Articles

Articles posted by Radical Socialist on various issues.

Condemn Biman Bose, Reject CPI(M), Build Alternative Left Pole Against the TMC

 

Condemn Biman Bose, Reject CPI(M), Build Alternative Left Pole Against the TMC

For thirty four years the CPI(M) was in power in West Bengal, and used all means to continue in power. Defeat in elections has taught it no wisdom but has brought tremendous anger against Mamata Banerjee and the TMC led by her. During the last elections, (April-May,2011) foul language was used against her by ex-MP Anil Bose, who used sexist comments against Mamata Banerjee, comparing her to a sex worker, and in the process also insulting sex workers by using the typical constructs that makes them the butt of abuse. This has followed a consistent pattern over the years, as when CPI(M) leader Benoy Konar had called upon women to show their buttocks to medha patkar, when Medha patkar came to West Bengal to exprerss solidarity with militant peasants. Now that Ms. Banerjee has been landing hard punches against the CPI(M) by opening up inquiries against several of its more unsavoury leaders like Susanto Ghosh, it has become even more aggressive and sexist.

In the last few months the contradictions of the Mamata Banerjee government have started becoming apparent, though at a slow pace. Its refusal to pay DA and its foot-dragging over the rights of unorganised workers show that all its populist rhetoric cannot hide its anti-working class stance. Its reversal of the democratization of the education system show that using the CPI(M)’s undoubted abuse of the democratic principles, she and her government are bent on turning the educational system towards an elitist and anti-democratic direction. Students and non-teaching staff are to be excluded from University governing bodies, and Vice-Chancellors’ powers are to be increased. Ms. Banerjee has even gone on record identifying one of the reasons for this attack – the fact that there are too many radical left elements among the students.

As the disillusionment with the TMC grows, as agitations begin, however, no one can help her as much as the CPI(M). Now it is the turn of Biman Bose, CPI(M) State Secretary and Political Bureau member. Asked about who is dominant, the TMC or the Congress, in their alliance, he responded that he was not able to answer whether the Congress would stay under the TMC’s sari or not. This blatantly obscene and sexually-coloured comment is yet to draw responses from the CPI(M) all-India leadership, which is content with Bose’s remark the next day that he should not have made such a comment.  As long as there are still people who decide that the CPI(M) should be the vehicle for opposition to the TMC, the TMC will have little to fear. The CPI(M) leaderships’ persistent cover up for vulgarity not only discredits but also  exposes the hollowness of any CPI(M) led opposition to the TMC which on the contrary will be strengthened.

11 November, 2011 

Resolution on Women, Livelihood and community rights

The resolution taken by Women Forest Rights Action Committee in two day consultations organized on Women, Livelihood and community rights in Ranchi on 14-15th September 2011

Resolution

A two day intensive consultation on Women, livelihood and community rights was organized in Ranchi on 14-15th September 2011 by Women Forest Rights Action Committee, Jharkhand Women Commission, Shramjivi Mahila Samiti, Center for World Solidarity, National Center for Advocacy Studies and National Forum of Forest People and Forest Worker. In this consultation over 300 women leaders and delegate from 12 states from various organizations took participation. The focus of the consultation was to ensure the community forest rights and control of Non Timber Forest Produce (NTFP) of women in the forest. On the basis of such intensive consultation a total of 55 resolutions were adopted. These resolutions are in two parts:

1. Resolution for Central and State governments.

2. Resolution to build up strong organizational strategy to strengthen the rights of women over the forest and to strengthen the forest rights movement in the leadership of women.

 

These resolutions are:

1- Resolution for Central and State governments.

 

 

1.1 The recommendation to constitute a commission to formulate the Minimum Support Price by Sh. T. Haque Committee should be immediately implemented.

 

1.2 To ensure the rights of women in all kind of community forest rights the claims process under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) should be accelerated immediately.

 

1.3 The provisions of FRA are discriminatory in terms of ST, non ST and other forest dwellers (OTFD) where the cut of date for these communities are different. There is provision of 75yrs of residence proof for OTFD, this provision is causing lot of impediments in the implementation of Act resulting into caste and communal divide among forest people. It can further lead into civil war inside the forests.  The cut off date for both the communities depending on forest for their livelihood should be same.

 

 

1.4 In all the states the list of NTFP should be made available to village forest rights committee. The women should also make the list of NTFP available in their nearby forests. The women participation should be ensured in the FRC’s.

 

1-1    The list of NTFP should be compiled state wise as large population especially women are dependent on these NTFP and the control of forest corporation and middle men should be removed. The control of NTFP should rest with the community. In order to make list of NTFP the working plan document of forest department should be consulted.

 

1-2  The monopoly of forest department and state on Tendu-Kendu leaves and bamboo should be removed.

 

1-3  In order to determine the minimum support price of NTFP the help of Trade union organization and social organization like New Trade Union Initiative, Sharmjivi Mahila Samiti and National Forum of Forest People and Forest Workers should be taken.

 

1-4    In order to collect NTFP the role of Forest Corporation and contractors should be completely eliminated and in every village the collection of the forest produce should be done by forming women cooperatives. Women should be given training and awareness regarding this new institutional building.

 

1-5  Training and awareness should be imparted especially to single women for collection of NTFP and efforts should be done to strengthen their organization.

 

1-6    In all the states the transit permit is not given to forest people to take their forest produce from one place to other, the old transit rules should be terminated. New rules should be formed in consultation with FRC’s in the context of FRA so that the loot of forest produce by contractors and mafia could be stopped.

 

 

1-7    The state should intervene to ensure appropriate value for the forest products. In order to empower women the control and management of NTFP should be given to women.

 

1-8    In the light of enforcement of FRA, the Indian Forest Act 1927 (IFA) has no relevance. The preamble of FRA clearly states that the Act has been enacted to mitigate the ‘historical injustices’ inflicted to forest people during colonial times and there after. The historical injustices can’t be undone until and unless the colonial Act IFA is repealed.

 

1-9    The Forest Rights Act and PESA ( Panchayat Extension in Scheduled Areas) are reciprocal to each other hence both these Acts should be implemented in coordination.

 

1-10            Any official working against or misleading against the FRA should be punished and criminal case should be filed against such official according to section 7 of FRA. The judiciary from the session Courts to Supreme Court should be sensitized regarding these provisions of the special Act.

 

1-11            The traditional health system that was based on the herbs and medicinal plants should be revived again and the health of women and forest dwellers should be ensured in the forest area by reviving the old health system.

 

1-12            Traditional healers should be encouraged and empowered to treat small ailments in the villages. Women in the forest area should be trained to take care of gynea related problems. The traditional health system should be used for preventing diseases among women and forest community.

 

1-13            In order to prevent various killer diseases inside forest regions, the medicinal plants should be planted more rather than commercial plantation funded by either World Bank or Japan International Cooperation.

 

1-14          The formation of Forest Rights Committees should be done at the hamlet level and not at the level of Panchayat.

 

1-15          The responsibility of management and protection of forest should be given to Village council or FRC’s, equally represented by women and no interference should be allowed by forest department.

 

 

1-16            In order to promote the forest based industry and forest based products the products made by multinational companies should be banned in local haat and markets.

 

1-17            The Center and State governments should build a special provision for promotion and empowerment of traditional healers in their budget plan.

 

1-18            Special provisions should be made for women from the forest areas in the gender budgeting.

 

1-19            Strong measures should be taken by Central government to stop the interference of forest department in the forest. But there should be minimum interference from the government also.

 

1-20            In light of the “ historical injustice’ enshrined in the preamble of Forest Rights Act, all big projects resulting into displacement that is resulting into  destruction of rivers, forest, flora and fauna should not be implemented at all.

 

1-21          The forest people especially dalits, adivasis, women victimized and intimidated in name of ‘maoist’ should be immediately stopped. The false cases filed on them by forest and police department should be withdrawn immediately in order to honor the FRA that talks about mitigating the historical injustices inflicted by state on forest people.

 

1-22            In agriculture also the rights should be given to grow the herbs and medicinal plants to traditional healers, they should be provided training for this. The traditional healers should also be given right to treat birds, wild animals and government should equip them with all facilities.

 

1-23            The government should also give recognition to traditional knowledge system.

 

1-24            The attempt by capitalist countries to patent the NTFP should not be allowed at all by our government.

 

1-25            Single women in the forest areas should be identified and listed. They should be encouraged to file both individual and community rights.

 

 

1-26            Women in the forest areas are most affected due to forcible displacement and loot of forest as a result they are subjected to immoral trafficking. The destruction of forest and displacement should be stopped in order to protect the dignity of women.

 

1-27            The individual and community forest rights of single women should also be recognized so that their livelihood is protected and ensured for the future generation.

 

1-28            The family headed by single women’s ownership title to forest land and resources should be recognized under FRA.

 

1-29            The government should promote forest based industry in which single women should be given priority.

 

1-30            The PTG (primitive tribal groups) groups that have not been identified as PTG yet, who have been forced to move out from the forest in the historical process due to deforestation should be identified, listed and brought under the purview of FRA.

 

1-31             The PTG groups in our country are yet to be identified properly, their specific problem should be understood and their number should be listed out.

 

1-32            A special budget plan should be made for PTG groups for their development.

1-33            The habitat rights of PTG groups should be recognized according to FRA as the habitat rights are not restricted to 4 hectare limit.

 

1-34          The community should have mining rights, all rights related to mining should also be brought under purview of FRA and any mining lease should not be given without the consent of gram sabha.

 

1-35          To establish NTFP based industry in our country and to bring livelihood benefits to forest based population a consultation should be organized across the country. There should be amendment in cooperative laws to eliminate the control of government in cooperatives.

 

1-36            Private companies operating in the forest areas should also be punished for violating the environmental laws. These companies have taken control over the forest and in many areas are providing funds to Maoists. They have created a civil war like situation in the forest regions, criminal cases and sedition cases should be filed against such erring companies.

 

1-37            In order to build up the women leadership and to empower them, they should be imparted training and knowledge to come in the forefront. They should be educated through radio and TV.

 

1-38          The recommendation of N.C Saxena Joint Review Committee on Forest Rights Act jointly formed by Ministry of Tribal Affairs and Ministry of Environment and Forest should be immediately implemented.

 

 

4. The strategy to strengthen the women organization around forest rights:

2-1 In order to strengthen the women rights over the forest and natural resources strong women organization should be build up in forest regions. In all area women forest rights action committee should be built up to take the future challenge of forest rights movement.

 

2-2 A federation of forest rights committees should be formed in the leadership of women.

 

2-3 It is through struggle that women leadership will emerge. The issues of struggle should be identified such as control of women over the natural resources and the struggle should be intensified in the forest areas.

 

2-4 More and more knowledge imparting training should be given to women to enhance their leadership skills. There critical political consciousness should be raised by various programmes such as pad yatra and programmes should be built up with them by reaching out to them in far flung forest areas.

 

2-5 Entire plantation should be carried out by women as a movement, they should challenge the state promoted corporate funded commercial plantation. As a movement the plantation of medicinal plants, environment friendly and other trees used by the community should be started in the forest area.

 

2-6 In contemporary context there is big challenge in front of forest movement to save the forest from all the vested interests, to save it to from becoming carbon dumps and save it from various climatic negotiations imposed by the capitalist world. Strong strategy needs to evolve in each forest areas to fight the onslaught by international agencies.

 

2-7 In order to form women cooperatives an intense discussions and consultation should be organized. For this process the help of various independent trade union organizations like NTUI and social movement like NFFPFW should be taken.

The Greek general strike of 19 and 20 October

The Greek general strike of 19 and 20 October

(by Pandelis Afthinos and Andreas Kloke)

The 48-hour political strike of 19 and 20 October was another highlight of the class struggle, clearly expressing the intention of the workers and the middle classes to overthrow the government. On Wednesday, October 19, about 400-500,000 demonstrators took to the streets in Athens and a total of around one million in Greece as a whole. The demonstrations were the largest since the fall of the junta in 1974 and unambiguously demonstrate the enormity of social discontent, along with the determination of the working masses to fight against and overturn the barbaric capitalist policies of the government, the bankers, and the luminaries of the Troika. The general strike had been prepared in the best manner by strikes in various industries and by the occupations of ministries, town halls and other public buildings.
This made it difficult for the Government to maintain "normal" economic life and state administration. It was quite obvious how sharp the conscious breach expressed by the the protesters with the prevailing policy had become, how deep the pent-up anger that erupted. From the square occupations in June the strikers turned to occupations of public administration buildings, thus indicating a qualitatively new situation. However, there was no occupation of firms and workplaces. The mass meeting the next day, October 20, at Syntagma Square was also enormous, with some 100,000 striking workers. Still, it was not sufficient to prevent Parliament from approving the 41 articles in the new bill. This list of measures will have a severe and intolerable impact on the lives of millions of workers, pensioners and unemployed.

 

Once again the protests were met with a brutal police crackdown. All the militants of the movement should offer their warmest condolences to the family and comrades of Dimitris Kotsaridis who was assassinated by police repression at a demonstration, organized against the government of social cannibalism and blind obedience in the service of national and international capitalism. The overthrow of the existing system and the victory of the workers will be the only effective retaliation for the loss of this fighter, and it will honor his memory.


The leaderships of the two leftist parties represented in Parliament contributed decisively to the inability of the strike mobilizations to keep the aggressive policy of the capitalists from proceeding. The Chairman of the left-reformist alliance SYRIZA, Alexis Tsipras, denounced the conspiracy of silence on the part of government with which they covered their policy. However, he limited his oppositional stance to the call for elections. Thus, he was not only far behind the needs of the huge majority of the working class, but also behind their willingness to be involved in a radical social upheaval.

Nevertheless, it is beyond doubt that the KPG (KKE) and its trade union front PAME took the worst and most negative political stance during these events. On the day of the planned encirclement of Parliament the leadership of PAME seized the opportunity to make sure its contingent in the demonstration marched in front of Parliament and "encircled" it in such a way that the back of the demonstrators was turned toward the Parliament building. This was intended to protect Parliament from any possible radical and confrontational attitude on the part of other protesters. This goal was clear, though PAME was in contact with the other parts of the movement—unions, associations and political and social organizations—for the first time after many years. This has to be stressed since the PAME contingent is usually kept away from all other demonstrators in a completely sectarian manner. In fact, however, the contact in this particular case was meant to create a buffer, a guarantee for the normal functioning of parliamentary procedures. The KKE and PAME contingents, whose members appeared in full uniform, prevented all of the others from lining up in front of Parliament. Militants of the PAME used physical force and beat up members of several other contingents whom they considered "dangerous." And not satisfied simply with this, KKE and PAME went on to distort the facts in order to accuse those they physically assaulted of being “police agents” in the well-known Stalinist style.


It's undeniable that at this crucial moment the KKE followed its own logic and belief, as if there is no movement except its own. Therefore, everybody who does not support the party is an enemy. At the same time the party gained badges of honor, due to its willingness to compromise and to its loyalty to the government and to the system as a whole. It did everything in its power to ensure that the encirclement of the Parliament was not a real siege, limiting the mobilization to an admittedly massive, but still peaceful—and ultimately, therefore, harmless and ineffective—protest based on traditional patterns. The KKE leadership is entirely fixated on the rules of the parliamentary system and is preparing the party forces for expected developments. It is not unlikely that in the coming weeks elections will be announced. If this is what happens, KKE would like to appear as the responsible party of the Left and as a reliable opposition that consistently refuses subversive and confrontational practices. This attitude will continue regardless of what government is ultimately created, the government organized by single party or a government of "national unity."

Because of such practices, PAME was denounced by thousands of activists who were involved in the mobilization. Nevertheless it has to be emphasized that this legitimate and basically correct political criticism of PAME cannot in any way justify the attack on the PAME contingent which was carried through with stones, boards, smoke bombs and Molotov cocktails by members of some groups that define themselves within the anti-authoritarian and anarchist spectrum. Anything that promotes the use of force within the working class movement is not acceptable, because it is not directed against the forces of repression. It has a destructive impact on the development of the movement itself. The result of these practices was, in fact, that an extraordinary manifestation of workers’ anger dissipated inconclusively. The bourgeois propagandists took the opportunity to talk about a kind of civil war, and this deters some workers who are participating in such protests and demonstrations for the first time.


Some groups of the autonomous-anarchist current referred in their statements to the Stalinism of the KKE and tried to justify the violent attacks as a kind of public anger against the logic of PAME that attempts to hegemonize the entire movement. But these accusations can and should convince no one. In reality, these groups follow a similar logic when they commit acts of violence at every demonstration in a wholly arbitrary and uncontrolled fashion. In this way they inhibit the organized mass contingents from implementing their own plans. On the other hand, it is not correct to hastily denounce these groups as a camouflaged part of the security state apparatus, etc. It is undeniable that the anonymity of the autonomous-anarchist spectrum and the wearing of "hoods" on the street make them more susceptible to infiltration by police agents. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable to simply dismiss all these groups as police agents and quasi-governmental mechanisms. Furthermore, the block of people who started the attack on PAME was totally disorganized, without banners, and therefore its composition is unknown. The explanation presented by KKE and PAME, that disguised police provocateurs had planned the attack beforehand and then carried it out, is insufficient and does not lead to relevant political conclusions.


The real background to the emergence of such behaviors is a fetishism of violence as a means of resolving political conflicts. This fetishism finds fertile soil in a certain milieu, especially among the youth. It is a kind of fixation on violent behavior that is, in the final analysis, far from any political and organized forms of protest that could be really dangerous to the system. The fire of the Marfin Bank on 5 May 2010, when three bank employees were killed, is characteristic in this respect. Just the day before there was an attack on a teachers’ contingent and on the following day attacks on KKE members and on district offices of the party in the style of a mafia feud. All this has nothing to do with anticapitalist struggle; quite the opposite.


Regardless of the media reports regarding who should be blamed for the physical altercations at Syntagma Square, there is no question that the logic of the KKE—to organize "reasonable" and "peaceful" demonstrations without any prospect of an escalation, which is clearly against a mood in the movement that is prepared for a massive collision—is deeply flawed. Equally, however, the tactic of uncontrolled violence must be condemned since it amounts to meaningless and purposeless destruction and pushes in a direction which is contrary to the goals of the workers' and popular movement. Even an explicit understanding of the police-style function that the PAME leadership exercised within the movement does not in any way justify the attacks with Molotov cocktails on striking PAME protesters. Such practices can only provoke disgust and outrage. The answer to the tactics of the KKE and PAME must be given by the movement itself in a political way, not by anonymous groups that claim to reflect the popular mood. However, it must also be noted that the orientation of the Communist Party to take over primary responsibility for the defense of civil institutions can only be destructive to the labor movement, in both the short and long term.


Despite all, and for various reasons, there was a lack of mass sentiment that would have seriously projected a storming of the Parliament or its actual encirclement during the two strike days. This was crucial, and ultimately made clear that the decisive spark did not exist. On Wednesday the strikers approached the fence and tore it down, but no large crowds were involved. On Thursday, more radical forms of struggle could barely be noticed. Nevertheless, only through such a radicalization of the mass mood can the logic of PAME, or of some of the anti-authoritarian autonomous groups that want to represent the movement as a whole, be overcome. What is needed in the coming weeks is a continuation of the massive occupation of public buildings (town halls, ministries, etc.) and the escalation of long-term strikes and mobilizations aimed at paralyzing production by a political general strike calling for the overthrow of the government.

In this sense, neither PAME nor any other group can claim the right to position itself "in the vanguard in front of the Parliament." Any serious proposal for the movement, its stance and tactics, must be based on political criteria and objectives, not on journalistic commentary from the outside. It will be of paramount importance to all anti-capitalist revolutionary forces in the near future to develop a current within the labor movement that attempts to promote the workers united front, attempting to become dominant during the next wave of strikes, demonstrations and occupations. This current will come into an irreconcilable conflict with the miserable policy of compromise and capitulation of the union bureaucracy, the logic of the military-police-in-the-movement as represented by PAME, and the fetishism of violence that characterizes certain groups from the autonomous-anarchist spectrum. What we need is a political workers’ movement that will send the government, the bankers, the EU and the IMF to the trash heap, which will eventually overthrow bourgeois society paving the way for the socialist transformation of relations.


Unfortunately the ANTARSYA statement shows a certain lack of understanding regarding the real objectives of the KKE leadership. The united action and the united front of workers’ movement must not be formed under conditions projected by PAME. The fighting that preceded the general strike has shown that this united front can and must emerge out of the essential qualitative development of the mass movement itself. The statement of the ANTARSYA Central Coordination Committee, in contrast, represents a retreat in the face of the policy pursued by the KKE leadership, and is therefore inadequate.

(Athens, October 29th, 2011

Support the Occupy Wall Street Movement!

Support the Occupy Wall Street Movement!

Statement by Socialist Action, USA 

Socialist Action welcomes the growing Occupy movement as a hopeful sign that the decades-overdue classwide fightback against the economic crisis may finally be taking off. We salute the bravery and persistence of the occupations in the face of police repression, media lies and politician slanders and/or attempts at cooptation.

Beginning, as was the case with similar mass encampments in the Arab world and in Europe, with unemployed and/or super exploited young workers, Occupy Wall Street, quickly forged ties with virtually the entire labor movement. Formal endorsement has come from almost every major union -- even, we must note, those who are at this very moment giving up concessions to their employers, some grudgingly, some eagerly because of their mistaken belief in the need for “partnership” and “shared sacrifice” in this crisis.
It is just those notions that OWS is blowing apart, and as a result OWS is setting an example for militant workers looking to fight their own battles and to link up with others.
As a corollary of its rejection of “shared sacrifice,” OWS insists on its political independence of both parties which are imposing drastic cutbacks and giving away trillions to the banks.
OWS has focused on the banks, on finance capital, partly because the economic crisis appeared to stem from bankers’ theft, corruption, largesse from politicians, and overlending via mortgages to prop up their profits. Most participants are as of yet unfamiliar with the Marxist economic analysis, which SA has outlined in our newspaper, tracing these financial trends back to the longer-term crisis of capital, a crisis of profitability rooted in production of surplus value in manufacturing and service industries. It is this profitability crisis, an inability to make profits through the core industries of an advanced capitalist economy on a global scale, that created trillions of dollars that could not be invested elsewhere and so was channeled either into financial speculation, or into propping up consumer debt to artificially stimulate the economy.
This distinction is crucial for several reasons. One, to explain why OWS does NOT share common goals with the right-wing populists, who like past fascist movements use demagogic anti-bank rhetoric while denouncing unions and supporting the profit system. Two, because understanding the links between finance and other forms of capital makes clear that it is the economic system which is our enemy, not corrupt individual financiers or even entire banks (much less the Federal Reserve, a favorite hobby-horse of the right-wing).
This understanding of the system and its ruling class as a whole is crucial for making alliances with all their victims, from the homeowner threatened with foreclosure to the autoworker toiling away for lower wages in a shop to the farmworker risking her life every day in tomato fields.
The pro-labor, anticapitalist consciousness of the overwhelming majority of OWS participants is shown in the applause (and hand "twinkles") given to every announcement of labor support, and by the huge cheers for Egyptian revolutionary Mohammed Ezzeldin when he denounced capitalism and its markets, and got an especially big cheer for his call for revolution. It is also seen in the numerous points in the NYC General Assembly "Declaration" relating to labor's needs and to examples of antilabor policies which the GA denounced.
Spreading this understanding will be greatly facilitated by the openness of OWS and its sister sites. OWS prides itself on “direct democracy,” on its use of “horizontal structures” and lack of “hierarchy.” This method of functioning has brought tens of thousands into inspiring and empowering discussions. Union members coming to Occupy sites contrast favorably these discussions with the undemocratic practices of their union officials.
On the other hand -- and OWS activists are openly and humbly grappling with this as the movement grows and evolves -- direct democracy as conceived by some of its more strident partisans is not the same as the representative democracy embodied in the workers councils of revolutionary upsurges such as Russia in 1917, Spain in 1936-7, the shoras of Iran in 1979, etc. To win against ruling classes with their massive forces of repression requires structures that can unify and coordinate action in an efficient and timely manner, based on the wishes, needs and strengths of the broad working class and its allies.
OWS and other Occupy sites have reacted in general in a positive way to demands of people of color for more inclusion and outreach to their communities and issues. This must be strengthened. We note also that the majority of facilitators of OWS General Assemblies from the beginning have been people of color, as well as a positive gender balance.
The Occupy movement has also forged ties with other movements -- antiwar, immigrant rights, antiracism, etc. -- welcoming them to hold workshops on site, to raise their special concerns, mobilizing for their activities – and showing solidarity in the face of repression by cops and surveillance by the FBI.
OWS has been criticized from the start for an alleged lack of demands. Some of this criticism comes from those who wish it ill. But some of it comes from genuine concern for the movement. Historically movements have grown when they place demands on the powers that be which will mobilize large masses, masses who see in the winning of those demands the potential for gains, and see in the defeat of those demands tragic setbacks, all of which inspires them to do all they can for the movement’s success. By the same token, ruling class resistance to such demands inspires workers to understand the need for getting rid of the system entirely.
OWS, by insisting on an open process, is creating a unique space for discussion of demands and program. Other Occupy sites formulated demands at the start. OWS is also making an important contribution to stimulating a critical discussion in the broad labor movement. This can serve to once again raise the question of which class shall rule society. The popular OWS-initiated statement, "We are the 99%," raises this question. When the 99%, beginning with a revitalized, democratic and fighting labor movement, takes to the streets to exercise its power, the hopes and aspirations of the OWS movement will have an ally and champion that can shake the world.
To adapt a phrase from the May-June 1968 movement in France, we believe workers will settle for nothing less than the impossible -- i.e. what is impossible under this system. They will not rest until there are jobs for ALL, healthcare, childcare, education for ALL, renunciation of all consumer, housing and student loan debt for ALL, an end to ALL wars by the US and its client regimes.
OWS activists, and workers throughout the world, know that the banks have the money we need to achieve ALL this. Reformist solutions such as resurrecting Glass-Steagall (i.e. separating commercial from investment banking) will not solve the problem. Nor will tighter regulation of the banks (which Obama has no interest in in any case). The only solution is a LITERAL occupation of Wall Street: i.e. the taking over of the banks, their nationalization, the opening of their books to public inspection and on that basis to control by councils of working people.
Getting to that stage, however, requires a qualitative growth both in breadth and in militancy of the broad workers' movement. At the moment workers do not appear ready to adopt occupation of their workplaces as a common tactic. Three years ago the Republic Windows workers in Chicago occupied their plant in a successful action that drew the nation’s attention, but did not inspire similar takeovers, despite labor militants’ hopes that it would. In Madison earlier this year we saw the occupation by public sector workers of their state capitol. There was great hope that this would be extended to state capitols throughout the country, but such hopes were dashed by pro-Democratic Party union officials who ended the occupation and derailed it into a pointless recall campaign against Republican state legislators.
We can be sure that the DP and its friends among union officials will try the same against OWS. But the latter for now is so strong that officials are forced to say over and over “we are not trying to coopt you, we are here to support you.” They are too scared even to speak out in earshot of OWS activists in favor of Obama”s “jobs” (i.e. tax break for businesses and cuts to social programs) bill!
But as the 2012 elections draw nearer, these same officials will move into action to coopt and if need be derail the Occupy movement -- not to mention to stifle rank-and-file efforts to employ union power to challenge the bosses.
Only an empowered membership can stop these officials from betrayal. And that is why ties forged while supporting existing union struggles (in New York, for instance, for Teamsters at Sotheby’s, laid-off AFSCME school aides, etc.) are so crucial.
There is a broad and dynamic Labor Support and Outreach Working Group. At the same time, rank-and-file members of the building trades set up on their own initiative a union table on site, and have collected contact info for hundreds of workers who have stopped by.
A phrase commonly heard at OWS General Assemblies is "Occupy Everything!" It stems from the understanding that the movement can only succeed if it is extended not only to centrally-located encampments in other cities, but to hundreds of workplaces and neighborhoods in each city. This ambitious strategic conception comes from a widely-shared if abstract sense that a new form of society needs to be forged and that mass action of the working class itself is critical to this objective.
It is too early to say how far the occupations will spread and how concrete their program will become before the inevitable attempt by the rulers to use police repression to end it. But in Europe and the Arab world as well we have seen successive waves of mass occupations and general strikes, so the ending of one wave does not mean the end of the movement.
However, workers and youth in each country, and globally, need to assimilate collectively the lessons of these successive waves: What sparks them, why they last (or don't), what demands will help revive, expand and unify them, and what it would take to turn a movement into a revolution.
To assess all the concerns raised above, i.e. the strategic and tactical considerations weighing on the spread of the movement and its potential program, a revolutionary party is essential. Not, as some who are leery of parties mistakenly think, to dictate to the movement. Quite the contrary. A party worthy of the name is in contrast the repository of the memory, and current experience, of movements past and present; a collection of its most militant and selfless fighters, a distillation of its people and ideas, which grows precisely by deepening its many ties to an expanding movement, and on that basis proposing alternatives for the movement's direction at each turn.
Socialist Action aims to build just such a party -- and we see participation of our members in the Occupy movement as an essential task for party building. For only a party rooted in genuinely mass movements and of the working-class-based organizations at their heart can become the kind of party capable of leading the masses to power.
Two, three hundred Occupation Sites!
Take the Movement into Every Workplace and Neighborhood!

Occupy Lahore: Anti Capitalist Camp

Occupy Lahore: Anti Capitalist Camp

 

 

Leftwing political parties, trade unions, social activists and student groups at a press conference in the Labour Party office on Wednesday 19 October invited people to join them in an Occupy Lahore: Anti-Capitalist camp at 1 pm Nasir Bagh. The camp shall continue for at least two days. A program for the camp will be announced soon.

 

The camp is being set up in solidarity with the worldwide Occupy Movement and the growing unrest amongst people’s caused by the global economic recession.

Addressing the press conference, Progressive Youth Front representative Ammar Ali Jaan honoured October 15 the world stood against the capitalist financial system . This unrest has been developing since 2008 here people believed governments would take to task those responsible for causing the global financial crisis. However, governments gave billions of dollars to bail out financial institutions and corporations at the cost of the masses. In the context of Pakistan which is facing numerous ordeals like price hikes, electricity and gas shortages, and at a structural level feudalism, and capitalism, the security state and there is a global realisation that the system that was preserved by governments has failed us in Pakistan as well and must be overturned.

Lawyer Misha Rehman said, “Very rarely do moments arise when we can get together as a community for dialogue. The purpose of the camp is to provide that space where people can discuss everyday issues, criticize existing systems and find solutions through sustainable engagements.”

“One of the slogans the Occupy movements has taken up is, ‘We, the 99% of the world, stand up against the 1%.’ We understand that the 99% needs to formulate its political voice and this will be an opportunity for the people to formulate a political voice,” she said.

Workers’ Party Pakistan Vice President Naeem Shakir stated that almost 50 per cent of the general population has been swallowed by impoverishment. “Our view is that this space will give the silenced a voice and the hope is to find a long term plan and vision for Pakistanis who are suffering at the hands of status quo mainstream parties,” he said. He said, “the camp hopes to encourage people to leave their house and discuss the issues in a progressive environment.”

Labour Party spokesperson Farooq Tariq appealed to the residents of Lahore and its neighboring localities to join the camp at Nasir Bagh. He said the National Trade Union Federation, Pakistan Trade Union Federation, Railway workers, PTCL, Katchi Abadi alliances, the National Student Federation, Muttahida Labour Federation, the Progressive Youth Forum and other progressive groups have confirmed participation.

The speakers announced discussions were already underway in Islamabad, Karachi, Faisalabad, Mianwali and Okara to hold similar events.

Invitation to Anti-Capitalism Camp in Lahore on Saturday, 22nd Oct at Nasir Bagh

Dear Friends,

This is to invite you all for the Anti-Capitalism Camp to be set up at Nasir Bagh on Saturday, 22nd Oct at 12:00 noon. Progressive forces in Lahore are uniting to express their solidarity with the protesters at Wall Street and around the world who are expressing their anger and their disgust at current crisis of capitalism. It is clear that capitalism has become an impediment to a dignified life for a vast majority of people around the world. These global protests are a way to let our policy-makers know that enough is enough and that this system based on the exploitation of ordinary people will no longer be tolerated. It is a way of reclaiming the political space that had almost been completely taking over by financiers and industrialists with little regard for the interests of the common people. But most importantly, it is a movement that identifies capitalism as the central problem and challenges us to think of alternatives to the current system that has worked wonders for the rich but has miserably failed for ordinary people around the world.

We in Lahore wish to become part of this global upsurge against Capital. Of course, we have our own issues and context in Pakistan which we would like to highlight. Here, the failures of the system are far too obvious; Hunger, unemployment, load shedding, unequal land distribution, price hike, dictatorial attitude of the IMF and World bank, religious fundamentalism, military oligarchy and US imperialism are some of the more obvious problems caused by capitalism. What connects us to the struggles taking place all over the world is the universal category of Capital that structures our lives and it is time we try to move beyond it.

For over 200 years, the advent and consolidation of capitalism in our region has ruined the lives of millions of peasants, workers and students. It is these forces that are today uniting to initiate a struggle against this decadent system. Our decision to set-up a camp at Nasir Bagh is a first step in that direction. We invite progressive forces to come to these anti-capitalist camp and raise their own issues so that Nasir bagh turns into a festival of the resurgent Pakistani left. We know that overcoming capitalism is no easy task and it will require a much larger and prolonged struggle to fight. But its a task that we must undertake or else accept our miserable fate as being inevitable and eternal. This camp gives us the opportunity to intervene in public discourse and to ignite a public debate on the need for an alternative system. It will be the first step towards a greater movement for a fundamental break with capitalism.

All Power to the People! Down with Capitalism and Imperialism.

Obama, imperialism, and capitalism

http://www.isreview.org/issues/78/critthink-imperialism.shtml

Obama, imperialism, and capitalism

In foreign policy, the Obama administration has continued what Bush began, argues Phil Gasper


I DON’T often read the conservative columnist Ross Douthat in the New York Times, but a week after the Obama administration’s assassination of Osama bin Laden, Douthat for once made an astute observation:

For those with eyes to see, the daylight between the foreign policies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama has been shrinking ever since the current president took the oath of office. But last week made it official: When the story of America’s post-9/11 wars is written, historians will be obliged to assess the two administrations together, and pass judgment on the Bush-Obama era.
This is not exactly what most of Obama’s supporters had in mind when they voted for him in 2008, but two-and-a-half years later, the record speaks for itself: Large numbers of U.S. troops still in Iraq and likely to remain there beyond the supposed withdrawal date later this year; an expanded war in Afghanistan, with regular attacks across the border into neighboring Pakistan and high numbers of civilian deaths; a secret bombing campaign in Yemen exposed by Wikileaks; and an open bombing campaign against Libya and saber rattling against Iran. U.S. imperialism did not end when George Bush left office.

Marxists have long argued that imperialism—the effort by the biggest economies to dominate the world and outmaneuver their rivals—is not a policy, but something built into the fabric of developed capitalism, as economic competition gives rise to geopolitical competition and military intervention. The form of that competition can change over time, but so long as capitalism exists, so will imperialism. That is why—apart from minor differences—both major political parties in the United States pursue the same foreign policy agenda.

V. I. Lenin and Nikolai Bukharin, two of the leaders of the Russian Revolution, developed the classical Marxist theory of imperialism almost 100 years ago in the middle of the First World War. In his short book Imperiaism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin wanted to show how the imperialist expansion of the major world powers in the late-19th and early-20th centuries was rooted in profound changes in the nature of capitalism during the same period. “If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism,” he wrote, “we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.” Lenin’s argument was that the rivalries and wars between the capitalist powers were inherent in one of capitalism’s basic features: the tendency for capital to become more centralized and concentrated—in other words for the dominant capitalist firms to become fewer and bigger.

Bukharin analyzed this process more systematically in Imperialism and World Economy. He argued that imperialism is the result of two contradictory tendencies that exist in modern capitalism. Competition tends to give rise to the concentration and centralization of capital. As this process develops there is a tendency for the state to play an increasingly active role in managing the economy, and ultimately, he argued, for capital and the state to merge together to form what he called “state-capitalist trusts.”

But at the same time, there is a tendency for production, trade and investment to break out of national boundaries and to become organized on a global scale. So, according to Bukharin, there are simultaneously contradictory tendencies towards greater national control of the economy and towards greater internationalization. Bukharin argued that as a consequence of these two tendencies, economic competition between capitals was increasingly being expressed as geopolitical competition—political and military rivalries between states for territory, influence, and power. This is the basis of imperialism.

Bukharin sometimes described the tendency towards the creation of state-capitalist trusts as more complete than it really was, and he wrongly believed that such trusts would only be affected by outside crises, ignoring the internal contradictions that continued to exist in all capitalist economies. On this score, Bukharin needs to be modified by Lenin, who noted, “When monopoly appears in certain branches of industry, it increases and intensifies the anarchy in capitalist production as a whole … At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute antagonisms, frictions and conflicts.”

There is one other important element in this theory. Capitalism tends to create a single world economy, but development does not take place uniformly either within individual states or in the system as a whole. Instead, it is characterized—in Trotsky’s famous phrase—by combined and uneven development. Economic, military and political power tends to be concentrated in a handful of states, which therefore dominate the rest of the world. But, as Lenin noted, “the differences in the rate of development of the various parts of world economy” were increasing. In certain circumstances it is even possible for relatively backward states to develop rapidly by importing advanced technologies.

This is crucial, because it shows that the division of power between the advanced states and the rest of the world isn’t static. Even if stability in international relations is established for a period of time, it would eventually be undermined as the result of economic changes that weakened some powers and gave rise to new powers that would seek to play a bigger role in world affairs. Periodically the new economic alignment of forces would give rise to diplomatic, political, and eventually military conflict that would reconfigure the balance of forces between the dominant nations. So, for instance, the attempt at the end of World War One to prevent the outbreak of further wars by creating the League of Nations was a complete failure. Within a few years sharp differences between the major powers reemerged and the world was engulfed an even more barbaric war.

Lenin and Bukharin’s theory seems to fit the first half of the twentieth century, but after World War Two, the structure of global politics changed dramatically. Before the war, the world was economically and politically multi-polar. After the war it remained economically multi-polar, but became politically bipolar, with the formation of two rival global military alliances, one dominated by the United States, the other by the USSR. At the same time, a process of decolonization began, ending most direct control of foreign territory by the 1960s.

Wars continued on the periphery, and the superpowers engaged in a massive arms race, but there was no war between the two major powers, because the threat of nuclear escalation made them more cautious. Then with the collapse of the Soviet bloc between 1989 and 1991, the structure of the global system changed again, leaving the United States as the sole superpower.

Meanwhile, economic changes resulted in a reversal of the trend towards the greater integration of state and capital that Bukharin had described. Instead, over the past 30 years neo-liberalism has resulted in privatization of state-owned assets and much greater deregulation of the economy. Growing international integration of the economy weakened the ability of individual governments to manage and intervene in their own economies. Taken as a whole, these developments have led some on the left to conclude that the classical Marxist theory of imperialism is outdated.

In their briefly influential book Empire, for example, Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt downplayed the importance of nation states and described a world in which imperial domination was maintained by a much more decentralized network of multinational corporations and international institutions. According to Negri and Hardt, “no nation-state can today, form the center of an imperialist project.” Later they write,  “The history of imperialist, interimperialist, and anti-imperialist wars is over. The end of that history has ushered in the reign of peace. Or really, we have entered the era of minor and internal conflicts.”
But little more than a year after Empire was published in 2000, its central theses were refuted by events in the real world, as the United States engaged in a new and more aggressive phase of imperialist intervention in Afghanistan and then Iraq. The 9/11 attacks were used as the justification for these wars, but the real reasons for the projection of U.S. power ran much deeper.

One positive consequence of the Cold War for the United States was that it gave Washington political dominance over the major capitalist countries in Europe and Asia, since they depended on the U.S. military for their security. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western Europe’s dependency on the United States decreased at the same time as its economic and political integration accelerated. Planners in Washington viewed this as a potential medium-term threat to continued American global dominance. Makers of U.S. policy also became increasingly concerned about the possibility of a German-Russian strategic alliance, and the emergence of China as a major economic and military power.

The Clinton administration responded to these challenges both economically and militarily. It pushed through policies of economic globalization designed to bind the other major powers into relations of dependency with the United States. Simultaneously, it followed a policy of strengthening and expanding NATO in order to maintain its presence in Europe and weaken Russia. This culminated with the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, intended to maintain European dependence on U.S. military power.

Strategists from both sides of the political aisle began to look for ways in which the United States could use its enormous military power to keep it main rivals in check. In a report issued in September 2000, the neo-conservative Project for the New American Century (associated closely with the Bush administration) outlined the key strategic goal as “maintaining global U.S. pre-eminence... and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.”

Key to achieving this goal, according to the report, was seizing control of the Gulf region. “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” Regime change in Iraq would not only give the United States control of the second largest oil reserves in the world, it would also strike a blow against Washington’s main rivals, particularly Europe and China, both highly dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

As Gilbert Achcar puts it: “September 11, 2001 came as a terrific windfall for the Bush administration…. The spectacular blow struck by Islamic fundamentalists, former U.S. allies who had become its sworn enemies, created such a huge political trauma in the United States that the Bush administration thought it was possible at last, for the first time, to break once and for all with the ‘Vietnam syndrome’ and return to the unbridled military interventionism of the first Cold War decades.”

The shift to a much more aggressive and unilateralist foreign policy was not the result of neoconservatives hijacking the government, but a consequence of radically new circumstances providing U.S. imperialism with the opportunity to solve its problems in a new way. But the world that U.S. policy has brought about over the past several years has created enormous new problems for the U.S. ruling class. The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have bogged the U.S. down militarily.  At the same time, regime change in Iraq strengthened Iran by removing its biggest rival in the region, leading to the sharp confrontation between Washington and Teheran.

Second, while Washington has been largely successful in reintegrating the countries of Western Europe into a U.S.-dominated international framework over the past few years, the same is not true for Russia (which is still a major military power, with thousands of nuclear missiles) or China (which is a rising economic and military power). Indeed, U.S. policy makers are obsessed by the rise of China and how they can prevent it from becoming a major challenger to U.S. power on a regional, or even a global, level.

The United States used 9/11 to set up a string of military bases in central Asia. Partly in response, Russia and China formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that for the past few years had been trying to reduce U.S. influence in the region. Africa, with its important oil resources, has also become a major center of rivalry between the United States, China and Russia, with the United States establishing AfriCom in 2007, a new military command for U.S. forces based in or near Africa explicitly intended to counter Chinese “power projection” into the region.

These are illustrations of the way in which the major centers of economic and military power in the world are maneuvering against each other for advantage. None of them are prepared to stand out against the United States directly, because the costs are too high, but it illustrates the fragmentation and instability of the global system.

This is inter-imperialist rivalry of the kind that Lenin and Bukharin talked about, even if war between the big powers is not a likely immediate prospect. It still means that the most powerful states will use their military strength in whatever ways they can to pursue their own interests, typically by intervening militarily in weaker countries, or threatening to intervene.

The U.S. ruling class is currently playing for very high stakes as it attempts to maintain its dominant global position in a world in which the distribution of economic power is changing to its disadvantage. That is producing a highly unstable and potentially very dangerous situation. Other leading powers may not be prepared to challenge the U.S. directly at the moment, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t be prepared to do so in the future. Unless we get rid of capitalism, the prospect of military confrontation in the future is very real.

15th October 2011: a great victory for the outraged

15th October 2011: a great victory for the outraged

Éric Toussaint




Since February 2003, this is the first time a call for an international action on a specific date has met with such an echo. In Spain, where the Indignados movement began, almost 500 000 demonstrators marched through the streets of around 80 different cities, including 200 000 or more in Madrid from which I am writing these lines.

 

Actions have taken place on five continents. More than 80 countries and almost one thousand different towns have seen hundreds of thousands of youth and adults on the march, protesting against the management of the international economic crisis by governments rushing to bail out the private institutions responsible for the collapse and who are taking advantage of it to strengthen neoliberal policies: massive layoffs in public services, clear-cutting of social spending, massive privatizations, attacks on social solidarity measures (public pension systems, unemployment benefits, collective bargaining…). Everywhere, repayment of the public debt is the pretext used to strengthen austerity measures. Everywhere, demonstrators are accusing the banks.

In February 2003, we saw the broadest international mobilization to try to prevent a war: the invasion of Iraq. More than 10 million people gathered in countless demonstrations all over the planet. Since then, the dynamics of the global justice movement born in the 1990s has gradually faded but never entirely died out. On 15 October 2011, slightly fewer than one million people took to the streets. Nevertheless, it was a huge victory, because it was the first large demonstration carried out in a 24-hour period around the planet against the people responsible for the capitalist crisis, which has created tens of millions of victims.

The financial and economic crisis, which started in the US in 2007, has spread, above all in Europe, from 2008. The debt crisis faced by developing countries has spread to the North. It is interconnected with the food crisis, which has hit many developing regions since 2007-2008. Not to forget the climate crisis, above all affecting the peoples of the South of the planet.

This systemic crisis is also expressed at an institutional level: the leaders of the G8 member countries know they do not have the means to manage the international crisis. Thus, they have convened the G20. For three years now, the latter has proven incapable of coming up with valid solutions. This crisis also involves a crisis of civilization. There are challenges raised to consumerism, generalized commoditisation, the failure to take the environmental impacts of economic activities into account, productivism, the search to satisfy private interests at the expense of the public interest, goods and services, major powers’ systematic recourse to violence, the denial of the basic human rights of peoples such as the Palestinians… Often capitalism is the heart of what is being challenged.

No centralized organization had called this mobilization. The Indignados ("Outraged") movement was born in Spain in May 2011 in the wake of the Tunisian and Egyptian rebellions in the previous months. It spread to Greece in June 2011 and to other European countries. It has crossed the North Atlantic since September 2011 [it became the Occupy movement, after Occupy Wall Street the first of its kind - trans].

Of course, a series of radical political organizations and organized social movements support the movement but are not leading it. Their influence is limited. It is a broadly spontaneous movement, mostly made up of young people, with an enormous potential to develop that is very disturbing to political leaders, the heads of major firms and all police forces on the planet. It could die out like a flash in the pan or be the spark that sets off the fire. Nobody knows.

On 15 October 2011, the call to mobilize mostly rallied demonstrators in cities and towns in countries of the North including the planet’s financial centres, which is very promising. The outraged ’occupy’ movements have sparked very creative and emancipatory dynamics. If you are not yet a involved, try to join, or launch it if it does not yet exist where you live. Link up and take part in an authentic emancipation.

Translated by Marie Lagatta

Subcategories