From the article of 'Petrel'
No.667 / February 22, 1998

Please send us your opinion and the impression about this article without reservation.

The reactionary of "Democratic union regime" has been exposed.

The French "Leftist" regime deepening the contradiction
Though the act of 35 working hours per week has been approved



----------
The "shortening working hours act " to 35 approved in France on the 10th February. It is the one to shorten the legal working hour from 39 hours per week at present to 35 hours per week until 2002, and the government is emphasizing that at least the "Employment increase" of several hundred thousands will become possible by this. It is an idea of so-called "Work sharing." However, the French bourgeoisie fiercely opposes this law and is shouting that it is the one to prepare the defeat and the dismantlement of French industry. I wonder whether the working system of 35 hours per week can really become the savior of French capitalism. Being asked is the reformism of the "Leftist" regime and the "Welfare State" idea in the bourgeois state reconstruction. We declare that such a "Shorten" demand is reactionary and is fanciful in the meaning because it is submitted with cutting off from the view of the fundamental revolution of the capitalistic exploitation system, independently of the revolutionary fight!
----------

The concept in this policy is the one of sharing the working hour in the workers. If 39 hours will be shortened to 35 hours, the worker's working hour per person is shortened by four hours and almost 10 persons instead of nine workers will be able to be employed.

That is, they say that because 39~9 equal 350 hours and 35~10 equal 350 hours, the problem is to be reduced to the problem of simple arithmetic. The work being done by nine persons up to now will be done by 10 persons in the future, and thus, one person's "Employment" is secured naturally.

This policy will be able to lower the high unemployment rate of France named 3 million persons and 12% all at once; this is the intention and the unreliable account of our Jospin "Leftist" Cabinet.

However, first of all, to be the problem is the pay. The loss for the capital might not too much if dividing the nine persons' worth of pay by 10 persons. (However, it must not be such simple because it is necessary for the the enterprise to bear other than pay according to the employment increase variously.)

However, if the pay is not cut down by about 10 percent or more slightly, the load for the enterprise will increase and it will invade the profit of the French enterprise and weaken the competing power.

The French "leftist" regime cannot declare as "The pay should be reduced responding to the shortening of the working hour" and takes a vague, noncommittal attitude in this respect, too. Because they got the seat of regime as the ally who defend the profit of the working class in their words, and the purpose of having taken out the work system of 35 hours is for the workers, too.

The Jospin "Leftist" regime being at a loss could do nothing but take out the protection of the state. First of all, they say that they introduce 35 hours system from this year, and the nation will provide the subsidy of 9 thousand franc (about 190 thousand yen) in a year per employee to the enterprise that increases employment.

However, this is only at the first year, and they decrease gradually from the second year and will discontinue it in five years. Though the state promises to give a favor, it is a little one and has time limit. It is not very welcome for the enterprise. After all, the wages paid to the workers will increase and so the profit will and should be reduced.

The result might be the stagnation of the enterprise activity and the deepen of the recession, so the deterioration of "employment situation," too. The policy for the workers, for the employment improvement might not only becomes for that at all but also might bring rather the opposite result.

The enterprise at the present age is the capital and it assumes the profit to be the purpose and the motive. The enterprise will not be engaged in the production activity that does not bear the profit. If there is no profit, the enterprise will stop producing or withdraw from the production section. Furthermore, if it is not possible to invest by obtaining the profit domestically, it is likely to escape to foreign countries. That is, it is "the becoming hollow of industry." The unemployment of the workers will even expand, but will not improve.

Do you say that though such a view might be exist but one mere possibility and it will be able to exist the opposite of that?

Good, let's assume it to be one mere possibility. However, it teaches at least that the French "Leftist" regime's doing is not absolute and the workers are not able to trust it at all if it is one possibility.

And, it can be said that our forecast is not one possibility at all but even one probability.

Because, the capital profit is hostile and not common with the worker's at all in this capital society.

The shortening of the working hour and the "Work Sharing" (so as not being the reduction of wages) might certainly be the profit for the workers immediately. However, the reformist explains that this is also a profit for the capital because it is an expansion of the market, therefore, it is also a recovery of business. They say that the policy for the workers is also the capitalist's profit at the same time, and if so, there is no reason for us to oppose this policy.

However, might it be true? For an individual capitalist, the workers in the place other than him are certainly the consumers, the purchasers of the commodity. However that is only a sweet fantasy while the enterprise's activity goes smoothly and actually, that is, in the relation to his own workers, the raise of worker's wages are the reduction of the profit, or if he "imputes" the raise of the worker's wages to the price it will mean the loss of the competing power. Both might be the one to prepare the defeat of the enterprise in a general competing society.

And, just the relation to his own workers is the true relation, the internal relation between the capital and the workers. The interests of the capital and of the wage labor is hostile, and just this relation is true also for the capital. The relation in circulation or market is only the superficial one, the temporary phenomenon. The capitalist and the workers in this relation appear as the relation of equal "Citizens," however it is not an essential relation between the capital and the wage labor at all.

Actually, the bourgeoisie did not only oppose politically but also has been resisting economically against the policy of the French "Leftist" regime.

For instance, the manager of Michelin that is the enterprise of a big tire business in the city Clermont-Ferrand in French central part is talking, "If the law of shortening compulsion will come into effect, it is necessary to examine the overseas transfer of production section and the reduction of domestic employee." ('The Japanese Economic Newspaper' February 15)

The bourgeoisie in France has misgivings thast such a policy is likely to become a starting point where France is defeated in the international market because the enterprises in England and United States are improving the competing power by the liberalizing and restructuring route now.

The direct investment of capital to foreign countries recorded the height in the past when Jospin "Leftist" Cabinet announced the frame of the shortening act last October.

The attitude that the "Leftist" Cabinet had taken when thay faced about the violent resistance of bourgeoisie showed typically the negligence and the cowardice of this government.

This government proposed a compromise plan completely eviscerating and actually making "Harmless" this law, that is, the shortening law instead of decisively confronting the bourgeoisie. That is, they made this execution of shortening by year, that is, the shortening of the working hour being able to be executed even by year, not by week and so on. Because the load of enterprise is reduced if they do so.

Does not the "Leftist" regime see that the "Effect" of this law also lost instead of the load of the enterprise being reduced? Do they think that only the appearance of the surface is important and the actual effect is trivial? Or, did not they believe the effect of their policies from the beginning?

Moreover, I wonder whether this law is misused by the enterprise wanting to do the restructuring. The reason is that if the nation is requesting the shortening, that is, the shortening of working hour, it might be the best for the enterprise to execute even layoff and decrease the working hour under this recession.

Though the working hour might decrease in case of year unit, the "Employment improvement" will not be caused anywhere of course. Instead, the worker will be forced the reduction of wage rate.

Just therefore, the labor union opposes to such compromising and negligent standpoint of the government as where will the employment increase be caused in case of adjusting by year and "takes the stances" not to accept it.

"The system of 35 working hours per week" of the French "Leftist" regime will not become worker's profit under the rule of the capital or by the cooperation with capital. I wonder whether it will even be put into practice. Moreover, even if it will be executed only in France, it will bring only the weakening of the French capital, that is, the defeat in the international competing war.

Even the good purpose of the "Leftist" regime to improve employment will not also be achieved.

It might be a dilemma under the bourgeois government, on the capitalistic production style. The French "Leftist" regime, that is, the "Democratic union government" that the Communist Party recommends is contradicting itself and is failing in fact.

This regime corresponded to the demand for the relief of unemployed as "It will oblige the increase of fiscal deficit or the tax increase, so we will spend money to the policy connecting to the increase of employment" recently, and it provoked the violent angry of unemployed and workers. It is not a chance at all that the unemployed and worker's fights against this government is intensifying more and more. This government says that they shoud give priority to the unreliable way increaseing employment, for instance, the introduction of the 35 working hours system more than the unemployed reliefs, and the subsidy is more important.

To say the subsidy, can you really say that it is for the workers and not for the enterprise? Anyway, the relief money for the unemployed is expended directly for the workers although it is directly provided for the enterprise. So, do not you see a too clear "difference" there?

The standpoint of this "Leftist" government that the Communist Party also joined is quite ideal and nonsense, and it thoroughly exposes the silly of reformist dogma.

The reason this government is failing is that they do not know the true relation of immanence between the capital and the wage labor because they cannot see the hostile standpoint of the capital and labor and leave from the fantasy of the class cooperation, the fantasy such as the profit of both is corresponding in the "Market," that is, the both agrees in the demand expansion and so on, or the both can goes hand in hand with each other on the employment increase according to the way.

Thus, the breakdown of the French "Leftist" regime talks about the limit and nonsense of the "Leftist" regime of Japan eloquently beforehand, of which the Communist Party assumes to realize at "the no late time" of the 21st century. This is exactly an definite "Other side teacher" for the workers in Japan.