 |
| Emilio Maspero speaking at the opening of the 'Asemblea de los Trabajadores y los Pueblos de America Latina' in the city of Panama, November 1978. Emilio Maspero was a passionate speaker with a great rhetorical talent, regularly putting to the test his audience. |
Emilio Maspero
was not only the undisputed ideologue of CLAT but also a great
idealist. All his life he believed in the values of the Christian
trade union movement as basic for trade union action, was he a
committed democratic revolutionary, an advocate of pluralism within
the international trade union movement and an advocate for Latin
American unity.
“The type of trade unionism that we
specifically advocate is characterized by the adjective 'Christian'.”
The term Christian, as we use it, has no sectarian, religiuous,
ecclesiastical, theological, or dogmatic implications. We use the
term simply to refer to the social philosophy and the ethic of
Christianity as they apply to trade unionism – as they inspire its
orientation, its direction, and its methods. Our unionism is based on
some very fundamental ideas, attitudes, and moral concepts that are
common to all men of good will. Christian trade unionism is not
dependent upon any ecclesiastical authority, nor is it guided by the
specified apostolic goals of official Catholic action groups. In the
Christian trade-union organizations of Latin America, one finds
neither religious nor ecclesiastical discrimination. All workers can
enter our organizations simply by accepting our principles and
programs.” (page 208, 'Trade
Unionism as an Instrument of the Latin American revolution', in
'Latin American Radicalism', Ed. I.L.Horowitz, J.de Castro,
J.Gerassi, Vintage Books, NY 1969.)
It is not
surprising that Maspero from his Social Christian point of view has
no good words for the North American labor movement. "North
American unionism has always prof for processed to be a pragmatic and
nonpartisan movement. Thus, it has avoided assuming an ideological,
philosophical, or doctrinal character. Its only concern has leg the
struggle for bread and butter and the continuing material progress of
the workers."(Page 221
Maspero in L.A. Radicalism). True
words which perhaps more than ever before apply on the international
trade union movement now, almost 50 years after being written and
nearly 25 years after the end of the Cold War. The international
trade union movement has turned into a so called "bread and
butter trade unionism" that only cares about the material
prosperity of its members and followers, without having an eye for
the spiritual needs of the workers and the people in general. This
lack of spiritual inspiration in the trade union movement can be one
of the causes why the trade unions appeals to fewer and fewer young
people.
 |
| Part of the Presidium of the 'Asemblea de los Trabajadores y los Pueblos de America Latina" in Panama city, November 1978. In the centre Emilio Maspero. On the right Jan Kulakowski, Secretary general of the WCL. |
Maspero accused the North American labor movement from a lack of respect for
pluralism in the international trade union movement. “With
respect to relations, we have always been granted just one
alternative: that we disappear as an organization and a reality so
that we might be annexed and absorbed by the trade-union
organizations inspired, promoted, and financed in latin America by
North-American trade-union organizations and the U.S. Government.
There is not the slightest respect for international pluralism. The
idea is to monopolize all in order to place it at the service of a
formula, and of interests and partial viewpoints of one single sector
of the democratic trade unionism of the two Americas – disavowing
all the other democratic trade-union organizations which are making
their own original efforts in latin America.”
(page 229, Maspero in L.A. radicalism).
But with the end of the
Cold War, 25 years ago, came no end to the pursuit of global hegemony
of the North American trade union movement. The Canadian union
confederation CLAC, a former member of the WCL, de facto was evicted
from the new International Trade Union Confederation ITUC, through
manipulations of the North American-oriented Canadian trade union
confederation CLC. In their brochure “Highlights of an alternative
labour movement” the following is said about the differences
between the North American trade unions and CLAC.
“Canadian mainline trade unions are
monopolistic in character and reject pluralism as being divisive.
North American trade unions do not favour the emancipation of workers
as co-workers or partners in the enterprisen because, as such, it is
feared they would identify more with the company than with the union.
And that would be a serious threat to the union's power and
influence. Unions represent workers over against the company. Here
lie the roots of the adversary system that forever keeps management
and workers apart, and it is the source of a deplorable record of
days lost to labour disputes. The two parties are implacable foes
when it comes to dividing the economic pie; strikes and lockouts are
almost invariable over wages and benefits and rarely over other
concerns. It should be noted that, in general, employers have the
same perspective on labour relations. Much effort is put into keeping
a union out of the workplace, and when employees do bring in a trade
union, employers do what they can to minimize the role the union can
play. CLAT believes that the materialistic view of work, of workers,
and of the enterprise – a view shared by both managemant and unions
– is the very opposite of the Christian idea of stewardship,
calling, participation, service and responsibility. (page 14 and 15)
 |
| The Mexican trade union leader José Merced Gonzalez at the Asemblea in Panamay City. |
The new argument for
more unity in the trade union movement now was the globalization of
the world economy. It was assumed that because the economy is
globalized, that the unions should be globalized also in a united
trade union confederation at the global level. In practice, however,
a very small minority of workers has to do with the globalized
economy in the form of international companies. The vast majority of
employees work in a local or rather national industry with its own
national laws, labor and industrial relations,wage levels and so on.
Why can these not be addressed in different ways, nationally and
internationally? Besides, why pluralism would be the opposite to
solidarity? This is not true. It is the other way around. Pluralism
and solidarity are mutually reinforcing.
Maspero judged
even harder on the communist trade union movement in his continent
than on the North American labor movement. “Communists
have contributed very little to the cause of trade unionism in Latin
America. However misdirected, the initiative of North America trade
unions ahs, at least, aided in the organization of numerous groups
and has rendered some positive service. Communistis, on the other
hand,have always preferred to penetrate, infiltrate, and dominate the
existing trade unions so that they can bring them into line with
imperialistic Communist strategy.”
(page 222, Maspero in L.A. Radicalism).
That Maspero for
all believed in the ideal of a democratic revolution, with the
emphasis on democracy, is illustrated by the following quote. “For
us in the Christian trade union movement , democracy is the political
form that the social revolution that we hope to wage will introduce.
This democracy has nothing to do with capitalism as it now exists in
Latin America. To function and to perfect itself in our environment,
democracy must trannscend the present capitalist system and introduce
for the firts time democratic principles, not only into the political
but also into the social and economic oder. Given the value judgments
that tend to attach to these words in Latin America, the penchant to
picture capitalism and democracy as bedfellows has caused many to
lose hope in political freedom, to reject democracy, and to incline
toward totalitarianism.”(page
220-221, Maspero in L.A. Radicalism)
Indeed, the major
problem in Latin America is the corruption of democracy by the
political elite of the continent, as Maspero says. The brutal and
violent coup of General Pinochet in 1974 against the democratically
elected leftist Chilean President Allende, did make it worse for
those who believe in democracy as the way to change. To make matters
worse democracy was also corrupted by the Cuban revolution. “Cuba
presents a very clear case. True, the Cuban phenomenon can be
considered from one point of view as an accelerator of the
revolutionary process on our continent. But the present Cuban
experience is more a counter revolutionary phenomenon that has
hindered the Latin American social revolution, which must always seek
its own and original channels. Owing to the presence of international
Communism the Cuban labor movement has lost its autonomy and become,
in effect, counter revolutionary in nature.” (page 222, Maspero in
L.A. Radicalism)
 |
| George Fortuné, Haitian trade union leader who lived for many years in exile in Caracus during the regime of Papa Doc and his son Baby Doc. (VII CLAT Congress,San José, Costa Rica, November 1977) |
The result was a
growing confusion in revolutionary ranks on the value of democracy as
a principle and as a tool for change. Many unions and even church
groups such as the basic ecclesial groups with their liberation
doctrine rushed into the arms of totalitarian movements and parties
in despair at the lack of real change in Latin America. The result
was that the violent power struggle became even more violent and
brutal than before as was the case in El Salvador and Guatemala. As
always the ordinary people suffered the most. Furthermore, it led to
destruction and stagnation instead of change and progress. The
confusion continues to this day in Latin America, as evidenced by the
events of the Bolivarian Venezuela. Once again there is the risk that
democracy will be sacrificed to a socialist experiment that instead
of bringing progress and development, leads to more polarization, the
loss of production capacity, a financial disaster, up to the demise
of the infrastructure and to more oppression of the human rights.
CLAT was also
confused by these developments. I remember CLAT had no clear
strategic options from the moment Chavez was elected president. What
to do against this populist caudillo who let the poor believe that
wealth is within reach if only they followed him? In the meantime the
political elite of Christian and Social Democrats were not any more
an alternative. On the contrary, they had corrupted democracy from
within and outside. Within the labor movement the confusion
exacerbated when the Chavez government actively began to interfere
with the unions. For CLAT nothing else was left, but trying to
survive in the hope that the troubles would disappear.
As if this was not
enough, Maspero witnessed before his death the demise of his great
ideal of Latin American unity. With his radical socialism of the
twentieth century, Chavez managed to destroy in few years the
institutions of Latin American Unity that were built up through
difficult negotiations in many years. In just a couple of years Latin
America was back to nearly zero. In his lifetime Maspero witnessed
the change of Latin America from a continent of hope in the sixties
of the last century into a continent of despair.
After the death of
Maspero in 2000, Brazil remained true to the democratic principles,
thanks to the former radical union leader Lula da Silva, who was
President from 2003 to 2011. But this was too late for CLAT. In the
prevailing confusion in Latin America, followed by the death of
Emilio Maspero, new CLAT leaders had become vulnerable to pressure
from the international trade union movement and in particular of the
World Confederation of Labour WCL. CLAT bowed his head and became
part of the new Latin American trade union CSA, the regional
organization of ITUC.
For Emilio Maspero the
European Union and the European welfare state were always an
inspiring example, the answer to the North American individualistic
capitalism. It is therefore particularly tragic that CLAT ultimately
is seduced to merge with the ORIT by the European trade unions. We
can only guess what will be the implications of this new trade union
unity for the future of Latin America. It is certain that with the
death of Emilio Maspero ultimately an inspiring movement as CLAT has
disappeared from the Latin American scene.
For the
Dutch speaking readers who are interested in the history of CLAT, I
refer to the brochure "The trade union movement as an instrument
of revolution in Latin America," published in the series
Kosmodok, June / July 1970 jrg.3 No. 6/7. The brochure has been
compiled by Gerrit Bruin, a pseudonym for Gerrit Pruim, former
general secretary of the Dutch solidarity association CLAT
Netherlands (formerly CLASC Netherlands).
