Class Struggle #48 December 2002/February
2003
Notes and Comments:
Stopping the Imperialist war/Firefighters lead the way/Train drivers stop
arms shipment/
Unions time to walk the talk/Why wait for Nuke ships?/With Friends like these/
Uncle Sam's Ears downunder/US locks up 100's of 'Islamic' terror suspects/Free
Ahmed Souai!/
From Zimbabwe to Ngawha
From Imperialist
War to Class War
Free the Guantanamo
militiamen!
Free John Walker!
Post S 11 attack on democratic
rights stepped up
If its a war for oil, then
imperialism is the juggernaut
Oceana Social Forum: 'for another
world'
Argentina: What happened to the
Revolution?
Venezeula: another US
attempted coup
North Korea: Defend the workers
state against the US and Japan
Film Review: 'Bowling for Columbine'
Will New Zealand become another
Argentina?
Lula, PT and WSF: Break
with Lula's Popular Front
Solomons: An un-natural disaster?
Stopping
the Imperialist War: Firefighters lead
the way
[Reprinted
from Internationalist Bulletin # 2
Workers around the world have been
inspired by the strikes by the British firefighters and their supporters.
The firefighters are demanding a 40% wage rise. But to the horror of British
bosses and newspapers, a working class scarred by long decades of Thatcherism
and Blairism is exploding into life on a thousand picket lines from Scotland
to Cornwall. The Labour Party is in turmoil, as long-dead branches revive
to fight Blair’s attempts to use troops and Thatcherite laws to break the
strike. Bureaucratised, fossilised unions are suddenly hosting militant,
mass meetings in support of the firefighters. Rank and file support committees
for the firefighters have sprung up around the country. Kiwi workers can
easily see the importance of the firefighters’ example to their own union
movement, as it faces the second term of a Blairite Clark Labour government
determined to hold wages and conditions down and cut real spending on public
services like health and education.
But the firefighters’ strikes are
more than a lesson in how to take on a penny-pinching government – it shows
how workers can stop a powerful war machine in its tracks with direct action.
Even Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the chief of Britain’s defence staff, admits
that a continuing strike by UK firefighters seriously undermines the possibility
of military action against Iraq.
Soon after the first eight-day firefighters’
strike began, Boyce held a press conference to say that he was “extremely
concerned” by the impact on military effectiveness of having troops used
for firefighting. “I do not have a box of 19,000 [soldiers] standing by for
such duties so they must come from operational duties,” he said. Boyce then
insisted, “The armed forces should not cross picket lines.” Boyce’s warning
was described by The Times newspaper as being close to mutiny. Boyce
knows that the British army cannot invade Iraq, with the firefighters forcing
them into action on the ‘home front’.
Blair's attempt to play down Boyce’s
warning was contradicted by a second senior commander, Admiral and First
Sea Lord Sir Alan West, who said that the deployment of service personnel
as firefighters was damaging the navy's operational effectiveness, and that
its impact would get "progressively worse".
In the short time they have been
on strike, the firefighters have done more to challenge the drive for war
on Iraq than a thousand peace marches. When we say this, we don’t mean to
belittle the contribution the huge marches in Britain and other countries
have made to the anti-war cause. Strike action is not an alternative to marches
– it is the next step that the anti-war movement has to take, if it is to
be successful.
Some people in the movement, including
in New Zealand the leaders of the Green Party and the Alliance, say that
the United Nations and ‘international law’ can stop the war, but history
shows that imperialist war is only stopped when workers and their supporters
ditch the politicians and take things into their own hands with strikes,
mutinies, and the takeover of military bases and facilities. The First World
War was was brought to a halt by strikes and mutinies in Germany, and in
Russia by a revolution, not by international diplomacy.
The Vietnam War was ended by the resistance of Vietnamese workers and peasants
and their supporters around the world, not by the United Nations.
It’s no wonder that many in the
international anti-war movement are beginning to demand more than demonstrations.
In Britain, the opposition of the firefighters’ and railway workers’ (see
next story) to the war means that their strike action is about much more
than pay and conditions. Rank and file tube workers are talking about stopping
London’s trains when the B 52s take off. A recent picket of Flyingdales Air
Base in Britain hinted at the possibilities for direct action to close down
military installations. CoBas, the Italian rank and file union that organised
a general strike in April, has called for political strike action to stop
the war, and gotten a warm response from many larger unions.
Not every worker is in a position
to strike against the war, especially in isolated and conservative countries
like New Zealand. But we can all agitate for the maximum disruption of the
capitalist system – we need workplace meetings, posters and leaflets and bulletins,
union banners on demos, refusals to perform work related to the war effort.
All of this is needed to prepare for mass pickets and blockades of the frigates
and the Orions to prevent them from going to join the war against Iraq!
Train Drivers Stop
Arms shipment
The Guardian Thursday January 9, 2003
“Train drivers yesterday refused to move a freight
train carrying ammunition believed to be destined for British forces being
deployed in the Gulf. Railway managers cancelled the Ministry of Defence
service after the crewmen, described as "conscientious objectors" by a supporter,
said they opposed Tony Blair's threat to attack Iraq...
Leaders of the Aslef rail union
were pressed at a meeting with EWS executives to ask the drivers to relent.
But the officials of a union opposed to any attack on Iraq are unlikely to
comply...
Dockers went on strike rather than
load British-made arms on to ships destined for Chile after the assassination
of left-wing leader Salvador Allende in 1973. In 1920 stevedores on London's
East India Docks refused to move guns on to the Jolly George, a ship chartered
to take weapons to anti-Bolsheviks after the Russian revolution...
Lindsey German, convener of the
Stop the War Coalition, said: "We fully support the action that has been
taken to impede an unjust and aggressive war. We hope that other people around
the country will be able to do likewise." Full article at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,870967,00.html
Unions:
Time to walk the talk
In New Zealand, the unions have
been slow to become involved in the anti-war movement. So far the secondary
school teachers’, Polytechnic lecturers’, and National Distribution unions
have voted against a war on Iraq, but with the exception of a lone PPTA (Post
Primary Teachers Association) banner on December 14, none of these organisations
has sent a contingent to any anti-war protest, let alone taken action in
the workplace against war.
Take the example of the secondary
teachers. At its national conference in October their union, the PPTA, voted
to oppose any war on Iraq not sanctioned by a vote of the UN general assembly,
ie the representatives all the member states of the UN.
While we oppose any UN war or sanctions
against Iraq, we welcome the PPTA vote as a step in the right direction.
The problem is that, in Auckland at least, many rank and file PPTA members
in Auckland do not even know about the anti-war resolution! A number of individual
PPTA members have been heavily involved in the anti-war movement in Auckland,
there has been no official union banner on marches, and no one has spoken
for the union in the rallies that follow marches.
Unions like the PPTA have talked the talk, but now they need to walk the talk. The rank and file must take the lead, and get feet on the street. If they need inspiration, they only have to look to Britain, where anti-war marches have seen huge union contingents, and the firefighters have linked their strike action to opposition to any invasion of Iraq.
Why
wait for Nuke Ships?
Poll after poll shows a majority
of Kiwis oppose the War of Terror, but protests here against Bush’s crusade
have so far been fairly small, with hundreds rather than thousands of people
in the streets. Many Kiwis have put off hitting the streets because they
feel that the Labour government is not as ‘involved’ in Bush’s war as its
allies in countries like Britain and Australia. Helen Clark’s government
seems like a ‘good cop’ to ‘bad cops’ like Howard and Blair, who sound louder
and prouder of their pro-US policies.
In reality, New Zealand is a loyal
soldier in Bush’s war, sending troops and ships to the Middle East and hosting
US military and spy bases in the South Island. And, with every passing month,
the devotion of the Labour government to its ‘very, very, very good friend’
America becomes more apparent. The recent sending of the frigate Te Kaha
and 244 more military personnel to join the build-up for war with Iraq has
shocked many workers who looked the other way when Clark and co. sent SAS
troops to join the invasion of Afghanistan last year.
Now there are signs that New Zealand’s
nuclear-free status, the last fig leaf of neutrality and independence, is
about to be removed by a Labour government desperate to sign a free trade
deal with Bush. When Finance Minister Michael Cullen returned from trade
talks he suggested that a ‘debate’ should be held on whether the country’s
nuclear-free status should be sacrificed for a trade deal. Then former World
Trade Organisation boss and Labour Prime Minister Mike Moore wrote an article
for the New Zealand Herald echoing Cullen’s thoughts, and criticising
‘knee-jerk’ anti-nuclear views.
Now National’s Gerry Brownlee has
launched an attack on party leader Bill English on the issue, and ACT politicians
have picked up on Labour’s dilemma, and are preparing the way for a repeal
of anti-nuclear legislation with speeches up and down the country.
TVNZ political analyst Garth Bray
recently predicted a Labour move to bring US nuke ships back to New Zealand:
“Helen Clark is unlikely to admit
Labour has also been polling the issue, but if you were a gambler, you'd
bet your last dollar it has...Wait until the trade deal is on the brink,
announce a flashy drawn-out process headed by a judge and assisted by a scientist
and a reformed anti-nuke campaigner to add credibility...then weave through
the rocks finding a cautious case for allowing nuclear propelled shipping,
so long as it carries no weapons.”
A return to nuclear ship visits
would be a brutal shock to those Kiwis who over the years since 1985 have
convinced themselves of their country’s ‘neutrality’ and ‘independence’.
With some justification as the original ban on nuclear ships resulted from
the staunch actions of mass protests like those of the ‘Peace Squadron’ –boaties
who took to the water in their hundreds in the early 1980s to try and blockade
nuclear ships like the cruiser USS Thruxton and the submarine USS Pintado.
That’s why we say don’t wait for
the return of the monsters to get into protest mode – we should be on the
streets now, campaigning against the War of Terror and the invasion of Iraq,
and showing Labour that we want to get rid of the presence of the US military,
not add to it. Stopping war in Iraq is the best way to stop the return of
the nuclear monsters.
WITH
FRIENDS LIKE THESE...
"The Nuclear Posture
Review", a leaked secret Pentagon report argues that the US should prepare
plans to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran,
Libya and Syria as potential targets. Only three of these countries are believed
to have nuclear weapons of their own. It lists "contingencies" which might
be enough to provoke a US first strike, such as "an Iraqi attack on Israel
or its neighbours, or a North Korean attack on South Korea or military confrontation
over the status of Taiwan".
What can we make of reports like
these? In just six months US imperialism has taken us from vague talk of
a "new world order" to the threat of nuclear war in the event of "surprising
military developments". And Labour wants to be ‘very, very, very good friends’
with these bastards!
UNCLE
SAM'S EARS DOWN UNDER
New Zealand is
one of George Bush’s most enthusiastic allies in his apparently endless and
borderless "war on terror". The public face of that are the frigates Te Kaha
and Te Mana, but New Zealand’s most significant contribution to that war,
and any other wars waged by our Western allies, is the Waihopai spybase.
Waihopai will play a key role in any invasion of Iraq, too - it is controlled
by the US, with NZ (including parliament) having little or no idea what goes
on there (let alone any control).
The Waihopai electronic intelligence
gathering base is located in the Waihopai Valley, near Blenheim. Its two
satellite interception dishes (shielded from public view by giant domes)
intercept a huge volume of telexes, faxes, e-mail and computer data communications.
It spies on our Asia/Pacific neighbours, and forwards the material on to
the major partners in the UKUSA Agreement, specifically the US National Security
Agency (NSA). Its targets are international communications involving New
Zealanders, including the interception of international phone calls. The
codename for this – Echelon – has become notorious worldwide, as the vast
scope of its spying has become public.
The Anti-Bases Campaign (ABC) invites
people from around the country to join us for the weekend of
anti-war protest
at this spybase January 24-26 2003. More information at- cafa@ chch.planet.org.nz http://www.converge.org.nz/abc
Box 2258, Christchurch, New Zealand
US lock
up hundreds of ‘Islamic’ terror suspects
The Independent December
19, 2002
“Hundreds of Middle Eastern and
North African men, some just 16, have been hauled into custody across southern
California in the past few days, enraging civil liberties groups and drawing
comparisons with the internment of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans
during the Second World War.
The round-ups in Los Angeles, San
Diego and suburban Orange County were part of a counter-terrorism initiative
by the Bush administration, requiring men and teenagers from specific countries
to register with the immigration authorities and have their fingerprints
taken. Several thousand citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Sudan –
many of them
accompanied by
lawyers – willingly came forward across southern California to meet Monday's
deadline.
However, as many as a quarter of
them – estimates vary between 500 and 1,000 people – were arrested on the
basis of apparently minor visa violations and herded into jail cells under
threat of deportation.
Lawyers reported that some detainees
were forced to stand up all night for lack of room, that some were placed
in shackles, and others were hosed down with cold water before being thrown
into unheated cells. They said the numbers were so high that authorities
were talking about transferring several hundred detainees to Arizona to await
immigration hearings and deportation orders.
Both the lawyers and the southern
California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union denounced the round-up
as an outrage that did not advance the fight against terrorism one inch and
very possibly hindered it. At a public demonstration in Los Angeles on Wednesday,
at least 3,000 protesters waved signs saying "What next? Concentration camps?"
and "Detain terrorists, not innocent immigrants".
*Internationalist Bulletin is produced
by the Anti-Imperialist Coalition, Auckland 025 2800080
email anti_imperialist@hotmail.com http://www.antiimperialist.org.nz
Asylum-seeker
Ahmed Zouai has now been locked up for more than a month in Pareremoremo
Prison, and branded a ‘terrorist’ in the mainstream media. While we have
no sympathy for Zouai’s Islamist politics, we oppose the imprisonment and
vilification of a man who has not been proved guilty of any crime, let alone
a crime against humanity. Zouai’s conviction in Algeria for terrorism means
nothing to us, because we know that Algeria’s courts are controlled by a
Western-backed military dictatorship that is itself a major perpetrator of
terrorism.
Without
offering a scrap of evidence, Murdoch’s pets in the media have accused Zouai
of plotting terrorist acts in South East Asia. But the biggest terrorist
threat in Asia is not the ‘shadowy group’ Zouai supposedly belongs to but
the goverment of the United States, and its local allies like Australia and
New Zealand. It is the U.S., Australia and New Zealand which are deeply implicated
in the killing of 750,000 Indonesian and East Timorese in a thirty year spree
by their pet Suharto regime. If the Clark government was serious about fighting
terrorism it would call an independent public inquiry into real terrorist
acts like these, instead of locking up Zouai.
The Western campaign against
Zimbawe has reached another fever pitch, with Tony Blair and John Howard
taking time out from their preparations for war on Iraq to accuse the Mugabe
government and the land occupation movement of terrorism. Blair and Howard
don’t like the way that landless Zimbabweans have been seizing the big properties
of the four and a half thousand whites who for a hundred years have controlled
the country’s best farmland. They blame Mugabe for stirring the natives up.
For its part, the Clark government has been one of the most enthusiastic
backers of the anti-Mugabe, anti-occupations campaign. Clark unsuccessfully
urged the expulsion of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth last year, and is now
backing British and Aussie calls for cricketers to boycott the Zimbabwe leg
of the upcoming World Cup.
We all know that
governments which oversee the slaughter of thousands of civilians in one
semi-colonial country are hardly likely to be genuinely interested in human
rights in another. Making war in Afghanistan and Iraq doesn’t square with
defending human rights in Zimbabwe. What, then, lies behind the anti-Zimbabwe
campaign?
We think that the
Clark government’s hatred of the land reform movement in Zimbabwe is motivated
as much by internal as external concerns. Clark is worried,
in particular, that the Zimbabwean land occupations will inspire Maori to
direct action in their struggle to recover stolen land and to win reforms
like better housing and more jobs.
But what exactly
is going on in Zimbabwe? Let’s be clear: Mugabe is no friend of socialists.
He is a nasty bureaucrat who rode the anti-colonial struggle to power by
cutting a deal with the British that prevented socialist revolution and real
land reform in Zimbabwe, and for many years, through the 80s and most of the
90s, he loyally followed the dictates of the International Monetary Fund.
Mugabe has been forced to move to the left and take on imperialist
powers like Britain by the strength of Zimbabwean anger against white farmers,
the IMF, and the imperialist governments that bleed Africa dry.
Faced with a popular
desire to seize land, Mugabe decided that it would be too dangerous to take
the side of the white famers and imperialism. Like Chavez in Venezuela, he
is trying to ‘ride the tiger’ of popular protest. He has been forced to undertake
certain leftist reforms, like the nationalisation of the food distribution
network, but he has also acted wherever he can to compromise with imperialism
and to undermine the occupation movement. He has installed his wealthy henchmen
on many of the occupied farms, and he has promised multinational companies
that their factories in Zimbabwe will be safe from occupation. We should
be careful, then, not to believe the mainstream media when it tells us that
Mugabe and the land ocupations movement are one and the same. The occupations
movement in Zimbabwe started without Mugabe, and it needs to get rid of Mugabe
if it is to succeed.
So what does
all this have to do with Aotearoa?
Since December
7 a noho
(occupation) by Te Whanau o Ngawha of Ngati Rangi, Ngapuhi and supporters
has been blocking the construction of a jail on whenua tapu (sacred land)
at Ngawha Springs. A Marae, a Kohanga Reo, gardens and a wharekai are being
established on the occupied land. The occupation follows the May arrests
of 37 anti-prison protesters at Ngawha. Labour ministers have condemned the
Ngawha protesters are irresponsible troublemakers, using language that recalls
the Maori-bashing of Muldoon twenty years ago.
The government
is worried that Ngawha will be the beginning of a new wave of occupations,
as Maori get fed up with the failure of political correctness, ‘Maoricorp’
capitalism, and kissass Maori MPs to address burning issues of land, housing,
GE, and jobs. The example of Zimbabwe terrifies Labour MPs who know about
the linked history of anti-imperialist struggles in Aotearoa and Southern
Africa.
In the 1970s, the
decade of Bastion Point and the Land March, strong links existed between
the Maori struggle and the anti-apartheid struggles in Rhodesia and South
Africa. Many Maori were inspired by the guerrilla war waged by the Zimbabweans
against the Smith regime in Rhodesia, and by the Soweto uprising staged by
South African students and workers in 1976. In 1981 the struggles in Southern
Africa and Aotearoa overlapped when many Maori joined protests against the
Springbok tour. South African political prisoners rejoiced when protests forced
the cancellation of the opening tour game, and sent messages of solidarity
to imprisoned Maori protesters.
Later in the 80s and through the 90s the struggles in Aotearoa, South Africa and Zimbabwe were all sold out by a leadership which set itself up as a neo-colonial capitalist class. Mugabe, Mandela, and Maoricorp leaders like Robert Mahuta all tried to build national or tribal capitalism, acting as the agents of global capitalism which continues to colonise the economy even after formal political colonialism is abolished. Now the rank and file workers and farmers who Mugabe rode to power are revolting against economic colonialism, and Maori can be inspired by their example.
Stop Te Mana going
to War!
No UN ‘peacekeeping’
missions!
Close down Waihopai
Spy base!
Helen Clark and her Labour government have committed
the frigates Te Kaha and Te Mana, along with an airforce Orion, to the Persian
Gulf. This will free up other US allies to take direct
part in an attack on Iraq. The Clark government is already supporting an ongoing
war against Iraq. In the 12 years since the last gulf war, NZ troops have
been part of the low intensity war of sanctions and bombing of ‘no fly zones’
against Iraq. Over a million Iraqis have died as a result.
US imperialism needs war
Now the
US is going to war against Iraq again to re-assert its military and economic
control of the Middle East and Central Asia –aka Yankeestan! The pretext
that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction is proven a hollow sham as the
US inspectors come up with no ‘smoking gun’ week after week. This will not
deter the US from seizing control of the largest remaining oil reserves in
the world. It needs this oil to keep its economic machine operating and the
profits flowing.
The vast
majority of the people in the oppressed countries see clearly that this is
a war for economic domination of the world. They are not fooled by Western
propaganda even though they have no love for dictators like Saddam Hussein.
Many in the West are coming to this realisation also. However, the majority
is not yet willing to take action to stop war.
Governments won’t stop war
‘Western’
governments like the US, UK France, Germany, Japan etc and their client states
Australia and NZ, are all implicated in this war because they expect some
share in the proceeds of war. Some hide behind the Security Council and
talk of peace and democracy. But they are all motivated by the need for oil
for profits. Appealing to these governments will not bring any change. They
will participate in the war some way or other. Where a semi-colonial government
like that of Chavez in Venzuela stands up against the war it is threatened
with a coup or worse.
Yet as
the Venezuelan workers showed last April it was only their mass action that
prevented the US-backed coup from succeeding. This proves that the working
people have to come up with their own answers to imperialist war. We need
to convince the people of this course of action. In Britain and elsewhere
there are calls for mass civil disobedience and a general strike against
any new attack on Iraq.
Workers’ war against imperialist war
The anti-war,
anti-capitalist forces need to coordinate their actions to build a nation-wide
united front to block NZ’s military involvement in the Gulf. All those, inspired
by Pilger or Chomsky, such as peace groups and the Oceania Social Forum,
who hope to reform capitalism by public pressure, must see that anti-capitalism,
anti-globalisation, or anti- imperialism means first stopping the war against
Iraq -now!
Workers’ Strikes and Blockades
Civil disobedience,
work stoppages and road-blocks can mobilise people against war, but only
workers direct action against the military machine, and strikes to halt war
production, can stop war. Following the example of militant workers in Britain,
Italy, Japan, etc we have the power to stop imperialist war by blockading
the production of war materials, and by striking against governments that
support such wars. In New Zealand we must mount a workers opposition to NZ’s
military involvement.
Stop the Te Mana from replacing
the Te Kaha in the Gulf by mobilising the mana of the working people of Aotearoa!
Stop the Orions from joining in
the war.
Political
strikes to stop the war.!
Close down the Waihopai Spy Base!
Smash the Echelon spy satellite
system!
From Imperialist War to Class
War.
As anti-imperialists,
in a war between the US/UK/EU and UN imperialists and Iraq, we are for victory
to Iraq and the defeat of the imperialists and their allies like New Zealand.
This is because a victory for imperialism would be a defeat for the world’s
workers. It would lead to another dictator or client state imposed in Saddam’s
place, and Iraqi workers would be as powerless as they are under Saddam.
We want to see Iraqi workers overthrow Saddam, and replace him with a workers
republic. But they can only do that by first defending Iraq against imperialism,
retaining their armed independence from Saddam’s army, and then turning that
war into a class, or civil, war replacing Saddam Hussein’s regime with a
workers’and poor peasant’s government.
Meanwhile, workers in the imperialist
countries and their allies like Australia and New Zealand, must stop their
governments going to war by mobilising the working class to organise against
the military machines. By making political strikes against war, workers turn
the imperialist war into a civil war between the bosses and workers. In this
way the main cause of imperialist war, the rule of the capitalist classes
in the imperialist countries, can be challenged by the mobilisation of workers
power, by the formation of workers’ councils and workers’ defence committees
which have the potential to replace that bosses state with a workers’ state.
The Talilban militia locked up at the US base of Guantanamo on Cuba are prisoners of the US war of terror. The US refuses to treat them as prisoners of war. It ignores the Geneva Convention and re-writes the rules as it pleases. Yet these are anti-imperialist fighters whose country was invaded by US troops. We demand their release as the victims of imperialist war! We demand that Fidel Castro refuses the right of the US to use Guantanamo as a jail for anti-imperialist fighters! We do not support the political or religious views of the Taliban. These are the direct result of imperialism’s oppression of the region and the use of reactionary political and religious beliefs by the ruling classes to divert the masses from revolution. But where these forces, no matter how reactionary, are fighting imperialism, we align ourselves with them militarily as a lesser evil against the greater evil, and defend their freedom from imperialist jails. Free the Guantanamo anti-imperialist fighters!
John Walker is a young US citizen
who converted to Islam and joined the Taliban. This is not a crime. Nor is
it a crime to defend Afghanistan from US invasion. Yet
he has been sentenced to 20 years in jail. Walker is being demonised as a
traitor and an Islamic fundamentalist. He may be a traitor to the US ruling
class but can we say he is a traitor to the US working class? Had the US working class been strong enough to form a
workers’ international brigade he could have chosen to join it to defend
Afghanistan. And he may not have converted to Islam or joined the Taliban
without the US support of Saudi Arabia and of the Taliban in the 1980s. John
Walker is the victim of US imperialism’s oppression of Middle East and Central
Asian countries, and of the failure of the US working class to oppose imperialism.
He fought against US imperialism and in doing so fought in a military alliance
with the world’s workers. The world’s workers must campaign to free John
Walker!
Civil
Rights
The post- S11 attack on democratic
rights stepped up
Spy’s charter
The referral back to the
House late last year of the “Telecommunications (Interception
Capability) Bill 2002” signalled that the government intends to forge ahead
with it’s plans to further erode our already seriously damaged civil rights.
The select committee hearings
on the Bill heard submissions from a wide range of individuals and groups
opposed to the bill and as usual the Government chose to ignore them, proving
that the whole select committee process is a complete farce and that the
government had no intention of listening to any of the critics. Even some
of the government’s lackeys voiced concern about the interception of citizen’s
computer and telephone communications. The Privacy
Commissioner, Bruce Slane, was concerned about the effect this would have
on individual privacy.
S11 and ‘homeland security
Since September 11 2001,
the Capitalist world has been in the grip of fear about terrorism and many
western countries seem to be vying with each other to see who can strip away
the most rights from the people. Not to be outdone, New Zealand has joined
the cynical circus with legislation which gives the authorities vastly greater
rights to spy on people. The Bill is part of an
insidious package of legislation which includes anti terrorism legislation,
increased powers for the GCSB (The Government Communications Security Bureau)
and amendments to the Crimes Act that will make it legal for Government snoopers
to hack into people’s computers. At the heart of these Bills
is a desire to win the hearts and minds not of the people of New Zealand
but of the imperial masters, particularly those in the US.
There has been some vague talk in the last few months of us cutting
a trade deal with Uncle Sam, and if it does eventuate, there is little doubt
that a quid-pro-quo has taken place between the Governments of our two countries. There is also little doubt that the US will be the recipient
of much of the information harvested by the New Zealand Police, SIS and GCSB.
Terrorism Suppression Act
A Select Committee held
hearings in Auckland last year to hear submissions on the anti-terrorism
legislation. Time was set aside to hear from left
wing groups who opposed the legislation. The Workers
Party, Socialist Party of Aotearoa and Socialist Workers Organisation spoke
at some length to the committee about their concerns. Issues
were raised such as the Workers Party association with Maoist parties in
other countries and how that could be interpreted under the proposed bill. One of the provisions of the anti-terrorism legislation
would make it illegal to be associated with any so-called terrorist organisation.
Committee chairman, Graham
Kelly, made a comment that he had been involved in the anti-Vietnam movement
in the 60s and understood full well how people were concerned about civil
rights but that they had nothing to fear. Essentially,
Kelly expects us to trust him on the basis that he has some sort of street
cred because he marched in a few demos over thirty years ago. At best he
is now a cog in the New Zealand capitalist machine so his assurances count
for little.
The Communist Workers Group
also made submissions highlighting the despicable role played by the US in
the rest of the world and raising the question of who were the real terrorists.
Again, as expected, the
Select Committee paid no attention to the many voices raised in concern over
the direction this legislation was taking the country. One of the
worst side effects of September 11 has been the way in which it has been
used by the imperialists to hasten their attacks on civil rights. This attack is not new and rights were already in the
process of being stripped away in countries like New Zealand. All that has happened since September 11 2001 is that
the pace has quickened.
Crimes Act cyber snoops
Another example of the
attack on civil liberties can be seen in changes to the Crimes Act which
allows The Police, SIS and GCSB to hack into people’s computers to combat
“cyber crime” and “cyber terrorism.” When asked for examples
of cyber crime the supporters of the legislation cannot come up with any
compelling examples and instead mumble about how criminals are increasingly
using the net to commit crimes. As for cyber terrorism,
evidence of this is even thinner on the ground. However,
when asked for examples, the authorities can always fall back on the “I can’t
reveal that information on grounds of national security” speech. This is a convenient way of side stepping the issue.
Many computer and Internet
experts such as Alan Marsden of the ISP PLAnet point out that people will
be able to get around the new legislation by using methods such as encryption. It is most likely that ordinary workers will be the ones
spied on. A simple email containing the words ‘Bush’
and ‘kill’ will be the sort of thing that gains the attention of the spies. They won’t even have to be in the same sentence or paragraph.
Workers, activist organisations
and individual dissidents will subjected to an apparelled level of surveillance
and this information will then be passed on to US. Even before
these offensive pieces of legislation came along organisations like the SIS
and GCSB were a law unto themselves, spying on perfectly legal activism and
activists such as Aziz Chowdry and David Small in Chrstchurch. We couldn’t trust them then, why should we trust them
now especially since they have been given increased powers!
More Police Powers
The amendments to the Crimes
Act to allow hacking are complemented by the Government Communications Security
Bureau Bill which gives even greater powers to The GCSB than the police.
While a police interception
warrant only lasts for 30 days, the GCSB warrant lasts for 12 months and
the only details made public every year are how many warrants were issued
in the last 12 months. It gets even worse when you
consider that some of the GCSB interceptions (such as those carried out at
Waihopai) are not even subject to a warrant system. The Bill deliberately
uses broad and sweeping phrases such as “New Zealand’s international interests
or economic well-being.” No doubt that will mean protecting
our alliances with other capitalist and imperialist powers and protecting
the interests of international capitalism. The Green Party point out
in their submission on the bill “a multinational
company such as Monsanto, a promoter of GE Crops, is a major threat to New
Zealand’s ‘economic well being’. Yet, there is no indication
that the GCSB will be spying on Monsanto.” On the contrary, they will
probably be spying on the “wild greens” an activist movement associated with
the Green Party.
Echelon ties NZ to US War on
Terror
New Zealand is one of the
five partners (along with the US, Britain, Canada and Australia) in the “Echelon”
electronic spying network. Echelon was pioneered by
the US Intelligence agencies and is nothing less than a massive trawler of
information. As one would expect with such a programme
coming out of the US state, its purpose is to prop up capitalism and the imperialist
order. Anything perceived as a threat to US interests
would be a target. With the passage of this
legislation, a blank cheque will effectively be given to our spying centre
at Waihopai to conduct intrusive surveillance on not only New Zealanders
but Pacific Island residents as well.
Attack on political freedoms
An example of an activist
organisation that has much to fear from the GCSB Bill is the Anti-Bases Campaign
in Christchurch. In light of this they too made submissions
to Parliament opposing the bill. They make an extremely
good point about the hypocrisy of the bill when they ask:
“The GCSB Bill would confer
an aura of legitimacy on the Bureau that it simply does not deserve. How can an agency be deemed to operate under the laws
of the land when it is exempted from certain provisions of the Privacy Act,
when it is exempted from some provisions of the Crimes Act, when it’s methods
of operation are closed secrets except to the exclusive breathern within
the international intelligence community?”
Smash the police state!
They are right to ask this
question, but a fear of being labelled hypocrites by their opponents has
never stopped the capitalists from doing what serves their interests.Capitalist
laws serve capitalist interests. We need an ongoing campaign
to expose the abuses of power the state is engaging in and the real purpose
behind such legislation. We must also make workers
aware at every opportunity that they and their organisations are under direct
threat from the spying legislation currently before parliament.
Only when people understand
that these legislative attacks are part of capitalism’s grand plan for control,
and that their class interests can not be defended by legislative changes
but in the rejection of the capitalist system itself, will there be real
change.
Workers action to defend civil
rights!
For migrant defence committees!
Smash Echelon!
Imperialist War
In the last issue we argued
that pacificism could not stop war. We said that war is a necessary result of imperialist crisis and that
the only way to stop war was to overthrow capitalism with a socialist revolution.
In this issue we try to explain this position further by going into the key
concepts in more depth. These concepts are capitalism itself,
crises, capitalist state, imperialism,
war, revolution, party. If we can
convince you that capitalism is a crisis-ridden system that relies on the
state to protect it and to go to war to defend it, you should conclude that
it is necessary to overthrow capitalism to stop war. Then we have to persuade
you to join a revolutionary party.
Capitalism likes to present itself as the best
of all possible worlds. For most of the 20th century capitalism
was associated with greed, depression and war. It became a dirty word. The
only people who used it were anti-capitalists. Most others used the term
liberal democracy when they really meant capitalism – albiet one that had
been tamed by the welfare state.
In the 1980’s
the new right rehabilitated this word as a badge of
pride. Capitalism in freeing up market forces would
liberate individuals from the tyranny of state socialism and take its place
in history as the best of all societies. This model of capitalism is one of
a self-correcting market that meets the needs of all without state intervention. But this is far from the real world capitalism of crises,
wars and revolutions that manifests itself periodically in depressions and
wars. The model capitalism of social harmony and peace on earth cannot live
up to its PR image.
The cause of crises
Why can’t capitalism deliver on its promises?
The problem isn’t excessive state interference, or anarchy of the market,
but a failure to extract enough surplus value from workers to prevent profits
falling. The problem with capitalism is the antagonistic
class relations between capital and labour. Capital can only exist by expropriating
surplus value from the labour of workers. Capitalism cannot be a stable,
harmonious system. There is a constant conflict between the class that produces
and the class that exploits.
As Marx explained, competition
among capitalists drives them to innovate in order to increase labour productivity.
This usually means building new machines that allow workers to produce more
commodities in a shorter period of time. Machines don’t create value so the
captital invested in them can only be recouped by further increasing labour
output, by investing in more machines, and so on and on… The result is a
tendency for the rate of profit to fall and an excess of commodities and
capital flooding the market causing depression (devaluation of companies
and wages) in order to restore the rate of profit. This is where the state
helps out.
It is not immediately obvious that the state
acts in the interests of the capitalist class. This is because it appears to represent all citizens
equally. This perception is false. It is based on the way capitalism presents
itself as equal in the marketplace. Everyone is as equal as the commodities
s/he can buy. Value appears as a built-in property of commodities rather
than a property of the labour that is required to produce them. Marx called
this capitalist ideology ‘commodity fetishism’. So
while the state acts to treat everybody as equal citizens in the market it
actually creates and reinforces the unqual class (or social) relations of
capitalism – the capitalist class that owns most of the private property
and expropriates the labour of the working class.
Not surprisingly when the workers
try to get back some of their expropriated wealth through strikes, factory
occupations etc., the state steps in with its legal and military apparatuses
to protect the capitalists’ right to private property. This
requires the state to subsidise profits and find ways to expand the national
market overseas. That’s why Marx called the capitalists the ‘ruling class’
and capitalist ideology the ‘ideas of the ruling class’, and the state the
capitalist (or bourgeois) state.
Imperialism is what happens when crises of falling
profits in the more developed capitalist countries force the capitalists
and their state to expand the market to find new profitable investments.
The leading capitalist states colonise the non-capitalist world to get cheap
labour, resources and find new markets for their products. They don’t do
it because they ruling class is greedy or bloody-minded but because they
have to. By colonising new countries capitalism can lower its costs of production.
The first historic period of European
colonisation was motivated by the drive to establish capitalist production
in Europe. From the late 15th century European powers colonised
the Americas, and chunks of Asia and accumated the wealth to allow capitalism
to develop in Europe. Only in the late 19th century, when capitalism
had become Europe-wide (had outgrown Europe) and needed to expand globally
to survive, did the Age of Imperialism proper arrive. By the early 20th
century capitalism had reached its imperialist stage and had conquered most
of the continents of the world, forcing pre-capitalist societies into making
commodities for profit.
War
The race by rival imperialist powers to colonise
the world led to the First World War. As they fought to colonise Africa,
Asia and the Pacific in the late 19th century, the great powers
used their armies and navies to defeat their opponents. Soon they were fighting
over the Balkans, the Far East, the Russian empire and central Europe itself. Not only were their workers exploited for profit, now
they were expected to go to war and kill workers of other countries.
Some workers benefitted from the
wealth extracted from the colonies. This layer of better-paid workers in
the imperialist countries (called by Engels ‘bourgeois workers’ and Lenin
the ‘Labour Aristocracy’) went to war to protect their high wages. But many
workers rejected killing their fellow workers, mutinied, fraternised with
the enemy, or used their weapons to resist the war. This was especially true
of the more backward countries like Russia or semi-colonies like Poland.
The result was that war intensifed
the class conflict between workers and capitalists by raising the levels
of exxploitation and oppression to intolerable levels creating widespread
sympathy for revolution. This was true not only of backward countries, colonies
and semi-colonies where workers and peasants began to resist imperialist
rule, but of the developed European powers too.
Party
Join us!
In each step of the argument made here, capitalism is shown to be a society that exploits, oppresses, and destroys by means of depressions and wars. Not because capitalists want to but because they have to. At one pole the pile of riches mounts up. The current war for oil is to concentrate the ownership of oil in the US. At the other pole, disease, starvation and genocide pile the bodies high. The death toll of the ongoing war for oil adds to this body count daily.
There is no hope that capitalism can be reformed in the interests of the vast masses. The crucible of war, revolution and counter-revolution in Germany between 1918-1923 proved that. There can be no state intervention that will persuade capitalists to voluntarily hand over their expropriated wealth. That’s why Nestle is giving back only a fraction of its profits extorted from the Ethiopian people as aid. There is only one way for humanity to survive and that is to expropriate the expropriators! This will not happen until a class conscious layer of workers understand this and forms a revolutionary party to convince the rest of the working class of the necessity for socialist revolution.
If you want to be part of the fight for socialism join us in the struggle against the barbarism of war and the destruction of the wealth of society and nature that today can be harnessed for the benefit of all humanity..
No war for oil!
No oil for the Juggernaut!
Smash Imperialism!
Fight for Socialism!
OCEANIA SOCIAL FORUM: FOR
‘ANOTHER WORLD’
The convenors of the Oceania Social
Forum have put out an invitation for people to attend a preparatory meeting:
“An organising meeting will be
held talk about the Oceania Social Forum chaired by Sukhi Turner Mayor of
Dunedin at1pm on Tuesday 4th February 2003, at the Porirua City Council offices
Cobham Court, Porirua City. The agenda will include report on progress to
date, finances, formation of a national core group, location and timing of
the Forum.”
This is : “…a
forum inspired by the 2001 and 2002 World SocialForums that have been
held in Porto Alegre, Brazil. (The 3rd WSF will be held from 23rd - 28th
January 2003) “
See Class Struggle No 43
Feb/March 2002 for our position on the WSF of 2002.
Hosted by the Workers Party of
Brazil whose leader ‘Lula’ has just been voted President of Brazil (see article
in this issue) the WSFrepresents the ideology that capitalism and imperialism
can be reformed by working through the institutions of existing society.
According to the convenors:
“The World Social Forums and the
regional forums they have spawned including the Oceania Social Forum, seek
to bring together individuals and groups "that are opposed to neo-liberalism
and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism". With
their overarching theme "Another World is Possible," the Forums offer an
opportunity to build "a planetary society directed towards fruitful relationships
among Mankind and between it and the Earth," and represent a positive movement
for change.”
This is a vague liberal hope that
the masses can somehow spontaneously create a world wide social movement
to reform imperialism. Is it really a wide-open talkshop of individuals (parties
are formally banned) who share only broad humanitarian concerns? The Oceania
Forum claims to be no different:
“The WSF’s Charter states that "The meetings of the World Social Forum do not deliberate on behalf of the World Social Forum as a body. No-one therefore will be authorised, on behalf of any editions the Forum, to express positions claiming to be those of its participants."
So how is it possible to arrive
at common solutions and a global political anti-capitalist program? The answer
is that the WSF already adopts the program of social democracy – that is the
ideology of political representation within bourgeois society that holds that
the majority rules. Lula’s victory is seen to be proof that social democracy
is workable. However, as we point out in our piece on Lula’s victory, he
cannot fulfill the expectations of the millions of his working class voters
and has already agreed to follow the rules set by the IMF etc in its imperialist
exploitation of Brazil.
The attitude of
revolutionaries to the WSF and its many local spinoffs is the same as we
adopt toward social democratic parties. We intervene to break workers away
from its reformist politics and to revolutionary poliltics capable of removing
the causes of imperialist super-exploitation and war – the capitalist system.
One year after the momentous Argentinazo of December 19 and 20, workers and poor people flooded once more to the Plaza de Mayo in the centre of Buenos Aires. Unlike last year where the state forces killed 33 mainly young people and the level of protest forced the resignation of the De la Rua government, this year there was no confrontation and Duhalde’s government did not fall. A temporary stalemate exists. The bosses are relying on the union bureaucrats and so-called socialist parties to divide and rule the workers struggles. However, the forces on the militant left wing of the movement are regrouping around the occupied factories to defend the most important conquest of the revolution and to unite workers on a revolutionary action program. A member of CWG just back from Argentina reports on the prospects of the continuing revolution.
Argentina December 20 2002
The mass rally on December 20 this
year (100,000 in Buenos Aires and 100,000 in the rest of Argentina) shows
that a temporary stalemate exists between the two main classes in Argentina.
On the one side Duhalde’s government was not challenged. It was able to pay
the IMF $20 billion, make another 500,000 workers unemployed, and still rely
on the union bureaucracy to buy off the majority of unemployed with US $40
a month. On the other side, an increasing number of the ranks of unemployed,
employed and students are becoming angry at the treachery of the bureaucracy
and the ‘left’ parties, and are openly looking for ways to break from their
control and find an independent working class solution to the bosses’ crisis.
While the bosses were able to prevent
the workers from using December 20 to make another Argentinazo, what was
significant about this years rally, was the emergence of a class struggle
left wing of the mass movement that marched separately and that broke openly
with the control of the official union bureaucracy of the CTA/CCC and the
unofficial ‘left bureaucracy’ that has emerged in the last year to administer
the unemployment schemes.[1]
Instead of of falling into the trap of trying to bring down Duhalde with
street fighting, these as yet small forces rallied behind demands for strike
action, for defence of the factory occupations, and for general strike leading
to national workers congress in the new year.
On balance it seems that the stalemate
continues but that the current situation opens the way for a deepening and
widening of the revolution, to overcome the splits in the mass movement,
and to break from the bureaucracy by mounting mass defence pickets of the
factory occupations by all the sectors in struggle.
Brukman and Zanon leading the
fight
The most visible sign of this healthy
development was that of the Brukman and Zanon occupied factories leading
their own column, closely associated with two other colums, that of the FTC
and that of the combined forces of the RSL, SC and DO.[2] All of these columns marched behind the banners of strike
and take the fight to the streets on D 19/20 (instead of a stagemanaged ‘commemoration’
organised by the bureaucracy); to fight the union bureaucracy; for a general strike to bring down Duhalde and “get them all
out”; for all factories to be nationalised without compensation and under
workers control; and for a 3rd national workers congress of mandated
delegates for every 100 employed, unemployed workers and popular assembly
members.
It was important that Brukman led
the way. Brukman is the factory that represents the most politically advanced
workers who are calling openly for the nationalisation of their factory without
compensation and under workers control.[3]
For this reason the bosses are determined to re-take this factory to destroy
it as an example of how socialism can work.[4]
Zanon is another leading example.
Zanon is a large ceramics factory in Neuquen in the far west of Argentina
whose workers are running it at 80% capacity and providing jobs for unemployed.
Zanon was recently visited by Hebe de Bonafini a leader of the Mothers of
the Plaza de Mayo (Mothers of the Dissappeared) who immediately saw that
workers were in control and were capable of producing without bosses. She
reported that Zanon was proof that workers could run society not only in
Argentina but the whole world.[5]
In an important symbolic act, on
December 20 itself, another factory occupation took place. This was ISACO
a factory that made car parts, at one time employing over 200 workers, and
which shut down in December 2000. It was finally declared bankrupt on 24
November this year. When the sacked workers heard this they decided
to camp outside to prevent the factory being stripped of machines. They reoccupied
the factory at 7 am on the 20th with plans to restart production
under workers’ control. They took this decision conscious of the many other
occupations that have already taken place.[6]
Almost all attempts by the bossses
to get the police, the justice and the union scabs to retake these factories
have so far failed. The recent retaking of the Halac medical clinic at Cordoba
on the 17 December succeeded only because the numbers defending the clinc
were too small to stop the police. The lesson being drawn is that all of
the sectors in struggle have to unite to form mass defence committees against
the bosses’ attempts to retake the occupied workplaces. Hence the common
columns marching on the 20th put up the demand for unity to defend
the occupations, clearly against the bureaucrats’ measures to divide the
movement.
The second lesson is that as well
as these defence committees, the rest of the sectors in struggle (unemployed,
employed, and members of PAs) have to unite behind a general strike to bring
Duhalde down. They take seriously the demand raised
spontaneously last December 20: “out with them all, not one must remain”.
But instead of organising another Argentinazo to bring Duhalde down, the
union bureaucrats are conducting negotiations with Duhalde and the IMF to
do a deal to rescue the Argentinean economy and avoid a popular revolution.
They are jockeying to contest the April elections, or they are taking a fake
left line and calling for elections for Constituent Assemblies as if these
would solve Argentina’s crisis.[7]
That is why the class stuggle tendency in the movement united behind Brukman
and Zanon puts the demand on the bureacuracy for a general strike to bring
down the government now, and a National Congress of employed, unemployed
and Popular Assemblies.
‘Workers to Power’
The third lesson is that is all
very well to bring down a government, but who will rule in its place? Again the experience of the unemployed movement that has
called for “workers to power” for more than a year, combining with the lessons
of the factory occupations, that the bosses’ property must be nationalised
without compensation under workers control, all points to one solution –
a workers’ revolution. That is why these class struggle currrents have united
around the demand for ‘workers to power’ and for a 3rd national
congress of workers early in 2003 that can become the basis of a workers’
government.
Today the revolutionary situation
in Argentina that was opened over a year ago by workers looking for their
own solution to the crisis has been met by opposition from all the political
currents across the spectrum of Argentina’s class structure top to bottom.
Most workers have lost faith in any of the Bourgeois parties including the
left Peronists like Duhalde (or De la Rua who is waiting in the wings with
the retired General Rico as a running mate).
Nor are they enthusiastic to vote
for left reformists like De Ellia and Zamora who promise ‘popular governments’
modelled on the popular front of the World Social Forum or on Lula’s government
in Brazil. Hopes are being placed in Lula’s ability
to help solve the Argentine crisis. As the pesos devaluation has restored
the competitiveness of Argentina’s exports, the reformist left is looking
to a revival of trade with Brazil to rescue the economy. But there is no
way out of the crisis for workers via the bourgeois state. The most that
can happen is that Argentina’s crisis will become joined with Brazil’s own
ongoing crisis. This demonstrates clearly that the WSF is a reformist or
‘menshevik’ international that has to be confronted internationally by revolutionaries.[8]
Fake Trotskyists
The most treacherous of all are
the self-proclaimed ‘workers’ parties and the left bureaucracy that put forward
the solution of the Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly is a bourgeois
parliament that represents all classes. As we argued in Class Struggle
No 43, the call for a Constituent Assembly when revolution is building is
to reject the theory of Permanent Revolution. This theory makes it clear
that in colonies and semi-colonies fighting imperialism, there can be no
break with imperialism unless the working class leads a socialist revolution.
The national bourgeoisie are completely dependent upon imperialism and workers
alone have the class interest and class power to lead a revolution to expropriate
the imperialists.
While the appeal of the elections
to a popular front and the various Constituent Assemblies are being pushed
non-stop, as yet none of these attempts to divert the revolution has won
the support of the class struggle wing of the movement where the instinct
is for ‘workers to power’. The situation is ripe for a revolutionary leadership
to thrust itself to the fore and to take the lead in building organs of workers
power against the union bureaucracy and against the bourgeois state.
Where to from
here?
The current situation in Argentina
is poised to break the stalemate and to develop in one of two directions.
The bosses may succeed in dampening down the revolutionary situation with
a new round of elections as a trap for the majority of workers, and the systemmatic
repression of the factory occupations and militant wing of the mass movement.
This would allow them to impose a solution to the crisis on the backs of
the masses and avoid the threat of revolutionary upheaval.
But for this to succeed the workers
revolution has to be strangled. The revolutionary situation that has opened
up in the last year has demonstrated the necessity for the unity and coordination
of all the sectors in struggle around the factory occupations to break with
the union bureaucrats and launch a general strike to bring down the government
and put a workers government in its place. The class struggle wing is now
drawing these lessons and embarking on that road and building united fronts
across the country. But that will not be sufficient. There needs to be a
revolutionary party and program to lead the way forward.
The single crucial factor that
will make the difference in which direction Argentina goes is the existence
a revolutionary party. The instinctive struggle for
‘workers to power’ cannot happen spontaneously. It has to be built, defended
and extended by creating organs of dual power. The occupations are the starting
point because only they seriously challenge capitalist property rights. The
intervention of the revolutionary left in the occupations is the test of
their leadership. Here we see the vanguard of the workers testing out the
revolutionary ideas of the more healthy parties. Some
like the PO or PTS, who try to contain the struggle for sectarian or oppportunist
reasons, are being exposed.[9]
Those parties like the DO, the CS and RSL, and other militant workers that
fight for the vanguard to adopt a revolutionary action program and for organs
of workers power, will become the core of the Argentinean revolutionary party,
and part of a new world party of revolution.
Venezuela has become the latest Latin America country to enter a revolutionary crisis,
as the United States works hard to overthrow left-wing President Chavez.
We reproduce parts of an article written by supporters of Chavez, then outline the
Trotskyist response to the crisis in Venezuela.
Venezuela's 'National Strike'
by Justin Podur at Znet
The 'general strike' in Venezuela is the fourth called by the opposition over the past year, including the failed coup attempt in April.
The economy is suffering. On December 3, the anti-Chavez forces stopped a bus, doused it with gasoline, and set it on fire earlier
today to enforce the strike-only the driver was inside, and he escaped unharmed. On the fourth day of the strike the captains of the
oil tankers began a blockade on the transport of oil to and from Venezuela.
The 'Bolivarians', who support Chavez and his reforms, are fighting back. On December 10, they surrounded the TV stations,
a natural tactic in a country where the mass media is openly for the oligarchy and against the poor. On December 7, a peace march
brought 2 million out in support of the government, an event barely covered by the media. A week later workers at a Pepsi-Cola plant
in Aragua, Venezuela, took it over against the wishes of management in order to not join a national strike. Their slogan is "Fabrica
Cerrada - Fabrica Tomada", or 'Close the Factories? We'll take them over!" The government has sent troops to take over the oil
installations and there are reports that oil workers in some parts of the country are working. But the strike has slowed oil production
and the economy in general.
Much of this struggle is about oil. Venezuela is the world's fourth largest oil producer and its oil industry is critical to its economy.
Chavez's 'bolivarian revolution' argues for a role for the state in the oil industry, the redistribution of oil income, and the use of revenues
from this resource to build economic independence. But since 1974, the oil industry has been moving in the opposite direction. At that
time, the state-run-oil company kept 20% of its revenue in operating costs and turned 80% over to the state. In 1990 it was 50-50 and
in 1998, when Chavez was elected, the company kept 80% and turned 20% over. What the neoliberals had in mind in the late 1990s
was full privatization-not a reversal of the trend of the previous 20 years. Added to this, the administration of the oil industry is in the
hands of anti-Chavez forces, making it possible for them to go on strike in order to promote privatization.
What are Chavez's other crimes? Severance pay was restored in the constitution of 1999, after being eliminated in 1997. Social
security was set to be privatized in 1998, but was also impeded by the constitution of 1999. The Land Law, passed last year, was an
agrarian reform law that tries to make rural life viable for Venezuelans and slow rural-urban migration at the expense of large plantation
owners and real-estate speculators.
What is going on in Venezuela is a reversal of the situation in most of the countries of the world. Elsewhere, governments quietly
pass neoliberal laws, privatize state assets, and undermine agrarian reforms under the direction of local elites. The people-and quite
often the employees of the state organs to be privatized-protest, and are repressed by the government. In Venezuela, the neoliberals
tried and failed to take over the government in April 2002. Their remaining weapons are the strike, the media, and the dream of external
intervention.
Many analysts believe that a US intervention in Venezuela shouldn't be ruled out, and that Colombia's civil war will offer a pretext
for such an intervention. While the US has made it clear that it would recognize a Venezuelan government that successfully overthrew
Chavez, reparations for a direct military intervention do not seem to be in the works in the short term.
Marta Harnecker, a Chilean sociologist, has been following events in Venezuela closely and recently interviewed Chavez for 15
hours. Just two weeks ago she stated her belief that "if Chávez wanted to lead an insurrection today, he would have the strength
to do it. That is, the people and the army at this moment would permit a victorious insurrection. The problem is what will happen
tomorrow. I think he's sufficiently mature to understand the correlation of forces in which he finds himself and to understand that
insurrection would not be the solution." The solution, instead, is to continue with democracy, to continue to struggle honourably
against opponents who fight dirty. Venezuelans should not have to face this battle alone.
The Trotskyist Perspective
Trotskyists defend Chavez from U.S. coups and CIA-backed subversion, but deny that he can bring the improved living conditions
and wider democratic rights he has promised to Venezuela. Why do we take this position? Let’s have a look at the backdrop to the
Venezulean crisis in an attempt to get an answer to this question.
Despite their talk about a Chavez ‘revolution’, those who give wholehearted support to Chavez tend to seem him as a left-wing
reformer who can, if given the opportunity, gradually increase the scope of democratic liberties in Venezuela, as well as gradually
boost living standards and the quality of social services like education and health. If the US would only leave him alone, the argument
goes, Chavez would be able to get on with improving the lives of Venezuelans. What this argument ignores is the way that it is the very
existence of limited democracy and some limited left-wing reforms that have created the crisis in Venezuela.
Venezuela is a poor semi-colony, which means that most of its wealth is drained by multinational companies based in imperialist
countries like the United States. These companies are able to make such big profits because they pay very low wages for labour and
very low prices for raw materials. Because of this domination by foreign companies, not enough money is available in Venezuela for the
government to tax and spend on social services. When a government comes into power and under pressure from workers tries to enact
left-wing reforms, it quickly creates a crisis. If it wants to get enough money to pay for the reforms, it has to challenge the foreign
companies that have a stranglehold over the economy. These companies don’t want to see their profit rates threatened, and they are
backed by the governments of the imperialist countries in which they are based. They resist attempts to increase tax rates or to
nationalise their assets by getting imperialist governments to destabilise the regimes that threaten their profits.
The story is no different when left-wing reforming governments like Chavez’s increase democratic rights by, for instance, making it
easier for free trade unions to operate. Workers tend to use their new liberties to organise strike action to win higher wages and better
conditions from their employers, who are usually directly or indirectly multinational companies. Since higher wages and better
conditions cut into profits, the companies and their imperialist backers start to destabilise the government which gave workers greater
freedoms, in the hope that these freedoms can be rolled back.
Time and time again, left-wing reforming governments have run into the brick wall of the domination of poor semi-colonies by
imperialist money. In Guatemala in 1954, in Chile in 1973, and in Fiji in 1987 reforming governments have been ousted when the
companies they have alienated have turned to the imperialist powers for support. In Chile in 1973, the Allende government angered
U.S.-based multinationals with its plans to nationalise key areas of the economy like the mining sector. Nationalisation meant an end
to superprofits, so the multinationals conspired with the CIA and with U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to organise the military
coup that put General Pinochet in power, killed thousands of leftists and unionists, and made sure that the economy stayed in U.S.
hands.
Like Allende thrity years ago, Chavez is running up against the ‘wall’ that keeps poor semi-colonies in their place. The only solution
in Venezuela is to break out of the global capitalist system by socialising property, abolishing the market, and establishing a planned
economy that runs according to the needs of working class and poor Venezuelans, not the dictates of multinationals and the global
market. To get rid of imperialist domination and secure democratic rights, poor semi-colonies have to go all the way to socialism.
Trotskyists call this process a ‘permanent revolution’.
Chavez will never lead such a revolution: His interests are tied to the national bourgeoisie and his ‘radicalism’ amounts to a demand
for a greater share of Venezuelan wealth staying in the hands of the national bourgeoisie. This ‘Chavista’ bourgeoise is trapped and
powerless to alter the situation. There are only two courses open: US-backed coup, or socialist revolution.
Only the workers of Venezuela have the ability to make a socialist revolution. Already, they have been organising themselves in
grassroots ‘Bolivarian circles’ to defend Chavez against coup attempts and CIA-backed right-wing protests. But Chavez has attempted
to stop the Bolivarian circles from taking to the streets in large numbers, because he is worried they will start to challenge the power
of ‘his’ army and police.
Chavez should be defended from the CIA's counter-revolution, but workers should organise themselves independently of him - rather
than having illusions in him, or being part of a political alliance with him, workers should make a ‘military bloc’ with him to defend him
against imperialist coups and subversion only.
Workers need to be independent of Chavez so they can get rid of him when he becomes an obstacle to the socialist revolution,
which alone can actually achieve the improved living standards and democratic rights Chavez promises. The win that independence
they need a revolutionary party and program which offers them a clear view of the road to socialist revolution.
HANDS OFF VENEZUELA!
BREAK FROM THE CHAVISTA BOURGEOISIE
BUILD WORKERS AND POPULAR ASSEMBLIES
BUILD WORKERS AND POPULAR MILITIAS
Support an international trade union appeal to defend Venezuela from imperialist coups and subversion.
To find out more, visit the following website http://www.marxist.com/appeals/hands_off_venezuela.html
'North Korea': Defend the Workers State against the US and Japan!
The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, better known in the West as ‘North
Korea’, is much in the news lately. It has pulled out of the Nuclear non-proliferation
Treaty and is taking a tough stand against US attempts to bully it into submission.
The latest attempt by the US to conciliate the DPRK with food in exchange
for nuclear disarmament was met by a firm rejction. The US offer of food
was likened to “wheat pie in the sky”.
Understanding 'North Korea'
Is the
US right to label the DPRK a ‘pariah’ or ‘terrorist’ state? Whatever the
North is, it is the result of a century of imperialist invasion, occupation
and partition of Korea, first by Japan who ruled Korea as a colony from 1910
to 1945, then by the US, which fought a war in 1950 to force the partition
and isolation of the North.
Today
the U.S. continues to occupy South Korea, keeping 37,000 troops in a network
of bases across the country.
What is
the DPRK, if it is not a ‘pariah’ or ‘terrorist’ state? Trotskyists call
the DPRK a degenerated workers’ state because property has been socialised
and the law of the market has been ditched in favour of a planned economy,
but a caste of bureaucrats have political power that should belong to the
workers. These bureaucrats use their control to strike deals with imperialist
countries like the U.S. and Japan. They are like the union bureaucrats who
use their control of rank and file unionists to make deals with bosses.
Trotskyists
want to get rid of union bureaucrats, but not at the expense of the unions
that the bureaucrats have captured. In the same way, we want to get rid of
Kim Jong Il and his regime, but we don’t want to see the privatisation of
state assets and restoration of the market that U.S. intervention is aimed
at bringing to the North. Deciding the future of the DPRK is a job for the
workers of all Korea, not George Bush jnr.
What about the North’s nuke
programme? If the North has nukes, does that justify a U.S. invasion, or
at least U.N. sanctions? Nobody should be surprised that the North has tried
to develop nuclear weapons, because it has had to live its entire existence
in the shadow of the threat of nuclear annihilation at the hands of the U.S.
During the ‘Korean’ War General McArthur, leader of the U.S. forces, lobbied
Washington for permission to drop ’30 to 50’ nuclear bombs across the middle
of the Korean peninsula. Several times during the
war the U.S. came close to using a nuclear bomb. In 1951 the US flew a lone
B 52 bomber over the Northern capital Pyongyang in a successful attempt to
create panic about a Hiroshima-style strike. From 1957 to 1991 the U.S. kept
an arsenal of nuclear weapons on the southern edge of the demilitarised zone
that divides North and South. To this day, the U.S rehearses for a nuclear
bombing strike on the North.
It’s hardly surprising,
then, that the DPRK bureaucrats feel the need to get some nukes of their
own, so that the U.S. will think twice before attacking them. Nobody seriously
suggests that the DPRK has more than a handful of nukes, and the North’s
leadership knows that using them pre-emptively would mean certain destruction.
The U.S. on the other hand is the only country ever to use nuclear weapons
in war, has publicly signalled its willingness to use them pre-emptively
if its interests are threatened, and today has 9,000 of the things, including
bombs, missiles, torpedoes, and mortar shells. We suggest that the middle
class peaceniks who have joined Bush in condemning the North’s nuclear programme
get their priorities right.
Because they are bureaucrats
not socialists, the leaders of the North can’t see that it is not nukes but
workers who are the best defence against U.S. imperialism. Hatred of the
U.S. and its continued military occupation of the South is common to Koreans
on both sides of the border. Even right-wing South Koreans hate U.S. occupation
more than the ‘communist’ state to their north. Young South Korean men especially
hate the two years’ compulsory military service which forces them to act
as dogs bodies on U.S. bases.
In New Zealand
alone, scores of them live in exile rather than serve the U.S. It was mass
protests by workers and students that helped force the U.S. to pull its nukes
out of the South twelve years ago, and in recent months regular protests by
tens of thousands have followed the unpunished killing of two Korean teenagers
by U.S. troops. Unionists have marched in huge contingents, chanting anti-U.S.
slogans, and squads of students have attacked and sabotagued U.S. bases around
the South Korean capital of Seoul.
Protests
like these point toward a solution to occupation in the South and bureaucratisation
in the North. This solution is the reunification of
the peninsula on a socialist basis. In the South the new President, Roh Moo
Hyun, is pushing ahead for re-unification, but on the terms of global capitalism
that will see the North remain an underdeveloped region in a US client state.
The North is also moving in this direction, with Kim Jong Il and his mates
looking to follow the ‘Chinese model’ and convert themselves from bureaucrats
to capitalists.
But in
the decades since the division of their country many Korean workers, students,
and peasants have been inspired by a very different vision of reunification.
In the late 40s and early 50s, for instance, workers and peasants inspired
by the abolition of capitalism in the North staged a series of insurrections
against the U.S.’s puppet regime in the South. In Cheju, the southernmost
province of South Korea, a revolutionary government survived for two years
before being betrayed by the bureaucratic leaders of the North and crushed
by Southern troops in 1949.
Today left-wing workers and students in the South are again taking up the cause of re-unification within an anti-imperialist framework. By protesting the U.S. occupation in the South and the North’s refusal to demand that Japan pay reparations for its occupation they challenge both imperialism and Stalinism. Challenges like these can succeed, if they are backed by the anti-imperialist strike action of workers in the North and South, and by the solidarity of workers in Japan, the U.S., and U.S. allies like New Zealand. Predictably, the Clark government is already trying to earn brownie points with the U.S. by sounding off about the ‘danger’ presented by the DPRK. Kiwi workers should beware any attempt by Clark and co. to follow Bush into a confrontation with the DPRK.
Directed by Michael Moore,
120 Minutes
Director
Michael Moore is well known for his previous documentary “Roger and Me” and
his television programme “The awful truth.” In both
of these he has essentially taken on un-caring corporate greed in the USA. More recently he has written a book (“Stupid white men”)
which takes a broader approach examining such issues as America’s foreign
policy and the rigged election which led to Bush being in the White House.
` In Bowling for Columbine he takes aim
at the American obsession with guns and why tragedies such as the Columbine
High School Massacre occur.
The film
begins with Moore opening an account with a bank that gives away a free gun
when you join up. This sets the tone for what is largely
a light hearted romp through gun crazy USA looking at the question of why
so many people die by the gun (over 11,000) every year compared to other
countries (such as Canada which had less than 200 guns deaths last year).
Along
the way he interviews a wide variety of people including Marilyn Manson,
Charlton Heston (head of the National Rifle Association) and Barry Glassner
(author of The culture of Fear.).
The music
of Marilyn Manson was popular with the boys who murdered students at Columbine
High and so he became an obvious target of blame, particularly from the Religious
Right. The interview with Manson is one of the highlights. He articulates the view that there exists in America a
culture of fear that contributes to a gun toting public and tragedies such
as the one that occurred at Columbine. This theme
is expanded on in the interview with Barry Glassner.
The interview
with Charlton Heston was another highlight and has to be seen to be believed.
To his
credit, Moore resists the trap fallen into by many liberals in the US to
pin the problem solely on gun availability. He is
in fact a member of the National Rifle Association himself and won a junior
marksmanship award when he was younger.
He is
not afraid to look into the role that poverty plays as a factor in gun deaths
and examines the ways black people are demonised in the media and on programmes
such as “Cops.”
He looks
behind the scenes at the death of a 6-year-old girl in his native Michigan,
shot by her 6-year-old classmate. He points out that
the boy who shot the girl was a victim of poverty. His
mother was forced to bus 80 miles a day under Michigan’s tough work-for-welfare
laws and still couldn’t make enough to pay the rent. As
Moore eloquently puts it she bussed 80 miles a day to serve fudge to rich
people. She was evicted from her house and it was
while staying with an uncle that the boy found a gun, which he took to school.
Drawing
these links makes the film what it is: a powerful statement about some of
the causes of violence and fear in the world. It is good to see the film
is getting widespread praise and attention around the world. Hopefully, some people who go to see it will leave the
theatre more enlightened about the issues raised.
Moore
can in no way described as a Marxist. At best he is
left wing or liberal. However, as a Marxist, I thoroughly
recommend this film to all who are concerned with issues of social justice
and gaining a better understanding of the causes of violence in all societies,
not just the US.
Argentina goes from IMF ‘show case’ of economic development to’ basket case’.
Is the same fate in store for New Zealand/Aotearoa? Here we put forward some
ideas in the hope of stimilating a debate on this question. We make some further comparisons with Australia and South
Africa which have similar origins. The solution we come up with is for Socialist
Federations of the Pacific, Latin America and Southern Africa! We welcome
feedback from readers aboiut where they think New Zealand/Aotearoa is going.
Some History
Some
basic facts: Argentina 40 million people. NZ 4 million
people and 40 million sheep. Both settler semi-colonies; dependent development
based on pastoral exports in 19th and early 20th centuries
and post WW2 economic insulation. NZ’s competitive advantage is agricultural
- dairy production, meat processing, woool –textiles etc. The semi-colonial
problem is dependence on exports to maintain imports of primary and secondary
manufactures. NZ’s development was limited to import-substitution secondary
manufacturing (eg car assembly, whiteware, electronics etc to serve local
market)
Argentina has competitive advantage in pastoral
production. Its balance of payments problem was lessened by protection. Argentina
was able to substitute some heavy manufacturing, such as steel, petrochemicals
etc. But it never became a big regional exporter of these commodities. Argentina’s
heavy industry was highly protected and uncompetitive. Thus Argentina’s dependent-development
was somewhere between that of NZ (which did not substitute heavy industry)
and South Africa and Australia (who produced cars, electronics etc for regional
markets). We suggest that the limits to dependent-development in each case
are set by the extent to which a country has competitive advantage in the
manufacturing of heavy machinery (i.e. capital goods).
Semi-colonial development and
crisis
Dependent-development reaches
its fullest extent with the export of a limited range capital goods on the
world economy. Yet competitive advantage exists only during the periods of
boom and fails during recessions as regional markets contract and the small-scale
economies and higher costs in the semi-colonies cannot sustain competition.
Enter the MNCs to concentrate
and rationalise production globally. This has been the story of so-called
globalisation. In SA and Australia, the biggest operations were internationalised. In SA most of the major industries are Multinationals.
In Australia minerals (BHP) General Motors Holden/Ford etc have been globalised.
De-industrialisation
In the case of Argentina
where capital goods production could be integrated profitably it survived.
But most was not competitive so Argentina was de-industrialised and its import
substitution capacity in heavy steel and petro-chemical industry lost. Thus
import volumes rose. Import prices were reduced as the peso was pegged to
the dollar, but export prices rose with the US dollar, so that overall the
trade deficit increased. The balance of payments was plugged with IMF borrowing
until this exceeded the capacity of exports to pay and debt mounted.
So the crisis of a re-colonised
dependent economy means bankruptcy and devaluation of assets which are then
sold off cheaply to multinationals and big banks. Argentina’s plight is that
of all semi-colonial economies whose capacity to develop independently has
been destroyed by globalisation. But the severity of the crisis is directly
proportional to the depth of restructuring in the primary industry sector.
How does NZ compare?
New Zealand compared
NZ’s primary sector always
involved foreign investment through banks and loan agencies and the export
of profits. In agriculture (dairy, meat, textiles
etc) production depended heavily on imported capital, technology and machines.
New Zealand never substituted for heavy industry except in isolated, exceptional
cases (NZ Steel based on Iron sands).
Thus NZ was always exposed
to chronic balance of payments crises. The postwar development of import
substitution in secondary manufacturing for consumer goods was a weak attempt
to solve the ongoing dependency of the economy. This insulation reached its
limit as soon as protected industry outgrew the local market.
So, unlike SA, Australia
or Argentina, the neo-liberal reversal was less deep because it affected
only the post-war import substitution in the secondary sector of the economy. De-industrialisation did not hit primary production as
it was already partiallly globalised. Pastoral production has always been
technologically advanced, and continues to be so. The primary agricultural
sector (e.g. meat, dairy, wool etc) has become more internationalised with
the giant dairy monopoly Fonterra, now a multinational in its own right. The problem with this however is that little of the rent
from agricultural value-added production is available for redistribution
inside NZ but falls into the hands of international capital.
To complete the comparison,
Argentina was able to insulate itself from extreme economic dependence by
setting up internal capital goods manufacturing. In some ways similar to
the situation in SA where apartheid was like the military dictatorship in
regimenting social production based on super-exploitation. Like SA, when
the crisis came in the early 90’s, Argentina fell further and was more severly
affected by the neo-liberal crisis measures than Australia or NZ.
Solutions
Argentina’s dependency,
more like Australia and SA, is acute. Yet all these are relatively large
economies with a broad resource base where there is the potential to resolve
the crisis by socialising the economy. In Agentina the collapse of industry
leaves the majority of the population out of work or underemployed. Half
are under the poverty line. 20% are hungry or starving.
The most similar case is
SA, and it is no accident that in Argentina the masses are frightened of
becoming “Another Africa”. Like SA, nationalisation without compensation
under workers’ control of the large businesses and banks is the way to revive
the economy and feed the people. This has to become
linked to revolutions in the rest of the region, to establish a Federation
of Socialist Republics of Southern Africa, and of Latin America, to create
potentially powerful regional socialist economies.
NZ’s dependency is chronic
NZ is in reality a tiny
US and Australian dominated semi-colony. Its capitalist future will see it
integrating with Australia as part of a larger US client state. Even that
won’t buy much time for the bosses. Australia is in a similar position to
Argentina. Marxism is not an exact science and predictions have to be reviewed
constantly. But we would suggest Australia’s prospects over the next tens
years are that it is likely to suffer a similar economic decline to Argentina.
If this is correct, NZ’s relation to Australia
will see it sucked into this vortex. Therefore, workers in NZ must prepare
to unite with Australian workers for the nationalisation under workers control
of the assets of all the big banks and businesses and to socialise the economy
as part of a Federation of Socialist Republics of the Pacific.
The way ahead for workers is clear. Demand that Lula breaks with his popular front. Demand that Lula sacks his bourgeois government partners. If he doesn’t do that, demand that the PT gets out of the Government. Fight in the CUT (Brazil’s major trade union federation) to break with the Government and the PT if it remains in the popular front. Demand that the PT is reconstituted on an action program that includes the formation of a workers’ and poor peasants’ government!
Revolutionaries must also reject the politics of the World Social Forum
that is meeting again at Porto Alegre in Brazil from January 20th. The PT
sponsors the WSF along with reformist organisations like ATTAC, and Fidel
Castro. This is an international popular front that sucks the fighting workers
into alliances with the left bourgeoisie for reforming the IMF, World Bank,
WTO etc to create a world civil society of ‘social peace’ for all classes!
For
a workers’ United Front and action program!
For a new Bolshevik-Leninist
revolutionary international !
The New Zealand Herald had egg on its face after suggesting
that Cyclone Zoe had killed hundreds of Solomon Islanders over the New Year.
When aid workers reached Tikopia and Anuta Islands, they found, of course,
that Zoe had failed to claim a single victim, despite causing massive property
damage.
Instead of apologising for its alarmist reporting,
the Herald launched into an attack on the government
and people of the Solomons, suggesting that a mixture of incompetence and
callousness held up the arrival of aid to Tikopia and Anuta. The Herald mocked the Solomons’ inability to
pay for fuel for an aid supply boat, and presented as a bureaucratic nonsense
the requirement that the Solomons government give prior approval to any foreign
intervention in the aftermath of disaster. If it wasn’t for the sheer kindness
of Australia and New Zealand, the Herald suggested, aid wouldn’t have gotten to the islands
at all.
Why was the Herald so keen to see a catastrophe
in the Solomons, and why did it show such contempt for the response of Solomon
Islanders to Cyclone Zoe? Last year the Herald ran a series of feature
articles on the Solomons, articles that presented the islands as a ‘failed
state’ in dire need of Australian and New Zealand ‘intervention’. In these
articles and in its response to Cyclone Zoe, the Herald advanced the agenda
of the Australian and New Zealand governments, and disguised the real source
of the problems of the Solomons.
Late last year, after holding one of their regular
meetings, Foreign Minister Phil Goff and his Australian counterpart Alexander
Downer issued a joint communique in which they described the Solomons as
a ‘failed state’ that might become a ‘haven’ for terrorists like Al Qaeda.
Neither Goff nor the Herald tells the public that the human suffering
in the Solomons is in large part due to the exploitation of that country
at the hands of the West, an exploitation that is ruthlessly enforced by
Australia and New Zealand, and which has been stepped up over the past year.
At a key meeting of representatives of the IMF,
World Bank, Asian Development Bank and major donor countries in the Solomons
capital Honiara last June Prime Minister Allen Kemakeza was forced to agree
to an extraordinarily harsh IMF programme. Kemekeza had begged for loans,
but the donors refused to provide any funds unless he moved to reduce government
spending and jobs. An incredible 1,300 state sector employees, or 30% of
the state sector workforce, have been laid off since that meeting. Kemakeza
was also forced to name Lloyd Powell, who is executive director of the New
Zealand-based company Solomon Leonard, as ‘Permanent Secretary of Finance’
for the Solomon Islands. Solomon Leonard has overseen austerity programs
in the Cook Islands, Vanuatu and Tonga, as well as Jamaica, and Powell’s
appointment brought the Solomons even closer to outright recolonisation.
It is the IMF programme forced upon the Solomons
by Australia and New Zealand that has made the country too poor to buy fuel
for an aid boat, let alone finance the building of airstrips on islands like
Tikopia and Anuta. Goff and Downer point to the breakdown in law and order
amid inter-ethnic fighting in parts of the Solomons as a point of concern,
and a possible trigger for military intervention.
The cause of this disorder, though, is the breakdown
of the Solomons economy, a process that has been hastened by the IMF programme
forced on the Solomons last year. With electricity supplies failing, unemployment
soaring to 45%, and health and education services in disarray it is no wonder
that the Solomons has become a ‘failed state’. What Goff and Downer are really
worried about is not the danger social disintegration poses to the average
citizen of the Solomons, but the possibility that lawlessness might threaten
the profitability of foreign-owned business on the islands and spread to
Bouganville, the Solomons’ mineral-rich neighbour.
Australia and New Zealad have only recently finished
defanging the national liberation struggle that closed down Bouganville’s
mines for much of the 90s, so Goff and Downer are in no mood to see instability
return to the island. And, as the Herald surely knows, large-scale
natural disaster would make the perfect cover for any military intervention
to quell instability in the Solomons.
[1] Some instances
of class struggle forces at least partially breaking with the bureacracy
were; in Neuquen, Workers Democracy broke with the left bureaucracy demand
to bring down the state governor and for a provincial Constituent Assembly,
and called for a break with the ‘multisectoral’ popular front and for a Congress
of workers that could lead to a Workers’ Government. At
the Plaza de Mayo, the MTD Anibal Veron (named after the first piquetero
martyr in Salta) marched to the Plaza but left rather than particpate in
the union bureaucrats ‘commemoration’ of 2001; the joint column of the CS,
RSL and DO, after marching to the square along with the FTC and Brukman/Zanon
contingents, left to go to the Obelisk at Republic square to honour the fallen
comrades.
[2] The Frente Trabajadores Combativos
(FTC) is a class struggle formation of unemployed, employed and left groups
and individuals who have broken from the bureaucracy. Socialist Convergence
(SC) is a fraction of the Morenoist LIT (Workers’ International League) in
Argentina with members in Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela and the Carribean. The
Revolutionary Socialist League (RSL) is another ex-Morenoite
group taking a non-sectarian approach to party building in Argentina. Democracia
Obrera (DO) is a 1998 split from the PTS (Socialist Workers Party) committed
to building reforging the 4th International and playing a leading
role in building class struggle united fronts in Argentina.
[3] On December 21 the night after D20,
Brukman hosted an adaptation of the Brecht play “The Mothers”, a homage to
the women in the 1905 revolution in Russia. It also showed a documentary
film on the life of Argentininan revolutionary film -maker Raymondo Gleyzer
who ‘dissappeared’ during the dictatorship in 1976. The working class audience
fully participated in this cultural act joining in the production and celebrating
the links between these outstanding examples of revolutionary art and the
living revolution in Argentina.
[4] On November 24 the police raided Brukman
and arrested the workers at gunpoint. They were charged with breaking machines
in the factory. They were released on a technicality and returned to find
the factory in the ands of the boss and scab workers
and guarded by police. With the support of hundreds of other workers who
rallied in their defence they broke through the police lines and re-occupied
the factory. Late in December they were issued with another court order demanding
they vacate the factory. They are rallying support for another attempt by
the state and the boss to remove them in January.
[6] At a recent meeting the ‘interbarrial’ of San Martin (North Buenos Aires) as well as student and teachers’ unions decided to join in a festival on the 11th in the factory to build support for a return to production but under workers and not the bosses’ control.
[7] Contesting the April Presidential
elections is conceding now that Duhalde cannot be brought down by other means.
Demanding a Constitutent Assembly, a new bourgeois parliament elected by
all adult citizens, now, as the PO (Workers’ Party) does, concedes that dual
power organs like workers councils or soviets cannot be built now. However,
if Duhalde is not brought down and dual power organs are not created before
April 2003, then both contesting the elections and calling for a Constitutent
Assembly may be tactical options that can be used to advance the workers’
struggle.
[8] ‘Menshevik’
refers to the majority of the Russian Communist Party after 1902 that held
that history occurs in a series of stages. The WSF and the Brazilian PT follow
this ideology and this traps them into forming governments with ‘progressive’
capitalists to defend bourgeois democracy on the Lula model rather than fight
outright for a socialist revolution.
[9] The PTS argued against the DO’s proposed
demands for December 20 at two recent meetings in Brukman and were defeated.
This did not stop the PTS bringing 20 workes from Zanon to try to reverse
this vote. They failed and had to march behind banners
that called for a break with the bureaucracy. The PO recently lost 300 of
its supporters in La Matanza (a working class suburb of Greater Buenos Aires)
because it is administering the work plans and taking money from the state.