... a NZ con job The New Zealand military deployment in Bougainville is hailed as a model of "peace keeping". But the soldiers weren't sent to the island to serve the interests of peace and justice. ----------------- 1,2,3,4, we don't want your oil war' by David Colyer 1,000 people marched in Auckland on October 26 demanding Stop the war against Iraq; End economic sanctions; Justice for the Palestinian people; No NZ support for the war. ----------------- Biggest (Christchurch) anti-war march so far by Don Archer ----------------- Bougainville... David Colyer spoke with Moses Havini, international representative of the Bougainville Peoples Congress, during his visit to New Zealand in October. ----------------- Bush out to crush dock workers "The most egregious attack on workers rights in 50 years." This was the response from US union leaders following intervention by president George W Bush against West Coast wharfies, locked out for two weeks by their bosses. ----------------- Can NZ promote peace and justice? The Green Party opposes war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but supports sending "peace keeping" troops. Government MP Matt Robson admits that aid to the Pacific used to come with "strings attached". It was used to push globalisation, just like IMF loans. ----------------- Editorial: From above or from below? In Aotearoa and around the world a new left is emerging. ----------------- New Zealand in the Pacific For 40 years Australian governments have colluded with state terrorism in Indonesia. Grant Brookes reports, New Zealand's record in the region is no better. ----------------- How to get economic justice Unions, Innovation & Sustainable development is against " an economic strategy which increases income disparities". It suggests workers can get economic justice by "adopting a modern social partnership model of unionism" ready and willing to work with government and business". ----------------- Justice for Steven Wallace by Grant Brookes   Keith Abbott, the police officer who shot and killed Steven Wallace on the streets of Waitara, appears in the Wellington high court on November 18... ----------------- One year to re-build GE free movement by David Colyer The end of October means that there is just one year left of the moratorium on the commercial release of genetically engineered (GE) plants and animals. ----------------- Stuck on an island with Ross To Ross Wilson (Council of Trade Union President), anti-capitalism, revolution - and even union women's choirs - are only good for a laugh. ----------------- Tertiary workers against war by Vaughan Gunson The Association of Staff in Tertiary Education (Aste) held its annual conference in Wellington....The remit put to conference on the last day called on our government not to support any war on Iraq by the US, including one approved by the United Nations. ------------------ The workers of the world by Chris Harman The eruption of the anti-capitalist movement worldwide over the last two and a half years has thrown up lots of old questions in new forms. The most central is the question of agency - of what forces exist that are capable of taking on the system and transforming the world. ------------------ Interview: 'We need to look at new models' Metiria Turei, the newly elected Green Party list MP is known for her involvement in the anarchist, cannabis law reform and tino rangatiratanga movements. David Colyer talked with her about her views on political change. ------------------ Why socialists oppose terrorism The bombing of the Bali nightclub and the hostage crisis in Moscow have raised the issue of terrorism once again. Kane Forbes gives a socialist perspective. ------------------

... a NZ con job   The New Zealand military deployment in Bougainville is hailed as a model of "peace keeping".   But the soldiers weren't sent to the island to serve the interests of peace and justice.   New Zealand troops arrived in Bougainville in 1997 to oversee a ceasefire agreement between Papua New Guinea (PNG) and the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA).   The BRA would not accept Australians monitoring the ceasefire.   As Moses Havini points out above, Australia had backed PNG in the war, hoping it could re-take the giant copper mine - the biggest in the world - and return it to Australian multinational Rio Tinto Zinc.   "We don't want Australia", said BRA leader Francis Ona, "because they are the ones responsible for the colonisation of Bougainville."   Colonel Bob Breen, an Australian military expert, says Australia let New Zealand take the lead in Bougainville because "it would serve Australian national interests".   Five months after New Zealand troops arrived, the Australian army was called in and took over the operation.   The Australian commander said they were there "to protect PNG sovereignty".   Since PNG was unable to win on the battlefield, Australia now hopes to secure the return of the mine by negotiation.   The New Zealand "peace-keepers" in Bougainville were the stalking horse for Australasian capitalists.   The Australian and New Zealand governments are the main agents of globalisation in the Pacific. Their armies are the local "sheriffs" of the World Bank and IMF.

'1,2,3,4, we don't want your oil war' by David Colyer   1,000 people marched in Auckland on October 26 demanding "Stop the war against Iraq; End economic sanctions; Justice for the Palestinian people; No NZ support for the war."   Many had been on a similar sized peace march a month before. Both protests were organised by the Global Peace & Justice Auckland (GPJA) network.   There was a strong sense among marchers that they were part of a movement that is growing here and overseas.   There was also a strong anti-capitalist mood. The official slogan for the march was "no blood for oil" and the GPJA leaflet says that behind America's support for Israel and planned invasion of Iraq is "the greed of an economic system driven by profit and the consumption and control of natural resources all around the globe."   Speaking at the end of the march, a minister from the Unitarian church, himself originally from the US said:   "Let me tell you that you are being heard today.There was a story today in the press, Bush is now saying 'we can disarm this man [Saddam Hussein] peacefully'. This is a shift in policy. It is because of you and people like you all over the world who have raised their voices against this war.Support for the war in the US is now down to 60%. A few months ago it was as high as 80%.At this stage in the Vietnam war, there was not so many people saying no."   Green MP Keith Locke said that the world is threatened by a "rogue government" - headed by George W Bush.   "The New Zealand government is playing a Neville Chamberlain role" (appeasing Bush as Chamberlain, British prime minister before World War Two appeased Hitler).Foreign minister Phil Goff now says we need an option for the UN to use force against Iraq.This is hypocritical. The NZ government doesn't talk of 'option for force' against Sharon's government in Israel, which has nuclear weapons and has broken countless UN resolutions.If we are talking about dangers to peace in the Middle East, let's look at the oppression of Palestine."   Mike Treen, a leading activist in Global Peace and Justice Auckland, spoke for the Alliance. He said that we must continue to build the anti-war movement with more and bigger protests.

Biggest anti-war march so far by Don Aarcher   With 400 people, the peace march on Sunday October 27 was  Chirstchurch's biggest protest against the "war on terrorism".   There were many new, young faces, including a big contingent of Green Party supporters.   When the march passed by, people stopped what they were doing and started clapping in support.   Green Party MP Rod Donald said it was a great march and that the movement to stop the war couldn't end here. The way forward he said, was to go home and write letters to parliament.   I agree that we need to keep things going, but I think we'd be better off writing to friends to tell them to get along to the next anti-war protest. Building a mass anti-war movement is what it will take to stop this war.

Bougainville... David Colyer spoke with Moses Havini, international representative of the Bougainville Peoples Congress, during his visit to New Zealand in October. ------ What's the situation in Bougainville now?   We've just come out of a horrible ten year war with Papua New Guinea (PNG). After ten years we have managed to negotiate a successful agreement with the PNG government.   We will now establish an autonomous government with provisions for a referendum on independence in ten years time. What did you learn about PNG, Australia and the mining corporation during the war?   What the people of Bougainville were basically fighting for was their inalienable human rights - their right to self determination, their right to their own resources, which in this instance was wholesale taken over and exploited by a multinational corporation called Rio Tinto Zinc.    And Rio Tinto Zinc was of course fully supported by Australia and PNG, basically for their own economic benefit.   The other issue which is of course very important for Pacific people is land. Land is not a commodity as in Australia or New Zealand, where you can sell and buy.   Land, within Pacific Island communities, is something that stays within the hands of tribes for evermore, since time immemorial.   Rio Tinto, supported by Australia and PNG, came into Bougainville and they took about 100,000 square kilometres of land to prospect - can you imagine the number of tribes and clans who have lost that land forever?   And if you take that away from the people, it is nothing short of a disempowerment of the people, or worse, stealing of one of their most valuable possessions. When capitalism - the globalisation system - spreads, it tries to turn everything into a commodity.   That is correct. I think globalisation is one big, dangerous tsunami that is affecting the whole world, not excluding the Pacific region.   The whole Pacific is already suffering from the onslaught of globalisation. Institutions like the World Bank and IMF go as far as dictating to Pacific governments.   In PNG it is a case of privatising every government body, starting from telecom, electricity and these are assets supposedly belonging to the people.   This takes away not only the sovereignty of those governments, but also the sovereignty of the people.   Governments now feel obliged to look after the interests of transnational corporations, instead of the interests of their own people.   Globalisation is being resisted worldwide, including the Pacific region.   What is the solution or the way forward? I'm afraid I have no answer for that.

Bush out to crush dock workers   "The most egregious attack on workers rights in 50 years."   This was the response from US union leaders following intervention by president George W Bush against West Coast wharfies, locked out for two weeks by their bosses.   Bush is the first president in US history to invoke the draconian anti-union "Taft-Hartley Act" to end a lockout.   It is the first time the legislation has been used in any dispute since 1978.   While the Taft-Hartley Act binds both employers and unions to return to work for an 80 day "cooling off period", it does so with provisions for fines and jail sentences aimed squarely at the union.   Wharfies and their officials face fines or imprisonment if productivity is not seen to be at normal levels - even though this is physically impossible given the backlog created by the bosses' lockout.   ILWU President James Spinosa has warned that for the next 80 days "the employers will be dragging us to court daily, trying to bankrupt our union and throw our leaders in jail".   The bosses' Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) had initiated the lockout after complaining the ILWU members were operating a "go-slow".   But the union was simply adhering to safety procedures after the busiest movement of cargo in West Coast history created horror conditions.   In the past six months alone five workers have been killed.   "We're tired of burying our people," said James Spinosa. "All PMA President Joe Miniace ever talks about is how many containers get moved how fast, you never hear him cite the human toll of his profits".   High level collusion between the PMA and the Bush administration has been evident throughout the dispute.   Throughout negotiations the PMA rejected conciliatory efforts by the ILWU, changing its terms and provoking the use of the Taft-Hartley Act.   In mid June the Department of Labor threatened to break the union by using military personnel to load cargo.   As one US union leader has said "No president has ever been on the side of management so overtly".   Bush has also betrayed how intimately his war on American workers in linked to his bloodthirsty designs for a war on Iraq.   "These ports load the ships that carry supplies to our men and women in uniform", he said.   Unfortunately union leaders have not stood against this logic.   Instead, the union agreed to load military supplies without pay throughout the dispute and officials have defended their role in "National Security".   This stance is in contrast to the union's own history of internationalism.   The ILWU has a proud history of political action, lending solidarity to the Maritime Union of               Australia and the Liverpool dockers, boycotting South African ships during apartheid and striking for a day in solidarity with death-row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal.   In 1999 ILWU members closed the ports and marched against the World Trade Organisation in Seattle.   Here, the Seafarers and Watersiders Unions and the Council of Trade unions have declared their support for the ILWU joining an alliance of unions from Japan, Australia, and South Africa.   A delegation of New Zealand unionists visited ILWU picket lines in the US.   Mike Williams, Wellington secretary of the Seafarers Union said New Zealand's unions were, "part of a global campaign involving dock workers and seafarers around the world. This is the start of union busting on the US waterfront. We're not going to be standing back if scab-loaded cargoes arrive here."   Trevor Hansen, general secretary of the Waterfront Workers Union, told reporters that: "Any ships turning up in New Zealand which were loaded by military or scab labour in the States will be blacked by our people."   Blacking goods is illegal under Labour's Employment Relations Act, it's good to see unions taking such a strong stand.   With the dispute set to continue, it is precisely this international solidarity which can help defeat the attacks on the American wharfies and their union. (Socialist Worker Australia)

Can NZ promote peace and justice?   The Green Party opposes war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but supports sending "peace keeping" troops.   Government MP Matt Robson admits that aid to the Pacific used to come with "strings attached". It was used to push globalisation, just like IMF loans.   But now, he says, aid is aimed at poverty reduction.   Further afield, Helen Clark says that government sanctions on Zimbabwe promote democracy.   All agree that the New Zealand state can promote global justice from above.   And all, at times, draw on the idea that New Zealand "led the world" in nuclear disarmament and opposing apartheid in South Africa.   But which "New Zealand" led these past struggles? It wasn't governments or their business backers.   According to former US ambassador H. Monroe Brown, prime minister David Lange told him in 1984 that he'd convince the Labour Party of the need for nuclear warship visits and ditch the anti-nuclear law.   In 1981, the National government ordered New Zealand's biggest ever police operation - backed up by the army - against the anti-apartheid movement.   In both cases, it was strikes and mass protests that made the progress towards peace and justice. They fought the New Zealand state to do it.   The New Zealand "peace keeping" troops deployed to Bougainville and Timor in the late 1990s were serving Western mining and oil companies.   But workers fought for Timorese freedom. In 1975, while New Zealand was stabbing East Timor in the back, trade unions around the Pacific were refusing to handle Indonesian cargo, picketing Indonesian embassies, even stopping Garuda Airlines flights.   One of the secret documents declassified in September reveals that Indonesia was very worried about the union action in Australia.   In 1999, as Indonesian-backed militias stepped up their violence ahead of East Timor's independence, waterfront workers in Wellington walked off the job to discuss similar industrial action.   The New Zealand state is tied to big business. Peace and justice will only come through solidarity from below.

From above or from below?   In Aotearoa and around the world a new left is emerging.   From the GE-free and anti-war movements, to the teachers' strikes and school students' rebellion, more people are becoming involved in the fight for a better world.   Many who were active in, or inspired by these events are coming to the conclusion that changes around one issue - like more funding for education, or going GE-free - are not enough.   They want a world where meeting peoples' needs and caring for our environment is not sacrificed for the sake of corporate profit.   The "there is no alternative" syndrome of the 1980s and '90s is fading away. But, if another kind of world is possible, how can we bring it about?   Answers to this question fall into two main groups: from above, or from below. These answers relate to another question: can change come through gradual reform, or do we need a revolution?   We live in a society where those at the bottom seem to be powerless.   So it makes sense to think that change can only come from above, from those in positions of power.   Looking to the legal system and the judges who run it is one version of this. Amnesty International believes that an International Criminal Court will advance global peace and justice. And, recently, the Engineers Union attempted to use a legal challenge to stop Carter Holt Harvey from laying off workers from the Kinlieth mill.   Another version of change from above is looking to a left-wing government.   So,Green MP Metiria Turei (interviewed on page 15) sees the election of more Green MPs as the first step in building a different system.   In both cases, it is the actions of a small group that is important. People at the grassroots play no active part.   The opposite of these top-down approaches is for change to come from below, from the collective actions of grassroots people.   The ultimate form of change from below is a socialist revolution. In such an event, workers take collective control of their workplaces and neighbourhoods, providing the foundation for truly democratic economy and state.   But the principle of change from below is not limited to revolutionary situations. Collective mass actions - such as strikes and big protests - have revolutionary implications, because they rely on lots of people working together.   Strikes are powerful because they stop the flow of profits. Mass protests raise the threat of a growing movement that could lead to political strikes, mass civil disobedience and even revolution.   These two forms of struggle not only force our rulers to respond, they teach us that we have the power to change the world.

Can NZ promote peace and justice?   The Green Party opposes war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but supports sending "peace keeping" troops.   Government MP Matt Robson admits that aid to the Pacific used to come with "strings attached". It was used to push globalisation, just like IMF loans.   But now, he says, aid is aimed at poverty reduction.   Further afield, Helen Clark says that government sanctions on Zimbabwe promote democracy.   All agree that the New Zealand state can promote global justice from above.   And all, at times, draw on the idea that New Zealand "led the world" in nuclear disarmament and opposing apartheid in South Africa.   But which "New Zealand" led these past struggles? It wasn't governments or their business backers.   According to former US ambassador H. Monroe Brown, prime minister David Lange told him in 1984 that he'd convince the Labour Party of the need for nuclear warship visits and ditch the anti-nuclear law.   In 1981, the National government ordered New Zealand's biggest ever police operation - backed up by the army - against the anti-apartheid movement.   In both cases, it was strikes and mass protests that made the progress towards peace and justice. They fought the New Zealand state to do it.   The New Zealand "peace keeping" troops deployed to Bougainville and Timor in the late 1990s were serving Western mining and oil companies.   But workers fought for Timorese freedom. In 1975, while New Zealand was stabbing East Timor in the back, trade unions around the Pacific were refusing to handle Indonesian cargo, picketing Indonesian embassies, even stopping Garuda Airlines flights.   One of the secret documents declassified in September reveals that Indonesia was very worried about the union action in Australia.   In 1999, as Indonesian-backed militias stepped up their violence ahead of East Timor's independence, waterfront workers in Wellington walked off the job to discuss similar industrial action.   The New Zealand state is tied to big business. Peace and justice will only come through solidarity from below.

How to get economic justice   Unions, Innovation & Sustainable development is against " an economic strategy which increases income disparities". It suggests workers can get economic justice by "adopting a modern social partnership model of unionism" ready and willing to work with government and business".   Apparently, "the new Employment Relations Act provides an excellent framework" for this, because (as well as banning most kinds of strikes) it "encourages cooperation, mediation and goodfaith relationships."   Since the formation of the CTU its leaders have made partnership with business and government their central strategy.   That strategy has failed.   Union membership now stands at only 17% of the workforce.   A visibly worried CTU Secretary Paul Goulter recently admitted to activists: "The fact is, we' ve made no headway at all in building the union movement since the Employment Relations Act came in. We've been standing still and getting smaller."   Income disparity has also worsened.   The minimum wage was 83% of the average wage in 1947 - today its just 44%.   Today' s income disparity sees unionised junior staff at Wellington's top store, Kirkcaldies getting $7.00 an hour to serve those who can afford over five thousand bucks for a chair or a rug or a clock.   The CTU' s partnership solution won't help those young workers.   If anything, it makes things worse, by disarming some unionists with false hopes of a soft option.   Everyday reality makes nonsense of the partnership dream.   A very common complaint among delegates at the recent Service and Food Workers Union conference was of bosses paying workers extra to stay out of the union, and, just a couple of minutes ago the following appeal for support flashed up on my computer screen:   "Please bring to the attention of all movers and shakers...42 Service Workers and Nurses union members walk off rest home job in protest at lack of political will and bosses' reluctance after last minute negotiations. This is a more-than-12-month-old dispute that is tip of the iceberg of oppression of a skilled and caring workforce of more than 25,000 women nationally. They earn frequently less than $10 an hour and have fluctuating hours and terms and conditions.. this strike is symptomatic of more strife that will occur while employers and the government continue to ignore the health sector...After more than a year of negotiations we are at the point where staff have no choice but to take action...further strikes proposed early November." CTU leaders may be "ready and willing to work with government and business".   The e-mail above from the striking nurses is a reminder that rank and file workers are otherwise preoccupied, taking direct action to defend themselves against capitalist abuse.

Justice for Steven Wallace by Grant Brookes   Keith Abbott, the police officer who shot and killed Steven Wallace on the streets of Waitara, appears in the Wellington high court on November 18. He faces a charge of murder.   The hearing is a victory for the Wallace family. The police and the solicitor general had earlier blocked attempts to take the matter to court.   Now the Wallace family will have a public opportunity to tell how in April 2000 the police gunned down their son without reason and then lied to cover it up.   The case has been taken by the Wallace family themselves after the police decided constable Abbott, one of their own, was innocent and refused to lay charges.   The murder prosecution will be heard by a jury, but with a judge presiding.   High court judges, drawn from the top of society and earning up to $305,000 a year, can't be relied on to deliver justice for ordinary people.   For one thing, judges are supposed take into account a government's intentions in making the law. And Helen Clark's government is backing the police.   They are paying constable Abbott's legal costs - $130,000 and rising.   They're even looking at law changes to give police immunity from murder cases like this one.   And Clark publicly defended the decision to deny legal aid to the Wallace family.   But courts are also mindful of public opinion. A rally outside the courtroom could help bring justice for Steven Wallace.   The Wallace family have been advised by their lawyer not to speak to the mainstream media about the case.   But Steven's mum, Raewyn Wallace, did tell Socialist Worker Monthly Review that they're taking this case not for themselves, but for the people.   They are planning a series of meetings on marae around the North Island to build urgent moral and financial support before the court case opens.

One year to re-build GE free movement by David Colyer   The end of October means that there is just one year left of the moratorium on the commercial release of genetically engineered (GE) plants and animals.   The moratorium was extended a year ago, as the Labour-led government tried to contain the GE free movement. The ruse worked. Many people felt GE was no longer an immediate threat, and the leaders of the movement turned away from trying to build mass protest.   Meanwhile, the government and biotech big business continued to press ahead with their plans.   Now there has been a welcome return to protest within the GE free movement.   Over Labour weekend, GE free awareness activities were held in 30 locations around the country. These included releasing helium balloons, to demonstrate the risk of contamination from wind-borne pollen of GE crops.   If you find a balloon with an anti-GE message, you can report it to the webpage: <www.angelfire.com/folk/gefreeballoons>.   Then, on November 16, the Auckland GE-Free Coalition has called a march (details on page 2) and is going all-out to build it.   The impact a big protest can have was seen on 1 September last year, when 20,000 people marched up Auckland's Queen Street.   This huge demonstration forced a u-turn from the Labour-led government, shifted public opinion against GE and bolstered support for the Green Party.   Five weeks before the march, prime minister Helen Clark had praised the report of the Royal Commission on GE as "thorough, balanced and measured".   The Royal Commission did not recommend a moratorium.   But on 6 September, five days after the march, Helen Clark announced that the government would consider a moratorium on the commercial or conditional release of genetically engineered crops or animals.   The NBR-Compaq opinion poll showed that public opposition to genetic modification also rose in September to 42%, up from 34% in mid-August.   The Green Party identified with this mass movement and its poll ratings, as measured by UMR Research, jumped from 6% to a record high of over 8%.    A big turnout on the 16th will help revive the GE free movement. If we are going to build a movement strong enough to keep GE out of the environment when the moratorium ends, then we will need more big protests over the next year.

Stuck on an island with Ross   "If you were stuck on a desert island and only allowed to take one book, which would you choose?"   Council of Trade Union President Ross Wilson says:   "Tough to choose from the essential classics I always keep close by - works by Trotsky, Engels, Marx (the fifth brother, who inspired puppet theatres around the world). I'd probably plump for an edition of Das Kapital with bright red covers and a centrefold popout of the Kremlin."   For more of this stuff from Ross look up the September 28th issue of the Dominion. You'll see that, to Ross Wilson, anti-capitalism, revolution - and even union women's choirs - are only good for a laugh.   Although generations of workers all over the world have fought and died for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, and the tradition continues today, revolution isn't the only tradition in the workers movement.   So, if Ross Wilson thinks socialist books are just a joke - what favourite volume would he really take to that island if he had to get on the boat tomorrow?   The latest CTU publication: Unions, Innovation & Sustainable development might be the one.   Not only did Ross help write it himself, it's had one good review. The Auckland Herald praised it as a "positive step", which makes the CTU "look modern and moderate". The Herald, top champion of big business , probably likes the book's comment that the CTU: "has much in common with business representatives and other stake holders who want to see New Zealand lift its sustainable growth rate."   (Any unionist really wanting to read the whole 28 page argument that workers should cooperate with bosses can get a copy of Ross' s book at the central CTU office. A huge cardboard carton of unread copies is sitting behind the reception desk.)

Tertiary workers against war by Vaughan Gunson   The Association of Staff in Tertiary Education (Aste) held its annual conference in Wellington from October 1-3. I was able to attend as an observer from the Northland Polytechnic branch in Whangarei.   It was my first time at a national union conference, so I had little to compare the conference against; never-the-less what struck me was the sense of quiet confidence amongst delegates.   The feeling was that the worst days of the '90s were behind us. There was now potential for growth in membership and for a stronger voice on campus.   This confidence was apparent in the debate and resolution on the US war on Iraq.   That such an issue - outside the normal bread and butter concerns of pay and workload - should be debated within the democratic structures of a union is a sign of vitality within the union movement.   The remit put to conference on the last day called on our government not to support any war on Iraq by the US, including one approved by the United Nations.   From the remit a number of issues quickly emerged: the "war on terrorism"; the Labour government's push for a free trade deal with the US; and Iraq's oil reserves. Many delegates got up to express their opposition to any war on Iraq.   However, some spoke in favour of the United Nations (UN) being left to decide.   Given an opportunity to speak, I responded by saying that it was the UN Security Council which would make the decision as to whether the US should be "allowed" to drop bombs on the Iraqi people.   The Security Council is dominated by the five permanent members: France, Russia, Britain, China and the US itself. The basis of these countries support, or not, was driven by economic and military interests, not by any concern for the Iraqi people.   In reply to arguments made that this was a political issue and should not be raised within the union, I argued that an Iraq war was in the forefront of members minds and the union needed to have a position on it. And that taking a clear stance in opposition to war was actually a way of encouraging more people to join and become active within the union - one of the themes of the conference.   Being involved in anti-war struggles should be seen as going hand-in-hand with building the union, which in turn gives us that extra power to win better pay and conditions in the workplace.   After a period of debate - the most passionate of the entire conference - the remit was passed by a good majority.   This was a satisfying outcome, but for the resolution to have any weight, it now needs to be put into practice.   It would be wonderful to see Aste branches, carrying anti-war placards alongside Aste banners, joining marches and building the current anti-war movement. Likewise, other unions should be encouraged to pass similar resolutions and get involved at branch level.   The black carry-bag I got for attending the Aste conference has the words "Educate, Unionise, Organise" printed on the side. That sounds like good advice.

The workers of the world by Chris Harman   The eruption of the anti-capitalist movement worldwide over the last two and a half years has thrown up lots of old questions in new forms. The most central is the question of agency - of what forces exist that are capable of taking on the system and transforming the world.   For classical Marxism, the answer was simple. The growth of capitalism was necessarily accompanied by the growth of the class it exploited, the working class, and this would be at the centre of the revolt against the system. But today this view is being challenged from a number of directions, not merely from the "Third Way" social democrat right [represented by Labour in New Zealand], but also from some of the best known spokespeople of the anti-capitalist movement. In particular the notion of the "multitude", developed by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri,1 is widely seen as a more relevant category than that of the "working class".   In Naomi Klein's No Logo the working class is presented as decisively weakened by the spread of globalisation, "a system of footloose factories employing footloose workers", with a "failure to live up to their traditional role as mass employers".2   Certain changes in capitalism in the last quarter of a century seem to give credence to such views. The restructuring of production internationally has led to the contraction of certain industries and the shift in the locus of others.   But the outcome is very different to that put forward by Hardt, Negri and the rest. Far from the working class internationally contracting, it has continued to grow. And the distinctions between this enlarged working class and other oppressed groups, far from becoming marginal, are as central as ever. The worldwide picture   "The working class [exists] as never before as a class in itself-with a core of perhaps 2 billion people", around which there are another 2 billion or so people with lives which are "subject in important ways to the same logic as this core". So I wrote three years ago.3 A detailed study of the world's workforce by Deon Filmer shows my figures to be roughly correct.4 He calculated that 2,474 million people participated in the global non-domestic labour force in the mid-1990s. Of these around a fifth, 379 million people, worked in industry,5 800 million in services,6 and 1,074 million in agriculture.7   Each sector of the labour force includes people who employ others (big capitalists / bourgeoisie and the small businesspeople / petty bourgeoisie), people who are self employed, and people who do waged (or salaried) labour for others.   The majority of people worldwide in the industrial and service sectors do get wages or salaries - 58 percent of those in the industrial workforce and 65 percent of the services workforce. But this still leaves a very big proportion who are self employed or involved in family labour.   Filmer concluded that the overall number of employed people worldwide was about 880 million, compared with around 1,000 million people working mainly for their own account on the land (overwhelmingly peasants), and 480 million working for their own account in industry and services.   The figure for "employed people" includes some non-workers' groups as well as workers. There is a section of the bourgeoisie in receipt of enormous corporate salaries, and below that the new middle class who get paid more value than they create in return for helping to control the mass of workers. These groups probably amount to 10 percent of the population.8 That reduces the size of the employed world working class to around 700 million, with about a third in "industry"and the rest in "services".   But the total size of the working class is considerably greater than this. The class also includes those who are dependent on income that comes from the waged labour of relatives or savings and pensions resulting from past wage labour - that is, non-employed spouses, children and retired elderly people. If these categories are added in, the worldwide total figure for the working class comes to between 1.5 and 2 billion. Anyone who believes we have said "farewell" to this class is not living in the real world. The myth of deindustrialisation   The argument that the working class has disappeared usually rests on superficial impressions about what is happening to the old industrial working class, at least in the advanced economies.       So there is much talk about "deindustrialisation", the "post-industrial society", or the "weightless economy".   Restructuring of industry through successive economic crises has certainly caused some formerly central features of the industrial scene in any locality to disappear. At the same time there has been an increased insecurity of employment and a rise in the proportion of jobs which are part time, temporary or on short contracts. But this does not justify the claim that the working class has disappeared.   Take, for instance, the number of industrial workers in the world's biggest single economy, that of the US. At the end of the 1980s there was much panic in the US about "deindustrialisation" in the face of challenges to US industrial pre-eminence in fields like auto production and computers. But in 1998 the number of workers in industry was nearly 20 percent higher than in 1971, roughly 50 percent higher than in 1950 and nearly three times the level of 1900: WORKERS IN INDUSTRY, US9 1900   10,920,000 1950   20,698,000 1971  26,092,000 1998   31,071,000   The number of manufacturing jobs in the US today is as high as ever before in history. "Old" industries have by no means disappeared, or moved abroad. As Baldoz, Koeber and Kraft have noted, "More Americans are now employed in making cars, buses and parts of them than at any time since the Vietnam War".10   This is a completely different picture to that painted by Hardt and Negri when they write of the trend towards "a service economy model…led by the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. This model involves a rapid decline in industrial jobs and a corresponding rise in service sector jobs".11   The Japanese figures are even more astounding. The industrial workforce more than doubled between 1950 and 1971 and was another 13 percent higher in 1998.   Industrial employment has fallen sharply in a number of countries over the last three decades - in Britain and Belgium by a third, and in France by more than a quarter. But these do not represent a deindustrialisation of the whole of the advanced industrial world, but rather a restructuring of industry within it. The number of industrial jobs in the advanced industrial countries as a whole was 112 million in 1998  -  25 million more than in 1951 and only 7.4 million less than in 1971. Industry and services   These figures for industrial employment, it should be added, underestimate the economic importance of industry in general and manufacturing in particular. As Bob Rowthorn has rightly noted, "Almost every conceivable economic activity in modern society makes use of manufactured goods… Many of the expanding service industries make use of large amounts of equipment".12   The small decline in the total industrial workforce is not because industry has become less important, but because productivity per employee in industry has risen more quickly than in "services". Slightly fewer manufacturing workers are producing many more goods than three decades ago. Their overall importance for the economy has not changed. Between 1973 and 1990, output in the advanced OECD countries grew by an average of 2.5 percent a year in industry, only a little less than the 3.1 percent growth of service output. But productivity growth in industry was 2.8 percent a year, in services only 0.8 percent.13 The industrial workers are as important for the capitalist economy today as in the early 1970s.   But that is not all. The usual distinction between "industry" and "services" obscures more than it reveals.   The category "services" includes things which are of no intrinsic importance to the capitalist production (for instance, the hordes of servants who provide individual capitalist parasites with their leisure). But it has always included things which are absolutely central to it (like the transportation of goods and the provision of computer software).   What is more, some of the shift from "industry" to the "service sector" amounts to no more than a change in the name given to essentially similar jobs. Someone (usually a man) who worked a typesetting machine for a newspaper publisher 30 years ago would have been classified as a particular sort of industrial worker (a "print worker"); someone (usually a woman) working a word processing terminal for a newspaper publisher today will be classified as a "service worker". But the work performed remains essentially the same, and the final product more or less identical. Someone who works in a factory putting food into a tin so that people can warm it up to eat at home is a "manufacturing worker"; someone who toils in a fast food shop to provide near-identical food to people who do not have time to warm it up at home is a "service worker".   Someone who processes bits of metal to make a computer is a "manufacturing worker"; someone who processes software for it on a keyboard is a "service worker".   The trend in recent years has been towards firms "contracting out" certain operations that used to be carried out "in house"  -  for instance, catering and security. The result is that jobs once included in the "industry" figure now appear under services. The Engineering Employers' Federation in Britain has pointed out:   Manufacturing creates a large chunk of service industry through outsourcing of areas such as maintenance, catering and legal work… Manufacturing could make up as much as 35 percent of the economy  -  rather than the generally accepted 20 percent  -  if it were measured using appropriate statistical definitions.14   Rowthorn has undertaken a statistical breakdown of the total "service" category for the OECD as a whole. His figures show that goods-related services accounted for 25 percent of total employment in 1970 and 32 percent in 1990. There is a small fall in "total goods and goods-related services" - from 76 percent of all employment to 69 percent.15 But this is certainly not a revolutionary transformation in the world of work. He points out that in 1990, "free standing services" only accounted for 31 percent of all employment,16 and concludes, "Goods-related production is still generating directly or indirectly about two thirds of all employment in the typical advanced economy, despite all the talk about a post-industrial economy".17 The non-marketed services sector   But even Rowthorn's figures considerably underestimate the size of the working class - that class whose labour is essential for the accumulation of capital. Many of Rowthorn's "free standing services" are essential to such accumulation in the modern world. Two in particular are absolutely indispensable for capitalist accumulation today - health provision and the education service.   The core of the health system of any modern capitalist country is concerned with ensuring that the labour force is fit and able to work. It is there to make sure the next generation of labour power is fit and well, and to patch up the members of the present generation if they suffer some ailment that removes them from the labour market temporarily. Even where this health provision takes place through the state, and so is not bought and sold, it is still an indispensable accompaniment to capitalist production.   This is, if anything, even truer of the education service. It grew up in the 19th century as capitalism found it had to train up its workforce to certain basic levels of literacy and numeracy (as well as discipline) if they were to be productive. It expanded through the 20th century to encompass longer and longer years of schooling, as the average levels of skills needed by the system rose. In nearly all countries the main sections of the education system remain in state hands. It does not sell commodities. Nevertheless, it too is indispensable for production. Those who are working within it are working for capital accumulation, even when they do not produce anything that is sold.18   The bulk of the health and education workforce is subject to continual pressure to work at a capitalist tempo for a level of remuneration determined by the labour market. They are for this reason part of the global working class, even though many continue to regard themselves as superior to the manual working class. The nature of the service workforce    There is a widespread myth that the "service" workforce consists of well paid people with control over their own working situation who never need to get their hands dirty. In fact, however, any proper breakdown of the figures for "service" employment provides a very different picture to this. Some of the most important "services industries" employ overwhelmingly "manual workers" of the "traditional" sort. Refuse workers, hospital ancillary workers, dockers, lorry drivers, bus and train drivers, postal workers are all part of the "service" workforce. And a very big part. In Britain, in September 2001 "distribution, hotels, and restaurants" accounted for 6.7 million jobs and "transport and communication" for 1.79 million.19   The great majority of white collar workers are in fact women from working class backgrounds. In Britain, a third of clerical workers come from manual working class backgrounds, a third from a clerical background and only a third from the so called "professional-managerial service class".20 Whereas their grandmothers most probably stayed at home after marriage, toiling to bring up the next working class generation, they expect to work all their adult life, combining the toil of paid employment with the added burden of childcare and housework. What is happening is a feminisation of a huge area of waged labour. The myth of instant mobility   The claim that the "permanent" worker is a thing of the past is often connected with the claim that employers can move production - and jobs - at a moment's notice. So Hardt and Negri write:   The informatisation of production and the increasing importance of immaterial production have tended to free capital from the constraints of territory, and capital can withdraw from negotiation with a given local population by moving its site to another point in the global network. Entire labouring populations, which had enjoyed a certain stability and contractual power, have thus found themselves in increasingly precarious employment situations.21   This vastly exaggerates the movement of capital, and the ease with which firms can move their operations from one place to another. As I have explained elsewhere,22 capital as money (ie finance) can move at the touch of a computer key from one location to another (although determined governments can still impede its movement). But capital as means of production finds it much more difficult to do so. Physical equipment has to be uninstalled and reinstalled, transport has to be arranged for goods produced, a reliable workforce with the requisite skills found, and so on. It is a process that is usually expensive, taking years rather than seconds. What is more, physical production depends upon transporting goods to markets, and therefore closeness to markets is an advantage.   The result is that most of the restructuring of industry over the last three decades has usually been within the world's existing industrial regions. As Rowthorn explains:   The developed world is now mostly divided into three blocs, comprising North America, Western Europe and Japan. These blocs are largely self contained in sophisticated manufactured goods.23   There has, of course, been a shift in certain manufacturing industries to states which were not industrialised 40 years ago - otherwise the phenomenon of the Newly Industrialising Countries (NICs) and of certain expanding industries in "underdeveloped" countries would be inexplicable.   Rowthorn estimates that the total job loss from all the advanced countries through this shift has only been about 6 million jobs, or 2 percent of total employment (compared with total unemployment of around 35 million in these countries).   Baldoz, Koeber and Kraft point out that the restructuring of industry in the US has not involved a net flow of jobs abroad: "The US now has a larger percentage of the workforce working for wages than at any time since the 1950s - and for astonishingly long hours".24   Some industries find it easier to move than others. So, for instance, clothing is a particularly mobile line of production. The basic equipment - shears for cutting, sewing machines, presses - is light, cheap, and the products are relatively easy to fly from one part of the world to another.25 Not surprisingly, many of the stories about firms shutting down and moving when faced with rising labour and other costs are about this industry. But even here there are limitations to mobility. Production of high quality goods can still be based in advanced countries. So there were 112,190 workers in the garment industry in New York city in 1990. And they certainly were not all "informational" workers - 64,476 were production workers (mostly foreign born) and only 13,522 were "professionals and managers".26 At the time, the total number of garment workers in the US was around 300,000. Conclusion   The overall picture is not one of a disintegrating or declining working class. It is one of a working class that on a world scale has grown bigger than ever.   The majority of the world's population does still belong to other subordinate classes. In China, the Indian subcontinent and much of Africa the peasantry outnumber the workers. There are cases in Africa and parts of Latin America of those unable to find work in the cities attempting to re-establish themselves as small farmers. In some of the world's biggest cities, the permanent workers are outnumbered by the floating population of the self employed, the unemployed and those with occasional casual jobs. In the advanced industrial countries there still exists the old petty bourgeoisie of small shop keepers, publicans, small businessmen and professionals, and alongside it is the new middle class of middle managers.   Workers often live, work and have family ties with members of these other classes. They can be influenced by the mood of these other classes - but they can also exert a decisive influence on their mood.   Certain issues encourage such different groupings to fight together. Community struggles erupt which unite all those who live in a certain lower class locality, regardless of the way in which they make their livelihood. They can share the experience of taking to the streets and of confronting those at the top of society together. It is in these struggles that notions of "the masses", "the people" the "multitude" or the rainbow coalition seem to fit better than the notion of class. The most recent examples of such mass, multi-class upsurges were the wave of cacerolazo demonstrations from the inner city neighbourhoods of Buenos Aires that swept the De la Rua and Rodriguez Sáa governments from power in Argentina at the turn of the year - and the neighbourhood asemblea organisations that grew out of them.27   The anti-capitalist movement itself has some of the same characteristics. Its initial base, like that of the first movement of the late 1960s, has been among people not firmly rooted in the productive process - students, school students, young people not yet trapped into permanent jobs, workers who take part in its activities as individuals without any clear sense of class identity, lower professionals. As a descriptive term for such movements, "multitude" is not completely misplaced. A disparate coalition of forces has come together to provide a new and massively important focus for the struggle against the system after two decades of defeat and demoralisation.   But the glorification of disparateness embodied in the term prevents people seeing what needs to be done next to build the movement. It does not recognise that what was so important about the massive anti-capitalist demonstrations in Genoa and Barcelona was the beginning of the involvement of organised workers in the protests. It fails to locate the most important deficiency of the movement in Argentina to date - the ability of trade union bureaucracies to build a wall between employed workers on the one hand and the neighbourhood and unemployed workers' movements on the other.   The mistake is to see movements of disparate social groups as "social subjects" capable of bringing about a transformation of society. They are not. Because their base is not centred in collective organisation rooted in production, they cannot challenge the control over that production which is central to ruling class power. They can create problems for particular governments. But they cannot begin the process of rebuilding society from the bottom up. And in practice, the workers who could begin to do this only play a marginal role in them. Talk about "rainbow coalitions" or "multitudes" conceals that relative lack of involvement in the movement of those working long hours at manual or routine white collar jobs - and with extra hours of unpaid labour bringing up children. It underplays the degree to which the movements remain dominated by those whose occupations leave them most time and energy to be active. Fashionable theories about "post-industrial society" then become an excuse for a narrowness of vision and action that ignores the great majority of the working class.   What has been wonderful about the last two and a half years since the anti-World Trade Organisation protests in Seattle is the way in which a new generation of activists has arisen to challenge the system. But what increasingly matters now is for this generation to find ways to connect with the great mass of ordinary workers who as well as suffering under the system have the collective strength to fight it. That is the lesson of Genoa. That is the lesson of Buenos Aires. That is the lesson ignored by those who provide a distorted account of the realities of production under present day capitalism, writing off the class whose exploitation keeps the system going. * Chris Harman is the editor of Socialist Worker newspaper in Britain. This article is a cut-down version of an article from International Socialism, the theoretical journal of the British Socialist Workers Party. The full version, which is five times longer, contains much more detail about on the issues covered here, and about workers in 'Third World' countries.

'We need to look at new models' Metiria Turei, the newly elected Green Party list MP is known for her involvement in the anarchist, cannabis law reform and tino rangatiratanga movements. David Colyer talked with her about her views on political change. -------- SW: In your maiden speech you talk about the importance of having a political presence "on the streets and in the 'big house'". How do you see these interacting? MT: There's a lot of change that you can't make happen without being certain that there is a lot of grassroots support for it.Me and the Green MPs, we don't have the kind of political power we might have had if we had been in coalition, so we have freedom to generate activity and challenge things.   Often it's difficult for grassroots movements if they don't have political allies who have some kind of influence on the political agenda, issues get marginalised very quickly, you don't get the media attention. So it's very much a tied-in relationship. All the power is not in the politicians' hands. It's potentially in the people's hands if you can work together. SW: You use the an analogy of the cage [representing the state] and wanting to get rid of  the cage, how do you see that coming about? MT: It's an evolutionary process. Although, I'm not  sure if there is the capacity for revolutionary process inside that. I don't think there's [an existing] recipe for it.   I don't know how long it will take. It depends on what kind of transformation we are talking about.If we are talking about the actual dismantling of the state, so that we have community decision making, I think we are talking about a very long time, I don't think we're talking in my lifetime or my daughters lifetime, maybe in her child's lifetime.   But I don't think that kind of social change should happen dramatically, because the capacity of people to take back control over their lives is a long, hard-fought one, and people need to come to that slowly. But if you don't start moving you'll never get there.   But if we are talking about things like the implementation of the Treaty, using a state structure, that could happen in my lifetime.   We could have bi-cultural structures and systems where Maori values are part of the fabric of everything that we are doing. SW: What about some of the immediate steps, in terms of implementing the treaty and tino rangatiratanga? MT: We can make some changes to legislation that give Maori more control over things: Resource Management Act, Local Government Act, education, even in health.   There's a whole lot of areas where we can say:   "We will step back. We [the government] will provide the resources, but other than that the decisions about how you manage it is yours."   Kura and Kohanga and Wananga are a good example of a parallel process that works very well. SW: You talked about the Treaty as a potential protection against globalisation. That would require a full implementation of the Treaty. MT: There's lots of different ideas of how a government could work under the Treaty.   I'm not a big fan of government. And I'm not convinced that a Maori government as such is the answer, because that's essentially the same system. We need to step away and look at new models. Cooption becomes a real threat. What you could end up with is people that are committed to the corporate process and not to tikanga Maori.   You have to find ways for everyone to be involved, rather than it being another elite process.   Maybe the Treaty could provide a different model.   A whole different system - a whole different concept about the way you govern, about the way you manage resources or the way that people are involved in decision making. SW: Do you see the state as being separate from the private power of the corporations? MT: It probably was designed to be. Could you say that about it now? I don't think so.   I think I said that in my speech, "if it chooses" it can protect us, but it doesn't.   Free trade agreements are a really good example. The proposed US free trade agreement, and its relationship to our genetic engineering stance, is a good example of how the community is being put at risk because of the needs of corporate globalisation and corporate greed. SW: Who do you see as making those choices? MT: Politicians, the government, or the executive [cabinet ministers].   They've got the power to decided not to enter into any more free trade agreements, or to refuse to allow the growing of genetic engineered crops. SW: Do you think a Green-majority government could stand up to the power of the corporations? MT: Yes, absolutely. We keep getting trapped in the notion that the way things are going now is the way things have always been and that's the way they will stay for ever. And it's completely untrue.   We have huge changes of economic and political philosophy, the last one is only fifteen years old. Huge, huge changes in everything and then five years later it becomes the norm and nobody thinks it could be different. But of course it could be different.   In some countries the lives of Green politicians are in danger, because of their anti-globalisation, anti-corporate power approach.   That sort of thing is more hidden here, but not necessarily beyond the possibility. Maybe it's a risk we'd have to take. SW: What do you see as being the key questions, ideas and debates that the left needs to address at the moment? MT: Divisive politics internally. We need to think more clearly about the goals we are trying to achieve and make sure we work together as much as possible   Then, trying to find solutions to practical problems, like poverty.   I spent this whole interview only talking about generalisations, so I direct that comment at myself,   [We need to] look for solutions and be able to put them forward as credible ones, even though they are not part of the dominant paradigm.

Why socialists oppose terrorism The bombing of the Bali nightclub and the hostage crisis in Moscow have raised the issue of terrorism once again. Kane Forbes gives a socialist perspective. --------------   Socialists dislike violence and oppose indiscriminate bombings of civilians. The world's big powers, however, have a different position.   In the last decade the US has bombed hospitals, factories and schools in Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia, Somalia and elsewhere, killing thousands of innocent civilians.   Because the powerful keep their wealth and privilege through such state force, those at the bottom have the right to use counter-force.   One response to capitalist oppression is terrorism.   This involves a desperate attempt by a minority to substitute themselves for mass action, which undermines the organisation of a mass challenge to the system. That's why terrorism is doomed to fail.   Capitalism is built on economic relations between social classes.   Since it doesn't rely solely on the power of politicians, or on buildings used to administer government or economic activities, it cannot simply be eliminated with them.   Workers weren't just sidelined by the terrorist attacks on September 11 last year, thousands of them were killed and injured.   In these conditions, the government has an excuse to take even more power under the guise of "fighting terrorism". Racists have more room to scapegoat refugees as potential terrorists. Corporates look to make a killing from another US war on a "rogue state".   Socialists want a classless society run in everyone's interests, not just those of the rich and powerful. This will happen through the united actions of workers and other grassroots people.   On the streets of Seattle in late 1999, anti-capitalist sentiment crystallised into a movement uniting workers, environmentalists, students and others.   Since then, massive protests have greeted summits of the world's rulers. 300,000 anti-capitalists were at Genoa last July demanding a new world.   These mass mobilisations have been inspired by, and in turn inspire, upturns in struggle by workers in the West and the poor in the Third World.   A similar mood is building here in Aotearoa. From the GE-free and anti-war movements, to the teachers' strikes and school students' rebellion, more people are getting involved in the fight for a better world.   These broad movements are an antidote to both the oppression of capitalism and the feeling of powerlessness that fuels terrorism.

top

2002 Archive main