We left off last month at the strange head of the pro-Palestine march, seized by Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer. Heirs to the colonial rule that carved up the Middle East in the early 20th century, the French president and British prime minister have now become supporters of the recognition of a Palestinian State. They have aligned themselves with Bin Salman, and his double — or triple — game: while the Saudi prince negotiates his petrodollars with Washington for the Abraham Accords, he reassures Paris with a display of support for the Palestinian National Authority and, with Islamabad, he secures himself Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella. It has since become clear that France and Britain sought to insert themselves into the folds and gaps of the American peace plan — twenty points that London helped to formulate through the back-room bargaining between former prime minister Tony Blair and Jared Kushner, real estate businessman and, most importantly, Donald Trump’s son-in-law.
So, was Trump also at the head of the march? The American president — more television impresario than real estate developer — is better suited to the stage of show diplomacy. He was the star of the show at the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, and the host of Peace 2025 in Sharm El Sheikh, a sort of Oscars where he personally introduced dozens of heads of State and oil emirs, and where he celebrated himself as the architect of an eternal peace. The travelling show then moved on to Asia, where the promise of a golden age with the new Japanese prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, and the trade agreement with South Korea preceded the Busan summit between Trump and Xi Jinping.
Will there be a grand finale, in the guise of global peace or at least a period of détente? Perhaps. Provided we remember that behind the scenes, the contention between powers continues unabated. The clash over tariffs is far from over, and is now combined with offers and threats over rare earths. Beijing conducted naval manoeuvres near Taiwan precisely during the summit between Trump and Xi. In the war in Ukraine, the slow drip of death continues, and the Budapest episode of the Trump Show was cancelled due to Putin’s unavailability. American military pressure on Venezuela is mounting. The war in Sudan continues to rage. There is no power in the world that is not rearming. And even in Gaza, the land of eternal peace, partitioned between Israel and Hamas, at times missiles strike again and machine guns crackle in summary executions. We must fight against barbarism, it has been said, but with our eyes wide open: in the blink of an eye, we can end up as cannon fodder in their wars or extras in their grotesque spectacles. This is why Marxist science, and the organisation that supports it, are indispensable.
The global contention between the powers is also played out in the confrontation between production systems, leading to restructuring that affects the living conditions of workers. Germany, the industrial heart of Europe, is inevitably the most involved; consequently, so are German wage earners. The repercussions then inevitably reach the rest of Europe, including Italy, and this also motivates our interest in German affairs.
First, let us assess the social impact of restructuring. In Germany, unemployment has risen above three million for the first time in fifteen years. According to a survey by the IFO Institute in Munich, however, this is a creeping cut in staff
, achieved largely by not replacing workers who have left employment. As for actual resignations, these are often incentivised, thus mitigating the social effects. In manufacturing, which currently employs 5.42 million people, this represents a loss of 114,000 jobs in twelve months and almost 250,000 since 2019 [Il Sole-24 Ore, August 27th].
Imperialist contention over the automotive industry
The car industry, marked by the electric transition, is among the most affected. Once again, the contention between economic groups and between States has taken hold of the new technology, as we have already documented for the automotive sector [see L'automobile e la sfida elettrica, Edizioni Lotta Comunista, 2022]. In its emergence as a major imperialist power, China has seized this opportunity, moving ahead of the other powers on electric vehicles instead of following them down the old road of the combustion engine. Today, writes the Financial Times [October 10th], China is becoming the first electro-State
and its impact is beginning to be felt across the world.
The repercussions in Europe, where the sector accounts for 2.4 million direct jobs and 13 million indirect jobs, are inevitable and the spectre of a million jobs going up in smoke
is beginning to loom, as predicted in 2019 by Alberto Bombassei, who, with his company Brembo, manufactures car brakes [Corriere della Sera, September 25th].
A differentiated impact
In Germany, the impact is immediate and also differs from region to region. According to a study by IW Consult, cited by Handelsblatt on September 10th, 1.2 million people work in the sector and related businesses; 55,000 jobs have been lost since 2019 and another 90,000 could disappear by 2030. Fifty-five per cent of the added value of this industry is generated in 116 of Germany's 400 districts: one in 12 workers is employed in the sector here, compared to one in 30 nationally. However, 36 of these areas are most at risk, including Stuttgart (Baden-Württemberg), with Mercedes, Bosch, and Porsche; Schweinfurt (Bavaria), with ZF, Bosch, and Schaeffler; Saarbrücken (Saarland) with Ford and other small companies.
This is an example of how a sectoral crisis can have different impacts even within the same State, a phenomenon that is also present elsewhere. In Italy, car manufacturing, which employed 170,000 people in 2021, is heavily concentrated in Piedmont, followed by Emilia-Romagna, but there are other centres in Cassino (Lazio), Isernia (Molise), Pomigliano d'Arco (Campania), and Melfi (Basilicata). As for components, with around 200,000 employees, Piedmont, Lombardy, and Emilia-Romagna lead the way, followed by Veneto, Tuscany, and Campania.
A blow to the myth of co-management
While Stellantis in Italy has lost almost 10,000 employees in the last four years [FIOM, September 20th], most car companies in Germany are also involved in restructuring. Volkswagen expects 35,000 voluntary redundancies by 2030; Daimler Truck expects 5,000 by the same date; Porsche will cut almost 2,000 jobs by 2029, and Ford 2,000 in Cologne, in addition to the 2,700 already planned by 2027. The impact on component manufacturers is severe: Bosch, which already announced 9,000 redundancies last year, is adding another 13,000 by 2030; ZF has announced 14,000 by 2028 and implemented 7,600 on October 1st, and Continental cut 20,000 employees five years ago.
Some cases have political repercussions. The most significant concerns Bosch, where the IG Metall trade union expresses enormous disappointment
and says it is a dark day for social partnership
. President Christiane Benner explains and accuses: Robert Bosch [the founder, nicknamed 'Bosch the Red' for his social inspiration] is turning in his grave! You are reneging on the values that made the company successful: reliability, responsibility, and loyal cooperation
. She adds: In recent months, we joined forces to preserve sites and facilities, and this is how you thank us, with redundancies? It doesn't work like that
. She acknowledges that relying on co-management, the German Mitbestimmung, has not worked.
Frank Sell, chairman of the works council, explains how it should have gone: We will never be able to compete with the Chinese; we would have to lower our prices by 30%
. So, if Chinese car manufacturers want to sell here, they should also produce here under German conditions
[Handelsblatt, September 26th]. A Trump-style approach with a Rhineland twist.
The French Bosch plant in Aveyron has also seen a decline from 2,500 employees in 2000 to 520 expected by the end of 2025 and, perhaps, 350 in 2030. And Forvia is planning up to 10,000 job cuts in Europe [Le Monde, October 13th].
Unity among European steelworkers
Another sector in which restructuring is undermining the myth of co-management is the steel industry. This is the case with ThyssenKrupp: What will become of Mitbestimmung ThyssenKrupp?
asks Handelsblatt on September 25th. The company has announced 11,000 redundancies in the steel sector by 2030, and the union is criticising the lack of transparency and discussion.
In the steel industry, too, the processes are at least continental in scale, although each country has its own problems and dynamics (for instance, the never-ending story of the former Ilva in Italy). Hence the need for a response at a European level. This was the approach taken by delegations from the Spanish Comisiones Obreras Industria and the Italian FIOM in Genoa, who met in the Ligurian city on September 22nd to take stock of the restructuring of ArcelorMittal in Spain and the former Ilva in Italy. Among the points agreed upon were the defence of jobs and wages
, but above all the need for a European trade union to commit to improving wage and safety conditions in non-European countries in order to combat wage dumping
.
Internationalism versus protectionism
This is a class-based response to the logic of protectionism, which is so widespread in the current political cycle, even in trade unions. Returning to Germany, Benner of IG Metall is calling for State intervention to counter industrial decline. The enemy? The US and China have abandoned fair competition
, which is why an active policy is needed, since the market alone will not solve the problem
. Therefore, binding regulations and fixed national production quotas are called for [Handelsblatt, September 24th].
Given this scenario, it is clear why we must always start from a strategic vision, even when dealing with trade union struggles. And the strategic vision is the contention between the powers: we must defend the immediate interests of wage earners, without falling prey to the conflicting interests of the large groups of capital and their States. Bringing this awareness to the workers is the first task of the Leninist party.