and others from the occupied factory movement have proven that they are capable of doing what bosses aren't interested in doing: creating jobs and work with dignity. This may be why government representatives, industry leaders and factory owners have remained silent and often times reacted with hostility on this issue; they are afraid of these sites multiplying and the example they have set.

At Zanon, workers constantly use the slogan: "Zanon es del pueblo" or Zanon belongs to the people. The workers have adopted the objective of producing not only to provide jobs and salaries for more than 470 people, but also to create new jobs, make donations in the community and to support other social movements. For many at the recuperated enterprises, the occupation of their workplace meant much more than safe-guarding their jobs, it also became part of a struggle for a world without exploitation. While the Zanon victory is a step in the right direction, many of the occupations are facing eviction orders. FASINPAT can now operate legally and focus their attention to producing ceramics in a faltering economy. The Zanon collective has expressed their continued commitment to defending workers' rights and self-management, which means defending all worker occupations with slogan: "si nos tocan a uno, nos tocan a todos": "if they mess with one of us, they mess with all of us."

Marie Trigona is a writer, radio producer and filmmaker based in Argentina. She is currently writing a book on Worker Self-Management in Latin America forthcoming by AK Press. She can be reached at mtrigona(at)msn.com ([email protected])

Ned Flanders
18th August 2009, 12:15
a small step. but still this is exellent!:)

cb9's_unity
24th August 2009, 04:50
The initiative of these workers is beyond admirable, its absolutely inspiring!

Conquer or Die
24th August 2009, 07:54
Not owned by the state = fail.

RotStern
24th August 2009, 08:28
Wow, amazing, Fuck the boss'!
Argentina! First Che, now this! Good on you guys :D

KurtFF8
24th August 2009, 22:29
Not owned by the state = fail.

How would ownership by the bourgeois Argentinean state help the workers of this factory?

internasyonalista
25th August 2009, 00:16
self-management = self-exploitation

cyu
25th August 2009, 01:31
self-management = self-exploitation

suicide = self-murder
donation = self-robbery
jogging = self-chasing / self-forced marching
reading = self-brainwashing
eating = self-forced feeding

What's your point?

Niccolò Rossi
25th August 2009, 06:03
What's your point?

I think what our Filipino comrade is trying to say here is that the legal victory which has secured the ownership and management of the factory by FaSinPat workers should not be heralded as a victory for socialism or a 'progressive' step-forward for the working class.


... ‘[S]elf-management’ (the management of enterprises by the workers in a society which remains capitalist), a petty bourgeois utopia last century when it was advocated by Proudhonist tendencies, is today nothing but a capitalist mystification. (see note)

It is an economic weapon of capital in that it tries to get the workers to take up responsibility for enterprises hit by the crisis by making them organise their own exploitation.

It is a political weapon of the counter-revolution in that it:


divides the working class by imprisoning it and isolating it factory by factory, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, sector by sector;
burdens the workers with the concerns of the capitalist economy when their only task is to destroy it;
diverts the proletariat from the fundamental task which determines the possibility of its emancipation: the destruction of the political apparatus of capital and the establishment of its class dictatorship on a world scale.

It is only on a world-wide scale that the proletariat can really undertake the management of production, but it will do this not within the framework of capitalist laws but by destroying them.

Any political position which (even in the name of ‘working class experience’ or of ‘establishing new relations among workers’) defends self management is, in fact, objectively participating in the preservation of capitalist relations of production. (Platform of the ICC, 11. Self-Management: Workers' Self-Exploitation)

bricolage
25th August 2009, 23:01
If self-management is not progressive or a step forwards is it in then regressive and a step backwards?

Also if self-mangement within capitalism is just self-exploitation and capitalism is global, does that mean that worker control of any area, not matter how large, within capitalism is just self-management? So for example was the Spanish Revolution just self-management on a large scale?

I ask all of these as genuine questions due to lack of knowledge, none of it is intended as sarcastic or inflammatory.

internasyonalista
26th August 2009, 00:14
capitalism is a world system. in the epoch of imperialism where this barbaric system completely conquered the planet and the world market is already saturated, this fact is very obvious.

"workers' self-management" in one factory or many factories in one country or few countries cannot escape capitalist laws and relations. thus, "self-management" is extracting surplus value from the workers themselves for profit. "workers' controlled" companies must sell their products and compete with other capitalist companies. with the saturation of the market, they are forced to make their products cheaper than their competitors. in what way? by extracting more surplus values and maximization of labor power. in essence, "workers' controlled" factories ae no different from any other capitalist factories, other than the juridical label that they are "own" by the workers. therefore, workers must exploit themselves in order to make "their" companies profitable and compitible.
state-owned companies or nationalized industries are in the same characteriestics also. under the guise of "socialism in one country", these so-called "socialist countries" are exploiting their "own" proletariat in the name of "socialism" and to "develop" one's nation.

cyu
26th August 2009, 01:22
... ‘[S]elf-management’ (the management of enterprises by the workers in a society which remains capitalist),

The difference in this case is that FASINPAT's employees are indeed fighting against capitalism - they are not simply satisfied with having their own little corporate democracy, but aim to bring corporate democracy as far as they can. They work actively to support other free companies. While it's true that freeing FASINPAT itself isn't much, but it is a step in the general struggle for freedom.

The same would be true if the entire world were made up of dictatorships and monarchies. If one island became democratic, that's no huge victory, but it's certainly better than not even having that one democracy at all.


organise their own exploitation.

What is your definition of exploitation? Who is getting the "surplus value"? Their goal is a world without bosses - if all companies became self-managed, there would be no such thing as a capitalist class.

While I do agree there may still be "exploitation" in the sense that if these free companies are still forced to compete in the economy, they would still be "racing to the bottom" - even if there were no bosses to live off their backs. Thus I support a cooperative economy instead - good products can still compete / succeed / fail, but people themselves shouldn't have to. It would be like a single company putting out two different types of bread or two different websites - if one turns out to be more popular than the other, then they may abandon the unpopular one, but that doesn't mean the departments that worked on the unpopular one suffer - they just get redirected to working on other things and share in the success of the popular parts of the company.



divides the working class by imprisoning it and isolating it factory by factory, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, sector by sector;


Perhaps in some cases, or even many cases, but this is not the case here. If you have been following the Argentine movement, you'd know that these free companies are very close-knit, often showing up at eachother's doorsteps whenever their sister companies need help fighting off the minions of the capitalists.


diverts the proletariat from the fundamental task which determines the possibility of its emancipation: the destruction of the political apparatus of capital

By assuming democratic control of companies, you are in fact destroying the power of capital. The economic power held in stocks (on which much of capitalist wealth is based) is contingent upon the amount of company control that stock gives the shareholder. If employees assume democratic control, then obviously the stock is worthless, since it no longer grants any control - thus it immediately limits the oppressive ability of the propertied class.


it will do this not within the framework of capitalist laws but by destroying them.

Sure, I agree with that. I agree that relying on the existing Argentine state to pass expropriation laws isn't exactly anarcho-syndicalist. I would prefer it if they just assumed democratic control regardless of what their politicians or propertied classes wanted.


Any political position which (even in the name of ‘working class experience’ or of ‘establishing new relations among workers’) defends self management is, in fact, objectively participating in the preservation of capitalist relations of production.

If you don't like "self-management", who should do the managing then? A self-appointed group of "elitists" who think they know better than everyone else?

PRC-UTE
26th August 2009, 07:15
I think what our Filipino comrade is trying to say here is that the legal victory which has secured the ownership and management of the factory by FaSinPat workers should not be heralded as a victory for socialism or a 'progressive' step-forward for the working class.

... ‘[S]elf-management’ (the management of enterprises by the workers in a society which remains capitalist), a petty bourgeois utopia last century when it was advocated by Proudhonist tendencies, is today nothing but a capitalist mystification. (see note)

It is an economic weapon of capital in that it tries to get the workers to take up responsibility for enterprises hit by the crisis by making them organise their own exploitation.

It is a political weapon of the counter-revolution in that it:


divides the working class by imprisoning it and isolating it factory by factory, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, sector by sector;
burdens the workers with the concerns of the capitalist economy when their only task is to destroy it;
diverts the proletariat from the fundamental task which determines the possibility of its emancipation: the destruction of the political apparatus of capital and the establishment of its class dictatorship on a world scale.

It is only on a world-wide scale that the proletariat can really undertake the management of production, but it will do this not within the framework of capitalist laws but by destroying them.

Any political position which (even in the name of ‘working class experience’ or of ‘establishing new relations among workers’) defends self management is, in fact, objectively participating in the preservation of capitalist relations of production. (Platform of the ICC, 11. Self-Management: Workers' Self-Exploitation)



While you're basically correct that it's not some victory for socialism, the analysis that this is a bosses weapon against the workers only is a view of the working class as mere objects being manipulated, rather than change being brought about through class struggle. This change in management occurred due to the workers struggles- the bosses initially wanted to lock them all out.

Niccolò Rossi
26th August 2009, 11:04
Expanding on what Internasyonalista has already said:


If self-management is not progressive or a step forwards is it in then regressive and a step backwards?

Not necessarily, though it can be and most often is. It is necessary for revolutionaries to understand this and it's implications.


Also if self-mangement within capitalism is just self-exploitation and capitalism is global, does that mean that worker control of any area, not matter how large, within capitalism is just self-management? So for example was the Spanish Revolution just self-management on a large scale?

The fundamental problem is not the size or scope of the enterprises self-managed. The problem is the perpetuation of the capitalism and the harmful mystifications against the working class self-management carries with it.


I ask all of these as genuine questions due to lack of knowledge, none of it is intended as sarcastic or inflammatory.

And thanks for it :)

Niccolò Rossi
26th August 2009, 13:18
The difference in this case is that FASINPAT's employees are indeed fighting against capitalism - they are not simply satisfied with having their own little corporate democracy, but aim to bring corporate democracy as far as they can. They work actively to support other free companies. While it's true that freeing FASINPAT itself isn't much, but it is a step in the general struggle for freedom.

As above with the questions posed by Barabbas; the problem with self-management and workers' cooperatives is not that they are small or weak, but that they are perfectly in harmony with capitalism and what's more, can and do act as an ideological prop for it.


Their goal is a world without bosses - if all companies became self-managed, there would be no such thing as a capitalist class.


By assuming democratic control of companies, you are in fact destroying the power of capital.

This is the typical, a-political syndicalist perspective (or lack of). So long as the bourgeois state exists, socialist transformation remains an impossibility. The power of the working class and communist relations of production can not grow up inside the framwork of capitalism as capitalism could with fuedalism.

It is rumoured that factory councils, where they were in existence, functioned by taking over the management of the workshops and carrying on the work. We would not like the working masses to get hold of the idea that all they need do to take over the factories and get rid or the capitalists is to set up councils. This would indeed be a dangerous illusion. The factory will be conquered by the working class -- and not only by the workforce employed in it, which would be too weak and non-communist -- only after the working class as a whole has seized political power. Unless it has done so, the Royal Guards, military police, etc. -- in other words, the mechanism of force and oppression that the bourgeoisie has at its disposal, its political power apparatus -- will see to it that all illusions are dispelled. (Bordiga, Seize Power or Seize the Factory?, Il Soviet, 1920) [Obviously Bordiga did not percieve at the time the possibility of self-management to serve the ends of the ruling class, the point still stands]


If you don't like "self-management", who should do the managing then? A self-appointed group of "elitists" who think they know better than everyone else?

It is not a matter of 'not liking' self-management. In opposition to both the petit-bourgeois fantasies of a self-managed, 'market socialist' society of atomised communes and companies, and the dystopia of totalitarian party dictatorship or technocratic acedmic clique, communism poses the possibility of a world without classes, states or borders; an international and truly human community, rationally and consciously organised to serve the needs of the whole of humanity.


While you're basically correct that it's not some victory for socialism, the analysis that this is a bosses weapon against the workers only is a view of the working class as mere objects being manipulated, rather than change being brought about through class struggle. This change in management occurred due to the workers struggles- the bosses initially wanted to lock them all out.

Of course it has been the workers who are fought for and won the legal battle for the self-ownership and management of FaSinPat, however this does not mean the battle has been one waged on the class terrain of the proletariat, ie. a battle fought in their class interests. Whilst the ruling class (or atleast a section of it) initially opposed these moves and continues to, it is clear that other sections have and will co-opt this struggle and other like it to serve interests of their own, alien to the working class.

Luís Henrique
26th August 2009, 16:33
The fundamental problem is not the size or scope of the enterprises self-managed. The problem is the perpetuation of the capitalism and the harmful mystifications against the working class self-management carries with it.

In the abstract, this may be correct. In this one concrete case, it is not. The workers took the factory by their own struggle, in direct oppostion to the bosses' will.

Evidently socialism in one factory is impossible; the factory continues to be a capitalist business in a capitalist economy. In the concrete situation, what would "left-communist" revolutionaries propose to the workers? That they demand that the company is disapropriated by the State and turn into a State owned company? That the company is disapropriated by the State and then auctioned so that the workers can again have a proper capitalist boss who won't "mystificate" them about the ugly realities of capitalism and class struggle? That the workers quit the fight and allow Zanon to sell the factory piecemeal, resulting in the loss of their jobs?

If you are revolutionaries, you need to have a concrete position in concrete situations. What would you actually say to Zanon workers assembled to discuss their situation?

Luís Henrique

cyu
26th August 2009, 22:05
So long as the bourgeois state exists... Unless it has done so, the Royal Guards, military police, etc. -- in other words, the mechanism of force and oppression that the bourgeoisie has at its disposal, its political power apparatus -- will see to it that all illusions are dispelled.

I don't think any anarcho-syndicalists want the continued existence of the old capitalist regime. Once the economy is in leftist hands, there isn't going to be any money left to pay the minions of the capitalist class anymore - not unless they switched from serving the plutocracy to serving the general population instead. And it's not like anarcho-syndicalists are encouraging people to allow continued oppression - instead, they'd encourage people to arm and learn to defend themselves and one another.


In opposition to both the petit-bourgeois fantasies of a self-managed, 'market socialist' society of atomised communes and companies... communism poses the possibility of a world without classes, states or borders; an international and truly human community, rationally and consciously organised to serve the needs of the whole of humanity.

I don't see why these two visions should be mutually exclusive. What's wrong with having both "atomization" and "internationalization" at the same time? What I mean is, if a bunch of people want to live without much technology (like the Amish), or with others who dress all "goth", or within a community where everyone understands sign-language, then they are free to have and live in that "atomized community" - however, they are also free to randomly move to any other community if they so choose.