Where is NZ Labour going?

From Social Democracy to Social Liberalism

by DAPHNE LAWLESS and GRANT MORGAN

Over the past century, socialists worldwide have often called for a "class vote" for social democratic and Labour parties. That's because these mass reformist parties, while elitist and pro-capitalist, were profoundly influenced by the union hierarchy and did in a distorted way embody workers' hopes for a better world.

Some socialists in this country still hold this view of NZ Labour, which they call "the mass party of the working class".

According to others, the very opposite is true. NZ Labour, they insist, is a capitalist party in exactly the same mould as National.

These two viewpoints, we believe, represent a false choice. There's another viewpoint which we put forward in this article.

NZ Labour is no longer a traditional reformist party, giving voice to some working class interests, although always within the narrow limits allowed by capitalism.

But neither has it become a carbon copy of National, a neo-liberal party of business for business.

Increasingly, NZ Labour is a party not of unions or of business, but of lawyers, administrators, "creatives" and others from the new middle class. The party's new rulers support social reforms dear to their heart, but embrace neo-liberal economics which kicks the working class in the guts. This fusion of social reforms and neo-liberal economics gives us a label for NZ Labour today: social-liberal.

While this transformation isn't yet complete, since union leaders retain some influence in Labour on some issues, it is so well advanced that only a political earthquake could reverse it.

The 'liberal' part

In the six decades between the First World War and the 1970s, the world's social democratic parties ditched even the rhetoric of class struggle and made their terms with capitalism. During the long boom of 1945-75, big business bought social peace and economic stability by allowing reformist governments to siphon off a portion of their record profits into the welfare state.

But as Grant Morgan noted in the last UNITY:

When global capitalism's profit crisis struck in the mid-1970's, social democratic politicians everywhere were faced with a stark choice. They could cut social welfare, bankroll the markets and attack workers' rights. Or they could organise a mass fightback against capitalism's rulers.

David Lange's Labour government, elected in 1984, chose the path of market extremism. These Rogernomes hammered the working class. They engineered the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in New Zealand's history.

Global capitalism demanded that its crisis be paid for by the working class. And social democratic parties were too wedded to co-managing capitalism to even think of fighting back.

Centre-left governments in New Zealand, Australia, France, Spain and elsewhere downsized the welfare state, privatised state industries, deregulated currency speculation, axed tariff barriers, backed corporate globalisation and handcuffed the unions. Elsewhere, this neo-liberal strategy was driven forward by arch-conservatives like Ronald Reagan in America and Margaret Thatcher in Britain.

The 'social' part

Today's Labour Party is dominated by lawyers, administrators, academics, professionals, artists, designers, researchers and others from the new middle class. They play an important role in late capitalism's information technology and global production. The new middle class aren't direct exploiters of workers, nor do they have a boss breathing down their neck all day. They form a layer between capital and labour, often mediating between these two main classes.

They flooded into Labour from the 1960s as changes in capitalist production hugely inflated their numbers to upwards of 15% of the population. (Whereas there was a percentage decline of shopkeepers, tradespeople, farmers and others in the old middle class.)

During the 1980s, as the ruling Rogernomes steamrollered over the union movement, the new middle class began to take control of Labour.

They sponsored the extension of gay, Maori and women's rights and other social reforms that expanded their social influence and fitted with their notions of individual justice.

Since the social privileges of the new middle class hinge on their usefulness to capitalism, most of them embraced corporate globalisation. So their social reforms came at the price of seriously worsening the collective position of the working class.

In reaction, Maori settlements and civil unions are now widely seen as Labour giving rights to special groups while workers are ignored or worse. National's sneers about Labour's "political correctness" tap into this pool of resentment.

It would all be different if these social reforms went hand-in-hand with Labour giving workers more pay and more say. But such a challenge to capitalist profits and power could only come from a party embedded in jobsites and unions which drew on the militant traditions of workers. And NZ Labour simply isn't that party.

Two class party

NZ Labour was formed in 1916 by unionists and socialists as a parliamentary opposition to capitalism.

Harry Holland, who became the party's first leader, told a by-election meeting in 1918 that he accepted the label "Bolshevik" since Lenin's socialist party had "stood true to working class principles". Holland's words didn't stop him being voted into parliament for the first time. In the general election a year later Labour won a quarter of the total vote, bolstered by a wave of strikes and the birth of the Alliance of Labour, a union federation that talked tough.

In 1925, however, Communists were banned from holding dual membership in NZ Labour. This split marked the party's shift from democratic socialism to social democracy, which pledged to limit working class ambitions to what capitalism could live with.

From that point on, NZ Labour was clearly a two class party. The union leaders who dominated the party pushed for practical measures to improve the position of workers, but in return pledged that Labour would be a "responsible" manager of capitalism.

Over the past 20 years, New Zealand's union movement has been ravaged by waves of attacks from government and business. A weakened union hierarchy has been shoved well into the background of the Labour Party by the new middle class. This process is now so well advanced that UNITY's survey of union activists found that two-thirds believe unions have either little influence in Labour (48%) or clearly not enough (18%).

The largely-completed transfer of power within Labour from union leaders to the new middle class marks the party's shift from social democracy to social liberalism.

Labour remains a two class party, committed to marrying neo-liberal economics with social reforms wanted by the new middle class. It's just a different type of two class party than it was from at least 1925 to fairly recent times.

Implications for workers

According to Marxists, the working class comprises three-quarters or more of New Zealand society. These are both "blue" and "white" collar workers in factories, hospitals, restaurants, schools, transport, banks, shops and elsewhere who labour under the direction of capitalism's bosses and bureaucrats, plus non-working family members.

But social liberalism, reflecting the viewpoint of the new middle class, denies there is any such thing as the working class.

Therefore the union movement is seen by social liberals as just one more minority group with the right to put its case, but certainly no right to speak or act on behalf of the vast majority of society.

So the shift of power within Labour has major implications for workers. The sidelining of union influence within the party, coupled with the external pressures of corporate globalisation, mean the limited reforms once offered by Labour governments to workers are now largely a thing of the past.

It's true that, to get returned to government in 1999, Labour had to promise workers some concessions, but they were extremely limited. For instance, repeal of the Employment Contracts Act gave union officials the right of entry to workplaces, but all except one of National's harsh bans on strikes were retained.

Moreover, promises made in 1999 often sounded much better than what actually happened. While accident compensation was re-nationalised, for example, ACC is now run as a tight-fisted, profit-making corporation little different in practice to private insurers.

And some policies which Helen Clark claimed credit for were actually the result of Alliance pressure inside her coalition government coupled with union campaigns outside. Paid parental leave and an extra week's holiday fall into this category.

Since enacting its 1999 promises, Labour has done many nasty things to workers. A couple of current examples: Labour won't lift the minimum wage to $12, saying low-paid workers must wait until 2008 and then cabinet will see if the bosses can afford it. And Labour is negotiating a free trade agreement with China which, warns the Council of Trade Unions, could have "devastating effects" on hundreds of thousands of NZ workers.

Even Labour's "Working for Families" package, while putting some state cash in workers' pockets, takes pressure off bosses to lift lousy pay rates. It's another tool for Helen Clark's government to consolidate a low-wage economy while reaching out for working class votes. But such political deceptions are hard to maintain for long.

What about the future?

Labour cannot be changed by working quietly, or even noisily, on "the inside" of the party. Many leftists have tried that strategy since Rogernomics, and all have failed.

But could the growth of workers' struggles strengthen union influence inside Labour once again and turn the party away from social liberalism?

While that's possible, it's more likely that a workers' revolt would create a damaging split inside Labour which fed into a powerful challenge by another party. That was certainly the experience of the Alliance days, when workers' hatred of Rogernomics fueled a left-wing splitaway which seriously challenged Labour for several years.

The Greens and Maori Party oppose large parts of Labour's neo-liberal economics. They do so, however, not as elected representatives of the union movement, but from the standpoint of Green ecology and Maori nationalism.

Right now, the working class is left without a political voice in parliament.

What's needed is a new political movement based in jobsites and unions, whose activists are solidly of and for the working class and whose objective is to replace corporate power with a grassroots alternative.

The Bolsheviks are in the Cherry Orchard.

THE BOLSHEVIKS ARE IN THE CHERRY ORCHARD
Dean Parker

The two heavyweights of 20th century Russian theatre go head-to-head in Wellington at the beginning of next month.
On the night of Saturday, June 2, Anton Chekhov’s elegiac Uncle Vanya will be ending its run at Circa, while on the previous Wednesday at Studio 77 Maxim Gorky’s explosive Enemies will open for a short five-night season.
Chekhov was middle class, educated, good-humoured, gentle—a country doctor. Gorky was poverty-stricken, untaught, suicidal, bitter—a bum, living on the margins of society until he discovered he could write.
Chekhov wanted a gradual transformation of czarist despotism into an enlightened, liberal society. Gorky wanted a revolution and suffered imprisonment for it.
Gorky was the younger man, by eight years. He had been born into poverty, run away as a child, tramped about as a migrant worker, been driven to despair and a suicide attempt.
But as a child he had been taught to read and it was to be his salvation. He read voraciously and began to write. Years ago I picked up a piece of writing by him and can still remember my eyes widening at the sentence, “The stars spread out above me like bed-bugs.”
Gorky revered Chekhov. Chekhov had the magic touch, a simplicity that revealed the complex, an irony which rebuked a class.
Gorky corresponded with him.
Chekhov advised the apprentice to show restraint in writing, to keep his descriptions short and compact.
Gorky was the humblest of petitioners. “I am as stupid as a locomotive,” he wrote.
Chekhov warned him against getting up on his high horse, instructed him that characters should have a life of their own and not be just illustrations for a tract.
He tried to convince Gorky that he didn’t need to be in a revolutionary party to improve people’s lot.
Gorky readily took the literary advice but remained unconvinced of the political. He continued an involvement with Lenin’s Bolsheviks and remained on the files of the secret police.
In 1901 he visited Chekhov in the Crimea, spending a week with him. A police agent following Gorky hung around outside the house.
Chekhov described Gorky to others as having, “the appearance of a tramp, but inwardly he is a very elegant man.”
The following year Gorky wrote his stunning stage account of life at the very bottom of the underclass, The Lower Depths.
It was vivid and violent. Directed by Konstantin Stanislavsky, it took Moscow by storm.
Nearly fifty years later, in February 1951, when Wellington was about to be wracked by a massive and bitter dispute on the waterfront, it was Gorky’s Lower Depths that the left-wing Unity Theatre was rehearsing.
In Moscow Gorky became lionised, but his fame was still not enough to prevent him again being picked up by police and jailed, accused of trying to set up a revolutionary government when strikes and shootings rocked Russia in 1905.
He was released, helped found the first legal Bolshevik newspaper New Times and then, in December, was in the thick of a Moscow general strike, helping distribute rifles to strikers.
Following the strike his position was precarious. He went into exile, travelling to the United States on a fund-raising tour for the Bolsheviks.
He continued to write.
He had begun depicting the middle class that flocked about his theatrical successes, the wavering class caught between social forces and depicted with such melancholy by Chekhov.
In the aftermath of the 1905 risings he wrote Enemies. It was proscribed by the Russian censor who described it as “nothing but a diatribe against the ruling classes.”
The setting of Enemies is Chekhovian: a country estate, an extended middle class family. But this is a family that has chopped down Chekhov’s cherry orchard and erected a textile factory on the land.
Their idle life is broken by a dispute in the factory. A virulent manager and co-owner has been on vacation and in his place a more liberal family member has made concessions to the workers. As all trainee Wal-Mart managers know, give the workers an inch and they’ll take a mile. The manager returns to find an increasingly bolshie work-force. Like Australasian supermarket giant Progressive Enterprises last year, the manager decides to give the workers a taste of lockout. For his sins he is shot dead. Military police arrive. The family is dismayed and divided. Radicals move to consolidate a presence in the factory.
When Enemies was given an English production by the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1971, a critic described it as “the missing link between Chekhov and the Russian revolution”.
And clearly it is. The Bolsheviks are in the Cherry Orchard.

Enemies
Studio 77
77 Fairlie Tce, Kelburn.
Wednesday, 30 May until Sunday, 3 June, 7.30pm.

Tony Blair resigns as UK PM- George Galloway lashes out at his legacy

George Galloway: 'Let’s unite to drive out the disaster of Blairism'

Respect MP George Galloway reviews the experience of New Labour in Britain

He will, of course, be remembered above all for one thing – Iraq. And rightly so.

In hitching this country to George Bush’s messianic “war on terror” Tony Blair committed a bigger foreign policy blunder than the Suez debacle in 1956. He is leaving office three years earlier than planned thanks to the resistance to the war both here and in Iraq.

The anti-war movement may not have been able to stop the war, but it has curtailed the bellicose ambitions of the US and Britain, and it has forced Blair out.

And in the dying hours of his premiership Blair tells us he is speaking with “total frankness” – which sort of breaks the habit of a lifetime. What he has to say is chilling.

Violence among some young people in our inner cities is not to do with society, he says. It’s beyond society, outside society, inexplicable through recourse to social factors.

You see, it’s about young black men acting on passions that have no rational explanation and which are alien to society.

I’m not sure about frankness, but this is a total obscenity from someone who occupies the office of a Labour prime minister.

It is, however, where this sorry will ’o the wisp of Blairism was bound to end up.

We didn’t know just how bad it would be, but some of us on the left knew where he was going back in 1994 when he assumed the Labour leadership following the tragic death of John Smith.

Line of march

I remember leading the “no” side in the debate over scrapping Clause Four at the Scottish Labour Party conference that followed.

Almost mystical powers have been attached to that clause of the Labour Party’s constitution that committed it to public ownership.

It didn’t, for sure, prevent previous Labour disappointments, inadequacies and betrayals.

But scrapping that commitment was about establishing a line of march away from Labour’s social democratic past towards the full embrace of neoliberalism.

You may remember the fanfare at the time. We were going beyond left and right. It was the dawn of a new age. We were all stakeholders in a land of entrepreneurship and the rigors of the market.

For the many, not the few, we had to abandon 100 year old socialist concepts and embrace modern, forward looking 200 year old pro-capitalist ideology.

Professors wrote books which journalists pretended to read.

By now – nearly a decade and a half later – the world of politics was supposed to have changed beyond all recognition.

Well, there’ve been many changes, but they are at odds with the platitudes of Blair and Brownism.

Instead of restoring popular faith in politics, Blair has presided over increasing cynicism and alienation among the electorate. He has halved the Labour Party’s membership.

The wealth of the richest 1,000 people in Britain (including 65 billionaires) has increased by 20 percent in the last year.

Meanwhile, the number of children living in poverty is rising. Gordon Brown’s last budget obliterated any claims his claque might make that he is a great wealth redistributor.

Reversal

That reputation had rested on him shifting a small amount of wealth from better off working people and worse off middle class people to the very poorest people with children by means of tax credits and benefits.

This year, he reversed that process by scrapping the 10p tax rate which helped the poorest people the most.

In foreign policy, Blair has led us into more wars in a shorter period than any British leader in history – royal or common.

He’s rehabilitated the discredited doctrine of liberal imperialism. In its wake has come a resurgence of repellent, illiberal doctrines at home.

New prejudices and old ones have been given a new lease of life. The racist demonisation of Muslims now operates in every register from the gutter to the after dinner banter at posh parties.

Blair has managed to make the rancid Tories – so despised ten years ago – not only seem electable, but become the frontrunners.

This is what has become of Labour under Tony Blair. Internally the left of the party has never been weaker, with veteran socialists standing down at the next election and no younger generation of left wing MPs set to replace them.

In the wake of the elections last Thursday and Blair’s departure it is time for the left not merely to consider where we are, but to act.

We are at a watershed. Politics is intensifying and speeding up – as it did in the run-up to the war in 2003, as it did when we came together to launch Respect a year later and, the year after that, to make a historic breakthrough in the general election.

Confrontation

Just as Blair’s ascension to power was accompanied by an assault on socialist and progressive positions in the unions, in university departments, in the media and in every area of public life, so his departure must signal a co-ordinated and systematic left fightback.

The declaration by major unions that they will not accept Brown’s 2 percent pay curb is a welcome first step.

It can provide some muscle behind the call to drive

Blairism out of our movement.

Everyone knows that will mean a confrontation with Brown. I suspect those who want to give Brown a chance – if only out of relief that Blair has gone – know that too.

There may be some clashes in the Labour Party, in which case those of us who are building a left electoral alternative will, as we have always done, give our support to the left.

But with Brown set for a coronation, and the left of the party in a parlous state, that battlefield will be far from the main front.

It is the Blairite ultras who are organising the stronger, right wing opposition in the Labour Party.

An appeal

My appeal to all those who want to see the back of Blairism is to come together to take the initiative over the coming months.

We should discuss exactly how to do that, confident that the right – from New Labour through the Tories to the filth to their right – can be beaten if the left offers hope and a fighting movement for change.

I hope that many more are convinced to join us directly in building on the successes of Respect so far.

But we want to work constructively – in the anti-war movement, in the unions, in a fight for progressive ideas – with those who are not yet convinced.

It is with mixed feelings that I look at what Blair and Brown have done to Labour.

As one of the leaders of Respect I know that Labour’s election losses last week are a necessary condition for our coalition to advance.

But as someone who gave almost the whole of my life to building Labour and defending its ideals it is deeply wounding to hear that name spat out with such contempt by so many people.

It is time for the left to rally to ensure that the disaster of Blairism is not followed by something even worse.

That means not trimming our sails.

The stronger the movements against Brown and the stronger the left alternative at the polls, the more he will not be able to take working people for granted and the more the left as a whole can advance.

The following should be read alongside this article:
» Into the dustbin with Blair
» Tony Blair: down and out
» Blair's legacy is Iraq: Nothing else even comes close
» Beware of Gordon Brown’s scowling menace
» Privatisation and cuts wreck the NHS
» This disastrous decade for the health service
» Law and order agenda has punished the poor
» Alienation, segregation, privatisation – the reality of Blair’s education policy
» Following racism down the wrong path
» New Labour's 'more equal society'
» Timeline – ten years of Blair government

May Day statement by central committee of Socialist Worker-New Zealand

Venezuela's deepening revolution & international socialist coordination

Central committee of Socialist Worker-New Zealand

1 May 2007


This May Day statement by the central committee of Socialist Worker-New Zealand takes up an invitation from Alex Callinicos, a leader of the British Socialist Workers Party, to respond to his proposal (27 September 2006) that the International Socialist Tendency (IST) adopt a new "Coordination" structure.

Socialist Worker-New Zealand has been an affiliate of the IST since 1995. We believe that the question of an IST Coordination demands that the whole IST first comes to a consensus on the global political context and critical global tasks of the IST, since questions of organisation and politics cannot be separated.

GLOBAL POLITICAL CONTEXT

Socialist Worker-New Zealand believes that key elements of the global political context include:

• Huge turmoil and rivalries within global imperialism, which is driving the US state's global war to maintain its position relative to rival powers, chiefly China, the European Union and Russia.

• The weakening of the US state's ability to assert its will by military force as a result of the heroic resistance of Iraqi people to the imperialist occupation of their country.

• Massive grassroots opposition around the world to the Iraq war, which in some countries has seen large anti-war movements emerge. If Iran is attacked, there will likely be an explosion of the anti-war movement onto the streets.

• Heightened grassroots concern about planetary environmental chaos, due to the climate change issue "bursting through" into the mainstream.

• Neo-liberalism facing growing political opposition, which is currently the most advanced across Latin America.

• Signs of rising worker unrest and unionisation across some countries.

• The deepening revolutionary process in Venezuela, marked by the "left turn" of Hugo Chavez in parallel with his re-election as president on 3 December 2006.

VENEZUELA'S REVOLUTION IS GLOBALLY SIGNIFICANT
Socialist Worker-New Zealand regards the unfolding revolution in Venezuela as of epochal significance.
With the US military bogged down in Iraq, there is more space for Venezuela's socialist Chavistas to seriously challenge capitalism right on Washington's doorstep.
This challenge has profound implications for the world's socialists. The deepening revolution in Venezuela is an historic opportunity for socialists everywhere to spotlight a real-life alternative to capitalism's inequality, eco-chaos and war.
Is the unfolding Venezuelan revolution the most important leap forward for the workers' cause since the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution? The answer from delegates at Socialist Worker-New Zealand's recent national conference was a unanimous "yes".
The masses in Venezuela are behind a genuine revolutionary project in a way that has not occurred in the last 90 years. While nothing is certain, this could well create the mass impetus for a huge revival in the international revolutionary socialist movement.
It is the world historic significance of events in Venezuela, and the implications for IST coordination and direction, that is the focus of this Socialist Worker-New Zealand statement.



POLITICAL SITUATION IN VENEZUELA
Socialist Worker-New Zealand offers this summary analysis of the political situation in Venezuela:

• There is, at present, a dual power scenario in Venezuela where opposing class forces are "balanced out". While this state of affairs has lasted for quite a while, it is inherently unstable and cannot last forever. Either one class coalition or the other will win the war over whether Venezuela will move beyond capitalism to socialism. In this war the impact of global events will play a pivotal role, since the Stalinist degeneration of the Soviet Union in the 1920s showed that "socialism in one country" cannot forever withstand the pressures of world capitalism.

• A huge proportion of Venezuela's population are actively involved in the revolutionary process. The role of the grassroots masses was decisive in beating back the right-wing military coup of 2002 and restoring the elected Chavista government. In the presidential election of December 2006 Hugo Chavez, who campaigned on an openly socialist platform, received 63% of the vote (7.3 million people). Over the week before polling day, 2.5 million people in Caracas, half the capital's entire population, took to the streets to support Chavez against counter-revolutionary provocations.

• The masses and the leaders of the Bolivarian Revolution are having to confront fundamental issues about what socialism is and how it can be won. In particular, the question of state power is being debated on a mass scale: Can the existing capitalist state be bent to a new popular will? Or must new organs of grassroots power be created to confront the pro-capitalist bureaucracy and the economic power of the capitalist class? Increasingly the answer is being seen in the practical construction of alternative structures of popular power.

POSITIVE INITIATIVES FROM THE LEADERSHIP
Chavez & Co, who are the established leaders of the revolution, have learnt a lot since the former army officer was first elected president in 1998. Crucially they have learnt from the actions of the masses of people, who in turn have been inspired by Chavista leaders who are calling for "socialism in the 21st century".
Both the leadership and the masses have learnt by having to counter the military coups, economic sabotage and propaganda warfare of pro-capitalist forces. When you are engaged in open battle, you either learn very quickly or you lose.
Early in 2005 Chavez spoke of how he had once believed in a "third way", which he described as trying to "put a mask" on the capitalist beast, but this had been "smashed by reality" and he was now a socialist. Over the last six months Chavez has moved further towards revolutionary conclusions, calling himself a Trotskyist and proclaiming "permanent revolution". He has made repeated calls for the "dismantling of the bourgeois state" in order to build socialism in Venezuela.
Socialist Worker-New Zealand recognises the very positive initiatives coming from Chavez & Co to push beyond dual power towards socialism. Chavez calls this process a "revolution within the revolution". These initiatives include:


COMMUNAL COUNCILS
The expansion of communal councils (currently numbering 19,000) across all of Venezuela is encouraging mass participatory democracy and drawing more grassroots people into the revolutionary process.
The communal councils are a positive move to empower the urban poor -- the casualised workers and petty traders in the cities who make up over half of Venezuela's total population. While these councils are not the same as the workers' soviets of 1917 Russia, they are vital in a land where the majority of people live in cities but do not have permanent jobs, let alone belong to unions.
The communal councils possibly have more in common with the poor peasants' committees which the Bolsheviks tried (but failed) to establish as an emancipatory vehicle for Russia's masses of rural workers and poor peasants. The big difference is that the Bolsheviks' poor peasants committees' were set up in the countryside, where their dispersal over huge areas made them unequal to the pressures of class enemies, while the Chavistas' communal councils have arisen in the cities, where a mass concentration of the urban poor and their proximity to organised workers gives them every chance of displacing capitalism's organs of political power.

SOCIAL MISSIONS
The popular social missions, directly funded by nationalised oil revenues, have been improving the living conditions of Venezuela's poor.
And the education, health, social welfare and co-operative missions, all relying on armies of volunteers, have begun to establish new lines of power. Chavez put it this way in June 2006:
"The social missions became the instruments of constructing socialism. But they are not socialism itself. They are weapons in the construction of socialism, aimed to include everybody, to establish and to practice equality."



CHALLENGING THE MARKET
Venezuela remains a capitalist economy, and capital is still flowing into the country seeking profits. But the Chavez government has introduced measures that are challenging the rule of capital. These include:

• Pushing forward with the nationalisation of oil processing, as well as the planned nationalisation of telecom and power companies.
• Government redistribution of wealth from state-owned oil to the poor of Venezuela.
  Major increases in the minimum wage.
• Tightening up tax regulations so the rich cannot evade taxes.
• Imposition of maximum prices for basic foodstuffs.
• Moves to repeal the independence of Venezuela's neo-liberal Central Bank.

UNITED SOCIALIST PARTY OF VENEZUELA
To move beyond dual power towards socialism demands a mass socialist party that educates, unites and organises grassroots people around the struggle for liberation from below.
Chavez sparked the formation of a United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), which he compares to Lenin's Bolshevik Party.
The process of forming this "combat party" is already sharpening the differences between revolutionaries and reformists, which had been submerged by the previous ill-defined grouping of parties "supporting" Chavez. Those parties have all been given the option of either dissolving into the new mass socialist party or remaining outside the Chavista government.
It would be utopian to think that the PSUV could be an instantly homogenous party of revolutionaries. It will, however, be a mass socialist party with organic connections to grassroots people who support the unfolding revolution. The process of building the PSUV will challenge the reformist wing of the Bolivarian movement and precipitate a "battle of ideas" in which the masses will participate.
While the initiative for the PSUV came from Chavez, it will be built "from below". Socialist militants, who played a key role in mobilising the Chavista vote during the 2006 presidential election, have become the "promoters" of the new mass socialist party. They are going out to the people to register members, who will be organised into "socialist battalions" of 200 people each. The aim is to organise 20,000 of these "battalions" across Venezuela, from which delegates will be elected to attend the PSUV's founding conference in August 2007.
The conference will run for three or more months, with regular breaks so that delegates can return to their own "battalion" to discuss proposals and come back with a refreshed mandate from below.
Socialist Worker-New Zealand believes the PSUV is vital to educate, unite and organise the grassroots masses in Venezuela so they can push forward the socialist revolution.
Just as Socialist Worker-New Zealand believes all revolutionaries inside Venezuela need to join this mass socialist party, so too we believe that revolutionary groups in other countries need to establish comradely relations with the PSUV.
In combination, the communal councils, social missions, challenges to the market, formation of the PSUV and other emancipatory initiatives by Chavez & Co form a transitional mechanism by which the grassroots people of Venezuela can move towards the socialist defeat of counter-revolutionary forces. Trotsky's transitional programme lives on inside Venezuela as the concept of liberation from below gains concrete mass form.

A WEAKNESS IN THE REVOLUTION
The future of Venezuela's unfolding revolution is closely linked to the growth and mobilisation of unionised workers, who at present are only a tiny number compared to city-based casualised workers and petty traders, easily the biggest population groups in the country.
The small scale of Venezuela's unionised workers is a weakness in the revolution that cannot be easily overcome. This weakness is compounded by a debilitating political split in the major union centre, the National Union of Workers (UNT). These social and political factors are hindering organised workers from speeding up the revolutionary process.
This weakness is recognised by the Chavista government. Chavez has often spoken of the need for the UNT and the organised workers to take a leading role in the revolution. Workers have been encouraged to take control of factories and create workers' councils. Some small but positive advances in this direction have been taken.
Socialist Worker-New Zealand believes that the PSUV will be crucial to pulling unionised workers into the forefront of the revolution. That was certainly the role Lenin's Bolsheviks played among the small sector of unionised workers in pre-revolutionary Russia.

ENGAGEMENT WITH THE BOLIVARIAN REVOLUTION
While Chavez & Co started from a radical reformist viewpoint, the unfolding class struggle has pushed them towards a socialist perspective which is now assuming ever-sharper mass revolutionary features.
Obviously nobody can say for sure whether the Venezuelan revolution will win out. But right ow Chavez & Co are moving in a consistently socialist direction as they seek to overcome capitalism. In the process, they are confronting many problems unique to Venezuela and thus coming up with solutions not seen before in socialist history, such as the major role of communal councils in a land where far more city dwellers work in the "informal" economy than in corporate or state entities.
Venezuela's unfolding revolution is drawing massive support from grassroots people across Latin America, which is fueling a continental revolt against neo-liberal economics and US imperial domination. In Ecuador and Bolivia, presidents have recently been elected on the back of explicitly socialist challenges to corporate rule.
These are exciting times. Socialism is being seriously talked about and acted upon by millions of people inspired by Chavez and the "revolution within the revolution" in Venezuela.
Socialists worldwide should be enthusiastic about the Bolivarian Revolution. Socialists worldwide need to engage with the revolution's leaders, who will be in the PSUV, so there can be a reciprocity of ideas that promotes the global struggle for grassroots self-emancipation. Thus Socialist Worker-New Zealand is looking to forge practical links with our PSUV comrades in a land where socialism is well on the way to becoming a determining force.
Socialist Worker-New Zealand and a broad range of other leftists have formed the Venezuela Aotearoa Solidarity Team (VAST). We want to bring awareness of Venezuela's revolution to the working class in this country. We want to build a solidarity coalition able to effectively oppose any intervention in Venezuela by the US state and its foreign allies.
In our socialist work in broad coalitions, such as the anti-war, anti-Islamophobic and climate change movements, we are pointing to Venezuela as a positive alternative to imperialism, oppression and eco-meltdown.

ALEX'S PROPOSALS FOR IST COORDINATION
It is within the context of the deepening revolution in Venezuela that Socialist Worker-New Zealand responds to Alex Callinicos's proposal to create an IST "Coordination". Alex defines such a Coordination as consisting of "selected organisations" whose leaderships would consult and meet between annual IST gatherings "to deal with initiatives, problems, etc".
Socialist Worker-New Zealand has two substantive concerns with this Coordination proposal. First, it is not intimately linked to the global political situation, and in particular to how the IST needs to engage with the mass revolutionary process in Venezuela. Instead, the proposal is couched in terms of the IST's own internal processes.
Socialist Worker-New Zealand believes the unfolding Venezuelan revolution, if it continues to move in the direction it's currently going, will reshape the socialist and labour movements in every country on every continent, just as the unfolding Bolshevik revolution did from 1917-24. Therefore, rather than looking inwards, the IST needs to be focused outwards towards the most advanced revolutionary upsurge in 90 years and the global socialist regroupments it will inevitably set into motion.
At present, there seem to be real differences between IST affiliates over the nature of what is happening in Venezuela. At one end of the IST spectrum, Socialist Worker-New Zealand see Chavez & Co as being at the centre of the most important "revolution in the revolution" since the Bolsheviks proclaimed "All power to the Soviets" in 1917 Russia. At the other end of the IST spectrum, the Venezuelan revolution was a "non-topic" in the official discussion bulletins of the British Socialist Workers Party in the lead-up to their national conference in January 2007.
So how do we form an IST Coordination when the IST appears to lack real political coordination over the key strategic issue of Venezuela's revolution? If we were to do it just on the basis of IST tactical organisation, any such IST Coordination would be a sham from the outset.
The deepening Venezuelan revolution has sparked intense discussions among the world's different Marxist organisations about what makes a revolution, how to move towards socialism, what is the dialectic between the leaders and the masses, how to establish workers' control and other strategic questions.
We all have a lot to learn from the world historic events in Venezuela. We cannot assume that any one Marxist group has readymade answers to everything. Any IST Coordination, therefore, must be based on facilitating this global debate among all Marxist groups, most of them outside the IST, in tandem with fusing the IST into a strategic engagement with the PSUV's leaders.
It's a global debate about the Venezuelan revolution that the IST needs to start coordinating, and that requires democratic input from all IST affiliates around the world.
That brings us to our second substantive concern. The IST Coordination proposal calls for unspecified powers to be granted to "selected" organisations. Any such "selection" would leave non-selected IST groups on the margins of IST decision-making, given the tyranny of distance over a global coalition like the IST. It would fix the bureaucratic curse of the initiating "centre" and the non-initiating "periphery" onto the IST.
Why can't every IST affiliate have one representative on the IST Coordination? With modern communications technology, face-to-face meetings in London can be replaced by extremely cheap "virtual" meetings that link all continents. The material basis already exists for an all-in IST Coordination that interacts on a global scale as frequently as needed. The real question is whether the IST has the political consensus and the political will to bring it about.

SOCIALIST WORKER-NEW ZEALAND'S PROPOSALS
In the opinion of Socialist Worker-New Zealand, it is urgent and critical for the IST to relate to the revolutionary process in Venezuela and the opportunities it is creating for socialists worldwide.
To move in this direction, Socialist Worker-New Zealand makes three concrete proposals:
(1) As many Spanish-speaking IST comrades as possible to attend the three-month founding conference of the PSUV starting in August 2007.
(2) In consultation with PSUV leaders and Marxists from other countries attending the PSUV conference, the Spanish-speaking IST attendees to initiate a global debate about the nature, strategies and prospects of the Venezuelan revolution.
(3) To help coordinate this global debate about the Venezuelan revolution, an IST Coordination be created consisting of one delegate from every IST group and relying on modern technology to hold all-in "virtual" meetings as required.

FOUNDATIONS FOR MASS SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL
The failure of US forces in Iraq has opened up more space for the world's socialists to operate. In Venezuela, for the first time since Lenin's Bolsheviks, we are seeing a mass movement well on the way towards establishing socialism within the borders of a whole country. The front line of the epochal war between capitalism and socialism is now in Venezuela.
Even where there has been resistance to the neo-liberal offensive over the last two decades, the international workers' movement has been floundering on the widespread assumption that "there is no alternative". The Venezuelan revolution is putting socialism back on the agenda in a practical and living way -- the way most people will come to socialism. The IST must be an organic part of this process.
Any IST Coordination needs to be focused on relating to forces outside the IST. That's because the forward movement of the Venezuelan revolution and the wider Latin American uprisings look likely to provide the essential material foundations for a positive regroupment of the socialist and radical left on every continent, and the parallel emergence of a mass socialist international.
Socialist Worker-New Zealand believes the political and organisational decisions made within the IST must reflect this historic opportunity to move towards a mass socialist international. This is the first time since the early days of the Comintern that such a possibility has existed.
This requires the IST to directly engage with PSUV leaders in the building of a mass socialist international. The IST can play a positive role in this process if we make that turn now.
Socialist Worker-New Zealand invites feedback from IST affiliates and other socialist organisations. Please send your comments to:

Central committee, Socialist Worker-New Zealand, PO Box 13-685,Auckland, New Zealand.
socialist-worker@pl.net
+64 9 634 3984
Solidarity,
Central committee of Socialist Worker-New Zealand




SIGNED BY

• Don Archer
• Grant Brookes
• Joe Carolan
• Gordon Farris
• Vaughan Gunson
• Bernie Hornfeck
• Peter Hughes
• Daphne Lawless
• Grant Morgan
• Len Parker
• Tony Snelling-Berg

‘Iraq is not a communal war’

Sami Ramadani interview: ‘Iraq is not a communal war’
Issue: 114 of the new ISJ

Sami Ramadani, an Iraqi exile based in Britain, spoke to International Socialism about the situation in the country after four years of occupation

International Socialism spoke to you and Haifa Zangana about 15 months ago. At that stage both of you were saying that, while there was some sectarianism, it was not the Iraqi way. Today people say sectarianism is the dominant factor in Iraq—this is not just the argument of those on the right, but also people like Patrick Cockburn on the left [see ‘Alternative Views of Iraq’]. How do you see the situation?

There is a greater degree of sectarianism since that interview. This is mainly due to the grip that sectarian parties have established on the formal politics of the country. They are backed by the occupying forces financially, and in every other sense. The rise in sectarianism is mainly reflected in the battle for power between the sectarian parties that are in the government. All of the factions cooperate with the occupation, but they are also competing with each other for a greater share in political power, and ultimately Iraq’s wealth. These forces cannot obtain any substantial social base without appealing on the basis of a religion, sect or ethnicity. The growth of sectarianism aids and abets their existence. The greater the sectarian divide, the greater their chance of having a wider social base.

Having said all that, I am still of the opinion that the sectarian conflict in Iraq—between the forces I have described—is not yet the dominant factor among the masses in the streets. If there was a communal civil war in the streets, towns and cities of Iraq, that would be a very serious development. I do not think we are anywhere near this stage. Indeed, the people’s hostility to the governmental parties and the occupation, and the historical absence of mass sectarian hostility have all combined to prevent large-scale communal strife and violence.

Continued at:
International Socialism Journal 114

Oppose NZ Defence ties with Indonesia!

The Indonesia Human Rights Committee invites you to:

Oppose Defence ties with Indonesia!
Demonstrate 12 Noon Friday 11 May outside the Defence Headquarters
204-234 Great North Rd Grey Lynn


New Zealand will resume military ties with Indonesia this month. An Indonesian officer will attend the NZDF Command and Staff College course in Trentham which begins on May 14, 2007. Defence ties were suspended in September 1999 when horrific violence engulfed East Timor.

New Zealand Government overlooks:

*the military's responsibility for ongoing human rights violations especially in conflict areas such as West Papua. Its territorial structure facilitates the suppression of dissent

*that the generals responsible for the 24 year brutal occupation of East Timor have not been held to account. It is the same for a litany of other historic human rights crimes in Indonesia in which the military is implicated.

*that the Indonesian military is still a law unto itself - largely unaccountable to civilian authority and able to call on independent funding including from protection rackets, prostitution and illegal logging

*that the New Zealand public were not consulted or even told about this significant policy change!

Timor-Leste's Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR) recommended that no state should resume military cooperation with Indonesia until there has been genuine 'progress towards full democratisation, the subordination of the military to the rule of law and civilian government and strict adherence with international human rights, including respect for the right of self-determination.'

The New Zealand Government should heed this recommendation, instead of restoring defence ties with a military force emboldened by decades of impunity.

Freedom to Strike Bulletin #1, 24 April 2007

(Click on image for larger version)

TONGAN RIOTS: NUMBER ONE 'STIRRER' HEADING TO KINGDOM

From www.niufm.com

Date: 27 April 2007
Auckland 6am: Tonga's Number One political troublemaker is heading to the Kingdom in a bid to bring an end to the state of emergency laws that have been in place since the November Riots.

Ailani Taione is the arch enemy of the state but says he wants to help locals free themselves from the autocratic rule of military and Government.

Taione headed a Government blacklist that was leaked to media and locals after the riots.

The Aucklander was behind a series of demonstrations at the King's Epsom Residence last year and on one occassion ran his burning car through the gates of Atalaga.

Taione told Pacific Radio News this morning that he's heading to Tonga the first week of May, regardless of what welcome he gets from authorities. (listen)

Taione says he'll be working with the pro-democracy movement and that he'll be taking with him a petition to try and overturn the Government's state of emergency laws. (listen)

See also-

Movie: The Nu Face of Rebellion (Tonga 2006)



Following the pro-democracy riots in Tonga in 2006, troops from New Zealand and Australia were sent to quell the rebellion and restore Monarchical order. This documentary was filmed in the week after the troops arrived detailing the riots, the pro-democracy movement, the abuse of people by Tongan forces and the operations of the New Zealand and Australian army. The movie stands very much at odds with the mainstream media account of the events.

A wake-up call for the unions

Comment from a unionist After years of partnership with its workforce Fisher & Paykel have used some of the profits gleaned from this same workforce to sack them and replace them with even cheaper workers. The sharemarket cheered the move, pushing F&P's share price up 8 cents, or 2.3 per cent, to $3.60. EPMU Secretary Andrew Little said, "This has got to be a wake-up call for the Government that more needs to be done to foster high-wage, high-value manufacturing in this country," Blah, blah, blah. I saw a report on the job losses by F&P that was hidden away in a side bar of the EPMU newsweek that had a groveling quote from the union that it wasn't F&P's fault. That you couldn't blame them. Unfortunately I tried to get back to this site. But couldn't find it again. Everybody even union leaders are blaming the high dollar - and not the rapacious nature of capitalist companies like F&P, who they are in partnership with. But what does this really mean? What really causes it, and what does it represent? I feel that the high dollar is related to relative wage rates with our competing economies. Obviously our free market, anti-regulation bosses couldn't expose themselves as hypocrites by demanding the government cut wages nationally. But they are forcefully demanding a cut in government spending, which is a cut in the social wage. The employers are demanding that this cut in government spending be tied to a tax cut to business. TV3 news footage showed worried looking cabinet members leaving a meeting. The soundtrack reported that the government is reluctant to cut spending but, Cullen is considering the tax cut part of business demands. Obviously if taxes are cut for business, the government will have to cut spending, or alternatively increase the tax burden on the rest of us. Also, I have not seen or been able to find out anywhere how much profit F&P is currently making, I doubt it is a loss. But what ever it is, there seems to be an unspoken agreement in the media not to mention this.

Munya on National Radio New Zealand

Munya interview on Radio NZ

Here above is Munya on Radio NZ, speaking for the resistance in Zimbabwe to both Mugabe's dictatorship and the neo-liberal offensive.

Brother Gwisai made a deep impression on the comrades in Aotearoa, and we dedicate this Bob Marley song to him and all the comrades eating the tear gas in the new Chimeranga!  

Every man gotta right to decide his own destiny,  
And in this judgement there is no partiality.  
So arm in arms, with arms, we'll fight this little struggle,  
'Cause that's the only way we can overcome our little trouble.  
Brother, you're right, you're right,  
You're right, you're right, you're so right!
We gon' fight (we gon' fight), we'll have to fight (we gon' fight),  
We gonna fight (we gon' fight), fight for our rights!  
Natty Dread it in-a (Zimbabwe); Set it up in (Zimbabwe);
Mash it up-a in-a Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe);  
Africans a-liberate (Zimbabwe), yeah.  
No more internal power struggle;  
We come together to overcome the little trouble.  
Soon we'll find out who is the real revolutionary,  
'Cause I don't want my people to be contrary.  
And, brother, you're right, you're right,  
You're right, you're right, you're so right!  
We'll 'ave to fight (we gon' fight), we gonna fight (we gon' fight)
We'll 'ave to fight (we gon' fight), fighting for our rights!  
Mash it up in-a (Zimbabwe);  
Natty trash it in-a (Zimbabwe);  
Africans a-liberate Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe);  
I'n'I a-liberate Zimbabwe.  
(Brother, you're right,) you're right,  
You're right, you're right, you're so right!  
We gon' fight (we gon' fight), we'll 'ave to fight (we gon' fight),  
We gonna fight (we gon' fight), fighting for our rights!  
To divide and rule could only tear us apart;  
In everyman chest, mm - there beats a heart.  
So soon we'll find out who is the real revolutionaries;
And I don't want my people to be tricked by mercenaries.  
Brother, you're right, you're right,  
You're right, you're right, you're so right!  
We'll 'ave to fight (we gon' fight), we gonna fight (we gon' fight),  
We'll 'ave to fight (we gon' fight), fighting for our rights!
Natty trash it in-a Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe);  
Mash it up in-a Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe);  
Set it up in-a Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe);  
Africans a-liberate Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe);  
Africans a-liberate Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe);  
Natty dub it in-a Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe).  
Set it up in-a Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe);  
Africans a-liberate Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe);  
Every man got a right to decide his own destiny.

 

Lest we Forget- No More Wars

ANZAC Day (among other things) celebrates the Australian/NZ invasion of Turkey

4 May 2005

Dave Riley

With the increasingly strident nationalism that greets ANZAC Day each year, it is easy to forget what the ANZAC tradition celebates. In almost nine months of entrenched fighting on Turkey’s Gallipoli peninsula, Australian and New Zealand casualties reached 8587 killed in action and 19,367 wounded in the line of duty. Those Turks were defending their homeland from invasion.

Where so many died invading we now call “sacred ground”.

When the British Empire (which included the ANZACs) and French forces finally withdrew from the Gallipoli peninsula, they had suffered 44,000 deaths. At least 85,000 Turkish soldiers died during the campaign.

That was in 1915. The same year, ANZAC forces suffered massive losses of 28,000 killed or wounded during the first seven weeks of the Battle of the Somme. So it comes as no surprise that during the following year Australians rejected conscription at a federal referendum — with troops in the front line trenches strongly voting “No” . Another referendum the following year rejected conscription by an even larger margin.

So I am a proud Aussie, not because this country has a penchant to celebrate the slaughter of those who we sent to invade or defeat, or the deaths of those this country sent to do such deeds. I am a proud Aussie because, in the face of such slaughter, a massive campaign was organised in this country against strengthening that war through conscription — and it won!

You have to see past the jingoistic bullshit on Anzac Day. You can’t afford to forget, that’s true, all those who died. But for whom did they die? Not for me.

If conscription had prevailed many more would have died. That’s really what’s worth celebrating.

Lest we forget.

From Joe Hendren's blog

Today is the 30th anniversary of an action taken by four Wellingtonians on Anzac Day 1967, where they attempted to lay a wreath "To the dead and dying on both sides in Vietnam. Why must their blood pay the price of our mistakes?"

They were prevented from placing the wreath at the Cenotaph like other citizens. Despite one Returned Services Association (RSA) representative indicating they could lay it later (which they did), on doing so university lecturer Christopher Wainwright and student Christopher Butler were arrested by the police for disorderly behaviour and resisting the police. A judge later quashed the later charge, but upheld the other charge because they had presented "a point of view, however sincerely held, which they knew would be annoying to some and offensive to many". So much for free speech.

In 1970 the Christchurch Progressive Youth Movement (PYM) made a wreath from the poster of the My Lai massacre with the words "To the victims of Fascism in Vietnam". The Mayor of Christchurch at the time, Ron Guthrey, tore the wreath from the memorial and threw it away. It was put back later, only to be removed by the police. A Hamilton veteran of the Korean war turned his medals into Guthrey as a protest against the betrayal of the values for which he had fought.

A later Mayor of Christchurch, Neville Pickering, refused to attend the 1972 service as he believed the attempts the RSA to control the service, such as placing a cordon between the memorial and the crowd and vetting all inscriptions meant the ceremony was no longer a citizens service. The PYM attempted to place their wreath for the third successive year, only to have it thrown down, stamped on and utterly destroyed by the mob.

Mayor Pickering said "I can fully understand the sensitivity of former servicemen who watched their comrades being killed. But the older generation should show greater restraint and tolerance".

- Material sourced from Elsie Locke's excellent book 'Peace People' posted by Joe Hendren

LCR clear winners on hard left in French Presidental elections

	Voix	% Exprimés
M. Olivier BESANCENOT	1 498 835	4,08
Mme Marie-George BUFFET	707 327	1,93
M. Gérard SCHIVARDI	123 711	0,34
M. François BAYROU	6 820 914	18,57
M. José BOVÉ	483 076	1,32
Mme Dominique VOYNET	576 758	1,57
M. Philippe de VILLIERS	818 704	2,23
Mme Ségolène ROYAL	9 501 295	25,87
M. Frédéric NIHOUS	420 775	1,15
M. Jean-Marie LE PEN	3 835 029	10,44
Mme Arlette LAGUILLER	488 119	1,33
M. Nicolas SARKOZY	11 450 302	31,18

Besancenot won 1.5 million votes (4.11%), up from 1.2 million in 2002. http://www.lcr-rouge.org/

Arlette Laguiller, of Lutte Ouvrière, slipped back from 5.7% to just 1.3%, just under half a million votes.

The election was most notable for the relative failure of far-right candidate Jean-Marie le Pen, who surprisingly came second in the 2002 contest. He fell from nearly 17% last time out to just 10.4%.

Undoubtedly, an important blow to the far-left's score was dealt by the desire on the part of most French workers that the Parti Socialiste (social democrat) candidate should get into the second round, and thus avoid a repeat of 2002, when they were faced with a choice between conservative Jacques Chirac and le Pen. That crisis was widely blamed on the splitting of the left vote among numerous candidates. This time, the PS candidate Ségolène Royal (25.8%) did indeed qualify for the second round, where she will face right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy (31.4%).

The collective score of the groups to the left of the PS - if we also factor in the semi-Stalinist PCF (Communist Party), the "Lambertiste" (anti-EU and pseudo-Trotskyist) Gerard Schivardi and anti-globalisation peasant leader José Bové - was about 9%, down from 14% in 2002.

Given the circumstance of a resurgent Parti Socialiste and continuing disunity of Trotskyist forces, the LCR's performance was impressive. Not only did it win more votes than ever - the first occasion on which it had won more votes than Lutte Ouvrière - it ran a strong, visible campaign, its meetings with Besancenot apparently twice as large as in 2002.

Coverage of the elections has been dominated by the two leading candidates – right wing UMP candidate Nicholas Sarkozy and Socialist Party contester Ségolène Royal.

Sarkozy made a name for himself during the 2005 riots in French suburbs when, as interior minister, he launched a disgusting attack on the rioters, calling them “scum”.

He was also responsible for sending riot police into the Sorbonne and other universities to break up last year’s student occupations against the CPE employment law.

Sarkozy has continued this right wing agenda through the election campaign.

Last week he denounced “uncontrolled immigration” into France and argued that young people who commit suicide and paedophiles are genetically programmed to such behaviour.

Tellingly, the Financial Times reported this week that Gordon Brown had “clicked” with Sarkozy when they met in London earlier this year.

Ségolène Royal has pitched her campaign as a break with the old forms of elections – presenting herself as a new type of modern candidate appealing directly to the people.

In reality, Royal is committed to neoliberal policies. Last year she expressed her support for Tony Blair. She has zigzagged throughout the campaign, being forced to talk left at times and at others following Sarkozy’s agenda.

Backdrop

The real backdrop to the elections are the struggles that have shaken the political terrain in France over the last few years.

In May 2005, a referendum saw a majority vote against the EU constitution. The “no” committees united opposition to neoliberalism. Many members and supporters of the Socialist Party voted no, in opposition to their own party leadership.

In autumn 2005 riots in the suburbs of Paris spread to many other cities. Hundreds of young people were involved, angry at years of poverty, police repression, racism and unemployment.

In March 2006 protests and strikes defeated the government’s proposed CPE employment law that would have reduced rights for young workers.

These struggles, along with fears that fascist candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen could repeat his performance of 2002 and reach the second round of the election, have led significant numbers to register to vote for the first time.

Outside the bankruptcy of Sarkozy and Royal there is a different campaign taking place.

The presidential campaign by Olivier Besancenot, the candidate for the LCR (Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire) is expressing the spirit of the resistance of the past few years.

Under the slogan “our lives are worth more than their profits”, Besancenot is drawing in new forces from across France.

Besancenot is a postal worker. He was the youngest ever French presidential candidate when he stood, aged 28, in the 2002 elections winning 1.3 million votes – 4.25 percent.

He is currently touring France speaking at large, young and enthusiastic public rallies, as well as meeting groups of workers in dispute and other campaigners.

Recent campaign meetings include 1,500 in Bordeaux, 500 in Valence – where the meeting was also addressed by workers from the Reynolds pen factory who are fighting redundancy – and 800 in Clermont-Ferrand in central France.

Besancenot also spoke in Corsica for the first time last week, addressing a meeting of 100 in the town of Calvi and 450 in Ajaccio.

It is clear that Besancenot’s campaign is capturing the mood of opposition to neoliberalism and the anger at racism and insecurity felt by many.

In the polls he has been at least two percentage points clear of other left candidates such as Marie-George Buffet of the Communist Party, Lutte Ouvriere’s candidate Arlette Laguiller and anti-globalisation activist José Bové, who is standing as an independent left candidate.

His lead over the Communist Party is significant as it was once the strongest party in France and has long dominated the left.

Statement from Olivier Besancenot

Nearly 1.5 million voters rallied around my candidacy. That's 280,000 more than in 2002.

Despite the pressure to cast a "useful vote" - which during recent weeks has proven to be Segolene Royal's sole programme - more than 4.5% of voters have voted for me. This is real encouragement for the struggles ahead. Thanks to those who have voted for me. Together, we have succeeded in this campaign, apart from our tally of votes, by offering an answer to social problems. For the right to employment, increasing purchasing power and, furthermore, the right to housing - the minimum wage up to 1500 euros a month, a 300 euro pay rise in all salaries [monthly], requisitioning all empty homes, prohibiting redundancies and mounting a struggle against discrimination - so many questions still existent in society and the world of work; so many mobilisations to come to make our voice heard.

Nicolas Sarkozy is ahead, and has qualified to face Segolene Royal in the second round. The right has for five years led a policy of systematic destruction of the social rights we have won, and Sarkozy now wants to inflict MEDEF [French CBI] shock-therapy to French society. That is to say, more inequality, more injustice and fewer rights. Le Pen has been kicked out of the race, which is great news. But Sarkozy has led an extremely reactionary campaign. Running on the terrain of the Front National [Le Pen's party], this man and his programme pose an immediate danger.

No candidate has ownership of the votes [he's won], and everyone is, evidently, free to make their choice on 6th May [the second round]. But for 5 years the LCR has fought the policies of Chirac and his prime ministers in the street and at the ballot box. It's in that vein that I call on you to demonstrate on May 1st in every town in France for the important social policy changes that I have fought for in this campaign, and against the anti-social project of Sarkozy. Against this confident right wing, the second round necessarily has the character of an anti-Sarkozy referendum for all of those who want to resist his politics. On the 6th of May we will be with those who want to stop Sarkozy becoming president. That doesn't mean supporting Segolene Royal, but voting against Nicolas Sarkozy.

Faced with this hard right, the Parti Socialiste and its candidate are not up to the task. Throughout this campaign I have fought for redistribution of wealth. That is not the plan of the PS, which puts itself on the same political territory as the right in accepting neo-liberalism and seeking profits for big business. Even on questions like nationalism and patriotism, the PS has sought to rival the right. That's why the LCR does not support Segolene Royal.

I call upon those who have sympathised with our propositions to work together so we can together creat a force able to fight for them in mobilisation. Whoever is president after the May 6th vote, we must continue to fight neo-liberal policies, and the LCR will continue to work for the greatest unity in the coming struggles. That, whether or not Sarkozy unfortunately wins on May 6th; but equally if Royal is elected, she must face opposition from the left and not only on the right.

We need a new anti-capitalist force. To help, as we have in the last five years, struggle and resistance, in supporting the new political generation which grew up in the mobilisation against the CPE, in the suburbs and in the workplace. The LCR calls on you [to help us] together construct this force, able to fight capitalism and offer the hope that another world is possible.

Statement from Arlette Laguiller

Firstly, I must thank all those who have voted for and supported me for their conscience and their confidence in me. As had been obvious, it is Sarkozy and Royal who will compete in the second round. The fear of seeing Bayrou or Le Pan beating Royal was never seriously entertained, except to aggressively push from the first round the idea of a "useful vote" [for Royal].

As regards the past, I do not regret - far from it, I am proud of it - having been the only candidate to refuse in 2002 to call for a vote for one right-winger over another, and having refused to vote for Chirac; Chirac the ally of Sarkozy. Doing that to defeat Le Pen, who had hardly won many votes in the first round and got through to the second because Jospin [PS], thanks to his politics, had lost two and a half million of his supporters.

Chirac was largely elected with right-wing votes alone. Le Pen had no chance at all of being elected but, now, Sarkozy has plenty of chance to do so. Today Le Pen is still here, and moreover is so via the ideas of Sarkozy, which give Le Pen's a run for his money.

In this year's second round, there is no worthy candidate for the workers. After all, Sarkozy - of course - and Ségolène Royal, no more than him, would not raise their little finger to reslove the biggest problems facing the working class, which means unemployment, continual attacks on quality of life, and the serious crisis in housing. However, I hope with all my heart that Sarkozy is beaten, since his arrogance deserves nothing else, and his programme means nothing but goodies for the bosses, in particular the biggest businesses.

The measures he has proposed are the continuation of the policies of these last five years - the worst government we've had for a long time - that is to say, ramping up the pressure on the poor to give more and more to those who get rich at the expense of the rest of the population.

So I will be voting for Royal, and I call on all voters to do the same. But if I do this, it is simply in solidarity with all those among the masses who say they want "anyone but Sarkozy". I share their desire to defeat Sarkozy, but I however will say to them that Ségolène Royal will not improve the lot of the working class any more than Sarkozy.

Royal is just as much in the camp of capital, in the camp of the exploiters, financiers and those who lay off workers, as Sarkozy - they are good and loyal servants to them. One or the other will do nothing but serve the big bourgeoisie, as they have both done in all the governments they have ever served in. It is their common situation in the camp of the big bosses which makes it impossible that either will resolve the problems of the great mass of the population - as I said before, that means mass unemployment, a serious crisis in housing and a continual reduction of purchasing power.

The results of the first round - if you add up the left-wing and right-wing totals - would lead us to believe that Royal has only a small chance of winning in the second. But it is she who took on such risks! She chose a nothing campaign, looking towards the bosses just as much as towards the masses. Gifts drawn-up for the former, nothing but vague slogans for the latter. A campaign unable to raise enthusiasm among those not seeing social progress, a campaign which relies entirely on the anti-Sarkozy effect but which doesn't want to piss off the bosses.

But despair cannot be enough to raise hope.

So even if I unreservedly call for a vote for Ségolène Royal, I have no illusions in what her, the former ministers and the leaders of the Parti Socialiste will do if they get to power. I stand in absolute solidarity with all those who want to vote for Royal. But I will say to them that they will be quickly, and totally, disappointed, just as they were five years ago with Jospin's government. Ségolène Royal, if she is elected, will not be worse than Sarkozy, but neither will she be better! She may perhaps not take all the measures in favour of the élite that the right is doing at the moment - but under her rule, and even before the five year term is up, we will be seriously disillusioned, as we were with the last Socialist government.

We must impose our main demands upon her with sufficiently strong and united social movements, exactly as we should to Sarkozy. I have said all this in my campaign, but many voters thought that they had to use their vote in the first round for a cause they believed to be "useful". I say that they are fooling themselves. Their first round vote was not worthwhile. In the second round, I hope, it might serve some good to defeat Sarkozy, but it will not get rid of the pro-boss-class policies which either Sarkozy or Royal will apply.

It is however, for the sake of solidarity with the wishes of the - doubtless - majority of the camp of the working class, that which has always been and remains my camp, that I choose to vote for, and call for a vote for, Ségolène Royal.

But I am convinced that all workers must, whoever is elected, as quickly as possible get back onto the terrain of struggle.

Smacking “debate” shows up lack of organic leadership of the working class

by VAUGHAN GUNSON
Socialist Worker, Whangarei

Sue Bradford’s Crimes Amendment (Substituted Section 59) Bill will give children the same protection against violence that the law already gives to adults and animals. It removes the defence of “reasonable force” for anyone brought before the courts for inflicting violence against a child.

Why then is there overwhelming opposition to what’s become known as the “anti-smacking bill”? In some polls it’s been over 70%.

Certainly a culture of smacking has been passed down from generation to generation in this country. So while smacking is less widespread than it was ten or twenty years ago, many parents still use smacking to discipline their children (though there will be a big range in the level of frequency and intensity). Many people figure it’s OK to do so and resent the implication that what they’re doing is child abuse. That’s one reason for opposition to Bradford’s bill.

Significant also is that the “revolt” against the “anti-smacking bill” has got a lot of its impetus from the middle classes in the media. These people are “up in arms” because they feel they’re “targeted” by the legislation as well – laws that affect the working class poor don’t matter so much. This has allowed space for right wing groups, including the religious right, to voice their opposition to the bill.

And despite being Sue Bradford’s bill, Labour’s support for it has given the right the opportunity to attack the government’s perceived political correctness – it’s another example of Helen Clark and her parliamentary colleagues “interfering in people’s lives”. Working class people alienated from the political process can be receptive to such arguments. They’re just so sick of superior sounding politicians.

The bill needs to be defended from attacks by the right and any progressive politics has to be in favour of protecting children from violence, but we can’t ignore the opposition to this bill amongst the working class. One of the things this “opposition” shows is that working class identification with the Labour government is fast eroding. Clark and the rest of them don’t have enough respect amongst the working class to lead on issues like this.

The Green Party fares little better. Like Labour, their focus on electoral politics means they too don’t have an organic connection with ordinary grassroots people. Their ability to lead and educate the working class is therefore marginal. They don’t have the kind of respect and authority that can only come from years of connection between a party and the masses.

Sue Bradford has been courageous in proposing the bill and for facing up to all the attacks in the media – and the debate surrounding the bill will probably result in some parents thinking about other ways to discipline their children – but the Green Party’s distance from the working class remains.

The other reality is that changing the law won’t stop violence against children, particularly in the extreme form that horrifies people. Violence against children is a symptom of powerless and alienation, of people living in extreme poverty and under incredible stress. It’s a problem of society that’s been created by two decades of neo-liberal policies.

A recent government report titled Wealth Disparities in New Zealand based on Statistics NZ figures shows that 95% of New Zealand’s net wealth is owned by half the population. The other half is left with the crumbs – a mere 5% of the country’s wealth. Many of the “wealth deprived” will be on benefits, just battling to stay afloat on unliveable incomes. Bringing up children in that situation is difficult in the extreme. A good proportion will be working parents, doing long hours for crap pay in factories, fastfood, retail or elderly care. The problem here is simply time.

Bringing up children takes huge amounts of time and energy, plus a “clear head”. Disciplining children effectively can’t be done without a lot of focused attention on the child. If anything good can be said of reality TV, then I’d have to single out Supernanny. As a parent of small children, I’ve learnt a few tricks about how to discipline a child successfully. And from my own experience, I’m constantly amazed at how you can reason with children from a very young age, they can be taught the difference between right and wrong. But it takes time, time that many working class parents simply don’t have. Smacking becomes an easier option, to the detriment of both child and parent.

Chronic low wages is creating extreme stress for families, its forcing ordinary people into a situations where they can’t be the parent or caregiver they’d like to be. The government’s much hyped Working For Families package has put some extra money in the hands of working class parents, but it’s being eaten up by rising costs, particularly for housing.

Recent modest increases in the minimum wage has lifted the bar slightly at the bottom level, but many workers outside unions – which in the private sector is the huge majority – have had their wages stagnate for decades. The relative poverty of these workers has been increasing. It used to be that one income might be enough for a family, that’s no longer possible for the majority of working class people today.

Of course any attempt by workers in unions to lift their wages – like the Progressive supermarket workers last year – is met with fierce resistance by the entire capitalist class. The harsh industrial laws kept in place by Labour places a huge barrier in the way of workers trying to win real gains (like wage increases that do more than keep pace with inflation). Labour, because its main focus is to keep business profits up, is overseeing the conditions in society which give rise to domestic violence, in all its forms.

The National Party is claiming that their extensive private polling is revealing a swing away from Labour – they’re citing the anti-smacking bill as one of the main reasons. Without an alternative, alienated and angry working class people can be manipulated by the forces of the right. That danger remains ever present.

The “smacking debate” once again points to the need for a mass workers’ party with organic and lasting connections to the working class. There’s no overnight solution, just lots of sustained hard work, with many up and downs. Socialist Worker is at the forefront of positive initiatives focused outwards to ordinary people. With RAM, Workers Charter, Solidarity Union and VAST we hope to be laying the foundations for a broad left alternative to the Labour Party to emerge.

One of the things we can fight for is free early childcare for everyone who wants it. Labour’s miserly increase in early childcare funding has made its election promise of 20 free hours of childcare for 3 and 4 year olds unworkable. They could use some of the $10 billion dollars of budget surplus the government’s got in its coffers, instead most of that is being tagged for tax cuts for companies and the rich. It’s a matter of priorities, and the working class know where Labour’s lie. If the Green Party continues with its strategic alliance with Labour then they’ll be increasingly tarred with the same brush.

Not hitting your children is “good sense”, and the working class has plenty of “good sense” if given leadership by people they respect and who stand with the working class on all issues.