Bulletin N° 609





May Day 2014
Grenoble, France


Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,


While faith-based political analysis cannot be turned into fact-based policy, believers can be turned into fools, as the ground moves out from under them and they lose their footing. As the rules of the game change, the players come and go, but the big winners remain mostly the same, thanks to centuries of time-honored techniques which when applied can produce predictable results. Nationalism and nationalist wars, religious bigotry, the violence of racism, sexism, and militarism, are but some of the techniques used to maintain relationships of domination/subjugation. They are always available, sitting on the shelf for ready access in case of emergencies. The ruling class can be counted on to unite in sharp focus over one crucial question; their undivided show of solidarity is guaranteed when it comes to challenging their right to exist as a class. Out come the classic tools of manipulation, with substantial financial backing of course, and what was once our revolt against their illegitimate domination over us becomes a fragmented free-for-all; our primary source of power (class solidarity) is dissolved and we find ourselves isolated and silenced under the scrutiny of a paranoid fascist, put back in our places, which is located somewhere under the boot of artificial scarcity.


Nevertheless, we come back to revolt again and again, for we can do no other; life under the control of this decadent ruling class has no meaning for us. Our alienation is their playground, from which they receive every imaginable benefit. From the Avoidable War in Yugoslavia (1992-1999) to the Grand Chessboard in Ukraine (April 24, 2014) (despite all the mobilizations of public opinion that have crystallized during that interval) these events speak repeatedly to the fact that we are led by the nose by a cynical ruling class that gets away with murder. Many among us have been conditioned to fit comfortably under their boot and to surface now and again when beckoned to support their cause.


What alternatives do we really have?  

This was poignantly illustrated by Lancelot Hogben, in the Prologue of his famous book, Mathematics for the Million, where he warns readers of being mystified by ill-willed authorities using mathematics to achieve nothing more than the maintenance of their power over civil society. “There is the story, Hogben tells his readers, “about Diderot, the Encyclopaedist and materialist,”


a foremost figure in the intellectual awakening which immediately preceded the French Revolution. Diderot was staying at the Russian court, where his elegant flippancy was entertaining the nobility. Fearing that the faith of her retainers was at stake, the Tsaritsa commissioned Euler, the most distinguished mathematician of the time, to debate with Diderot in public, Diderot was informed that a mathematician had established a proof of the existence of God. He was summoned to court without being told the name of his opponent. Before the assembled court, Euler accosted him with the following pronouncement, which was uttered with due gravity:


a + b/n = x, donc Dieu existe, repondez!’


Algebra was Arabic to Diderot. Unfortunately, he did not realize that was the trouble. Had he realized that algebra is just a language in which we describe the sizes of things in contrast to the ordinary languages which we use to describe the sorts of things in the world, he would have asked Euler to translate the first half of the sentence into French. Translated freely into English, it may be rendered: ‘A number x can be got by first adding a number a to a number b multiplied by itself a certain number (n) of times, and then dividing the whole by the number of b’s multiplied together. So God exists after all. What have you got to say now?’ If Diderot had asked Euler to illustrate the first part of his remark for the clearer understanding of the Russian court, Euler might have replied that x is 3 when a is 1 and b is 2 and n is 3, or that x is 21when a is 3 and b is 3 and n is 4, and so forth. Euler’s troubles would have begun when the court wanted to know how the second part of the sentence follows from the first part. Like many us Diderot had stage fright when confronted with a sentence in size language. He left the court abruptly amid the titters of the assembly, confined himself to his chambers, demanded safe conduct, and promptly returned to France.(pp.9-10)


One day, we can imagine, the techniques of modern management will be displayed in museums and archives, similar to exhibits of medieval instruments of torture that are found in the ill-lit dungeons of some European castles. They will speak of the day when mankind was not yet equipped to emancipate itself from the clutches of powerful administrators, who performed alchemy to dissolve any class-conscious challenge to their power, in order to keep great numbers of people in a permanent state of submission, fueled by fear and loathing.



The 12 items below offer CEIMSA readers a look at our artificial environment today, a totally managed world where self-appointed elites keep decision-making power by default, where new techniques combined with old habits of thought keep us securely isolated from one another, behind closed doors, living in fear and suspicion of one another rather than taking up the instruments of analysis necessary to free ourselves from this wretched state of insecurity. 


Item A. contains two CEIMSA links to reviews of the work of UCSD Professor Fred Lonidier, labor activist and teacher in the Art Department at the University of California-San Diego.


Item B., from Information Clearing House, is an article by Sheldon Richman on Obama’s ‘bluff poker’ game against the Russian state and the real dangers this game generates.

Item C., from ZNet, is an article by Conn Hallinan on  the Dark Side of Ukraine Revolt.


Item D., from Information Clearing House, is an article by Pepe Escobar on the US grand strategy in Eurasia.


Item E. is an article form The Nation magazine on Internet freedom against corporate control, containing a petition for US lawmakers to assure equal public access to the Internet.


Item F., from Democracy Now !, is a discussion of how “The 1%” is seeking to control Internet access across the United States.


Item G., from University of Pennsylvania Professor Edward S. Herman, is a short article first published in Z Magazine, on “The Fool, The Demagogue and The Former KGB Colonel.”


Item H., from Information Clearing House, is an article by Ian Sinclair on pro-imperialist propaganda in the US media.


Item I., from Truth Out, is an article by Justin Doolittle on “May Day in America.”


Item J., from Information Clearing House, is an article by Robert Parry on US Grand Strategy in Ukraine.


Item K., from Information Clearing House, is an article by Loren Thompson on Russian history in Ukraine.


Item L., from the co-secretaries of the French teachers’ union, SNESup, is a May Day call for solidarity in our struggle against corporate management in pursuit of the ‘bottom line.”



And finally, we invite CEIMSA readers to watch the Real News Network interview with University of London economist Costas Lapavitsas :



The Rise of the Far Right as the Euro-Crisis Hits France




Costas Lapavitsas: “The crisis triggered by Germany now targets France,

as elites debate leaving the Euro”





Francis Feeley

Professor of American Studies

University of Grenoble-3

Director of Research

University of Paris-Nanterre

Center for the Advanced Study of American Institutions and Social Movements

The University of California-San Diego







From Fred Lonidier :

Date: 28 April 2014          

Subject : Fred Lonidier: the Aesthetics of an Activist professor of art in San Diego.


Fred Lonidier is a virtual landmark in Southern California. He has a long history of political activism along the US Mexican border and far beyond. His work in the field of photography and communications has inspired generations of students and social activists.


Below are two CEIMSA links to art reviews which offer readers an historical perspective of Lonidier’s creative work in the Border Art Project along the Mexican border over the past many decades.


[Please use CEIMSA links to open: Lonidier Art Reviews I and II.]

 (NOTE: If you encounter a problem opening these two pdf files, you can right click and save each one of these links on your computer desk and open it there.)




From Information Clearing House :

Date: 26 April 2014          

Subject : US bluff poker game creates greater dangers for all.


Obama Plays with Fire in Ukraine
By Sheldon Richman

How many American parents would proudly send their sons and daughters off to kill or be killed in Slovyansk or Donetsk?





From ZNet :

Date: 3 March 2014          

Subject : Ukraine and the Grand Chessboard.



Ukraine Revolt’s Dark Side


by Conn Hallinan





From Information Clearing House :

Date: 26 April 2014          

Subject : The US Grand Strategy in Eurasia.


The pivoting to Cold War 2.0 proceeds unabated, as in Washington working hard to build an iron curtain between Berlin and Moscow.



US 'Pivots', China Reaps Dividends
By Pepe Escobar



From The Nation Magazine:

Date: 28 April 2014          

Subject : Big fan of the Internet?




      Dear francis,


Last week, the Federal Communications Commission announced new rules that would allow companies to pay Internet service providers for faster lanes to deliver their content to customers. That means that large corporations like Amazon or Netflix could pay to have their content delivered more smoothly, while small start-ups without the funds to pay would be stuck with slow, low-quality service.


We’re calling on all of our readers to tell FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler that the public needs a free and open Internet. Will you join us? <http://link.thenation.com/52868255039c1c4d1618b33d1jx51.c5s/U16rzuYQiHBcYauWB7d1a>


This is serious. The rule change would be devastating for net neutrality, the principle that ISPs must treat all content on the Internet equally and that users should have equal access to see any legal content.



Don't stand by while the Internet is transformed into a pay-to-play service. Contact FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler now and tell him that the public needs real net neutrality.  <http://link.thenation.com/52868255039c1c4d1618b33d1jx51.c5s/U16rzuYQiHBcYauWC5508>


All the best,


Sarah Arnold

Activism Campaign Manager





From Democracy Now ! :

Date: 25 April 2014          

Subject : The 1% Seeks Control of Internet Access.





Internet For the 1 Percent: New FCC Rules Strike Down Net Neutrality, Opening Fast Lanes For Fees





"Utopian Potential of the Internet": Astra Taylor on How to Take Back Power & Culture in Digital Age








From Edward S. Herman :

Date: 28 April 2014          

Subject : The Fool, The Demagogue and the Former KGB Colonel, Z Magazine, May 2014.





[Z Magazine, May 2014]


The Fool,  the Demagogue and the Former KGB Colonel

by  Edward S. Herman

 The fool is John Kerry, who has looked bad in his rushing around between Washington and Tel Aviv trying to get in place a “framework” agreement between Israel and the Palestinians that would show progress in the efforts of the honest broker, assailing  Nicholas Maduro of Venezuela for his “terror campaign against his own people,” and of course denouncing the Russians for their “aggression”  against the coup-regime of Ukraine.  His statement that “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped-up pretext,” has to be regarded as an Orwellian classic, and may be his signifier in future history books, in the unlikely event that he makes it at all. His punch line has been the subject of many jokes and laughs in the dissident media, but the mainstream media have hardly mentioned it and certainly haven’t made it the butt of jokes and a basis for discrediting the man (just as there has been no discrediting of Madeleine Albright based on her statement on national TV that killing 500,000 Iraqi children via the sanctions of mass destruction in the 1990s. which she helped engineer, “was worth it”).

 Of course it is possible that Kerry really believed he was speaking truths, having internalized the assumptions that flow from U.S. “exceptionalism,” which make  words like “invasion,” “aggression” and “international law” inapplicable to us as the world’s policeman; and what might be a “completely trumped up pretext” if  offered by the Russians is only a slight and excusable error or  misjudgment when we do it. And after all the New York Times quickly used the word “aggression” in editorializing on the Crimea events ( “Russia’s Aggression,” March 2, 2014), whereas it never used the word to describe the invasion-occupation of Iraq, nor did it mention  the words “UN Charter” or “international law” in its 70 editorials on Iraq from September 11, 2001 to  March 21, 2003 (Howard Friel and Richard Falk, The Record of the Paper, chap. 1).

 A bit more subtle but more calculated, dishonest, hypocritical, often absurd, and demagogic were the words of  President Barack Obama, speaking in  Belgium, as he tried to confute the charges of hypocrisy that Russian President Vladimir Putin leveled against Western denunciations of the  Crimean independence vote and subsequent Russian absorption of Crimea. (“Remarks by the President in Address to European Youth,” Brussels, March 23, 2014). It is amusing to see how outrageously he can twist history and his own record. According to Obama our founding fathers put into our “founding documents” the beautiful concept that “all men—and women—are created equal.” He apparently forgot about slavery and the 3/5th value per slave for the South’s representation credit, and that women didn’t get the vote till the twentieth century. He speaks about the ideal of “uncensored information”  that will “allow individuals to make their own decisions,” but this is the man who has worked hard to control the flow of information and to make it costly for whistleblowers to break through a growing wall of government secrecy.

 Obama is aghast at “the belief among some that bigger nations can bully smaller ones to get their way—that rejected maxim that might somehow makes right.” The United States has its immense military budget and 800-plus military bases not to allow it to bully smaller nations but for its national security! He is also impressed with Russia’s “challenging truths that only a few weeks ago seemed self-evident…[including] that international law matters.”  This statement is brazen given that U.S. officials (e.g., Dean Acheson, Madeleine Albright)  have  explicitly stated that they don’t  take international law seriously in fixing U.S. policy; that Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush dismissed it as a joke-- "International law? I better call my lawyer; he didn't bring that up to me"--and we can observe a steady, even growing, stream of actions that violate international law, including many engineered by Obama. Violating international law is as American as apple pie.

 Putin of course pointed this out in reference to Iraq, but Obama answers him:”Now it is true that the Iraq war was a subject of  vigorous debate not just around the world but in the United States as well. I participated in that debate and I opposed our military intervention there. But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain. Instead we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state that could make decisions about its own future.”

 We may note the laughable evasion of the issue  of “international law,” which he has said really  “matters” in considering Russian actions, but dodges in addressing the U.S. case. His mentioning a “vigorous debate” is not only irrelevant to the question of law violation, it is also highly deceptive, as it is well established that Bush and his small coterie of  advisers had determined to attack Iraq long before any public discussion of the subject, and they picked on “weapons of mass destruction” as the excuse on the basis of  its saleability. So it was an aggression built on a lie and the ultimate in a “trumped up case.” On the “working within the international system,” the UN Charter is basic to a meaningful international system, and the invasion was a gross violation of that key ingredient. He brags that we didn’t steal their resources and eventually got out. He doesn’t point out that we got out  only after many years of killing and destruction which actually helped create a resistance that, in effect, pushed us out. He doesn’t mention that our major international law violation in Iraq was responsible for the death of  probably a million people, the creation of four million refugees, and  huge material destruction. By contrast, that awful Russian action in the Crimea seems to have resulted in fewer than half a dozen deaths.

 Obama also fails to mention that Iraq is far away from the United States, and the U.S. attack there was an acknowledged  “war of choice”  that had nothing to do with protecting U.S. security. Crimea, by contrast, is adjacent to Russia, its people are linguistically and culturally close to Russia, it  houses a major Russian naval base, and the coup in Kiev, engineered with the support of  the United States and other NATO powers, posed a genuine security threat to Russia. Its leaders were taken unawares by the coup and threat to its naval base, and its moves were arguably defensive and a “war of necessity.”

 The referendum carried out in Crimea, which produced an overwhelming vote supporting secession from Ukraine and integration into Russia, would seem like a relatively democratic procedure and consistent with the principle of  self-determination.  Obama and company found it a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and a violation of international law. Here we have two principles seemingly at odds with one another, and in this case the United States and its allies chose the one that serves their interest and the Russians go for the other. But Putin points out  that in the case of Kosovo as part of Serbia, the NATO alliance strongly supported a secession on self-determination principles.

 Obama tries to rebut Putin’s mentioning of Kosovo, saying “But NATO  only intervened after the people of Kosovo were systematically brutalized and killed for years. And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with Kosovo’s neighbors. None of that even came close to happening in Crimea.” But NATO didn’t just “intervene,” it carried out a massive bombing war that was itself a violation of the UN Charter and hence of that sacred “international law” to which Obama is so devoted. Obama ignores the fact that the CIA had been training  KLA terrorists in Kosovo for some time (and they had been designated “terrorists” by U.S. officials) and the KLA was well aware that actions that induced Serb retaliation would serve their interests in helping justify a NATO attack. The day before the NATO bombing war began the British Defence Minister told the British Parliament that the KLA had probably killed more civilians in Kosovo than the Serb army.

 Obama also  lies on an alleged referendum in Kosovo—none took place. On February 17, 2008, the Kosovo Albanian-dominated parliament issued its Declaration of Independence, and that sufficed for the United States and its closest allies, now so indignant at the Crimea referendum. That Kosovo vote also took place after a NATO war and Kosovo Albanian actions had driven large numbers of Serb and Roma residents out of Kosovo. The United States constructed a huge military base in Kosovo during its war and occupation of  Kosovo, which was not agreed to by Serbia or by any vote of the Kosovo or Serbian population. Russia had a naval base in the Crimea by long-standing agreement with the Ukraine government.  It didn’t bomb the Ukraine as a prelude to the referendum vote and the vote was essentially uncontested and unprotested by any local constituencies.  So as Obama says, there is no comparison between the two cases..

 Obama’s draws a picture of the freedom loving West, with NATO standing as a vigilant sentinel, with the dark and evil forces behind the Iron Curtain being kept at bay.  “The United States  and NATO do not seek any conflict with Russia…Since the end of the Cold War, we have worked with Russia under successive administrations to build ties of culture and commerce and international community.” But he admonishes that Russia must be a “responsible” power. “Just because Russia has a deep history with Ukraine doesn’t mean it should be able to dictate Ukraine’s future. On the fundamental principle  that is at stake here—the ability of nations and peoples  to make their own choices—there can be no going back. It’s not America that filled the Maiden with protesters—it was Ukrainians. No foreign forces compelled the citizens of Tunis and Tripoli to rise up—they did so on their own.”

 Obama fails to mention that  since the end of the Cold War NATO has worked steadily, in violation of a pledge by U.S. officials not to move “one inch” toward the Russian borders, to encircle Russia, to press up against its borders, and to support border regime leaders openly hostile to Russia. So Western support of a regime hostile to Russia in Ukraine  would have to be regarded by Russian officials as an unfriendly and threatening action. Obama’s claim that it was only Ukrainians who were protesting in Maiden twists the evidence, as the United States was actively supporting some of them, including the most violent, and was therefore itself trying to “dictate Ukraine’s future.” It is notorious that a compromise transition government plan negotiated between Ukrainian factions, with EU support, was quickly overturned by violent protesters, leading immediately to the coup government headed by Victoria Nuland’s first choice, and effectively “fucking the EU’s” effort to end the strife peaceably.  The unelected government then in place, loaded with rightwingers in strategic positions,  represented a non-Russian “dictation” of Ukraine’s government, and one that definitely threatened Russians within Ukraine and the Russian state. In that context the Crimean referendum represented an important and justifiable case of where the ability of  “peoples to make their own choices” (Obama)  was applicable.

 An argument can be made that the Western, and mainly U.S., intervention and role in overthrowing the elected government of Ukraine was a form of aggression against Russia, which would make Russian  actions actually a response to aggression.. An important modern form of Western-sponsored regime change has been via encouragement, training and material and propaganda aid to dissident groups that disorganize and discredit a target government and help dislodge it from power. This is done under the PR heading of “democracy promotion,” but it is often de facto “democracy demotion.”  This is not done in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, but rather in Serbia, Ukraine and Venezuela. The government displaced in Ukraine was elected; the coup government that has replaced it was not. In his Brussels speech Obama mentions that ”Latin American nations rejected dictatorship and built new democracies,”  but he fails to point out that scads of those dictatorships were U.S. sponsored, and that while it supported tyranny in Venezuela for many years, the United States has been consistently hostile to the left-oriented Bolivarian democracy that has been in place for more than a decade; and that while Obama was speaking in Brussels his government was encouraging the often violent protesters in Caracas, denouncing Maduro, and threatening sanctions and more in the traditional U.S. “democratic demotion” mode. (See Kerry’s pugnacious statement of March 13, 2014 before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on “Advancing U.S. Interests Abroad: The FY 2015 Foreign Affairs Budget.”)

 Comparing Vladimir Putin’s address to the Russian Federation on March 18, 2014 dealing with the Crimean referendum and associated crisis with Obama’s March 23rd address in Brussels is no contest—Putin wins hands down. This, I believe, is a result of the fact that Russia is under serious attack and threat by the United States, which is a still expanding empire that cannot tolerate serious rivals and actually turns them into enemies that must resist. This is mainly Russia and China, and U.S.-NATO actions have succeeded in transforming Russia from a virtual client in the Yeltsin era to the enemy and ”aggressor” today. It is amazing to see how the mainstream media and intellectuals can fail to see the security threat to Russia posed by the Western-underwritten change in government in Kiev, and the continuity in the extension of this threat in NATO’s steady expansion on Russia’s borders. And the double standard on aggression and international law  is breath-taking. Putin sardonically notes , “Firstly, it’s a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law—better late than never.”  He makes his point in low key and with wit. Obama is never funny in Brussels and his stream of clichés and misrepresentations is painful. He is defending the indefensible, and his target looks good by comparison, both intellectually and morally.

 But Putin is the loser in mainstream America. He is a victim of the standard demonization process that is applied to any challenger or target of the imperial state. It is amusing to see him so often referred to as the “former KGB colonel”—can you imagine the U.S. media regularly referring to George Bush-1 as the “former head of the CIA”?   And of course every blemish in his career, and they are real—Chechnya, his position on gay rights, the weakness of Russian democracy and power of the oligarchs  (which he inherited from the U.S.-supported Yeltsin)—is featured regularly. But underneath this all is the fact that he represents Russian national interests, which conflict with the outward drive and interests of  the U.S. imperial elite.

 For just a tiny illustration of the bias. We may consider the media treatment of the Pussy Riot band, jailed after an action in a major Moscow church, and made into virtual saints in the U.S. media. They feature the badness of Putin and his Russia. The New York Times had 23 articles featuring the Pussy Riot band from January 1, 2014 through March 31, a number of them with pictures of  the band visiting various places in New York. They met with the Times editorial board and were honored by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, among others. They are not good musicians and often do things that would land them in jail in the United States, but they denounce Putin.

 One of them, Maria  Alyokhina,  was even given op ed space in the paper  (“Sochi Under Siege,” February 21). Two interesting contrasts: John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political scientist and author of  several important books on foreign affairs, wrote an op ed column “Getting Ukraine Wrong,” published on March 14 in the International New York Times, but not in the U.S. print edition. His message was too strong for the main NYT vehicle  as he argued that “The taproot of the current crisis is NATO’s expansion… and is motivated by the same geopolitical  considerations that influence all great powers, including the United States.”  This is not opinion and analysis fit to print.

 Another interesting comparison is this: in February 2014, while the trials and opinions of Pussy Riot were hot news, the 84 year old nun, Sister Megan Rice,  was sentenced to four years in prison for having entered a nuclear weapons site in July 2012 and carried out a symbolic action there. The New York Times gave this news a tiny mention  in its National Briefing items under  the title “Tennessee. Nun is Sentenced for Peace Protest,” on February 19, 2014 on page A12. Megan Rice was not invited to visit the Times editorial board or write an opinion column.   Her sentencing was news barely fit to even marginalize.




From Information Clearing House :

Date: 26 April 2014          

Subject : Pro-imperialist Propaganda in the US Media.


A recent Win/Gallup International survey across 65 countries around the world found the country seen as representing the greatest threat to world peace was the US.

The Liberal Media: US Imperialism's Biggest Cheerleaders
By Ian Sinclair



From Truth Out :

Date: 26 April 2014          

Subject : The US Grand Strategy in Eurasia.




May Day: While the World Celebrates Workers,

the US Celebrates "Loyalty" and "Law"


by Justin Doolittle





From Information Clearing House :

Date: 26 April 2014          

Subject : US Grand Strategy in Ukraine.



Any propaganda war starts by planting stories that your target is getting rich, whether he is or isn’t, the latest move in demonizing Vladimir Putin.


Why Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia


by Robert Parry



From Information Clearing House :

Date: 26 April 2014          

Subject : Russian history in Ukraine.



If you know the history of the region, then it is easy to see why Moscow might fear aggression.

Four Ways The Ukraine Crisis Could Escalate To Use Of Nuclear Weapons
by Loren Thompson




78, rue du Faubourg Saint-Denis
75010 - PARIS
Tél. : 0144799621 - 0659126981
Courriel : 

Date: 29 April 2014          

Subject : Un 1er mai combatif !



Cher-e camarade,

Les annonces d'austérité renforcée du premier ministre sont claires : faire payer les salariés et les retraités pour financer les cadeaux fiscaux aux entreprises, s'attaquer à la protection sociale, à la Fonction Publique, notamment en poursuivant le gel du point d'indice, pour financer le plan d'économies de 50 milliards d'euros contenu dans le pacte de « responsabilité ». Les orientations du gouvernement Ayrault, largement condamnées, notamment lors des derniers scrutins municipaux, sont encore aggravées par le gouvernement Valls.

Ainsi les fonctionnaires verront leurs salaires bloqués pendant encore au moins 18 mois, ce qui portera à 7 ans le blocage des salaires, entraînant une dégringolade supplémentaire de leur pouvoir d'achat. En outre, le gouvernement va priver les populations les plus précaires des prestations sociales et des services publics indispensables pour leur garantir des conditions d'existence décentes.

Dans l'Enseignement Supérieur et la Recherche, l'austérité(1) et la précarité(2) font des ravages, entraînant la détérioration des conditions de travail et d'étude. Le SNESUP-FSU est porteur d'exigences et de propositions résumées dans son mémorandum(3).

Notre présence active et nombreuse au sein de la FSU dans les cortèges du 1er mai, aux côtés de la CGT, de Solidaires et de FO sera un message fort adressé au gouvernement. 

Elle doit être un moment de préparation de la journée de grève et d'action unitaire du 15 Mai 2014 pour la défense de la fonction publique et de ses agents.

Nous comptons sur toi.

Informations pratiques sur les horaires et parcours : 

Bien cordialement,
Claudine Kahane et Marc Neveu
Co-secrétaires généraux du SNESUP 

1 Voir dossier austérité http://snesup.fr/Le-Snesup/Dossiers-actu?cid=3863
2 Voir dossier précarité http://snesup.fr/Votre-metier?aid=6959&ptid=10&cid=3793