Socialist Resistance

socialist

No. 46 Summer 2007

www.socialistresistance.net A grey deputy for Brown: But Respect misses its chance pages 2-5

Price: 80p Ecological crisis in Australia

Media Freedom in Venezuela?

Laggard state pages 10-11

Discussion pages 16-17

Palestinians divided:

End the Israeli occupation! The bloody conflict that has broken out between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza and the West Bank will be music to the ears of the Israelis, the US and the EU. They have worked might and main to isolate, blockade and undermine the Hamas government elected in 2006, and to strengthen the hand of the discredited and corrupt Fatah wing of the Palestinian movement, and its President Mahmoud Abbas. The fighting that culminated in the Hamas victory over Fatah in Gaza – followed swiftly by brutal Fatah reprisals

against Hamas support and facilities in the West Bank – has now opened the possibility for US and EU aid to flow solely to their chosen faction in the West Bank, while further tightening the noose around Hamas and the civilian population in Gaza. For the Israeli regime this split in the ranks of its main opponents gives an opportunity to weep crocodile tears for the innocents caught up in the situation while celebrating fresh opportunities to isolate “extreme” Palestinian forces and even cultivate a new, pliable

“moderate” Palestinian leadership. The confrontations between Palestinians in Gaza are the direct consequence of the Israeli occupation and the transformation of the Gaza Strip into a hopeless ghetto. The only way out of the crisis is the reestablishment of the basic rights of the Palestinians, the immediate release of all the prisoners, freedom to travel and work, and the ending of the bombardments and the assassinations perpetrated continuously by the Israeli army.

A viable perspective for the Palestinian people requires the total withdrawal of the Israeli occupation forces and the evacuation of all the Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Socialists must also demand that the European Union, and in particular the British government, intervenes to stop the Israeli aggression, and begins again an honest co-operation with those elected to government in Palestine. This is the only way the EU could help in practice to unblock the present tragic situation in Gaza and the West Bank.

2 Socialist Resistance

HOME NEWS

Home News/Editorial Postal workers cheer strike vote CWU Member

Delegates at the Communication Workers Union Conference stood and cheered when the results of the Royal Mail and Post Office pay ballots were announced. The membership rejected management’s below inflation 2.5% pay with strings offer by 3-1 majorities on a turnout of over 66%. It is now likely that the first national strike action in Royal Mail and Post Office for 11 years will take place, unless the company backs down from its hard line stance. There are few signs that management will back down because the dispute is fast becoming a trial of strength with a still strongly organised workforce in the context of the government sponsored programme of postal liberalisation, automation and privatisation – all of which directly threaten up to 40,000 jobs and pay and conditions. As the CWU puts it in a letter to Royal Mail managers, as far as management is concerned the workforce is “25% overpaid and 40% under worked.” Management’s proposals includes an end to Sunday and Bank holiday collections, and major reductions in nightshift and overtime working. Cuts in overtime hit postal workers hard because basic hourly rates are so low – about £8 an hour, with many working sixty hours a week or more to

make a living wage. Additionally Post Office management is closing over 2000 LOCAL Post Offices and franchising 85 Crown Offices without an agreement with the CWU. Strike action is looking likely despite the CWU Postal Executive stated intention of avoiding industrial action if at all possible, but management is belligerent. Industrial action tactics have not yet been decided but all out indefinite action has already been ruled out, which is premature in front of a management which has few inhibitions in the tactics it is likely to use. Offers of support have been forthcoming including that of Mark Serwotka’s PCS General Secretary to coordinate public sector action. This should be accepted and built on. Gordon Brown will publicly maintain a hands off approach, while privately supporting Allan Leighton and Adam Crozier to the hilt. He will see any dispute as an opportunity to allay any remaining City and Blairite fears that he may be a soft touch for the unions. However a determined campaign can win. While competition is eating into the most profitable parts of the business, Royal Mail still handles 99% of letter deliveries for example.

Labour leadership transition

MISSED CHANCES TO BUILD RESPECT The inauguration of Gordon Brown and his new deputy leader at the end of June will close a period of relatively heightened debate and slightly more openminded analysis of the state of working class politics in Britain. But it also represents yet another boat missed by the routinist and blinkered leadership of Respect, who have continued sleep-walking through the process. The organisation which once set itself the task of building a broad political alternative to the left of Blairism has failed to seize this one-off opportunity. It has missed a vital chance to raise its profile and present itself as a credible way forward to those considerable sections of the Labour and trade union left who had staked their hopes on a campaign around John McDonnell to rekindle dreams of “reclaiming” the Labour Party. True, McDonnell himself was brought on to Respect platforms, and formal support was proferred to his campaign, for what that was

worth: but the fact that the Labour leadership process was not even on the agenda at Respect’s National Council meeting on May 12, and the relish with which leading delegates at that meeting predicted McDonnell’s campaign “dead in the water”, and pronounced for the umpteenth time the demise of the Labour Left, betrayed their underlying indifference to the political task of winning the best of that left to Respect. Suggestions from Socialist Resistance supporters at that meeting (just weeks after its very successful interventions in a number of council

elections) that Respect should produce new, targeted, campaign material, preferably a hard-hitting and political tabloid paper, designed to intervene in the Labour leadership and deputy leadership debates and hustings and in the

Stewards Network must unite broader struggles

One of Britain’s most militant unions is establishing a crossunion organisation for shop stewards. On July 7th, the RMT is sponsoring the founding conference for the national shop stewards network. The conference has been called by a steering committee elected by a conference of 250 delegates held in October. It aims to address the crisis of political representation created by the march to the right of new Labour. It hopes to help trade unions to better fight neo-liberal offensive and the relentless attack on the public

sector. The timing of the event is highly significant, coming at the end of Blair’s premiership. Key figures in the trade unions, on the left and in the Labour Party have taken part in a series of conferences and discussions about what initiatives might be taken to remobilise the progressive movement. Socialist Resistance strongly supports the conference. A national meeting of our supporters in the trade unions, on January 20, discussed how the new network can play a major role in helping solidarity to develop more rapidly, and

more strongly. It can also help to regenerate our unions by building an independent and pluralist class-struggle viewpoint on how to rebuild trade union strength and organisation. However, the unions are currently weak. The Shop Stewarsd Network will succeed only it is greatly expands its reach. First, it needs to connect with the new generation of trade unionists that will probably not be at the founding conference. Second, the network also needs to champion the political and social struggles going on today

Galloway: “aspirations” for left

have been contemplating their navels since the local elections, other organisations have been taking initiatives to reach out to the disoriented Labour Left and raise some form of political debate – without the slightest flicker of response from Respect. Compass, a leftish-centre conglomeration of Labourite academics, MPs, commentators and pundits,

The organisation which once set itself the task of building a broad political alternative to the left of Blairism has failed to seize this one-off opportunity.

National Shop Stewards’ Conference Chris Brooks

trade unions, were ignored. So were suggestions of meetings and other initiatives which could raise Respect’s profile and credibility as an alternative. The National Council does not meet again until September. This failure to respond is no accident. It reflects the exceedingly limited objectives set for it by the decisive political force inside Respect, the SWP. Remarkably, Respect’s officers have decided that Respect itself is “too narrow” an organisation to focus the intervention of the SWP at the National Stop the War march that has been called on June 24 outside

– many of which start outside the unions. For example, campaigners supporting the Labour Movement Conference on Climate Change should be welcomed at the event, as should members of RESPECT. That won’t be easy. Some RMT leaders fight shy of political questions, such as how to build an alternative to Labour. But, because of the low level of trade union struggle, the Shop Stewards’ Conference will only grow if it encourages trade unionists to open up to broader political and social issues.

the Brown inauguration in Manchester. Worse, SWP members working in Respect in Manchester, following this approach, have redoubled their efforts to ensure that the organisation does not even produce a local campaigning tabloid for distribution on June 24, after their national comrades rejected any such publication at national level. Here we have the bizarre spectacle of an organisation that has been deliberately confined to the level of a “coalition” rather than a party to keep it broad, but is now rejected as insufficiently broad to fly its own banner and speak in its own name at a national demonstration. We can of course be sure that the much narrower SWP will be present with its newspaper and profile proudly on display at the Stop the War march: only Respect is to be kept under wraps. But it gets worse: while Respect’s national officers

signed up over 1,000 people to a national conference “shaping our global world” on June 9, a debate firmly within the “reclaim Labour” framework. It was allowed to pass without challenge by Respect, which has no equivalent level of political dialogue, and no vehicle to promote the extensive policy alternatives it has developed. As we go to press the Morning Star has also convened another major discussion event on politics after Blair, this time with a much more working class and trade union-based audience, but again within the Star’s continued framework of “reclaim Labour” – but again with no intervention or challenge from Respect. Yet these are the type of forces that must be won towards the building of a new political alternative: shirking that political fight simply allows a regroupment of the old left, and does nothing to politically strengthen Respect or build

3

Socialist Resistance

Andrew Wiard

Editorial Respect’s roots in the anti-war movement are not enough to ensure a Labour Left collapse results in a growth in Respect

the morale of its dwindling in the unions that rallied to numbers of non-aligned McDonnell while their activists. union leaders grovelled to The Respect website also Brown. displays this obvious disoriA Respect circular on June entation and weakness: the 5 calls for volunteers for the “Events” panel contains June 24 demo, Pride on just three feeble items – a June 30 and the SWP’s sponsored charity run by Marxism event on July 5-9. Cllr Oliur Rahman, an art Only subsequently did a exhibition that began in hasty circular seek help in January and a cartoon exhi- mounting an intervention bition! at this year’s UNISON conThe nearest to a response ference. to the Labour Party debate Socialist Resistance has is a statement from May 17 continued to argue that by George Galloway, imme- Respect remains the only diately after the McDonnell plausible base from which a campaign collapsed. This broad and campaigning boldly promises that: alternative to Blairism can “It must now be clear to be built in the short or everyone on the left that the medium term. main arenas for rebuilding But the SWP’s stubborn progressive politics are very resistance to developing it far from the Labour Party as a party – or a coalition and its enervated local that acts and fights like a organisation.” party – is jeopardising the “Over the coming weeks gains that have been made, we will be seeking to discuss and hobbling the developwith key figures in the trade ment of the organisation as unions, on the left, in the a whole. Labour Party and across the We remain convinced that progressive spectrum as a to build a genuinely broad whole what iniand active politiThe SWP’s cal alternative to tiatives might be taken to rally and resistance to the left of New unify our forces. developing it as Labour we need “Respect has more than the cola party is aspirations to lapse and demoradvance the jeopardising the alisation of the whole left as well gains that have Labour Left: we as our part of it.” need a Respect But while there been made, and leadership that may be more hobbling the goes out to build back-room organisation, development of the approaches to a and to mobilise it. Respect few left union That means leaders for taking every another series of “fighting chance to promote and Unions” rallies, there is pursue political debates and little sign that the trade dialogue with those sections union intervention is being of the labour movement carried through with any who are closest to us: but it real conviction. The Trade also means developing real Unions section of the politics and real political Respect website on June 17 life in Respect. had just six entries for 2007, It remains to be seen the most recent dating back whether the SWP is brave to May 29. enough to take on that chalA good June 7 statement lenge: sadly, on present on the CWU strike ballot is showing, their narrow and trailed on the home page, limited view seems set to but there is no broader reduce Respect to an irrelesense of seeking to relate vance on the sidelines of politically to the activist left British politics.

Council housing or private equity? which does New Labour prefer? “By 2010 we will ensure that all social tenants benefit from a decent, warm home with modern facilities.” That’s what the Labour Party Manifesto said in 2005. So how many council houses do you think were built in 2005? Half a million? One hundred thousand? No. Two hundred and thirty nine! That’s 239 without any missing zeroes or decimal points. To be fair to New Labour that’s a big rise from the 192 council houses built in 2001/2. These figures come from the government’s own publication Housing Statistics 2006. By contrast 1657 houses were constructed during John Major’s government in 1996. These numbers pale into insignificance compared with the 14,015 homes built by councils in 1990, or the 74,835 completed in 1980. Campaign group Defend Council Housing (DCH) says that there are 1.6 million people on council house waiting lists. New Labour has turned its back on them. The private sector, that’s what the rest of us call property developers, construction companies and speculators, was allowed to build 191,722 houses in 2005. Virtually none of these would have been available or affordable for the working class families and the vulnerable people on the council waiting lists. They have to make do with expensive privately rented accommodation, overcrowded homes or staying with friends

and relatives. Even New Labour’s preferred option, the “registered social landlords” (RSLs) were only able to build 19,600 homes. These RSLs are often staffed by former senior local government staff who see them as a way of quickly increasing their salary by switching over to what is really a branch of the private sector. It’s sometimes said of New Labour that it is the reformist party that no longer makes reforms that benefit working class people. Ten years into a Labour government its housing policy is strong evidence that this is true. Blair gave the buffoonish John Prescott responsibility for housing to show what a low priority it was. His government oversaw the continuing sale of council homes and stock transfer programmes to give away council housing to New Labour supporters in the RSLs. New Labour is unlikely to meet its manifesto promise either. The Audit Commission has said that many councils are likely to miss the government’s target to meet new standards for “decent” homes by 2010. In recent weeks Brown has been hinting that he has an ‘open mind’ about the fourth option for council housing, as an alternative to transfer, arm’s-length management and the private finance initiative. This is the solution developed by DCH and includes improving all existing council homes and estates, starting a new council house building

programme and ensuring sufficient funds to maintain all council homes in future years. Though Brown qualified his remarks later by saying at a GMB conference that “he would look at ‘new means through which they can build houses’” It turns out, according to the magazine Inside Housing that all the deputy Labour leadership contenders support the fourth option. So they should. Their party conference has voted to support it three years in a row.

No question over whether housing is one of their priorities …

The odd thing is that even though most of them were in government Blair was favouring the property speculators and disregarding Labour voters on the waiting lists. Contrast the malign neglect of working class families to the care lavished on the the robbers barons of the private equity companies. You pay less tax on capital gains than on income. Go to work five or six days a week and you can pay 40 per cent tax. Buy companies, sack workers, devastate their pension funds and you pay as little as 5 per cent tax on an income of millions of pounds. The GMB says a total of 96 insolvent pension funds in the rescue schemes set up by the government have direct links to private equity owners. Even some of the private equity bosses are worried about the effect on their public image. Though this does not stop them evading tax completely by declaring themselves nonresident in Britain. What does New Labour have to say about this? Brown’s long-time henchman Ed Balls said “private equity is an important part of the UK financial services sector and can play an important wider economic role creating jobs and developing companies.” All these inequalities and injustices have developed and got worse during Brown’s time as Chancellor of the Exchequer. It’s certain that little will change when he becomes prime minister.

4 Socialist Resistance

HOME NEWS

Home News Same old New Labour …

Harsh new police powers

Parting shots: John Reid is about to stand down as Home Secretary

Piers Mostyn The government’s media friends have been talking up the wonderful possibilities offered by Brown’s coronation as Prime Minister. In their fantasies, years of disaffection and disgust at Blair’s championing of bombs and banks can be brushed aside as a fresh breeze sweeps the political horizon. Fantasies, because Brown has wasted no time in demonstrating that it will be business as usual from the New Labour bunker. Top of the list are attacks on civil liberties. Undeterred by Blair’s Parliamentary defeat in his bid for a draconian extension of police powers to detain suspects without charge, Brown is pushing yet another “anti-terrorism” bill that will try again. The “compromise” last time was an extension to “only” 28 days – powers that are already unparalleled in Europe. 90 days looks to be on the cards once again. It is claimed that serious crime, in particular terrorism, has nowadays become so sophisticated that police don’t have enough time to investigate after they arrest someone. But this is not based on any research into how many, if any, criminals escape justice as a result. The fact is that three existing solutions – for police to do more investigating prearrest; to bail the suspect to a later date or to charge with a holding offence where the evidence supports it - have worked perfectly well for a long time. Last time widespread hostility split the cabinet with leading members openly stating that they had seen no

representations from the police to justify it. Liberty has denounced the proposal as internment by another name. This is not loose rhetoric. The control order regime (a system of house arrest that is itself an authoritarian abuse of civil liberties) is showing signs of collapse. Individuals subject to it have gone awol and judges have objected to conditions. Control orders themselves replaced internment without trial at Belmarsh –

internment by another route. The government’s attempts to cow popular opposition through talk of Islamic terror plots have not succeeded. It is now widely accepted that government policy – war on Iraq and

Muslim community in this country – is itself a major driving factor boosting whatever risk to the public exists. Already shelved after an outcry was another proposed new law making it a criminal offence to refuse to answer questions when

Under s.44 Terrorism Act 2000 powers in London alone 22,600 have been stopped, of whom only 27 were arrested: that’s 0.1%. But that, it seems, left the police inexcusably weak. which was thrown out by the House of Lords, in a climate of mass opposition to the war. So we are back to

Afghanistan, backing for Israel’s onslaught on the Palestinians and the oppression and witchunting of the

stopped by the police. Under s.44 Terrorism Act 2000 powers in London alone 22,600 have been

stopped, of whom only 27 were arrested: that’s 0.1%. But that, it seems, left the police inexcusably weak. What these powers have in common is in ripping up the bedrock principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However behind the headline debate on these proposals are a raft of others that show signs of being nodded through. These include new powers to clamp down on travel abroad. This is despite concerns about existing draconian powers – described by Liberty as a licence for “racial profiling” at ports and airports – to detain and question travellers for up to nine hours without even a suspicion of terrorism. Also in train are police getting the power to continue interviewing post-charge (which would destabilise basic rights to prompt trial and to know the case against you) and data sharing powers for the intelligence and security agencies. Massive public hostility in recent years has helped defeat a series of Labour attacks on our basic rights. But if this job is left to the Lib Dems and Tories, they will compromise, as they did before in allowing the current 28 day detention limit. It’s time for the unions and the anti-war movement to mobilise on the issue.

Communist Party debates

Andy Newman reports from the Morning Star organised conference and finds that the Communist Party of Britain is having serious, strategic discussions about the left’s future. The “Politics After Blair” conference organised by the Morning Star was a very interesting event. It was reasonably well attended, with usually between 150 and 200 in the hall, but lots of people seemed to be there for only one or two sessions, so the overall attendance was higher than that. There were some very positive aspects to the conference, not least of which

was genuine and real commitment to allowing debate and contributions from the floor. This was especially true of the fascinating session about the peace movement, where the panellists (Andrew Murray from the Stop the War Coalition, Kate Hudson from CND, and Alan MacKinnon from Scottish CND) did not lead off with speeches, but just responded to debate and questions from the delegates. Alan was able to report on the extraordinary success of Scottish CND, in achieving the rejection of Trident by almost all parts of Scottish civic society, including an overwhelming vote in Hollyrood. The continued weight of influence of the Morning Star was also clear from the fact that Jon Cruddas, John

McDonnell, Ken Livingstone were on the platform, as well as Matt Wrack of the FBU, Bob Crow of the RMT and Tony Benn. Sometimes at left conferences, the “celebrity” speakers are there to play the role of ornaments enhancing the prestige of the organisers. But the conference saw fraternal disagreements running through it about the attitude that socialists should take to the Labour Party, and the practical tasks for building the left. The session on Social Equality and Multiculturalism became a bit muddled. It tried to cover too much ground, and was not able to adequately deal with genuine controversies that became apparent, for example with Salma Yacoob from the platform and the SWP’s Sean Doherty from the floor

defending faith schools against the mood of the meeting. The question of the break up of the UK, and Gordon Brown’s defence of the British union should also have generated debate, and the CP do not yet seem to have grasped the importance of this issue. Bob Crow put the cat among the pigeons with a very forthright rejection of the idea that the Labour Party could be reclaimed, and both he and Matt Wrack pointed out that there is no appetite in their unions for re-affiliating. Jon Cruddas, true to form, gave an extremely perceptive analysis of how New Labour is failing its working class supporters, and John McDonnell acknowledged the unprecedented weakness of the Labour left, but was sceptical that an electoral alternative could be built.

Socialist Resistance

HOME NEWS

Gluttons for punishment

UNISON’s Political Fund has circulated members to stress the union’s unanimous endorsement for Brown, even as he slashes the wages of 1.3 million NHS staff – and to call for a vote for Blairite Alan Johnson, with a second preference for … Peter Hain!!

The Labour leadership succession has been the first substantial chance since the early 1990s for Labour Party and trade union members to challenge the party’s trajectory and address the burning issues of the day. It has been largely a wasted opportunity. First we had Brown’s coronation. And then a lacklustre deputy leadership campaign. All but one of the candidates (Jon Cruddas) have been involved in the central leadership of the party and government – tied hook, line and sinker to the string of reactionary policies associated with a decade of Blairism in power, in particular the criminal war on Iraq. It was largely an exercise in pretending to offer change whilst representing solid continuity, sustained by hot air, hypocrisy and humbug. Barring an unforeseen last minute rank and file revolt, the left in the party will come out of this whole process thoroughly marginalised. 263 Constituency Labour Parties made nominations. Cruddas’s rating as second most popular to Benn, at 67, at first sight shows promise. But 75% of the CLPs nominated candidates who have

Politics

Grey deputy for Brown leader rubber-stamped a decade of imperialist wars and assaults on public services. With membership figures slumping from (if you believe the spin) 407,000 in 1997 to 177,000 earlier this year – it will be in the unions that any hope of a revival of radicalism in the labour movement lies. But a sober reflection of the state of play in the unions is also necessary. Those backing Benn, Blears, Harman, Hain and Johnson included: GMB, Unity, Usdaw, Aslef, BFAWU, TSSA, UCATT, Unison, and (tragically) the NUM (who backed Hain). These candidates had nothing to offer at the various union hustings other than more of the same. Against that the CWU executive’s backing for their former fellow-bureaucrat Johnson was censured by a militant conference that was also balloting for strike action. And Amicus and TGWU backed Cruddas.

Andrew Wiard

By Piers Mostyn

politics after Blair The call for a new party to the left of Labour was explicitly raised by Bob Crow, and echoed by the SWP’s Nick Wrack speaking from the floor. Speaking for the Communist Party, both Star editor John Haylett and General Secretary Robert Griffiths acknowledged that New Labour is right wing to an unprecedented degree, and that the fact that McDonnell failed to get on the ballot for leadership was a major defeat. However, rather than believing that a new mass party of the working class can be built in the present circumstances, the CP are proposing deepening and strengthening the processes by which the trade unions develop political ideas in opposition to neo-liberalism. For example a think tank or foundation, funded by the

unions but with the participation of the socialist left, for promoting public ownership. This idea was warmly received by Matt Wrack. The significance of the CP’s current position is that they are uniquely situated to act as a bridge between the trade union left, the Labour Party left, and the non-sectarian left outside the Labour Party. Although the Labour Left have been crushingly defeated over McDonnell there is going to be no collective exodus from the Labour Party, and despite some excellent localised electoral results for Respect, the far left outside the Labour Party are clearly unable to attract the four and half million votes that Labour have lost since 1997, neither is Respect nor the [Socialist Party-led Committee for a New Workers

5

Party] CNWP attractive to militants and activists used to the democratic norms of the movement. Given this impasse where the left both inside and outside the Labour party are extremely weak, neither side are going to convince the other to join them. But what we do have is a developing political opposition from the trade unions, leading the way in ideological opposition to private equity, PFI, promoting equal rights for Agency and migrant workers, etc. If a new mass party is to be founded only the trade unions have the prestige, personnel and finance to do so, but it cannot happen until they conclude they have exhausted their options with the Labour Party. The role of socialists is to encourage the unions to put the

Bring it on: Brown knows that he need have no fear of the independence or fighting capacity of any of the candidates to be his deputy. All are compromised by their prior involvement with Blairism and their current links and sponsors.

New party: Bob Crow value of their special relationship with the Labour party to the test, and draw the necessary conclusions. It is also worth mentioning that the atmosphere was very friendly and welcoming, and perhaps surprisingly the age profile of the delegates was not noticeably older than for equivalent events organised by the Trotskyist left. I had a chat with CP general secretary Rob Griffiths afterwards who said this is the first of many such events they hope to be putting on – which is good news.

The character of the campaign was well captured by a special edition of the BBC’s Question Time programme. The first audience question to the six candidates set the tone: what did they think was the biggest failure of the Labour’s past decade in government? Harriet Harman said the Iraq war, Peter Hain said the lack of affordable housing,

Hilary Benn said the failure to tackle yawning inequality, Alan Johnson said the neglect of children in care. This shopping list of betrayal was delivered without any sense of shame. As each candidate was barely half way through their first sentence interlocutor David Dimbleby, to his credit, started interrupting, “but weren’t you part of the government”, “did you object about this at the time?”, “and what have you done about this since 1997?” etc. They had nothing to say. What could they say? Unfortunately Cruddas failed to polarise the issue into a debate over the legacy of the last decade. He tried too hard to avoid being sidelined as a leftie. As the only backbench candidate he combines independence from government, a credible involvement in some real campaigning – against the fascist threat in East London – and a programme (focussed on Iraq, defence of public services, opposition to the renewal of Trident and backing for the Trade Union Freedom bill) that if implemented would involve a break with a decade and a half of New Labour policies. His problem, as he freely admits, is that he supported the war at the time of the invasion and, until recently had little public profile as a radical. Indeed, before election of MP he was a Blair advisor. His candidacy at least ensured there was a debate and raised the flag of left opposition. His vote will be a marker of the state of play in party and unions. But even that will come with qualifications. Most of his supporters were far from visible in support of John McDonnell’s bid for the leadership. Ken Livingstone is a prime example – and Tony “Baldrick” Robinson. And Cruddas himself nominated Brown for leader, signalling that he saw his campaign primarily as vehicle for placing left pressure on Brown – and giving grateful union leaders Simpson and Woodley an easy option to pose as left critics rather than a call for a decisive change.

6 Socialist Resistance

HOME NEWS

The failure of John McDonnell’s Labour Party leadership challenge even to get as far as the ballot paper represents a new low water mark for the power and influence of the Labour Left. But the situation poses challenges also for the building of any new left wing alternative to Blairism, and has highlighted the weaknesses of Respect, as sections of the trade union and Labour left begin to regroup forces without abandoning their conception of “reclaiming Labour” (see Editorial, page 2). A recent Socialist Resistance London forum took up this issue, in the form of this debate between Alan Thornett from SR, and Simon Deville, who spoke from Labour Left Briefing.

Molly Cooper

After Blair

Skeleton crew: pensioners protest at New Labour’s failure to link pensions back to average pay – with little or no union opposition

WHY SOCIALISTS SHOULD BE IN THE LABOUR PARTY Simon Deville, Labour Left Briefing

The Labour Party leadership has moved a long way to the right implementing a programme of counterreforms that the Tories under Thatcher couldn’t. At the same time the left is a pale shadow of its height in the 1980s. Some argue that this demonstrates the need for a new left party. I would argue that this is based on both a wrong assessment of the current political period, and a wrong strategic orientation that can only serve to further marginalise the left from the mainstream of the working class. The central problem with this argument is that it has no explanation as to how and why Blair has been able to push the Labour Party so far to the right with so little opposition either inside or outside the party – and it shows no understanding of the real scale of the problem we face. Overall, people who have become disillusioned with New Labour have not gone on the streets on mass protest but have tended to drop out and become less political. No far left group has recruited even a significant

minority of the 200,000 people who have left the Labour Party since 1997. Most people are opposed to privatisation but this has not translated into either a strike wave or even a mass campaign against the continued privatisation of health, education or housing. Many might not like what New Labour is doing, but this doesn’t mean they have drawn any radical conclusions from this. The anti-war movement is a dramatic exception, but even here, the anti-war movement’s absolute peak was on the eve of war when

Most people are opposed to privatisation, but this has not translated into either a strike wave or even a mass campaign Ten years of economic stability, a continued growth in property prices and near full-employment all mean that a lot of people have done quite nicely under

Labour is merely a reflection of a rightward drift in the trade unions and elsewhere, and can’t be resolved simply by leaving the Labour Party. The votes of the trade union leaders have rescued Blair time and again. The ‘big four’ unions still hold decisive sway within the Labour Party – Blair would have gone years ago if they had forced him out. The mainstream trade union leaders have deluded themselves – despite all the evidence - that they somehow have influence on Blair by negotiating behind the scenes.

Those radical unions that have left or been expelled from the Labour Party have not gone on to form a new party but have strengthened the hand of the right wing unions. millions of people believed that their collective activity could actually stop the war. The anti-war movement has made an impact on class consciousness, but it hasn’t seen the movement find an organisational expression on a national scale. Aside from those disillusioned with politics, much of the left ignores the fact that there is a significant section of the population that is reasonably happy with the Blair government. Blair has after all won three elections in a row.

Blair, albeit at the expense of a growth in inequality unheard of under a Labour Government. The legacy of the defeat of the miners has massively undermined class confidence and combativity, creating low levels of strikes and struggles and convincing large numbers of working class people that collective struggles cannot help to win reforms or improve their immediate situation. The rightward drift of

Those radical unions that have left or been expelled from the Labour Party have not gone on to form a new party but have strengthened the hand of the right wing unions. We are left with a very complex and in many ways contradictory situation, in which the key task for socialists should be finding ways of patiently rebuilding the labour movement and confidence of the class, of finding ways of resisting privatisation and the neoliberal offensive and most

importantly of winning some victories that demonstrate the importance of collective struggles. In order to do this we must be firmly rooted inside the mainstream of the working class movement and develop ways of relating to the political centre and mobilising the class as a whole. Launching a radical, left wing party will only serve to pull together some of the best working class activists and isolate them still further from the rest of the class. Simply asserting as some do, that workers are angry and straining to be let off the leash by the bureaucracy misunderstands the current situation. Calling on the formation of an ideological-based party that will then somehow win the working class over to it misunderstands how politics work and will ensure that socialists have even less influence on the mainstream of the class than they have at the moment. There is an obvious appeal to working only with people you are broadly in agreement with, but if socialists are to make any significant impact they will need to get their hands dirty and work with the broad mass of the working class, often on terms that we do not choose.

HOME NEWS

Socialist Resistance

7

Left in disarray After McDonnell failure

TIME TO GET REAL! Alan Thornett

We are at an important turning point in British politics. Brown is about to enter office. It is already clear that he is planning to drive forward all the main items of New Labour policy: the neo-liberal offensive; the attack on public sector; the continuation of the war in Iraq; the replacement of Trident; and the attack on human rights and civil liberties as well as his current attack on public sector wages. He may disengage to some degree from Iraq, but no more so than the US Democrats are planning to do. This situation has been compounded by the spineless soft left Labour MPs who refused to nominate John McDonnell and create a contest. They have facilitated a seamless transfer from Blair to Brown that New Labour has been planning for a long time. It is the ‘plan B’ under which Blair, damaged mainly by the war, but also through his association with corruption, dishonesty and neo-liberalism, can be replaced with a new broom in his own image. The danger now is that we could now have a rejuvenated Blairism well placed to drive the whole new Labour project to a new stage. Unfortunately much of the left seems to be oblivious to this danger and appear to have learned little out of the defeat of the McDonnell campaign. The McDonnell defeat has exposed the chronic weakness of the Labour left as far their influence (or relevance) inside the Labour

Party is concerned. Yet all the signs are that they intend to plough on with the same line - that the Labour party can be “reclaimed” for the left and for the workers’ movement. The Communist Party of Britain (CPB) which also has a “reclaim Labour” position appears to be doing the same. This would be a big mistake. Despite campaigning for months John McDonnell fell well short of the 45 nominations he needed from Labour MPs to stand. For the first time since the early years of the Labour Party the left failed to mount a challenge in a Labour lead-

position to fight for socialist policies than we have been for years”. It is another delusion His failure has exposed the full extent of the weakness of the Labour left which has clearly existed for a long time. Others on the Labour left argue that problem was amongst Labour MPs, not party members. Of course there is a problem amongst MPs. The whole of the intake of new Labour MPs since 1997 have been absorbed into the Blairite project. But Labour MPs have to reflect the pressure from party members – and there lies the other problem: there

McDonnell failed to win the support of any major union for his campaign.

way forward from here is to support the conference of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) in October. But the LRC hardly exists outside of its occasional conferences. It is also a misnomer. It is not a campaign for independent labour representation – like its predecessor at the turn of the 19th century which produced the Labour Party as an alternative Liberal representation. It is a campaign to reclaim Labour: i.e. a campaign to stay in the Labour Party as its first principle and win it back for the left. That is why you have to be a Labour Party member to join it. The reality is that a crisis

Every major radicalisation of the past 10 years – from Seattle to the mass anti-war movement (with its millions on the streets) – has by-passed the Labour left. ership contest. The McDonnell campaign’s claim that they were robbed of a contest by the requirement to be nominated by 45 is not credible. Of course the right are not going to do them any favours, but it is not a new requirement. It was there in the election following Ramsey McDonald’s resignation in 1931. What’s new is that for the first time the left was unable to surmount it. Brown won a massive 318 nominations, including those of Campaign group member Bob Marshal Andrews and John Cruddas the “left” challenger for the deputy position. This was a huge vote of confidence for Brown’s project. Yet John McDonnell says: “We’re now in a stronger

was no significant pressure from party members to nominate McDonnell. In fact the pressure was in the other direction, for MPs to try to secure their future by nominating Brown. And what happened to the trade union awkward squad? Most of them rushed to endorse Brown. McDonnell failed to win the support of any major union for his campaign. Neither Derek Simpson, Tony Woodley, Dave Prentis nor any of the general secretaries of the big unions were prepared to back him. They enthusiastically backed Brown. In fact a bit of support from the trade union leaders would have been enough to get McDonnell on the ballot paper. McDonnell argues that the

of labour representation and consequently the conditions for a new party to the left of Labour have existed since the mid-1990s and Blair’s take-over of the Party. Space opened up to the left of Labour which is even wider today. At the same time the Labour left have been ever more marginalised. Every major radicalisation of the past 10 years – from Seattle to the Global Justice Movement and from the mass anti-war movement (with its millions on the streets) to the current environmental and anti climate change campaigns – has bypassed the Labour left. You only have to look at the decline in the number of Labour Party banners on demonstrations over the last two decades to get the pic-

ture. It’s now unusual to see one at these events. Some on the Labour left argue that you can’t build a new party to the left of Labour with the current low level of trade union struggles. But the mass anti-war movement, the global justice movement, mobilisations against the G8 and against climate change and in defence of the environment are forms of class struggle as well. If you take these struggles and the radicalisation they produce alongside the potential political recomposition created by the march to the right of new Labour and the collapse of new Labour membership figures you have the necessary ingredients for a substantial new party. And if people from the Labour left and the CPB were to help organise a political alternative outside of Labour this would open up new possibilities for the left as a whole. The problem we have is that while the political conditions clearly exist for a new party to the left of Labour, the project has stalled as a result of divisions amongst the left themselves. The SWP have their responsibility for this, but they are not the only problem. The reason why the Stop the War Coalition (StWC) has been so successful is because it has been a genuine coalition of the left. The CPB, the trade union left and much of the Labour left are in it and working fruitfully with the SWP and George Galloway. If the left can work together in this way in the StWC why can’t it do so as a

political alternative to Blairism? Respect has its problems (which we have written about at some length, see again this month’s Editorial) but it has responsibilities in this situation as well. Respect is the best attempt so far to build something to the left of Labour. No other party has found a response amongst some sections of the working class in the way that Respect has. It is the only organisation on the socialist left which can win new seats in local elections and which has a chance (a very good chance) of winning a seat or seats in the London Assembly next year. The 12,000 votes in Birmingham in May amongst 7 candidates was a remarkable achievement. Respect is not, in itself, the answer to the problem of a left alternative, not least because of the strong instinctive resistance among many on the Labour left to engaging with any new alternative organisation, especially one containing George Galloway and/or the SWP. But it is the best focus around which such an alternative can be built. Respect should not simply call on people from the Labour left and the CPB to simply join it in its present form. Rather it should be prepared to discuss the problem without preconditions and not let organisational formulae stand in the way of the political goal in front. Using the advent of the Brown era to organise the left into a far more effective force is the only adequate response to the problems we face.

8 Socialist Resistance

NHS UNISON given go-ahead for October 13 national demo Danny McIntosh

the momentum of the popular movement that was visibly on “It’s full steam ahead for a the boil against cutbacks, national demonstration to closures and privatisation last defend the NHS on Saturday, autumn and winter has ebbed 13 October”, according to UNISON’s Head of Health Karen somewhat in the phoney war situation since the new Jennings, writing to health financial year: but the issues branches of the largest public are still there, and a new round sector union. of controversial cuts and The demonstration will be part of UNISON’s Keep the NHS privatisation is set for the autumn. Working campaign, and “will Karen Jennings is right to be the focus of a public display of celebration and solidarity for tell branches that their campaigning activity – woefully an NHS that is still largely weak in some areas, where job owned and run by the public cuts and service reductions sector.” have gone through largely It is good that the major unchallenged – needs urgently union in the field is giving this to be stepped up. lead, hopefully to be supported Union members also need a by the other unions and firm lead, more information organisations from NHS and confidence-building Together. measures to ensure they vote But there are concerns: two for strike action over their months down the line from the insulting pay award, slashed initial decision on the date, not from a wage-cutting 2.5% to an much seems to have happened. There is no publicity material, and we still don’t know where the march will be, so travel arrangements have not begun. There are fears that union leaders will choose somewhere other than the natural political target of Karen Jennings … calling for campaigning London: others fear even more derisory 1.9% as a that the UNISON leadership, so result of Brown’s intervention: reluctant to break ranks with again they will find widespread Gordon Brown, is simply going support if they take up this through the motions of convening a demonstration that fight. UNISON branches will in is doomed in advance to fail – many cases need support in through inadequate and broadening their campaigns incompetent political from organizations with preparation. expertise in popularizing policy There is precedent for this: in the early 1990s UNISON was such as London Health Emergency, and from broadinstructed by national based campaigning conference to call a national organizations such as Keep Our demonstration over Low Pay. NHS Public. They called the march in With summer holidays Newcastle, spent £1m on looming up, the countdown has obscure and ineffective already started. Let’s not waste publicity, drew a relatively this chance to build a really small turnout, and from there on used the failure as a stick to massive show of strength in defence of the values of the beat down subsequent calls for NHS as our most popular national protests. public service. There seems little doubt that

£500m surplus has not stopped juggernaut of NHS cutbacks As Patricia Hewitt proudly unveiled a massive unspent pot of NHS cash that could have spared misery for patients and staff, health services across England face another battering from cutbacks and closures. The thumping £500m surplus delivered in most of England’s Strategic Health Authorities follows months of painful belt-tightening, with bed and ward closures, job losses, frozen vacancies and deliberately lengthened waiting times, with many Primary Care Trusts insisting on a 5-month “minimum wait” for non-urgent care. London Health Emergency pieced together a snap-shot view of the cuts still under way as ministers cracked open the champagne to celebrate the half billion unspent – while insisting the crisis-hit services must meet tight cash limits this year and even tighter constraints from 2008. North Yorkshire and York PCT is carrying through a second year of cutbacks having axed 200 jobs and 90 beds last year. In the North West Westmoreland General Hospital still faces swingeing cuts and closures, while NW Pennines Acute Trust is planning to axe 10% of its

beds in Oldham, Rochdale, Fairfield and North Manchester, and East Lancashire acute is seeking to cut 127 jobs to slash its wage bill by £4m. In the North East the County Durham and Darlington Foundation Trust is seeking to axe 700 staff to balance its books. In the West Midlands, Coventry’s brand new £400m Wallsgrave Hospital has announced a third reduction in bed numbers and a job freeze as it wrestles with a £15m deficit. In the East of England,

Weston Super Mare and minor injuries units throughout Wiltshire are among a series of targets for cutbacks. Cuts are looming in Surrey and Suffolk, despite repeated delays in the consultation process. Sussex faces a loss of services in either Eastbourne or Hastings, while services in Worthing, Brighton and Haywards Heath are also under threat. In London, a major acute services review has been postponed, but it is clear that services are under

ered are all ongoing and upcoming, drawn from press coverage since April 1: we know these are only the tip of the iceberg as Trusts and PCTs come under pressure to slash back their budgets this year, in advance of tighter times to come – effectively stockpiling cuts.” Many cutbacks decided last year are still taking effect, and many areas – such as parts of London, Surrey and Sussex, are awaiting the outcome of controversial reviews. “Patients are waiting need-

There have been bed and ward closures, job losses, frozen vacancies and deliberately lengthened waiting times Huntingdon’s Hinchingbrooke Trust faces a “rescue” package which amounts to a 2-year stay of execution, with a loss of 25% of its caseload, as Cambridgeshire PCT struggles with a £51m deficit. In Norfolk, after a year of cuts and cash savings, the merged PCT also faces a £50m deficit, and plans involve cuts in mental health and closure of 40 community beds. In Suffolk, Ipswich Hospital after a traumatic year of short-sighted cuts, must make further savings. In the West of England jobs and hospital services in

threat in north London with the plans to close A&E at Enfield’s Chase Farm hospital, NE London with the sword hanging over services at King George’s Hospital, Ilford, major cuts aimed at slashing a massive £41m from spending at Epsom & St Helier in SW London, and a review pending in SE London, with Queen Mary’s Hospital, Sidcup the likely victim of cutbacks to tackle a local £65m deficit. Commenting on the ongoing cutbacks, LHE’s Information director Dr John Lister said: “The cuts we have uncov-

lessly, newly qualified nursing and other staff are being turned away from the NHS, and morale among existing NHS staff remains at rockbottom. “What’s worse is that while these cuts are ripping in to the public sector provision, hundreds of millions are being squandered on pointless and over-priced contracts with the private sector. “If ministers do not change course, Gordon Brown will go down as the Prime Minister who in his first year in office did the most irreparable damage to the NHS.”

9

Socialist Resistance

Home Roland Rance – Secretary Waltham Forest Trades Council

Following a short, but very vigorous, campaign, unions and parents in Waltham Forest have forced the council to reverse – or at least postpone – plans to close the centralised school meals service. Had the plan gone through, Waltham Forest, which is led by a Labour-Lib Dem coalition, would have been the first borough (but presumably not the last) to make such a cut. Thousands of children could have been left with no midday hot meal; some schools were reported to be negotiating bulk purchases from local sandwich shops. Disgracefully, the council

claimed that recent progressive steps, including equal pay for school meals staff and improved nutritional standards in the wake of the Jamie Oliver television series, made it too expensive to provide this service. Having two years ago redefined the shortfall on the school meals budget as a “subsidy”, the council is now intent on reducing this even further. Unison pointed out that the total shortfall on school meals was only £200,000, while councillors’ expenses amount to £900,000 a year and the council has paid “consultants” some £10 million over the past ten years to give advice on how to save money. Campaigners clearly felt that providing the borough’s schoolchildren with a decent and affordable midday meal was a

better use of our money, and the campaign, in which school meals’ supervisors played a leading role, attracted wide support. In a step which embarrassed the council, union members visited Jamie Oliver’s east London restaurant, where they were greeted with coffee and cakes, and Oliver issued a supportive statement. Local Labour and Tory MPs, and the borough Public Health Officer, also criticised the council’s decision, while Unison discovered that it had not even been voted on in council, and was thus open to a legal challenge. Faced with this concerted opposition, and following a large demonstration accompanied by many children gleefully banging saucepans, council leader Clyde Loakes appeared on the Town

Molly Cooper

Victory for school meals campaigners

Hall steps to announce a retreat. He announced that the service would continue for the next year at least. Loakes even tried to claim credit for the protest, thanking protesters for coming and insisting – in the face of all evidence – that the reports were unfounded. As a candidate to succeed popular local MP Neil Gerrard, who will retire at the next general election, Loakes is presumably

keen, for the moment at least, to appear as a guardian of Labour values – though the subsequent decision that the local party will have an all-women short list has frustrated this hope. Unions and parents, meanwhile, will continue to watch the council’s decisionmaking very closely. It is likely that next year will see another, better-prepared, attempt to close the school meals service. And we will also continue to oppose

any suggestion that the service be funded at the expense of other cuts. Waltham Forest Council is threatening to close the borough’s world-renowned William Morris Gallery, has built a sparkling new library without any books, and has failed to prevent the closure of the borough’s listed Edwardian cinema; we will not allow them to use their defeat on school meals as an excuse for further cuts to other budgets.

Academies & trust schools: Tories back New Labour scheme By a teacher

Westminster City Council, securely Tory since the mid 1980’s, has embraced New Labour’s City Academy proposals. It is within sight of abolishing all state secondary schools by turning them into Trusts or Academies. The aim is to abolish itself as an education authority, to reduce the role of the Council to the smallest scale possible, perhaps a few meetings per year to set the contracts and review the performance of the outsourced service providers. The effect, of course, would not be to end “political” involvement in local government, but merely to bury it in legal details understood only by lawyers but hidden from democratic scrutiny. No surprise then it was to Westminster that neo-liberal prophet, Tony Bliar came to unveil his plans for Trust Schools, essentially schools paid for by the state but owned and run by charitable trusts. His visit to Quinton Kynaston School was greeted by a large anti-war demo mainly made up of pupils. Unfortunately for the

warmonger, his stance on the Israeli attack on Lebanon the month before, meant he was forced by a halfhearted party revolt to declare that he was leaving office even as he praised Trusts. Now the Head of Quinton Kynaston is installed as the Interim Head of Pimlico School at the other end of the borough, itself threatened with being turned into an Academy. Should the Council and Lord Adonis succeed in privatising both schools, there will be will be no state secondary schools left in the borough. 10 years ago Pimlico parents and teachers fought off an attempt by the Council, aided by then Chair of Governors, Jack Straw, to hand the school over to a developer under the discredited PFI scheme, an early attempt by New Labour to lever schools into the private sector. Last September, North Westminster Community School was closed and given over to 2 Academies, one to the United Learning Trust, an offshoot of the Church of England; the other, to a Hong Kong based

property developer, Chelsfield, which was involved in the lucrative Paddington Basin development. Chelsfield itself was by then sold on to the owners of Multiplex, of Wembley Stadium repute. It’s long been the case that education policy in Westminster is almost entirely driven by property interests. In many ways that is the essence of neo-liberalism, indeed of liberalism itself: freeing the “rights” of property from the tiresome constraints of democracy. Combined with this respectful attitude to property rights, is Christian evangelising. Here, ULT Chair Sir Euan Harper’s closeness to Blair gives them an inside track when it comes to promoting academies. Six of the eight Westminster secondaries are now denominational schools – all Christian. Laughably, ULT Paddington is described by the Council as non-denominational, despite its “Christian” ethos. Imagine the reaction if a Muslim school similarly claimed to be “non-

denominational. The third essential in the Westminster triangle is finance capital. Absolute Return for Kids (ARK) the charitable offshoot of a hedge fund is about to open a two-form entry 4 – 18 Academy on the remaining site of North Westminster Community School. ARK’s declared purpose is to open a chain of cut-price state funded private schools. State schools are denied the largesse available to Academies and Trusts. True to form, the Labour opposition confines itself to point scoring over the Tories. While correctly pointing out that the Tories have already made up their minds to turn Pimlico into an Academy, thereby making a mockery of the current consultation process, Labour is using the threat of an Academy to try to railroad through Blair’s trust proposals. MP Karen Buck has declared her support for Academies, despite having to (briefly) withdraw her son from the school because of the state it

Cameron: easy ride was in. Like the campaign to defend Council Housing, opposition to academies is beginning to snowball. A House of Commons enquiry on June 12th heard from campaigns across England. In Brent, campaigners are camping out on the site of a proposed ARK Academy. Despite imaginative and vigorous efforts, campaigners have not always won, especially given the pressure exerted by the DfES who refuse grant funding for schools if local authorities don’t come up with proposals for Academies or Trusts. In order to win, the anti academies campaign needs an explicit political platform to knit together the diverse strands that make it up. The Westminster experience is that New Labour under Brown will not be that vehicle.

10 Socialist Resistance

USA US mass march for Palestine David Finkel The most important fact about the June 10, Washington DC March to End the Israeli Occupation was simply that it took place. Part of an international weekend of mobilizations for Palestinian rights, marking the 40th anniversary of the 1967 war and the occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, the rally at the U.S. Capitol and march to the Ellipse drew a crowd of five or perhaps six thousand. This is modest in comparison with the 20,000 who marched in London on June 9 (according to press reports I’m reading), and small indeed by the standards of major U.S. antiwar protests. Its significance for the movement in this country, however, goes deeper than the numbers may indicate on the surface. After an afternoon rally, we hit the streets in spirited fashion, with the loudest chants occurring as we passed by a couple hundred pro-Zionist counter-demonstrators on the sidewalk. The march was called jointly by United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), the dominant coalition in the current U.S. antiwar movement, and a partially overlapping coalition of several hundred groups called the Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. This was the first national action explicitly called by UFPJ centered on Palestine, an issue which many

Molly Cooper

A modest beginning:

activists have long felt the UFPJ leadership hesitated to take on due to the overwhelming pro-Zionist consensus in the Congressional Democratic establishment. The occupation in Palestine has been linked, to be sure, to the U.S. occupation of Iraq in antiwar mobilizations, but how to do this is a constant source of tension within as well as between antiwar coalitions. Marches for Palestine have also been called by “hard” anti-imperialist and solidarity organizations, but June 10 was a first for the antiwar “mainstream.” Those with a long memory recall a real atrocity in 1982, at the height of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when a million people rallied in New York for nuclear disarmament and any mention of the Middle East or Lebanon

20,000 protestors marched in London on the June 9 Enough demonstration

Some will be disappointed that this outpouring was not duplicated on this occasion, and that the overall size of the march was nowhere near the turnout for protests over the Iraq war. But there are substantial reasons why such expectations were not realistic in this instance.

ization over murderous Palestinian infighting and despair over the neverending carnage in Iraq. ! The U.S. antiwar movement as a whole is well below its historic peak of mobilizing power that was reached in 2003 – ironically, before American public opinion had turned over-

It’s important to enlarge the currently very small proportion of people who see the horrors in Palestine as affecting their own lives. was explicitly barred from the speakers’ platform. Times have changed: On April 20, 2002, just months after 9/11, when hundreds of thousands marched in Washington against the Bush regime’s war in Afghanistan and its already sinister threats to Iraq, tens of thousands of Arab and Muslim Americans participated, expressing enormous solidarity with the Palestinian struggle (in the immediate wake of the Jenin massacre).

! First and foremost, a large Arab and Muslim turnout – beyond the committed activists – depends on mobilizations within those communities through their own organisations, media, mosques etc. That’s what built their turnout for April 20, 2002, not the antiwar organizations themselves. Today there is not only a real climate of fear among these communities; while rage over the U.S.-Israeli destruction of Palestine is deep, there is also demoral-

whelmingly against the war. More important, perhaps: While everyone in this country feels impacted by the U.S. disaster in Iraq, still only a small minority feels directly affected by the crisis over Israel/Palestine. ! In terms of pure numerical turnout, a demonstration in New York City would be larger. However, the organisers wanted to put the focus and the political “street heat” on Congress, with a day of mass lobbying to follow the Sunday march.

Further, UFPJ’s mobilisations typically occur on Saturday; this one was called for Sunday to avoid conflict with the Jewish Shabbat (not that this would affect most Jewish activists who are mainly, though not all, secular, but cultural sensitivity was important in this case). Indeed, participation by Jewish Voice for Peace and other Jewish anti-occupation groupings was significant. In the circumstances, then, June 10 must be seen as a modest but important beginning. Where to go from here? The pro-Palestinian movement is proceeding on several fronts, most important (in this writer’s view) with a struggle around selective divestment from Israel being waged in church denominations. As for the broader antiwar movement in relation to Palestine, we face several strategic responsibilities. Today, the U.S. antiwar movement represents the sentiments of the majority of the population and must act accordingly. It’s important to enlarge the currently very small proportion of people who see the horrors in Palestine as affecting their own lives. It’s going to be even more important to confront Congress, which remains rock-solid in support of Israel’s atrocities even as it pours tens of billions more dollars into the Iraq debacle. The movement must also step up its activism against the sinister threats of bombing Iran – which desperate neocons like Norman Podhoretz and the warmongering “Independent Democrat” Senator Joseph Lieberman openly advocate. All this needs to be done without falling into the trap of ascribing the disastrous U.S. wars throughout the Middle East to “the power of the Zionist lobby overriding American national interests.” We’ve made a start; the tasks facing us are massive and urgent. " David Finkel is an editor of the socialist magazine AGAINST THE CURRENT, sponsored by Solidarity (www.solidarityus.org).

11

Socialist Resistance

Iraq May was the worst month for US fatalities in Iraq since 2004 and the first anniversary of Israel’s failed onslaught on Lebanon approaches. Piers Mostyn asked GILBERT ACHCAR to provide an update on some recent developments, starting with a balance sheet of the US surge in Iraq. GA: It has been above all a surge in bloodshed and a major failure if we measure it by the Bush administration’s goal – nothing short of turning the whole Iraqi failure into a success story … But it very blatantly failed. The major goal was to create conditions through which they would change the political alignments in Iraq and set up a new alliance that would be close to the US and enable Washington to better manoeuvre in the country. Moqtada al-Sadr was a chief target of this whole operation and we can measure its failure by the way he is now back and very much prominent in the news, after having vanished for a while. He recently made a speech which had a more nationalist anti-sectarian edge, does this signal any change? I think he probably came to the conclusion that it is high time for him to renew or resume the political stance that he had been following until late 2005 or early 2006. The February 2006 Samarra attack [a devastating Sunni sectarian attack on the Shia mosque there] was a watershed in the Iraqi situation. That is when the image of al-Sadr turned from one of non-sectarian Arab-cumIraqi nationalist into one of leader of a Shiite sectarian militia. He is trying now to restore his previous image. He probably believes that the climate is right for a new attempt – after over a year during which the Shiites let off sectarian steam very intensively in response to the sectarian attacks they

A crucial turning point as Bush plays “double or quits” in Iraq had suffered. Are you saying that the tit for tat sectarian escalation may have played its course and that Moqtada al-Sadr could return to a more nationalist discourse? Yes precisely. He probably feels that things can calm down now, at a time when it’s more urgent than ever for him to rebuild his image. He needs to reach out to the Sunni Arab Iraqis, because he

views, which are close to the Saudis and willing to make deals with the US against the Shiites. And, on the other hand, those who consider the US as the main, most dangerous, enemy and who are therefore willing to make an alliance with anti-US Shiite forces – provided (as the fear of Iran is common to all Sunnis) these are forces that they deem to be independent enough from

cult to predict at this point. He’s facing quite difficult conditions. The Allawi operation is still going on. It is essentially an attempt at building a crosssectarian political coalition using the lure of US support in order to topple the Maliki government and bring Allawi back to the helm as the “strong man” and saviour of Iraq. Although I wouldn’t bet one

Moqtada al-Sadr was a chief target of this whole operation, and we can measure its failure by the way he is now back and very much prominent in the news, understands that there is a major political operation going on of which he is a target. The two Kurdish leaders have recently made statements warning against an ongoing “plot” that aims at overthrowing the Maliki government. The other man who stands at the centre of this “plot” is none other than former USdesignated prime minister Iyad Allawi – the closest, most reliable stooge that the US and Britain have in Iraq. So the situation is getting very sensitive right now. We are at a crucial turning point in the Iraqi situation, facing a decisive moment in the coming weeks and months. And that’s when Moqtada

al-Sadr has decided to go back on the offensive politically, which is definitely a clever thing to do for him. Are there any signs of a response from amongst the Sunni opposition groups? Well there are. Al-Sadr’s new tone is generally welcomed by the nationalists –in contrast to the sectarians – among Arab Sunnis. If you put aside the al-Qaida type of anti-US anti-Shiite fanatics, there are two types of forces among the Iraqi Arab Sunnis: on the one hand, those chiefly spurred on by sectarian and anti-Iranian

Iran. That is the case of Moqtada al-Sadr. Although he has obvious links with Tehran, which backed him increasingly over the last few years, he retains a certain degree of political autonomy and is known to be fiercely independent. Do you think we are heading for a crunch point, where the Americans will have to change course radically or even withdraw? It can’t be so simple. I have been describing what al-Sadr is trying to do. I didn’t imply that he is going to succeed. He can certainly find a certain measure of success, but a major success allowing him to be the winner in this whole confrontation is quite diffi-

penny on the success of this operation, you can’t exclude it totally. You can’t exclude some kind of coup that would be backed by the US and the segment of Iraqi military forces that the US believes to be under their reliable control (if there are any actually). What is certain though is that we will see crucial changes in the coming period. For the Bush administration, the ongoing “surge” is a double or quits operation. They are under intensive pressure in the US. Although we have seen how the Democrats have shied away from pressing forward the issue of a timetable for troop withdrawal - the issue of Iraq is prominent in the presidential election and US public

opinion has become much opposed to the continuation of the war. The Bush administration is playing what appears to be its last card. At the same time, the administration is covering its back by reaching out to Tehran – in a very limited way for a start – for a possible accommodation, as recommended by the BakerHamilton report. Turning to Lebanon, has the siege and bombardment of the Nahr el-Bared Palestinian refugee camp been a relative sideshow or does it have deeper connections? I think that whatever ignited the confrontation, one thing is obvious: it has been immediately exploited for a very definite agenda. This was (1) to test the ability of the Lebanese army to confront other forces, starting with the easiest – Palestinians, against whom Lebanese Shiite and Sunni soldiers alike can be united with no major risk of split along sectarian lines; and (2) to get the army to enter this Palestinian refugee camp in Northern Lebanon and take control of it under the pretext of fighting this group. This is why Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, came out saying that he considered the penetration by the Lebanese army of the camp to be a “red line”. Why did he say so, despite Hezbollah initially expressing its solidarity with the Lebanese army? Because he realised that this Palestinian camp has become a testing ground for the ability of the Lebanese army to implement a task that is part of UNSC Resolution 1559 (sponsored by Washington, London and Paris in 2004) calling for the disarming of both the Palestinian camps and Hezbollah. Nasrallah became aware that the battle of Nahr el-Bared is but a first step on a path that leads ultimately to the fight against his own forces. You can see that in the broad display of active solidarity with the Lebanese army in the ongoing confrontation: Washington is sending weapons and inciting all its allies to send whatever hardware the Lebanese army needs. " This is an edited version of an interview conducted on 6 June 2007. For the full version see www.zmag.org/weluser.htm. Gilbert Achcar is an anti-war activist and an academic who grew up in Lebanon.

12 Socialist Resistance

Unions

Spanish car workers fight plant closures Julian Coppens writes from Cadiz Despite being held back by a “socialist” government and their own trade union leaders Spain’s car workers look set to continue strike action. In Spain they do some things differently, including strikes. Every now and then the nightly diet of boredom and distraction that passes for news in the capitalist press is relieved by images of workers blockading roads wearing black balaclavas or scenes of street battles with the police and burning tyres. Many of these scenes have involved the ongoing dispute with the US-based autoparts supplier Delphi. The company plans to close its Puerto Real factory in Cádiz in the Andalucía region of Spain, making 1,600 workers redundant. Since it first revealed its proposals to close the Puerto Real factory in February, there has been a wave of

from the shipbuilder Navantia, the aeronautical company EADS-CASA, Rota military base, metallurgical industries in Almería, Sevilla and Córdoba y Jaén, workers from telephone companies Telefonica and Vitelcom in Málaga and students from several universities. Demonstrators were joined by the wives and children of the strikers, carrying banners proclaiming, “13

without any sign of the dispute being resolved. On April 20, leaders of the anarcho-syndicalist General Confederation of Labour (CGT) were forced to call a general strike. Unfortunately they limited their call to 14 towns under a general slogan demanding more industry for Cádiz rather than a direct appeal to prevent the closure of Delphi.

towns were largely empty. Government representatives have not made any statement on the numbers who participated, but reports suggest a total of 300,000 people took part. Despite the militant struggle waged by the Delphi workers, as well as large demonstrations and solidarity action by workers elsewhere, the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) gov-

One of the central demands made by the union leaders has been on PSOE Prime Minister Zapatero to intervene and take legal action against Delphi. demonstrations and strikes. For several weeks, there were daily demonstrations outside the town hall. The initial protest in early March brought as many as 75,000 people into Cádiz, according to the unions. They included workers from the aeronautical firm Airbus, which is threatened with redundancies and closures in Spain. There were also workers

years of deceit,” workers from auxiliary industries saying, “We are also Delphi!” and workers from the contract cleaning and maintenance companies.

General strike called Despite the scale of the protests and the outpouring of sympathy from the people of Cadiz, two months passed

Nor did they link their strike appeal to action against other threatened plants such as those at Airbus or Seat, Volkswagen’s Spanish unit. There was a major response to the general strike call, bringing the region to a virtual standstill and arousing a great upsurge in solidarity. Industrial estates in the area were closed, public buses were running minimal services and the streets of the

ernment and unions have allowed Delphi management to shut the factory and emboldened them to threaten closure of other plants in Spain. Despite this, the actions continued unabated into May and were organised by spontaneously formed workers’ committees. On the first day of the Trade and Tourism Fair, workers blocked access to the main entrance, presenting press reports on the struggles to the tourism chief of Andalucía. The workers also organised a five-day march along the 119 kilometres that separate the factory from the offices of the regional government in Sevilla. Road access to the plant was blocked with barricades and burning tyres. One of the central demands made by the union leaders has been on PSOE Prime Minister Zapatero to intervene and take legal action against Delphi. This would be on the basis that the company has reneged on a deal awarding it substantial public subsidies in return for its commitment to long-term investment in the region, up to 2010. According to the Andalusian authorities, Delphi’s

Puerto Real plant has received regional and central government grants worth 60 million euro since 1986. The company has also benefited from the deal in the form of lower-than-theaverage European Union corporate tax rates.

Bumper bonuses In a report prepared for the US bankruptcy court, Delphi posted a net loss in March of $63 million. The company lost US$828 million in the fourth quarter of 2006 and $5.5 billion for all of last year. Despite the poor financial results, management has walked away with bumper bonuses. A federal bankruptcy judge approved Delphi’s request to give 440 top executives bonuses adding up to $37 million. At the same time the company is seeking a 60 percent wage cut for its 33,000 unionised workers in the US and has gutted pensions, health benefits and working conditions. 21 of its 29 plants are being sold off, closed or relocated. The struggle in Spain is led primarily by the CC.OO union associated with the Spanish Communist Party (PCE) and the CGT, and has been conducted undemocratically by the union bureaucracy. There are two factors, however, that could lead to a rank and file led militant revitalization of the strike. All three shifts have been combined into one, bringing all the workers together at the same time every day. And at the end of June workers will receive their last month’s pay – with no redundancy or holiday pay. Whether this will lead to increasingly radicalised strike committees, led by rank and file workers, calling for nationalisation of the plant - remains to be seen.

Socialist Resistance

13

Unions

South Africa

PUBLIC SECTOR STRIKES BACK FOR PAY JUSTICE Norman Traub South African trade unions have launched one of the biggest national strikes of the post-apartheid era in a move widely seen as spearheading the left’s challenge to win control of the ruling African National Congress ahead of next year’s presidential election. On June 13, the unions called out hundreds of thousands of members in support of public sector workers who had already been on strike for a fortnight, forcing schools to close and hospitals to treat only emergency cases. Municipal workers joined the strike, shutting down rubbish collection, maintenance of power supplies and public transport. In addition, taxi and bus drivers, electricity and cleaning workers, administrative staff and officials from border posts and air-

ports joined the protest. Cities like Durban were brought to a complete standstill and many workers took part in lunchtime protests. The unions wanted a 12% wage increase but have lowered their demand to 10% plus increases in health and housing benefits.

apartheid government.” Underpinning the strike is the looming power struggle for control of the ANC at its national congress in December ahead of next year’s general election. South Africa’s trades union confederation, Cosatu, which has 1.8 million members, is part of the tripartite

into submission in the ruling alliance,” he wrote. The government’s response has been heavyhanded. In an attempt to intimidate workers, Public Service Minister Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi obtained an interdict from the Labour Court forbidding workers in essential services

to man hospitals. Nurses were served with copies of the ultimatum when they were on picket duty. Despite the interdict, large numbers of nurses remain on strike. At the Addington Hospital in Durban, several nurses were wounded when police opened fire on the fourth day of the strike. Twenty nurses were arrested as they blocked the entrances. On the day of the mass sympathy strike, thousands gathered outside the parliament building in Cape Town. Many strikers spoke bitterly about the contrast between their demand for a 12 percent increase and the 57 percent that has been recommended for President Thabo Mbeki and his cabinet. One striker told Reuters,

At the Addington Hospital in Durban, several nurses were wounded when police opened fire on the fourth day of the strike. President Thabo Mbeki’s government increased its offer from 6% to 7.25%, well below inflation. Public sector workers are a prime example of qualified workers who survive on low pay - nurses earn as little as £250 a month. Striking workers joined protests in major cities including Johannesburg, where some held up signs reading: “The ANC government is a replica of the then

ruling alliance with the ANC and the Communist party. However, because of the massive disaffection among ordinary workers it has had to call this action. A political columnist for Johannesburg’s Star newspaper described the strike as a political strategy beyond pay issues. “This is war, a show of force by the unions after 12 years of being bludgeoned

from joining the strike. This included the water industry, the courts and correctional services, emergency health provision, nursing and medical, and paramedics. Fraser-Moleketi immediately declared that essential workers who did not return to work by June 4 would be summarily dismissed. More than 600 strikers have been sent letters of dismissal. Soldiers were sent in

“They live in luxury, we still stay in poverty.” The militancy and determination of the workers involved in the strike and the widespread support in the population are an expression of massive disaffection with the ANC government. South Africa, according to the United Nations Development Programme, is among the most unequal

countries in the world— third from the bottom behind only Brazil and Guatemala. The country is becoming increasingly polarised, headed as it is by a small clique of black businessmen, mostly made up of leading members of the ANC, enriching themselves through the government’s policy of Black Economic Empowerment. Along with the South African Communist Party (SACP), COSATU favours the candidacy of Jacob Zuma, the supposed “people’s president,” who is no left-winger. Zuma was Mbeki’s second in command until last year and has never opposed any of the government’s promarket privatisation policies. Mr. Mbeki, president of both South Africa and the congress, is legally barred from running again for national president in 2009, but is widely expected to seek a new term as president of the party late this year. The president of the party effectively controls who becomes its nominee for president of South Africa. Experts say the strike could become more serious if it spreads beyond public workers to private industries vital to the national economy. However, that seems unlikely at present.

14 Socialist Resistance

Women Development or devastation?

Philippines’ main export trade: female labour

UNISON has launched a Filipino help line to assist work with the many nurses employed by the NHS

Eva Olaer, (Executive Director, Stichting Sumpay Mindanao International) Human resources are now the primary commodities for export by the Philippines government –and most of the labour exported is female, to respond to labour demands in the advanced countries, such as domestic work, taking care of the aging population and other human service-related work. Caught in the grip of global competition and neoliberal policies, President Gloria Arroyo’s regime has opted for the institutionalization of labour migration as a central measure to counter the economic crisis in the country. It is also the most profitable way of global trading, with less capital investment and risks on the part of the sending country and the expectation of high returns in the form of remittances. The aggressiveness of this human trading was even shown during the wars in Lebanon and Iraq, when President Arroyo announced that she was sending more “supermaids” to Middle East countries, while other governments were sending rescue vehicles for their citizens living in these countries. According to Philippine economic indicators, the remittances of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) exceed foreign direct investment in the country. Remittances per annum amount to about US$12-14 billion, which only includes

those working legally abroad, whereas many OFWs working in domestic and other service work are undocumented. The Philippine government relies heavily on the remittances the OFWs send to their families to compensate for the lack of spending on social services such as health and education, to boost domestic consumption and to cover its yearly budget deficits. And the sad truth is that the income from the labour migration business is mostly spent in this way, and not on productive investments, which means that the migrant workers will work forever abroad, in order that their families can simply survive and because there are even fewer options for them to return to the country, whose economy is bankrupt and corrupt. The dramatic increase in labour migration has created a large population of transnational migrant families. Thousands of children now grow up apart from one or both parents, as the parents are forced to work outside the country in order to send their children to school, give them access to quality health care, or, in some cases, just provide them with enough food.

Feminization of the Export of Human Labour Philippine labour migration has a woman’s face. According to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), in 2003, more than 70% of the workers abroad were

women. Most of them are between 25-29 years old. Women migrants live and work in more than 192 countries. They work as professional and technical employees, nurses, clerical and sales workers, entertainers, caregivers, and domestic workers. Many are employed in jobs which have traditionally been undertaken by women. Most of these women migrants who work in the service and domestic sectors leave families behind and their children are taken care of by their parents, male partners, or relatives. The function of reproduction of labour that was performed by migrant women is passed on to their male partners and women relatives. The paradox of this feminization of migrant labour is that the women who have

chances of survival at the mercy of their employers. Most of the migrant women’s families are run by their male partners. Research shows that the spending habits of the family increase – shopping sprees, spending more on luxurious items and other non-essential buying.

OFW Remittances The most often-used argument in favour of labour migration is that remittances play an extraordinary role in the economies of many developing countries – far more important than official development assistance or even the country’s foreign direct investment. Worldwide, remittances are estimated at about US $167 billion per year, and approximately 60 percent of

have had great difficulty in converting remittance income into sustainable productive capacity. In addition, most Third World countries are able to exercise little control over the composition of their labour exports—rather, they are determined by foreign labour markets, and may bear no relation to ‘surplus’ labour at home. The Philippines has focused quite deliberately on producing skilled labour for foreign markets, but remains passive in the face of international supply and demand. As we have said, remittance income is rarely used for productive purposes. Remittances go in small amounts to poor people (the average size of a transfer from the US or Europe to the Philippines is about

Thousands of children now grow up apart from one or both parents, as the parents are forced to work outside the countryin order to send their children to school, give them access to quality health care or sometimes provide them with enough food left this reproductive function in their own family to join the global workforce are still performing the same function … for families in First World countries. The effects of the feminization of labour migration on the families of the migrant women from poor countries demonstrate how the global economy is structured to benefit the rich countries of the world. The migrant women who work in domestic households in the countries of Europe, the Middle East, US and Asia are mostly undocumented, and are basically denied their rights

as workers and human beings. The worst cases are encountered in Middle East countries where these undocumented domestic workers are locked up in the houses of their employers, treated inhumanely and sometimes even killed. An increasing number of migrant women are victims of sexual abuse, trafficking, and prostitution. Despite the reports of these abuses many Filipina women still migrate and work in these countries, putting their

this sum goes to developing countries. Remittance estimates are imprecise, however, because remittances often move through private, unrecorded channels. Yes, the Philippines has annual OFW remittances of US $12-14 billion, excluding the non-formal channels: but NO that does not compensate for the social costs of migration and the development of the country. Despite this enormous amount of remittance or cash inflow, labour migration does not significantly improve the development prospects of the country of origin. The Philippines

$200 or 150 euro per month), and are used mostly to support direct consumption and spending on housing, healthcare, and education. Only a very small proportion of remitted funds seem to go into income-earning, job-creating investment and property acquisition. Remittances may not constitute a rising tide that raises all boats, but they do have a very important effect on the standard of living of the households that receive them, constituting a significant portion of household income. They represent the most important social safety

Socialist Resistance

15

Europe Irish election – a shift to the right? Joe Craig

Over 750,000 Philippines-trained nurses are currently working overseas, employed in dozens of countries , often through agencies such as this which regard them as a very saleable commodity

net of poor families, especially in times of disasters or difficult times. Far from being productive, remittances increase inequality, encourage consumption of imports, increase domestic prices for education and health, and create dependency. They increase the profits of foreign banks and have led to the proliferation of money transfer and exchange businesses. Much more money goes to the financial markets and on consumer spending than

on productive investments that could enhance labour productivity and sustainable development. Aside from the economic aspects, labour migration affects families. It has contributed to the malfunctioning of family structures. Cases of marital infidelity and juvenile delinquency are prevalent among migrant families and a relationship of dependency on the migrants is created. Global capitalists are the principal beneficiaries of the labour of migrant women in the domestic households, because they do not have to pay for the reproduction of the labour force. This is especially the case with undocumented migrants, whose monetary compensation is low and who have no social benefits – health care, sick pay, retirement pensions, paid holidays. A campaign is underway for the recognition of overwhelmingly female domestic labour as real work, and for the regularization of migrant domestic workers. It is vital that these workers receive the full support of the left and the workers’ movement.

Ireland’s Green Party has gone into government with Bertie Ahern’s corrupt Fianna Fail. They have been bought off with two government jobs. Their new Minister for the Environment John Gormley will, among other things, be responsible for the water supply in Galway. The city’s residents and visitors aren’t able to drink the water because the aquifers have been contaminated precisely because of Fianna Fail’s corruption and refusal to invest in infrastructure. The 2007 election has been described as a “vote to stand still”, opening the door to a third consecutive term for a Fianna Fail led government – against almost all predictions. The party saw its seats in the 30th Dáil fall by only two to 78 and its first preference vote actually rise fractionally by 0.1% to 41.6%. Fine Gael enjoyed the biggest increase in both vote and seats, the former rising by 4.8% to 27.3% and the latter by 20 to 51. The Labour Party did badly losing one seat and 0.7% of its vote to finish on 20 seats with 10.1% of the vote. This is a very bad result reflecting an inability to recover from the disastrous 1997 election when the party

Green ties don’t worry Bertie was punished for its coalitions with Fianna Fail (and then Fine Gael) following its ‘Spring tide’ when it won 33 seats. The Greens may have increased their vote by 0.9% to 4.7% but they did not achieve the 6 to 8 per cent of the opinion polls. Sinn Fein also did badly, actually losing a seat, almost losing another, and only increasing their vote by 0.4% through standing more candidates in more constituencies. Considering they had confidently expected to win at least 10 seats this is a major set back that has delivered a critical blow to their entire strategy of being in office North and South and having some clout when being there.

Italy - split looms for Rifondazione Liam Mac Uaid

“The left that is in goverment has completely broken its relationship with the social movements”. That is the verdict of Partito della Rifondazione Comunista (PRC) parliamentarian Salvatore Cannavò. Cannavò is a member of Sinistra Critica and a PRC deputy in the Italian parliament’s lower house, the

Chamber of Deputies. Speaking about the events of “No Bush Day” on June 9th, when George W. was in Rome to meet Prime Minister Romano Prodi and the Pope, he pointed out that the march of 80 000 showed that there is now an opposition on the left of Italian politics. Cannavò argues that Rifondazione has failed as an

Prominent among the casualties were Seamus Healy and the Socialist Party’s Joe Higgins. The SP also failed to get Clare Daly elected in North Dublin. Generally the left might console itself with the thought that it generally held its vote, with a good result for the SWP front in Dún Laoghaire. But others did not do so well and the failure of Joe Higgins will reflect general disappointment, this also reflecting an electoralist fixation on seats as opposed to the quality and quantity of the vote. How can such a conclusion be drawn? A rightwards drift can be seen in the evolution of those parties that many still judge to belong to the left. The Labour Party’s platform endorsed tax cuts for the middle class and the current low tax on capital. The Greens also accepted the latter and Sinn Fein kicked off its campaign by dropping its marginally progressive tax increase proposals on corporations and those earning in excess of 100,000 euro a year. The latter party’s rush to the right has been the greatest of any party over the last number of years and thus arguably

done more to shift general politics to the right than any other. All these parties signalled their compatibility with the reactionary policies of the two main parties by touting themselves as coalition partners, something Sinn Fein for example had not done in previous Southern elections. In general terms even the manifestos of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael were noted as promising less on poverty reduction and on health provision than those of 2002. The Irish economic boom is ending and further attacks on workers’ interests will be accelerated by this election result. But its end will also begin to end illusions that property will make everyone rich or that some redistribution by taxes will cure structural inequality and the mass of social problems that exist. Workers, at different times and in different places, will fight back. The task of socialists will not simply be to support their demands or generalise their struggle. It will be to give them some political leadership and a political alternative. The truth is that this election recorded a shift to the right. The shift is neither decisive nor catastrophic.

organisation because its leaders are inadequate and their project of being in Prodi’s government is wrong. While Cannavò headed the demonstration opposing Bush Rifondazione leaders were almost alone at a partyorganised demonstration in Piazza Del Popolo. Prodi now heads a coalition that reaches from Rifondazione Comunista to the right wing Partito Democratico, a procapitalist party explicitly based on the US Democrats. The government’s programme includes the retention of Italian troops in Afghanistan and a package of neo-liberal reforms. Rifondazione is playing an impossible game by trying to be both part of the government

and the electoral voice of opposition to the government’s agenda. Sinistra Critica had fought to prevent Rifondazione from being part of this alliance. Cannavò has already made up his mind, saying that he has stopped paying his dues and that as far as he’s concerned his relationship with the PRC is over – but that the issue needs to be discussed more fully in Sinistra Critica. The tightly organised left current has agreed to have a special conference in September. It is almost certain that they will decide to leave the party en masse and establish an organisation that will continue the fight against the war and Prodi’s neo-liberalism.

16 Socialist Resistance

WORLD WIDE

Venezuela DEBATE

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s recent refusal to renew the licence of a private television company Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) for using the public airwaves has triggered a new polarisation, and something of a debate over how media freedom and democratic access to the media can be achieved and maintained in the process of socialist revolution. Here we carry three initial responses to the events and the hysterical bourgeois response to Chavez’s action.

Media in Venezuela: from mythology to liberation Dan Jakopovich Free socialism is based on respect for and strengthening of the widest democratic freedoms, and freedom of thought and expression are elementary democratic rights. From that libertarian socialist point of view I will attempt to deliver my own critical analysis of Chavez’s recent refusal to renew the licence of a private television company Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) for using the public airwaves, but also a critique of the position from which this decision was attacked in the corporate media around the world.

Lies and selectivity in mass media Lies and selectivity characterise the capitalist media’s reports regarding the Left in Venezuela, and the approach to these current events certainly does not deviate from the usual practice. It is important to make a few things clear. Firstly, it is useful to know that RCTV is not an “independent” media (let alone “the voice of the people”), but is actually a private television channel owned by a billionaire oligarch Marcel Granier. RCTV and Marcel Granier are not fighting for the “freedom of the people”; they are defending conservative interests and privileges of a few RCTV owners and tycoons. Secondly, it is important to note that, in spite of what the mainstream media maintains, Chavez did not “outlaw” RCTV, but has only refused to renew the concession of this private television for using the TV frequency which is a public good, and is by Constitution (written long before the left

came to power) under the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Venezuelan government. The decision not to renew the permit of the private capitalists for using this public good does not stop RCTV from continuing to broadcast their programme on cable or satellite television. Chavez did not close any radio or television station. Thirdly, why was the RCTV permit to use a public TV frequency denied? Certainly not simply because of its “critical stance towards the government” or “the support for oppositional candidates” as the BBC lied. For example, Human Rights Watch has concluded in their report Venezuela’s Political Crisis that “Far from providing fair and accurate reporting, the media by and large seek to provoke popular discontent

and outrage in support of the hard-line opposition” (Human Rights News, October 9, 2002 ). RCTV went far beyond that, openly breaking the Venezuelan Constitution and the “Law of Social Responsibility for Radio and Television”. Against the law and against the Constitution, RCTV called for political violence and public disturbances. It called on the public to bear arms and attack the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez. RCTV had announced that Chavez resigned (while he was actually abducted by the insurgents). Do the mass media have a right to knowingly lie to the people? When millions of Venezuelans took to the streets, helping to defeat the coup and reinstate Chavez as president, RCTV refused to broadcast this, just like it refused to inform the public

that the coup had failed – and broadcast only cartoons instead! Aside from taking part in a coup against a democratically elected government in April 2002, RCTV also actively encouraged economic sabotage, which, according to a number of sources, cost the country $10-11 billion (a sum of $14 billion had also been suggested). All this had helped bring Venezuela to the brink of a civil war, and had opened a way for a possible American military intervention as well. What country would allow a private television station that had participated in a coup to continue broadcasting its programme on a public frequency after the coup had failed? In Venezuela, one such station continued doing so for an additional five years. Marcel Granier was not arrested or even accused of treason, a charge which would very probably have been raised in UK and US for the same activities. Hypocrisy is the quintessential virtue of the bourgeoisie.

Private or public? The state in Venezuela certainly does not have total control over the media. In Venezuela, as the official June 2006 report of the Venezuelan Ministry of Communications and Information states, the vast majority of the Venezuelan mass media (TV and radio channels, as well as newspapers) are privately owned: ! 90% of the TV market is in the hands of 4 private TV companies: RCTV, Televen, Globovision and Venevision. ! 79 of the total of 81 TV channels (97%) are private property. ! 706 of the 709 (99%) radio stations are private, and all 118 newspapers are

private. Marcel Granier owns 40 other TV channels throughout Venezuela (mostly local). The stockholders of Empresas 1BC (the company which owns RCTV) reflect a “dense tangle of blood and wealth” (George Ciccariello-Maher, Zero Hour for Venezuela’s RCTV, Monthly Review Zine), linking Granier through intertwined dinastic ties with the owners of other leading private media corporations. Apart from RCTV, the largest TV channel Venevision, whose main stockholder is Gustavo Cisneros, one of the richest men on the planet according to Forbes, is also fiercely opposed to the left-wing government of Hugo Chavez. Globovision, one of the 4 strongest TV companies, is particularly critical towards the government. Even the Washington Post published an article which states: “Free expression is exercised in Venezuela. Another influential television station, Globovision, lambastes the Chávez government frequently, and Caracas boasts a range of newspapers, many of them with an anti-government bent. ...” (Juan Ferero, Pulling the Plug on Anti-Chavez TV, Washington Post, January 18, 2007) All this tells a lot about the alleged media “control” by Chavez. Pitiful is a democracy where “public discussion” and thought is manufactured by a handful of media moguls.

State or public? Still, we shouldn’t fool ourselves. Opinion polls indicate that the RCTV question has split the Chavez support base. The majority of the popu-

lation generally supports Chavez, but this was an unpopular decision, as it might had been expected (and not just because RCTV brought widely watched soap-operas and sexually provocative material). Internal and international damage caused by the nonrenewal of licence to RCTV could cost far more than the presumed benefits. The resolution of the 12th World Congress of the Fourth International “Dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist democracy”, written in 1985 by the distinguished Marxist theorist Ernest Mandel, might be somewhat instructive here. It particularly highlights the necessity of preserving the widest democratic freedoms and pluralism in the course of the development of a new society, and warns of the negative consequences of stifling those liberties. Socialism heralds an expansion and deepening of democratic freedoms, not their reduction. Even from a purely pragmatic angle, repression over the human rights of capitalists (which of course doesn’t include their privileges) seems to bring more damage than benefit to the revolution. For Mandel, a moderate exception in terms of media control can be made in situations of open war or physical hostilities, when the capitalists constitute a direct antidemocratic physical threat to the new order, and stricter methods are needed. It is obvious, however, that Chavez took this measure from a position of power and relative security. A more radical democratisation of the media is needed, with more initiatives for establishing and developing participatorydemocratic and communityrun media.

WORLD WIDE 17

Socialist Resistance

Media debate Giant demo backs call for democratisation of airwaves The National Association of Free and Alternative Community Media (ANMCLA) demands the expropriation of the private media magnates of their transmitters and equipment, and the establishment of direct-democratic control of the population over the new TV channel. The capitalists should have the right to free expression, but they do not have the moral right to hold special privileges because of their wealth. Similarly, it is necessary to transcend the privileged position of the administrative apparatus, which should serve the people. The struggle against state control on all levels in the Venezuelan society, including the media, is a critical issue for the future of the Venezuelan experiment. This demand for the socialisation of media is particularly interesting and important. It is necessary to establish direct-democratic control of the population over the media programme, largely through non-privileged, easily and quickly recallable delegates directly responsible to the masses and derived from the self-managing workers’ and communal councils. Democratic free-thinking, as the reflection of a truly democratic praxis, represents the harshest blow against the manipulative capitalist industry of consciousness. As the pioneers of true democracy in Venezuelan media, the Association for Communitarian, Free and National Alternative Media (Anmcla) say: “The freedom of expression is the expression of freedom, not the voice of privilege.”

KATHALINA BARROSO reports from Caracas on the demonstrations in support of the restrictions imposed on counterrevolutionary RCTCV Thousands of Venezuelans marched through the streets of Caracas to support the government’s decision not to renew RCTV’s licence. They also rejected the violence stirred up by some media outlets as they tried raise the temperature on the streets and incite violent demonstrations. Scores of social and political groups which support the democratisation of the airwaves assembled in avenida Bolivar in Caracas. Member of the National Assembly Dario Vivas said “It showed that the big majority is in the streets in solidarity with President Chávez and the Bolivarian revolution”. Two marches set off from Parque del Este and La Bandera at 10am. One went past the pro-revolution CANTV station. “There we gave a document of solidarity to the new manager of Cantv and then we went to Plaza Morales to give another one to the public defender, Germán Mundaraín” said the deputy. The march called on the investigating authorities to speed up the investigations into those who are causing chaos and conflict in the capital and in some other parts of the country. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez Frías announced on December 28 2006 that RCTV’s licence would not be renewed because of its constant violations of the country’s laws. The private channel came

off air on May 27th and Televisión Venezolana Social (TVes), the country’s first public service broadcaster began transmitting. This new channel is the first step towards the real democratisation of the country’s airwaves. Since Monday 28th May some of the private media companies, taking their lead from Globovisión and some right wing politicians have started a campaign to raise the political temperature on the streets. Groups of students from the universities and Caracas’ private schools responded to their messages and began peaceful protests that, within hours, became violent. Later National Assembly Deputies Desirée Santos Amaral, Calixto Ortega y Gabriela Ramírez declared on the radio that radical sectors of the Venezuelan opposition Un Nuevo Tiempo and Comando de la Resistencia were behind the supposedly “spontaneous and peaceful demonstrations.

How much does a tear cost? The people on the streets are giving an answer to the manipulation of the artists

Despite considerable provocation, Hugo Chavez (above) has not hurried to take action against RCTV

who “wept” for the loss of RCTV. During the anti-imperialist march in support of the Bolivarian revolution some groups of students and other protestors marched past the headquarters of broadcast network ViVe to show their support for president Chávez and to oppose the private companies’ distortions of the truth. Liliana Ortega, a law student at Universidad Arturo Michelena said “the artists were an instrument of the opposition, helping them with their plan to destabilise the country. The

script for Sunday 27th called for the artists to appear without make-up crying in front of the cameras.” She appealed to fellow students who are protesting at “being robbed of their freedom”. “Please be calm. We live in a society with laws. Our Constitution and our legal system provide many guarantees of freedom of expression for all Venezuela’s citizens. “I would ask my fellow students not to take part in these demonstrations and to return to classes as normal

on Monday.” Edison Garcés said “You don’t have to be a professional to realise that what these stations are doing is not very ethical. “They are abusing the fact that viewers identify with these actors’ characters. They shouldn’t be using them to manipulate people in this way.” He also mentioned the expansion of the rights and freedom to participate in broadcasting that people in Venezuela now enjoy. “It’s striking that people who before were not able to enjoy educational and informative programmes now are able to take decisions in their own communities. “We now have legal protection to discuss decisions about the economy, the infrastructure and education. It’s clear to me that the President is the person pushing this forward.” Cabo Guanipa, a representative of the contractors of Elecentro said “We have freedom of expression here, and we aren’t going to let ourselves be manipulated. That’s why we’ve come out to defend this process and the President. Patria, Socialism or Death!”.

Democratise the media Kathy Lowe

Venezuela’s decision to reclaim the public airwaves used by Radio Caracas Television prompts a wider question for socialists: “what would a revolutionary model of the media look like?” Venezuela is a society in transition. But a revolutionary government that had already overthrown capitalism would be taking all kinds of steps to redistribute land and resources in favour of the poorest and to bring the country’s assets under workers’ control. This would include the means of communication. As socialism is based on the full democratic freedoms including freedom of

expression, the emphasis would be on plurality. Debating, defending and deepening the revolution would demand the widest possible access to information and discussion for everyone. There would obviously be a place for the revolutionary party to have its own press and programmes. There would also be room for dissent and minority views. Organisatons such as independent trade unions, peasant groups, indigenous communites, women’s groups, gay and lesbian campaigners and churches, would be guaranteed media access or helped to set up their own media. Democratically run national, regional, and local media with

unionised workers and community participation, would be the objective. Privately owned newspapers and broadcasters would be allowed to continue as long as they provided a public service and public access and gave their workers and the community representation in running them. Space and resources would be made available for developing independent newspapers, film, theatre, film, TV and radio production. Media awareness would be part of the popular education efforts. The skills and solidarity of media professionals at home and abroad would be harnessed to offer communications training to union and community leaders,

neighbourhood committees and minorities to help them to organise and campaign. Inevitably, the population of a revolutionary state would still be exposed to the influence of the media moguls and their neoliberal backers through satellite and regional broadcasts crossing national boundaries. But democratic free-thinking and transparency in society, coupled with genuine improvements in workers’ lives would be the socialist way to combat reactionary propaganda. If Venezuela tries to democratise its system of communication as it moves in a revolutionary direction, it deserves the support of socialists everywhere.

18 Socialist Resistance

Ecosocialism Marcus Greville Australia is currently in the grip of an ecological and environmental crisis, one that is characterized by the current drought gripping over half of Australia’s agricultural land. This drought is estimated to be a one in 1000-year event and is widely acknowledged to be exacerbated by rising average global temperatures. Bushfires between September and December last year, centred in Victoria were some of the worst on record and were made worse by the drought. The effect of the drought has been devastating for Australian farmers and rural communities. Although rain fell in May and June it has already driven food prices up and knocked 1% off the country’s GDP. Water supplies will only start to recover however if Australia receives above average rain fall over the next few years, and if this rain doesn’t appear the threat of irrigation being cut off to farmers may be realised before the end of the year. In this election year, the Howard led Liberal government is starting to notice the shift in popular environmental consciousness, but still will not engage in any meaningful discussion about real measures to reduce carbon dioxides emissions or repairing Australia’s degraded environment. Following US President George’s Bush’s lead and the Australian primary industry pressure, Howard refuses to introduce measures that would harm the national economy. While the Stern report explained that the cost of not acting now to reduce global warming gases will cost more than introducing measures immediately, Howard remains unmoved. In fact Howard, who has been in power since 1996, has been unmoved on all environmental questions in Australia and has overseen increasing rates of environmental degradation on all key indicators. According to a 2002 report by Dr Peter Christoff of the University of Melbourne

“Laggard state” Australia wracked by environmental crisis

which was commissioned by 19 organisations including Oxfam and Greenpeace: “Over the past decade, in ecological terms, Australia has been a continent in reverse. “It is going backwards on

permanent clearing of native vegetation. This is the single largest contributor to the losses in Australia’s terrestrial biodiversity and land clearing is continuing to accelerate. While reforestation offsets

BHP, which is mining the world’s largest uranium deposit, Olympic Dam mine in South Australia, pays nothing for the 33 million litres of water it uses each day. It also consumes 10% of

centage of arable land degraded, the world’s fifth highest per capita level of water consumption, and the world’s worst record of any nation for known extinctions during the past 250 years.

“Over the past decade, in ecological terms, Australia has been a continent in reverse: it is going backwards on nearly every major indicator of our environmental health” nearly every major indicator of our environmental health, including the loss of plants and animals, land clearing and degradation, the condition of Australia’s inland waters, and greenhouse gas emissions. Per capita, Australians generate more greenhouse gases and clear more land than the people of any other wealthy nation.” Between 1993 and 2001 the number of extinct, endangered or vulnerable bird and mammal species rose by over a third from 118 to 160 which is mainly due to the

a large amount of vegetative cover, plantation forests do not provide the habitats for native animals. Australia is the world’s driest inhabited continent, but also has one of the highest levels of per capita waters consumption of any country. Water conservation projects have managed to have an impact on domestic usage but the real culprit for water usage is big industry and in many cases they pay tiny amounts for their water allocations or receive them for free.

South Australia’s total electricity production, making it the biggest greenhousegas producer in the state. To date the mine has produced 60 million tonnes of radioactive tailings and this will increase by 10 million tonnes this year. The report goes on to say that. “Internationally, Australia is a laggard state. It has performed significantly behind other industrialised countries on most environmental measures. “It has the second highest level of per capita waste production, the highest per-

“Australia also has the highest per capita greenhouse emissions of any developed country. At 27.9 tonnes CO2-e per person, this is more than double the average of 12.8 tonnes per capita for all industrialised countries.” In face of this Howard is making the case that to solve the problem of global warming, Australia and the world must embrace ‘clean coal’ technology and nuclear energy. The path for increased uranium mining was opened this April when the Labor

Party dropped its longstanding ‘3 mines’ policy which supported the existing 3 uranium mines in Australia but no more than that. The national conference dropped this policy in support of open slather uranium mining. Howard and the nuclear industry have lost momentum on the debate about nuclear power generation in Australia but the debate is not yet won. Clean coal technology is being touted as a viable way to keep coal fired power stations and the powerful coal mining industry going. At the May 27-30 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation’s energy summit held in Darwin, the energy ministers present spent most of their time discussing securing oil supplies for the 21 member states. The Australian resources minister, Ian MacFarlane described his vision for meeting future energy needs was one of coal and nuclear and this is a more or less bipartisan view point of the Labor and Liberal parties. The Socialist Alliance which will be standing candidates in this year’s federal election, has by comparison adopted a position to reduce stationary power emissions by 95% by 2020 with an overall emissions cut of 65% increasing to 90% reductions on 1990 emissions by 2030. These targets are to be met in the main through massive increases in renewable energy investment and using natural gas fired power plants as a bridge between phasing out coal and full-scale renewable power production. Like the rest of the world, dealing with the generalised ecological crisis in Australia is not possible using market driven solutions such as water and carbon trading schemes. The resources are always diverted from the most socially useful to the most profitable. The power to make decisions about the impact of our activities on the environment needs to be taken out of the hands of big industry and put into the collective decision making hands of those who bear the brunt of the decisions made, the working people.

19

Socialist Resistance

campaigns Ecosocialists to launch new international

Derek Wall

In what promises to be a milestone event, ecosocialists are preparing to meet in Paris to launch a new international. Michael Lowy and Joel Kovel, authors of the ecosocialist manifesto, have called the meeting on October 7 in Paris to bring ecosocialists together. The manifesto is symbolic of the way that socialists are increasingly acknowledging the green roots of Marxism. Greens, meanwhile, are realising that capitalism is the cause of climate change and other ecological ills. Climate change is an urgent concern for the political mainstream. But the economic roots of environmental problems in the short term pursuit of profit are pushed to the sidelines. Rather the emphasis is on individual consumer action and on ‘solutions’ via carbon

trading and pollution quotas. Equally Marxists in the 20th century largely treated environmental questions as of secondary importance and often were tempted to interpret Marxism in a narrowly productivist form. However there is a growing awareness that Marx and Engels were ecologists, concerned centrally with problems of deforestation, soil erosion, food additives and air pollution. Engels’ famous Condition of the English Working Class looked at how pollution wrecked the health of the proleteriat. Marx’s first political journalism showed how peasants were excluded from the woods where they collected fallen branches for fuel. Today capitalism still throws peasants off the land, encloses resources and makes profit from the exploitation of the

working class and the environment. The Paris meeting will bring supporters of the ecosocialist manifesto together on a non sectarian basis to look at practical ways of building a sustainable, socialist and democratic future. Green Left, the ecosocialist and anti-capitalist platform in the Green Party; Socialist Resistance and Green Left Weekly will be sending representatives. Ecosocialists from Venezuela will also be involved in the project. The socialist climate change blogger Ian Angus is one of the organisers. He notes: “This meeting is a very preliminary first step. We will get to know each other, establish a provisional organising committee, and begin discussions of projects and activities.”

The main goal, he added, would be to set a time, place and preliminary agenda for a larger meeting in 2008. There it was hoped to have broad participation from green-left activists around the world. The aim in Paris is to allow groups and individuals from different political affiliations to network so as to deepen understanding of ecosocialist ideas and to further common projects. This will be neither a talking shop nor a top-down monolith but a means of creating an ecosocialist politics that has real bite. Marx summed up the objective in Capital III:

“Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations.” The point, as always, is to make Marx’s statement real. ! More details http://climateandcapitalism.blogspot.com/20 07/06/international-ecosocialist-meeting.html ! To read the ecosocialist manifesto http://www.greenleft.org.uk/manifesto.shtml Derek Wall is the Green Party of England and Wales Principal Speaker.

Building a movement against Climate Change Roy Wilkes

THERE IS an objective urgency to the climate issue that impacts directly on social consciousness, and which helps us to define some aspects of the movement we seek to build. First and foremost that movement needs to be global, since carbon emissions do not respect national boundaries. One of the most positive aspects of the leadership of the Campaign against Climate Change is that it understands this and is working to build just such a global movement, linking up the campaigns around the world and helping to set up new ones, including in the South, (although usually in alliance with NGOs, which is something of a weakness.) And secondly, given the extreme and unprecedented depth of this crisis, the movement must be huge, bigger probably than anything we’ve seen before. This is fairly obvious but it is still worth emphasising, and it has clear implications for the level of priority socialists need to give to this work; it also implies that the movement has to be broad and inclusive, based

around the simple demand that emissions must be cut to a safe level. What this level should be is determined not by political expediency or by the economic constraints of capital but by the best available scientific knowledge. The movement will have to grow very rapidly indeed if we are going to avoid catastrophic and irreversible feedback effects – the famous tipping points. It needs to be resilient too, if it is going to avoid being knocked off course by a ruling class hell bent on defending profitability. The question that arises therefore is this: what sort of alliance can deliver on all these criteria? There are two social forces that are absolutely key to this: organised labour and the youth. The youth have the biggest stake in fighting for the planet’s future, and they also have the energy and natural radicalism to push the movement forward. But just as the trade unions have been severely weakened by the defeats of the past, so too have the students. Students today are heavily in debt and endure a much more

intense examination treadmill than at any time in the past. This is reflected in a historically low level of radicalism, certainly in the universities. Where there is a radicalisation it tends to be among younger students, in the schools and colleges. This is certainly what we’re finding in Manchester, where there is a real resonance for the climate campaign among school students but less so in the universities. But of course, the social force with the weight to really push through the changes that are needed is the working class itself. Our class has the capacity to reorganise production so it is not only rationally and democratically planned but also environmentally sustainable. As ecosocialists, our primary task is therefore to turn the emerging climate movement decisively towards organised labour, and also to ensure that environmental issues become central priorities for the unions, at the level of action rather than just platitudes. This approach implies a decisive break with the past, for both the environmental

movement itself and the unions, both of whom have a long standing and deep seated distrust of each other, at least at the level of their respective bureaucracies. The trade union bureaucracy pointedly relegates environmental issues on the spurious grounds of defending jobs. And most leading environmentalists look to capitalist governments and corporate management for solutions to the crisis. In arguing for the climate campaign to build a strategic alliance with organised labour therefore, we are in effect exposing the opportunism of both bourgeois environmentalism and the trade union bureaucracy. We are making some headway with this strategy. The Manchester Carnival is developing a real resonance among school students, and is also drawing a lot of support from union branches. We are also seeing a very positive response among rank and file trade unionists to the proposal for a labour movement conference on climate, which is

being planned for February next year. The conference will give us an opportunity to build networks of environmental activists throughout the labour movement, activists who will not only organise within the unions to build the mass actions of the climate campaign, but who will also be equipped to push forward the important debates on the sustainable reorganisation of production under workers’ control. George Monbiot ends his book Heat by arguing that this movement is unique in that we are ultimately building a campaign against ourselves. I think this is the wrong approach. We will never build a mass movement by demanding austerity. Instead, we should present a positive vision of the future, a sustainable future in which our class controls its own destiny and thereby transcends once and for all humanity’s alienation from nature. (This is an extract from Roy’s speech at the Socialist Resistance Day School on Ecosocialism or Barbarism, held in Manchester in June).

20 Socialist Resistance

International Labour Party leader faces 3 months detention

Release Farooq Tariq! Khaliq Shah on behalf of LPP

The Labour Party Paksistan has decided to challenge the arrest and detention of its general secretary Farooq Tariq in the Lahore High Court. Farooq Tariq, was arrested on 5 June from his residence in Lahore without warrants, and on June 7 sent to Bahawalpur Jail after a 3-month detention order was issued by the home secretary of Punjab. Farooq Tariq’s detention is a part of recent state crack down on political activists and workers taking place against the backdrop of the mobilisation of large numbers of lawyers and media workers against Pakistan’s Musharraf regime.

Throughout the country hundreds of political workers have been arrested and cases have been lodged against thousands more. According to the police reply submitted to the court, Farooq was arrested under section 16 of Maintenance of Public Order. Meanwhile, the jail authorities in Bahawalpur have refused to allow visitors to see Farooq Tariq, after party members and workers demanded access to him. It may be mentioned that Bawalpur is an 8-hour journey from Lahore, and the purpose of shifting him to Bahawalpur is clearly designed to stop him receiving visitors. According to the authorities, any

Email: http://www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk/WTP residentMessage.aspx ! Mr. Shaukat Aziz Prime Minister of Pakistan Prime Minister Secretariat Constitution Avenue Islamabad, Pakistan Email: [email protected] ! Mr Pervez Elahi Chief Minister Punjab Chief Minister House Lahore, Pakistan Email: http://www.chpervaizelahi.com/writemsg.a sp meeting with Farooq can only be arranged after written permission from the home secretary: this is sheer violation of constitutional and fundamental rights. Labour Party Pakistan condemns the attitude of the jail authorities and demands visitors be allowed to see Farooq Tariq. It is calling for maximum pressure on the authorities, and

messages to be sent to those responsible for this repression. Please send your protest letters to: ! General Pervez Musharraf President of Pakistan President House Constitution House Islamabad, Pakistan Fax: +92 51 922 1422, 4768/ 920 1893 or 1835

! Lt General Khalid Maqbool Governor Punjab Governor House Lahore, Pakistan Fax: +92 42 9200023 Email: [email protected] ! Tariq Mehmood Babur Superindent Jail Bahawalpur Ph: +92 62 9255298 Fax:+92 62-9255318

Workers’ Liberty opposes immediate withdrawal from Iraq Into the camp of imperialism Chris Brooks The recent conference of the Alliance for Workers Liberty (AWL) has voted to reject calls for the withdrawal of Western troops from Iraq. It concluded that the Iraqi workers’ movement could currently not survive without the occupation, because US and UK withdrawal would lead to civil war. The AWL minority which calls for troops out, including David Broder and Daniel Randall, also strongly opposes the call for immediate withdrawal. However, the occupying forces are the major force promoting civil war. On Ireland, Palestine and now Iraq, the AWL view imperialism as the lesser of two evils: they refuse to support anti-imperialist movements when imperialism creates the problem. Echoing the AWL’s support for Boris Yeltsin, it suggests that only the dominance of imperialism can develop the working class, and that the local bourgeoisie and worker organizations are too back-

ward to do anything progressive. Strategy of tension US policy in Iraq divides people into Kurds, Sunnis and Shias, and actively promotes division between them. The occupation armies have partitioned representative bodies, political parties and cities along those lines. By fostering communal divisions, and building walls and militias to enforce ethnic cleansing, US strategy divides workers against each other. The US has shipped in large numbers of arms from Bosnia, and is arming and organizing Sunni militias. Most, perhaps all, of the ministries are used by one or another militia as organising bases. Occupying troops have been implicated in terrorist bombings of civilian areas, and have even been arrested carrying IEDs. In Iraq, the results are brutal. In the first three years 654,965 additional deaths were caused by the occupation: 2.5 % of Iraqi’s population; overwhelmingly men of working age. Over 90% died

There is no sign of worried Iraqis begging US occupying troops to stay on – as AWL would prefer. violently. While Workers’ Liberty argues the occupation prevents a slaughter of trade unionists, thousands of those killed will have been trade unionists. While the AWL joins antiwar marches, in practice, the AWL wants the US and UK occupation to remain until its mission is accomplished. Nation or class? Class consciousness struggles to develop under colonial systems: the support for national independence not only crosses class lines, but also appears to be more urgent priority. Furthermore, the immense fear, violence, isolation, roadblocks, shortages and desperate living condi-

tions have broken communications and discussions between Iraqis. Outside the oil industry, many of the most militant people are taking up arms against the Americans under whatever leaderships they are able to find – even Al-Qaeda. Only the Federation of Oil Unions has been able to win even modest victories, and even they face a puppet government which has banned strikes and re-introduced the death penalty. Oil and Israel The occupation also underpins a US strategic goal: to ensure that no power in the region can challenge the US and Israeli dominance over the region. Securing US oil

super-profits reduces the possibilities of Iraq rebuilding itself and makes it an example for any other state that would challenge Israel. This is another challenge for the AWL: socialists should support the Iraqi resistance against the US. The AWL supports Israel, and opposes Muslim organizations that oppose Israel, even those with mass support Hamas and Hezbollah. Faith in capitalism There is a strong parallel here between the crisis of the early socialist movement and the evolution of the AWL. For the AWL, Iraqi selfdetermination is put on hold until the West has helped stability and workers’ organisation to develop. In 1904, the Socialist International also started to link national development to independence. For example, it called for home rule for India, but under British control, until the working class developed. It gave colonialism a civilizing role, although they stressed that capitalist colonizers would not bring development, but terror and atrocities. It believed that capitalism would give to the developing world some democratic, economic and social conditions essential for the emergence of

a workers’ movement. In Russia, the Mensheviks developed this view – in opposition to Lenin’s Bolsheviks – to say that socialism could emerge only after capitalism had developed the workers’ movement. Similarly, the AWL shows little confidence in the ability of the masses in the developing countries to overcome the divisions that imperialism has fostered. The AWL fails to admit that in Iraq today, the imperialist occupation primarily frustrates the development of working class leadership. Occupation makes it harder, and not easier, for the workers and other toilers to be won to democratic and socialist ideas. As an alternative, Resistance is republishing Leon Trotsky’s strategy for fighting colonialism and under-development, The Permanent Revolution. Despite his old-fashioned language, Trotsky’s guidance remains powerful: “The movement of the colored races against their imperialist oppressors is one of the most important and powerful movements against the existing order and therefore calls for complete, unconditional and unlimited support on the part of the proletariat of the white race.”

Socialist Resistance

21

Marxism Revolution in the sunshine – Fourth Following the International revolution to Youth Camp its end Young supporters of Socialist Resistance are getting ready to go to the French town of Barbaste in July. They’ll have an unique opportunity to spend a week with other young socialists from Mali, Morocco, Palestine, Philippines, Venezuela and more than a dozen European countries. Once there they will be running and participating in discussions, debates and meeting on globalisation, ecology, war and imperialism, feminism, family & sexuality and much more besides. This is the twenty-fourth camp and it’s entirely organised and run by the young participants. As well as the politics the camp has a lively range of

entertainment with discos, live bands and bars. Any young person who is interested in socialist ideas and likes what they read in this paper is welcome to take part as part of our group. We’ll be organising the travel arrangements and we’ll all meet up together before we go. If you are interested in going or would like to find out more about the camp ring Tracey on 07906484074 / 02088007460 or e-mail [email protected]. If you would like to financially support our delegation to the camp please send cheques payable to “Socialist Resitance” to PO BOX 1009 London N4 2UU.

NEW from Socialist Resistance

Middle East: war, imperialism, and ecology How was Palestine destroyed? Did the great powers create Israel? Why has Lebanon suffered war after war? What role has religion played in the Middle East? When did the region become the hub of the world’s ecological crisis? If you want answers to any of these questions,then you need this book. Roland Rance and Terry Conway have gathered together 300-pages of the most powerful articles written in the last sixty years by socialist,ecologist and anti-Zionist activists across the region.

Cover price £20. READERS OFFER: £10 plus £1.50 postage and packing, from Socialist Resistance, PO Box 1109 London N4 9DU.

Trotsky, by David Renton, Haus Publishing, London 2004, 181 pages, paperback £9.99 Review by Alex Miller Having recently slated Ian Thatcher’s woeful 2003 biography of Trotsky (SR February/March 2007), I approached David Renton’s contribution to the Haus Publishing “Life and Times” series with some trepidation. Would this be another piece of incompetent anti-Trotsky hackwork? My worries were unfounded. Renton has produced a clear and informative biography of “the man who refused to compromise, who followed the Revolution to its end, who wrote and argued and never gave up”. It constitutes a sympathetic but far from uncritical portrait of perhaps the most controversial leftwing figure in the history of the 20th century. For an inexpensive paperback, the book is beautifully produced, containing dozens of photographs. The main text s interspersed with brief “enyclopedia-style”entries on famous events, historical

figures, and concepts and theories. For the most part, brevity does not lead to a loss of clarity or theoretical focus, but there are a few occasions where Renton slips up. For example, in the entry on dialectical materialism he says ‘The doctrine of dialectical materialism was first associated with the German philosopher G W F Hegel, but it was later developed by Engels to become part of the wider notion of historical materialism.’ This is misleading in two respects. While the notion of dialectic is indisputably Hegelian, it is of course inaccurate to associate Hegel with dialectical materialism. Leaving out the distinctively idealist aspect of Hegel’s dialectic blurs the respect in which Marx, having found Hegel standing on his head, famously stood him right-way up again. And on the standard presentations of Engels’ philosophy, historical materialism is narrower than dialectical materialism rather than vice-versa. But such slips are rare, and on the whole Renton does a good job of filling out the theoretical background to Trotsky’s life.

1932: Trotsky cracks a joke in a meeting in Copenhagen

Renton also effectively charts the factors that led to the degeneration of the Russian revolution. He gives a sense of how civil war and the resulting near-extinction of the Russian working class set the scene for the ascendency of Stalin and the bureaucratic strata that coalesced around him. He shows how the fate of the revolution was eventually sealed by the fact that revolution failed to materialise in the more advanced economies of Western Europe. Renton’s presentation raises difficult questions about how things would have been different if Trotsky’s oppositional faction in the Communist Party had triumphed in the 1920s over the Stalinist bureaucracy. If Stalinism was the product of isolation and the failure of revolutionary socialism in Western Europe, factors outside the control of the Russians, wouldn’t trying to save the revolution by overthrowing Stalin be like trying to put out a fire by blowing away the smoke? Would the victory of the Opposition have resulted in just another form of bureaucratic degeneration? Moreover, Renton writes ‘Stalin’s success compelled the people of the Soviet Union to live in conditions of isolation and blockade, under a leadership committed to the most extraordinary policies of shock industrialization.’ How does the claim that Stalin’s success led to isola-

tion and blockade square with the claim that it was isolation and blockade that led to Stalin’s success? Renton is perhaps too hard on the old Bolsheviks slaughtered in Stalin’s purges of the 1930s. He says ‘Almost none of Lenin’s former colleagues had the courage to deny the charges. Instead they showed a mistaken loyalty to the Party of 1917. Most of the old Bolsheviks had already recanted and they were too far along this road to stop now. Others were motivated by loyalty to the party. Although their own lives were lost, they could see no alternative to Communism. Had they won, it would have meant the defeat of the Party, which was unthinkable.’ This is unconvincing. The confessions were tortured out of the old Bolsheviks, many of whose families were also under threat of torture and death from Stalin’s thugs. How many of us would refuse to “confess” in the face of such threats? That Renton’s book throws these difficult questions into relief is in the end no criticism. The questions are real, and need to be faced square on by socialists following the revolutionary road in the 21st century. Anyone looking for a quick and inexpensive introduction to Trotsky’s contribution to the socialist journey could do far worse than start with Renton’s engaging and well-produced biography.

22 Socialist Resistance

Reviews Reaching new depths of … banality Surreal Things Exhibition V & A London, 29 March – 22 July 2007 Jay Woolrich Any exhibition of work by Surrealists is likely to be of interest to socialists familiar with the long-standing links between Surrealism and Marxism, and also to a broader audience for whom Surrealism and the surreal are part of everyday parlance. But shows put on by mainstream galleries with zero input from contemporary Surrealists have a woeful track record, and

this reviewer for one approached the exhibition with trepidation. First, the good news. The exhibition includes a handful of rarely seen works by women Surrealist artists, including Leonora Carrington, Toyen, Dorothea Tanning and Leonor Fini. In particular, Carrington’s dazzling ‘Night Music’ retains a deeply unsettling impact undimmed by the passage of time. Despite the best efforts of the Surrealists themselves these women artists have remained scandalously underrated, and any exposure of their work is welcome. That’s the good news. In every other respect the exhibition surpasses previ-

ous mainstream ‘Surrealist’ shows in attaining new depths of banality. Aside from a couple of brief references at the start of the exhibition, politics is rigorously excluded. Not for the first time Surrealism is treated purely as an ‘art movement’. Instead of being seen as part of the inevitable commodification of all phenomena, the appropriation of Surrealist themes and motifs by capitalism (e.g. through advertising and the design of products for the rich) is celebrated and legitimised here, rather than being seen as a terrain of struggle. This of course comes as no surprise. What is astonishing however is both the ineptitude in the selection

If you happen to find yourself in South Kensington on a rainy afternoon with nothing better to do – and you’ve got a tenner burning a hole in your pocket – then perhaps it’s worth a visit …. of the material on show and the cretinism of the accompanying commentary. For instance, sections on an interior by Le Corbusier, on post-war American biomorphism, and on Art Nouveau, leave the visitor with the distinct impression that the curator has thrown in any odds and ends that happened to be

lying around in the V & A’s basement – any link to Surrealism is tenuous at best. Other examples of this cultural kleptomania appear around every corner. The inclusion without comment of that arch enemy of Surrealism, Jean Cocteau, gives a clear indication of the depths of the organisers’ ignorance. This is confirmed by some of the commentaries that litter the exhibition, which would be funny if they weren’t so utterly misleading for a non-specialist public. Some of these comments – for example the claim that ‘…the Surrealists perceived the shop window as innately surreal’ – manage to combine idiocy with

meaninglessness. And what are we to make of the proposition that ‘Surrealism … learnt the power of symbols from advertising’? We might as well say (and with rather more justification) that they learnt the power of symbols from Freud; or perhaps from road signs? A reasonably competent ‘A Level’ student could have done better. This generally slipshod approach even extends to the exhibition shop, where cardboard bowler hats, stick-on ‘Dali’ moustaches, and badges bearing the slogan ‘this is not a badge’ set the tone for the kind of trashy merchandise on offer. Although in a way it’s reassuring that at least some profiteers are incapable of making a cheap buck out of Surrealism without simultaneously making fools of themselves! So is the exhibition worth a visit? Well, if you happen to find yourself in South Kensington on a rainy afternoon with nothing better to do – and you’ve got a tenner burning a hole in your pocket – then perhaps.

Three titles from Resistance

NEW BOOKS DEFEND MARXISM Chris Brooks

Three new paperbacks from Socialist Resistance address some of the major questions facing the progressive movement today: Should radicals aim for state power? Can developing countries defeat imperialism? What approach should we take towards religion? All the books include contributions by Michael Löwy, the Brazilian socialist who will speak at the Marxism conference where the books will be launched. They bring to a total of eight the books we have published over the last 12 months. Take the Power to Change the World: globalisation and the debate on power is collection of essays about John Holloway’s popular theory that

radicals can change the world without taking power. Phil Hearse, who opened the debate on the Marxist left about Holloway’s theory, has collected articles by Daniel Bensaïd, Holloway, Löwy and others. This 148 page book discusses one of the most pressing discussions on the left

today. To maximise the audience for the book, it will retail for just £6. The Permanent Revolution & Results and Prospects, two of Leon Trotsky’s most famous books, are being republished in a single volume. The volume summarises the lessons of the Russian and Chinese revolutions for the underdeveloped countries. This powerful classic was recently dropped by Pathfinder Press, which means the book is generally unavailable through bookshops. In our freshly typeset new edition, both works are introduced by Löwy, the preeminent author on Permanent Revolution. It benefits from an updated translation and costs £9. The Foundations of Christianity was one of the

most popular theoretical works of the pre-war socialist movement in Germany. This book by Karl Kautsky was translated into nine languages. It is one of Kautsky’s most substantial works: the first English edition was 700 pages long. To make the book easier to read, and less costly, it is being published in the 9” by 7” textbook format, and is priced at £10. In his introduction,

Michael Löwy writes that “Kautsky’s book has the great virtue of being the first attempt to interpret, in the light of the class struggle and historical materialism, the fascinating figure of the “crucified proletarian Messiah”. “Its popular success is probably due to the interest of socialist militants to see a vision of the origins of Christianity which permits the modern workers’ movement to appropriate to itself the figure of Jesus as a prophet and martyr for the proletarian cause.” To order any of these book post-free, send a cheque payable to ‘Resistance’ to PO Box 1109, London N4 2UU.

23

Socialist Resistance We welcome letters of up to 400 words. Longer letters may be cut for space reasons. You can email us, or post text to PO Box 1109 London N4 2UU

What’s On

Activist’s DIARY Saturday 30 June

Irish Republicanism: speaker John Mc Anulty. Socialist Resistance public meeting. 7.30pm, Bennett’s Bar, Bennett’s Hill

Manchester: National Day of Action on Climate Change.

Thursday July 5

London 59th Birthday of NHS: Keep Our NHS Public rally, House of Commons (Committee Room 14), with Frank Dobson MP, Dr Jacky Davis (BMA Council), John Lister (London Health Emergency).

Wednesday July 18

London: The collapse of Irish Republicanism: speaker John Mc Anulty. Socialist Resistance public meeting. 7.30pm Indian YMCA, 41 Fitzroy Square, WC1

Thursday July 19

Saturday 7 July

Oxford: The collapse of Irish Republicanism: speaker John Mc Anulty. Socialist Resistance public meeting. 7.30 Town Hall, Panel Room

London: Shop Stewards Network Founding Conference. Called by RMT. 11am - 5pm South Camden Community School, Charrington Street, London

Wednesday 11 July to Sunday 15 July

Tolpuddle: Tolpuddle Martyrs’ Festival and Green Camp: Champion the environment at home, work and college. Learn, discuss and share ideas. Accredited course from Wednesday 11 July until the end of the Festival. For details: TUC on 0117 947 0521 or [email protected]

Thursday 12 July

London: Defend Council Housing conference with Prof Peter Ambrose, Frank Dobson MP, Jack Dromey, Cllr Abjol Miah, Austin Mitchell MP, Paul O’Brien,

Heather Wakefield, Eileen Short, Alan Walter. 10.45-4.30pm TUC Congress House, Great Russell St, central London £20/£5 (tenants). 020 7987 9989, [email protected]. uk

Monday July 16

Manchester: The collapse of Irish Republicanism: speaker John Mc Anulty. Socialist Resistance public meeting. 7.30pm, Friends Meeting House, Mount Street (behind the main library)

Tuesday July 17

Birmingham: The collapse of

Saturday July 28

Oxford. Demonstration at Campsfield House removal centre. (12-2pm) Calling for immediate closure of immigration detention centres and an end to the detention of refugees and migrants, organised by the Campaign to Close Campsfield. For more information tel. 01865-558 145 or 01865-26804 or 01993-703 994, email [email protected].

Saturday October 6

Campaign Against Climate Change planning day and AGM. Venue to be confirmed.

If you like what you’ve read or you want to find out more about Socialist Resistance, get in touch with us by ringing 020 8800 7460, or email [email protected]

Building a Labour Movement Conference on Climate Change Dear Brothers and Sisters, At the recent Campaign Against Climate Change International conference there was a workshop for trade unionists addressed by Cllr Rania Khan from Tower Hamlets, Tony Staunton from Plymouth UNISON and East London NUT activist Andy Stone. Inspired by an excellent session there was enthusiastic support for a much wider network of trade unionists to coordinate work on these issues in UK workplaces. We agreed an initial aim of organising a Labour Movement Conference on Climate Change for February 2008. I volunteered to coordinate this. So I am now writing to you for two reasons. 1. There will be an open planning meeting for this conference in Birmingham on Saturday 14 July. The venue is Carrs Lane Church, Carrs Lane,

Birmingham City Centre (directions below), and the start time is 12.45pm. Please do all you can to publicise this meeting amongst your union friends and comrades. We will need to take decisions on the venue, budget, structure and publicity for the February event at this meeting. If you are planning to attend this meeting in Birmingham please let me know by email as soon as possible. 2. In order to get some publicity for this

conference and the work of this group we want to get a first leaflet printed for circulation amongst trade unionists as soon as possible. I am therefore asking for signatories from interested trade unionists to be listed on this leaflet. All will be in a personal capacity, unless otherwise indicated. Can you please get these back to me by Friday 22nd June so that we can get a leaflet out in good time. Bob Crow (General Secretary RMT) has kindly agreed to add his name to the conference in order to get the ball rolling. In solidarity, Roy Wilkes 4, Oakhurst Gardens Prestwich Manchester M25 1JQ Phone: 0161 773 8699 Mobile: 07801 263 265 E-mail: [email protected]

You get a better view with socialist resistance

SUBSCRIBE!

SOCIALIST RESISTANCE is a monthly marxist paper. Our subscription rate is 1 year for £12 (UK), £15 (Europe) or £20 (other overseas). For more details fill in this coupon, ticking the appropriate box and send to us at:

❏ Please send me a year’s subscription to the new paper. I enclose £12 ❏ £15 ❏ £20 ❏ I enclose a donation of £…. ❏ Please put me in touch with the nearest RESISTANCE readers’ group. Name ................................................ Age ........ Phone ............................./Mobile ......................

Address .............................................................. ......................................... Post Code .............. Please make cheques payable to RESISTANCE email .................................................................

PO Box 1109, London N4 2UU

socialist

No. 46 Summer 2007

www.socialistresistance.net

Price: 80p

Spanish and South African strikers show the way to fight

Fight back now for jobs and public services! TENS of thousands of South African public sector workers have been on strike for over two weeks as this issue of Socialist Resistance goes to press. They have defied police violence and held solid in their fight for a 12% pay increase, having rejected an insulting 6% offer from a government that is paying its ministers a thumping 57% extra (see page 13).

In SPAIN, thousands of car workers in Cadiz have also taken swift and solid action to defend their threatened plant, with strikes and demonstrations that have drawn solidarity from workers in many other industries (see page 12). What a contrast with our feeble unions! Faced with a brutal wage cut for 1.3 million NHS staff, who have been offered a below-inflation 2.5% pay rise,

and then seen even that cut further in value by Gordon Brown’s insistence it be paid in stages, UNISON the largest public sector union voted unanimously to … endorse Brown for Labour leader, and has spent months vaguely threatening to ballot for some form of industrial action, hoping the membership will get bored and forget. Meanwhile some health campaigners,

defenders of council housing and the courageous school meals campaign in Waltham Forest (see page 9) have shown that broad suppost can be built, and attacks can be beaten back. The basic lesson that has to be learned is that without a fight, there can be no victory, and without some victories the unions become weaker and more prone to fresh attack. Fight back now!