Bomber Bradbury: The speech I would have given for a new left wing party

On his TUMEKE! blog,Martin ‘Bomber’ Bradbury says he would have given the following speech to welcome the launch of a new left wing party, the possible launch of which has been widely speculated on during Matt McCarten’s Mana campaign.

The passage quoted at the start of Bradbury’s post is from Chris Trotter’s latest column on Stuff.

Left’s utopia must have room for aspiration

[by Chris Trotter]

OPINION: Another Aotearoa Is Possible – that’s the hopeful title of a conference getting under way in Mangere tomorrow morning.


This grand political hui – featuring some of New Zealand’s leading leftists – was conceived with not one, but two agendas. Or, to employ the steely jargon of yesterday’s revolutionaries: a Maximum Programme and a Minimum Programme.


For the Maximum Programme to prevail, radical Unite Union leader Matt McCarten had to attract 5 to 10 per cent support in last Saturday’s Mana by-election. If he’d ended the evening with 1200 to 1500 votes, Te Wananga O Aotearoa’s Mangere campus – the conference venue - would almost certainly have witnessed the birth of a “New Left Party”.


Unfortunately for the conference organisers, Mr McCarten ended up attracting the support of just 3.6 per cent of Mana voters. This failure to surpass even the 5 per cent MMP threshold means that tomorrow’s conference agenda will default to its Minimum Programme: “A day of dialogue with activists against injustice and inequality”.

We live in extraordinary times. The current global economic crises is unlike anything since the 1929 stock market collapse which spawned the great depression. We face a crises ‘of’ capitalism as the unregulated neoliberal greed of corporations has been allowed to replace managed Keynesian economic theory. In the 1970s the real economy and the financial economy were evenly valued but 40 years of deregulation, low tax, free market dogma has seen the real economy valued annually at $8 trillion while the financial economy is valued at $330 trillion, that disconnect between reality and the inflated bubble world of finance has gone pop, we must reconsider the rules of the game because the unsustainable consumer culture of SUVs, plasma TVs and cosmetic surgery all on the credit card game is over.

Labour holds Mana, McCarten fourth

By David

Labour’s Kris Faafoi has won the Mana by-election with 10,397 (46%) of the 22,387 votes cast. However, National’s Hekia Parata was close behind, with 9,317 (42%).

Third place went to the Green Party’s Jan Logie with 1,493 (6.7%). With Matt McCarten, standing as an independent backed by his Unite union coming in forth with 816 (3.6%). Also on the left, Kelly Buchanan of the Alliance gained 37 votes, despite endorsing McCarten.

McCarten’s result was better than any of the radical left (Alliance, Workers Party or RAM) candidates achieved in the last general election. However these were poor results themselves and I think many will be disappointed with this result.

During the campaign, there has been much speculation about McCarten’s plans to launch a new left party. This result will not provide much of a boost for this idea.

On the positive side however, McCarten’s campaign has seen a large group of radical left activists working together, it has highlighted some significant social issues and fired the imagination of many of the left who, at least for the duration of the campaign are taking the idea of a new party more seriously.

Matt for Mana: against homelessness & empty housing

Matt McCarten’s Mana by-election campaign has taken up the issue of housing, identifying many empty state houses in the electorate, while families are homeless.

The following video outlines the problem:

 The report from TV3 gives there take on what happened when some of Matt’s supporters took action:

Four arrested in Mana by-election stunt
By Liz Puranam
3 News

Four supporters of a political candidate in the Mana by-election have been arrested tonight after they took over an empty state house.
The men were protesting against what they say is the uncaring nature of big government but is it little more than a political stunt?

Mana candidate Matt McCarten and his supporters arrived at the Porirua police station this evening after they had been told four campaigners were arrested and charged with being on a property without permission.

“People are saying they can't get any response, that they can't get houses but then what we have is one protest and suddenly the housing corporation swings into action within minutes and people cleaned off and stuck in jail,” Mr McCarten says.

The prominent unionist and his supporters took over the Porirua state house today, saying they wanted to fix it up so a couple who have been living in a garage can have a home.

“These places are empty. There are people who are living in garages; it's real,” he says.

Carolyn Harvey was to be the new unpaying tenant. She and her partner have been living in a nearby garage.

“I sit in here and I think, ‘when's it going to end, you know, when's it going to end’,” she says.

Mr McCarten's supporters say they have counted 27 vacant state houses in Porirua so they had no problems simply opening this one up to install Ms Harvey and her husband.

But another candidate in the Mana by-election says this is a political stunt; Carolyn Harvey and her husband are with their daughter this evening while the four men arrested are still at the Porirua police station.

Housing New Zealand issued a statement this afternoon saying Mr McCarten's action was illegal and unfair on others waiting for a house and anyone on the property would be served with a trespass notice.

They told 3 News tonight that police have taken their own action; going one step further and arresting them, which they say is entirely appropriate under the circumstances.

A common cause for grassroots visionaries

A common cause for grassroots visionaries by GRANT MORGAN Recently a number of requests have come my way to write down the history of RAM, as the Residents Action Movement is popularly known. Two factors are prompting such requests. The first is the successes of RAM as a broad left campaigning and electioneering movement in Greater Auckland. The second factor is RAM¹s recent decision to go nationwide. This article is a modest start to meeting these requests. My aim is to summarise main facts and conclusions in a sober way. Mass revolt & political mobilisation The dawn of a new millennium saw no resolution of an old problem. For longer than most of us cared to recall, any serious progressive voice in Greater Auckland had been sidelined as wealthy elites shaped the agendas of the regional council, the four city councils and the three district councils. Regardless of whether a council was run by National-backed Citizens & Ratepayers or Labour-backed City Vision or a more informal coalition, corporate Auckland came out ahead of the grassroots majority. Feeling excluded, the majority abstained from voting in ever larger numbers. Protests rumbled away over inequitable water charges, council housing sales, the Eastern Highway, local body commercialisation and the democratic deficit. In mid-2003 a tipping point was reached. Without warning, Auckland Regional Council (ARC) jacked up the rates of struggling homeowners and downsized the bills being sent to big business. Thousands of homeowners faced ARC rate rises above 400%, many thousands above 300%, and tens of thousands above 200%. Meanwhile corporate Auckland basked in a "rates holiday". They no longer had to pay a business differential which had been levied to compensate for companies benefiting from the lion¹s share of council services. The ARC was ruled by a coalition of corporate politicians who relied on low voter turnouts and "free market" propaganda to retain local body power. Only three of the 13 elected members consistently opposed the ARC¹s extremist rating policy. As rates bills reached the letterboxes of homeowners, grassroots rage spilled over into what became known as the Rates Revolt. At its peak, possibly 100,000 homeowners ­ one quarter of the region¹s ratepayers ­ were supporting a "rates strike". No recognised group called this revolt into being. It just exploded in the combustible atmosphere of general contempt for council politicians. In the chaos and challenges of the Rates Revolt, RAM gradually took shape around socialists and other activists who were pursuing a dual strategy: helping the "rates strikers" get organised while showing how a political alternative was also necessary to overturn the ARC¹s corporate agenda. The combined pressure of the Rates Revolt and the rise of RAM in election year scared enough of the corporate politicians to push the ARC into a partial retreat. By a one-vote margin, a watered-down business differential was restored in mid-2004 which gave some relief to hard-pressed homeowners. This demonstration of "people power" provided the backdrop to RAM¹s entry into the ARC election in October 2004. Although by this time the heat had gone out of the Rates Revolt, RAM¹s 600 innovative "message" billboards still struck a popular chord. Reports came in of workers on the job discussing our call to "RAM the ARC" for rates justice, public transport, open democracy and "people before money". RAM candidates stood for eight of the 13 ARC seats. In a spectacular upset, RAM¹s Robyn Hughes unseated ARC chair Gwen Bull in Manukau City. We came close in several other seats, giving RAM a total of 87,000 ARC votes. Not one mainstream political commentator had expected a ticket described as "far left" and "socialist" by the NZ Herald and other media to do so damn well. This remarkable result showed how a broad left movement, given the right conditions and following a believable strategy, can make gains against establishment political elites. Free buses & unfree racism: RAM¹s community campaigning After the 2004 election, RAM embarked on high-profile community campaigns to promote the public good and redefine what grassroots people could win. Here RAM drew on the services of our regional councillor Robyn Hughes to reinforce the credibility of our initiatives. Greater Auckland is choked by car chaos. This imposes big expenses on individual commuters and staggering burdens on the public purse, all the while pumping out more of the greenhouse gases which could cost global humanity our liveable habitat. RAM¹s cut-through solution was to launch a campaign for free and frequent buses running in their own dedicated traffic lanes, and fully funded by a major shift of government cash away from motorway mania. At present, the Labour-led government is seriously looking at wasting upwards of $8 billion on three motorway tunnels in Central Auckland which will merely grow more cars and congestion. This amount of money could instead buy several thousand electric buses and run them fare-free across Greater Auckland for quarter of a century while also expanding electric rail across Waitakere, Auckland and Manukau cities. RAM¹s call for free and frequent public transport was endorsed by over two hundred prominent citizens, while our petition was signed by many thousands of Aucklanders. Our campaign got varying degrees of support from groups as diverse as Cycle Action Auckland, Mangere Community Board, Tramways Union, Auckland Regional Council, Green Party and Poverty Action Coalition. Former Manukau mayor Sir Barry Curtis offered three of his city¹s suburbs for a large-scale free buses trial if the Auckland Regional Transport Authority would climb aboard. As we expected, however, most council politicians and bureaucrats did little to implement RAM¹s boldly realistic vision of a free public transport network. Yet our idea has begun to spread, with a variety of other groups and individuals now advocating free and frequent public transport. This has helped to brand RAM as a "think big" battler for the welfare of the public and our planet. RAM also took an important stand against Islamophobia, a particularly virulent strain of racism being spread by the falsely named "war on terror", that imperial crusade of the US state to impose its will on the world by force of arms. In early 2007 a sudden rise of organised Islamophobia began to threaten New Zealand Muslims, none of whom had ever been charged with any act of "terrorism", let alone convicted. Yet extreme right Christian fundamentalists were organising stridently anti-Muslim conferences entitled "Mosques and Miracles" in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. The keynote speakers were professional Islamophobes from Australia, who spread lies about "all mosques" being "centres of war" and Muslims all round the world preparing to "kill", "rape" and "enslave" non-Muslims. With help from other groups, RAM brought radical left British MP George Galloway to Auckland to rally public support for our peaceful Muslim sisters and brothers. 1,500 Aucklanders packed our "Voices of Peace" meetings to hear Galloway, a world-famous peace and justice activist noted for his electrifying imagery, link Islamophobic racism with Washington¹s "war on terror" and Israel¹s occupation of Palestine. At the main meeting, hundreds had to be turned away because the hall was full. By any measure, our "Voices of Peace" initiative was a success. There was extensive and nationwide coverage by the mainstream media. Local Muslims gained a sense of confidence and belonging, instead of feeling isolated and victimised. And as the extreme right fundamentalists saw our campaign for social inclusiveness gaining majority sympathy, most quietly dropped the nastiest elements of their Muslim bashing. The spleen vented at RAM across the spectrum of extreme right publications and websites was a back-handed tribute to the effectiveness of our campaign. Growing out of this important victory, RAM has promoted a slogan and ethos that unites migrant and NZ-born communities alike: "We All Belong Here". RAM has also worked alongside many other groups to mobilise opposition to the US war in Iraq, the Israeli re-invasion of Lebanon and the police "terror" raids on Tuhoe and left-wingers. Holding the line: RAM in the 2007 election The October 2007 council elections across Greater Auckland saw a swing to the right. In the Auckland City Council and, to a lesser degree, the Auckland Regional Council, the balance of power has shifted towards right-wing players like Citizens & Ratepayers and Independents for Manukau. The worst hit taken by RAM was when Robyn Hughes lost her Manukau seat on the regional council. Yet Robyn¹s 2007 vote was close to what she gained in 2004, so the problem wasn¹t any big collapse in support. The main cause was conservative voters in affluent East Manukau uniting behind the Independents for Manukau ticket, whereas in 2004 they had split their votes between an array of competing right-wing candidates. In the rest of Manukau City, RAM, Labour, City Vision and environmental candidates were competing for the grassroots vote. Across the board, RAM held the line against the swing to the right. That¹s clearly seen in the regional council election where RAM increased its average vote per candidate, even if only slightly. In the 2004 ARC election, the average vote per RAM candidate was 10,871, which in 2007 rose marginally to 10,899. (A similar comparison cannot be done for Auckland City Council elections which were not contested by RAM in 2004.) In 2007, RAM¹s 19 candidates in the regional council and Auckland City Council elections gathered a total of over 100,000 votes. The top RAM candidate gained 75% of the winner¹s vote, and no RAM candidate fell below 25%, so our results ranged from credible to close. Yet there was not a single "big name" on the RAM ticket, nor could we match the advertising spend of big budget tickets. 100,000 votes in Auckland council elections is easily the best result for a broad left ticket since the glory days of Jim Anderton¹s Alliance in the early 1990s. Before that, you would probably have to go back to the 1930s to see anything similar. Going by RAM¹s remarkably stable votes over the last two council elections, it would seem that in Greater Auckland a sizeable constituency supports our political challenge to corporate control of the region. That constituency was rallied in 2007 by RAM¹s 800 large "message" billboards across Western, Central and Southern suburbs which promoted free public transport, social inclusiveness and cutting home rates by making the corporates pay. All our 800 billboards were carried on people¹s fences. That meant knocking on many hundreds of doors to ask house occupiers for permission. Getting their okay meant in most cases an endorsement of RAM¹s platform, further evidence that we were in tune with a strong popular mood. Knocking on that number of doors and erecting that number of billboards was a huge job. It was only made possible by an influx of new activists into RAM. The diversity of RAM¹s activist base was reflected in the makeup of our candidates: a good gender balance, Pakeha, Maori, Pasifika and Asian, workers, professionals, small business and students, Christian, Muslim and non-believer, socialists, community activists and former adherents of the Labour, Green and National parties. Coming out of the 2007 council elections, RAM is seen as a serious player in Greater Auckland in terms of our activist base, name recognition and political brand. RAM is going nationwide Now RAM has decided to go nationwide and stand for parliament as well as councils. Under the law, becoming eligible to contest the list vote in general elections requires a party to sign up 500 paid members. So RAM has begun asking sympathisers around the country to become financial members ($1 fee for three years, donations encouraged). Since this process has been underway for just a few weeks as I write these lines, it¹s too soon to be sure how good the response will be to RAM¹s membership drive. All I can say this early is that clusters of people from Labour, Green, socialist, Maori, union, social justice, migrant and student backgrounds have signed up or promised to do so. What RAM activists are sure about is the need to take practical steps towards constructing a nationwide broad left party as a grassroots alternative to the Labour-National duopoly. The quality of life of most New Zealanders has worsened over the last quarter century. We now live in a high-skill, low-wage economy where many working families can never afford their own home. As the prophets of corporate profits swagger across the national stage, their market-driven greed poisons the community values of a past era. The undermining of our social environment is paralleled by the ruination of our natural environment, as climate warming outstrips the market-driven non-solution of emissions trading. It was a Labour government that, in 1984, began the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in our country¹s history. This legal robbery continued unchecked after National was elected in 1990. While Helen Clark¹s current administration has softened some "more market" obscenities, the basic neo-liberal game plan remains intact. Regardless of whether the government is run by Labour or National, our country is increasingly a "democracy" of one dollar, one vote, rather than one person, one vote. We need to popularise an alternative vision if we are to build an alternative party to the ruling duopoly. "Every worker is a human being who deserves the right to dignity. For that right to be at the heart of our society, workers need economic justice and democratic control over our future." So says the opening section of the Workers Charter, which was crafted by well-known activist John Minto and myself and a few other leftists several years ago. RAM has officially embraced the humanistic, co-operative, ecological, egalitarian and democratic vision of the Workers Charter. It is a vision that can appeal to a wide spectrum of workers, students, homemakers, professionals and small business owners who are concerned at what is happening to our society and ecology. Many of these people will have voted for right-wing parties like National in the past, others will be disillusioned Labour supporters. RAM is aiming to unite them all in a people¹s movement for social justice and ecological sanity. The ten points of the Workers Charter, which have been endorsed by the Council of Trade Unions, promote: 1. The right to a job that pays a living wage and gives us time with our families and communities. 2. The right to pay equity for women, youth and casual workers. 3. The right to free public healthcare and education, and to liveable superannuation and welfare. 4. The right to decent housing without crippling mortgages and rents. 5. The right to public control of assets vital to community well-being. 6. The right to protect our environment from corporate greed. 7. The right to express our personal identity free from discrimination. 8. The right to strike in defence of our interests. 9. The right to organise for the transfer of wealth and power from the haves to the have-nots. 10. The right to unite with workers in other lands against corporate globalisation and war. While the Workers Charter gives RAM a reference point as we open a dialogue with others at the grassroots, it will not be treated as set in stone. RAM will keep an open mind to all possibilities of how we might combine with other groups sharing a similar vision. Creating a nationwide broad left party should be a common cause for all grassroots visionaries. The future can be ours if we unite for a new future! -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris Trotter on UnityBlog's electoral challenge

Got any better ideas, Labour? Chris Trotter FROM THE LEFT DOWN at the pub last Friday night, I received a good old-fashioned bollocking for suggesting in this column that only a change of leadership could save the Labour-led Government. "Phil Goff's not the bloody answer," muttered a stern union official. And the left-wing university lecturer accused me of "doing National's job for them". "Got a better idea?" I replied. "If so, let's hear it. Because what the polls are telling me, in no uncertain terms, is that the electorate's stopped listening to Helen Clark. In the words of Mike Moore, they've taken the phone off the hook. "And I can't think of anything, apart from rolling her, that will persuade them to pick up the receiver. It's also the only political move dramatic enough to distract the news media from its slow-motion coronation of John Key." My critics stared sullenly into their beer, and we all found other things to talk about. And this, of course, is the Left's dilemma. When you demand, as Lenin did, "What is to be done?", the best you're likely to get by way of reply is a resentful silence. Actually, that's not quite true. There are a handful on the Left still willing to meet Lenin's blunt challenge. Unfortunately, their answers are – how can I put this politely? – just a little bit revolting. Socialist Worker's UNITYblog offers a great example. In the face of what these stalwart revolutionaries describe as the "Coke/ Pepsi" choice between Labour and National, the website's readers are challenged to come up with "some Vision Thing" of their own. To set the ball rolling, they're invited to debate the following five policy ideas: (1) Free public transport throughout New Zealand. Massive investment in rail and free buses - an emergency "system change, not climate change" programme. (2) Free tertiary education for all. Cancel all student debts immediately. (3) A Mickey Joe Savage-style emergency housing programme. Rent control, New York-style. (4) A minimum wage of $20 an hour. Huge tax cuts for the working poor, funded by taxing the rich. A massive extension of union rights and power. (5) Free broadband for all – jack the New Zealand network up to Korean standards. Apparently, this eye-wateringly expensive policy cocktail can be paid for by "taxing the rich (till they bleed!)". You can almost hear the hoots and jeers directed at yet another shuffling procession of bruised and bleeding "rich" people, as all those free buses and trains rattle past them, carrying placard waving hordes of revolutionary unionists to yet another system change rally. No doubt the recipients of this derision, the battered remnants of New Zealand's once all powerful capitalist class, are trudging off to perform forced labour on the bleak building sites of the emergency housing programme. It would have to be forced labour because, after "hugely" cutting the taxes of the poor, writing off student debt, laying on all those free buses and trains and supplying Korean-speed broadband, paying these formerly "rich" emergency housing workers the new minimum wage of $20 an hour would be out of the question. The best abbreviation of the revolutionary socialist project I ever heard came from the pen of a Kiwi screen-writer, whose name I have since, unfortunately, forgotten. "It's bloody simple," he had one of his characters, an old communist, say, "you nationalise everything and shoot the buggers who complain." And that's the problem, isn't it? Democracy is simply not designed to facilitate the impoverishment and oppression of whole classes of the population – only the totalitarianism associated with 20th-century fascism and communism can accomplish that. It astounds and depresses me that the boys and girls at Socialist Worker cannot see (or, even worse, pretend they cannot see) that any serious attempt to implement even one of their five policy ideas would involve the complete derangement of our economic and political relationships – and not in a good way. Like the restored Bourbon dynasty, taking up where they'd been forced to leave off by Robespierre and Napoleon, the revolutionary Left has "learned nothing and forgotten nothing". Their understanding of economics has not progressed beyond the legend of Robin Hood and his Merry Men. And their conception of politics confers legitimacy not upon those who win the most ballots, but upon those who fire the most bullets. Phil Goffs a bloody sight better answer than bloody revolution.

History calls for a broad left party

by VAUGHAN GUNSON and GRANT MORGAN In 2006, the neo-liberal maniacs at the World Bank ranked New Zealand as No.1 in the world for doing business, out of 200 countries surveyed. And a recent government report titled "Wealth Disparities in New Zealand" showed 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. Two decades of neo-liberal polices have seen a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, increasing the rage, frustration and alienation at the base of New Zealand society. In recent years Socialist Worker-New Zealand (SW-NZ) has recognised that these discontents are being combined with signs of self-activity amongst grassroots people, which is causing them to be more open to alternative political ideas. The rise of a global social justice movement has been influential. There have been bursts of union militancy, along with mass movements against imperial wars, GE foods and government injustices against Maori. In combination this points towards a political stirring at the grassroots of New Zealand society which socialists must relate to. It's a basic principle of Marxism that the movement of masses of people is needed to change society. The question for socialists, then, is what can we do today to help turn growing dissatisfactions at the grassroots into something far more politically coherent, organised and confident? In seeking to advance the movement we need to recognise and analyse the barriers in the way of greater working class self-activity. Stifling influence of NZ Labour The most important political barrier today is the stifling and lingering influence of the NZ Labour Party. Like other social democratic parties around the world, NZ Labour adapted to corporate globalisation from the early 1980s and is not fighting for any sort of grassroots alternative. The party's top leadership is committed to greasing the wheels of business profit-taking and are unwilling to do anything that seriously risks hostility from the ruling elites. Changes in the internal composition of the party - where the new middle class now dominates - combined with years of partnering the capitalist class has eroded the organic links between the party and the working class that existed in decades past. This combination of factors means it's no longer accurate to describe the Labour Party as "social democratic". Instead, SW-NZ believes an apt description of Labour today is "social liberal". Labour's top leadership maintains a careful balancing act between doing what big business wants (lower corporate tax, free trade agreements, Reserve Bank "independence", harsh restrictions on workers' right to strike, etc) and offering just enough in the way of social policies to keep grassroots people voting for them. Hence the Working For Families package, which now provides substantial tax credits to low and middle income working families. Labour, however, likes its social polices to have a pro-business component. So Working For Families is effectively a wage subsidy for employers who continue to profit massively from paying low wages in New Zealand's high-skill economy. As is clear from any number of government and non-government reports, Labour's limited social policies have not significantly improved the lives of grassroots people. What little social wealth Labour has redirected to the bottom has only been possible because of the sustained period of growth in the New Zealand economy from 1999. Come an economic downturn, such as mainstream economists are now predicting, the Labour leadership will come under enormous pressure from business lobbyists, their media and the global market. In that situation, social policies will inevitably take a back seat to corporate profits. Yet the Labour Party still maintains a certain hold over grassroots people because of its history, its links to the workers' movement managed by top union officials, its ability to give a social spin to neo-liberal governance, and finally, the lack of any believable alternative for the majority of voters. But because Labour can never really deliver, the party's support among workers is fragile and eroding, as opinion polls are showing. At the same time the working class is organisationally and politically weak, the result of Labour's neo-liberal "Rogernomics" blitz (1984-90), National's union bashing (1990-99) and more recently Helen Clark's social-liberal smothering of union independence (1999-2008). Union density is low, particularly in the private sector where only 12% of workers are organised. The leaderships of most major unions and the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) maintain links to the Labour Party. This continued political relationship dampens down the union militancy and independence needed to inspire more workers to join and be active in unions. Breaking the hold that NZ Labour has over the workers' movement will remove a crucial barrier to increasing the self-activity of grassroots people. Labour has vacated the space of social democracy at the same time as there's mass concern at the state of the world. Can this provide the opening and the means to start building a broad political alternative? Marxism's three global responses to social liberalism The factors which have combined to fundamentally change the nature of NZ Labour are not unique to Aotearoa. The world's old social democractic parties are everywhere passing over to social liberalism. This has posed questions for serious grassroots activists on every continent. Globally there have been three main responses by Marxists to the problem posed by social liberalism. They are: (1) a narrow "pure" group, (2) a broad-narrow coalition, or (3) a broad left party. (1) Narrow "pure" group Since there are no truly mass parties of Marxists anywhere in the world, maintaining a "pure" position essentially means keeping going as a narrow Marxist group which stresses the primacy of revolutionary ideology over mass work. This strategy prioritises socialist propaganda and intervening in campaigns with the aim of recruiting new members to the group, rather than giving practical leadership to the struggle. Putting their group's future above the struggles of the wider movement is sectarian, according to Karl Marx's judgement that socialists must have no interests separate from those of workers as a whole, as he wrote in the famous "Communist Manifesto". Although the leaders of any narrow group will never admit to being sectarian, they are faced with a glaring problem: Is it realistic to expect their small and isolated membership to stride to the front of the workers' movement in a period of crisis and lead a revolution? Just asking the question presents the answer. The narrow strategy is a dead-end for outwards-focused Marxists who know that "the masses make history". (2) Broad-narrow coalition A broad-narrow coalition is where a Marxist group forms an alliance with other groups and individuals on the left in a bid to "take control" behind the scenes. This is the substance of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) involvement in the Respect coalition in Britain. The SWP leadership voiced the need to create broad left formations in the space vacated by the old social democratic parties. They described Respect as a "united front of a special type", refusing to accept the label of "party" for the new alliance of forces. This seemingly semantic rejection of one word actually concealed a world of difference. The SWP leadership manoeuvred within Respect to determine all important matters, regardless of the coalition's own nominal democratic processes. In reality, the SWP continued to act as a narrow group within Respect, putting group interests ahead of all else because in their minds only they were the flag-bearers of real political change. Such top-down control by a self-selected group is at odds with building a stable mass party based on the necessary principles of equal rights and open democracy. Since the narrow group was more important than the broad formation, the SWP leadership never prioritised the growth of Respect. So on demonstrations and other public events they promoted SWP publications, while blocking Respect from producing its own mass outreach paper. In an Internal Bulletin prior to the last SWP conference, a statement by the group's central committee revealed their narrow approach: "The building of a revolutionary party is the over-arching priority for any revolutionary Marxist. All other strategic decisions are subordinate to this goal." But this should never be a Marxist's top priority. Marxist organisation exists merely as a means to an end: to unite socialists so they increase their ability to reach outwards and stimulate the organised self-activity of the working class. This is as true in non-revolutionary eras as it is in revolutionary periods. Unsurprisingly the way the SWP worked within Respect angered other socialists and activists committed to building a broad left alternative to the British Labour Party. Hence the inevitable split in the coalition and the formation of Respect Renewal, which includes the majority of the non-SWP leadership of Respect. The "broad-narrow" coalition model is as contradictory as the name suggests, inviting an early fracture between its diverging components, with one side wanting an independent mass party and the other wanting control by a group-within-the-party. The same objections that outwards-focused Marxists have to a narrow "pure" group also apply to the broad-narrow model, which impedes definitive and sustainable moves towards creating a truly broad alternative to social-liberalism. (3) Broad left party There are moves globally to establish broad left parties that fervently oppose neo-liberalism, corporate ecocide and imperial wars. This has a momentum separate from Marxists, since good activists from other traditions also realise there is the mood and the opportunity in many countries for creating a left political alternative to the social liberals. In many countries over recent times, broad left parties are making important gains. The Left Party in Germany, which won 51 MPs and nearly 10% of the national vote, operates on the principle "we are the resistance inside and outside the parliament". In Greece, the Coalition of the Radical Left won over 5% of the vote, entitling it to 14 MPs. And in Venezuela, upwards of five million have joined the United Socialist Party in a broad-based response to president Hugo Chavez's call for a "socialism of the 21st century". Marxists committed to a broad left party do not have the aim of gaining group control over the wider formation, as opposed to those wanting a broad-narrow coalition. The broad left party is respected as a pluralistic and diverse coalition of the left, one in which Marxists and non-Marxists participate as equals in order to build wide support for their common alliance, rather than publicising other groups to which they may also belong. Salma Yaqoob, a leading member of Respect Renewal, says: "The coalition model that Respect was founded upon had its merits. In the future, however, I am convinced that we need to organise much more along traditional party political lines. We need to be clear that we are building a political party, and not making some form of temporary agreement between rival interests for electoral purposes." Some outwards-focused Marxists around the world take the position that a Marxist group should dissolve into the broad left party, perhaps organising as a tendency within it, but not maintaining any independent organisation. Others say that a Marxist group should continue to organise independently at the same time as doing everything possible to build a mass party of the broad left. These are important issues for all Marxists to get to grips with. It's a concrete question for Marxists in New Zealand now that RAM (Residents Action Movement) is working towards becoming a nationwide party officially able to contest the list vote in the 2008 general election, and more importantly, to form the bare bones of a future broad left party. Only such a "popular party" can achieve the critical mass needed to inspire grassroots people seeking a better life and open the way towards a co-operative society geared around the public good and ecological balance. Reform & revolution: tensions & interconnections To further evaluate the political and organisational options for Marxists, it's important to establish the relationship between reform and revolution. A dynamic understanding of this relationship is needed if Marxists are to help build a mass party which is both broad and progressive. The programme of SW-NZ states: "Marxists stand for a revolutionary break with capitalism." For Marxists, there is a principled difference between a socialist revolution and a reformist movement which wins some social gains for the grassroots but stops short of redistributing corporate and state power to everyone in society. These are entirely different goals which leave entirely different sets of people in charge of society. There are two key aspects to reformism as an ideology. The first is broad acceptance of actually existing capitalism, but looking to moderate its negative impacts on the majority of people or achieve some concrete benefit within the system, such as free health care or minimum wage rises. The second aspect is a belief that social change mostly comes through the election of representatives to parliament, rather than via the agency of mass movements which reshape the elite power relationships underpinning the economy, the bureaucracy and the media. The consciousness of today's working class is, in the main, reformist. This ideology emerges from within the imprisoned class, trapped as we are in a capitalist world with its strong economic, legal and ideological powers over us. It's constantly reinforced by reformist trade union officials and "soft left" politicians whose privileges hinge on stopping the growth of a mass revolutionary consciousness and whose position is legitimised in lots of ways by the system. So how can reformist ideas in the minds of workers best be challenged and changed? The most important leadership role of socialists is to encourage the organised self-activity of workers and others at the grassroots. Russian Marxist Vladimir Lenin stressed that it's always a matter of growing the confidence and organisation of the masses in large enough proportions to alter the balance of class forces in their favour. When the masses do this they are expanding their class consciousness and moving towards revolutionary conclusions. It takes a system crisis, where the old rulers cannot keep on ruling in the old ways and the masses refuse to be so ruled any longer, that a majority sentiment for revolution emerges. The other side of the coin, however, is that mass struggles for reforms can open up the path to a new society. This can be seen in Venezuela's revolutionary process. SW-NZ's two international statements in 2007 on Venezuela stressed how the fight for key political and economic reforms has advanced the struggle for grassroots control of society, seen in the explosion of Communal Councils with growing local and regional autonomy. While the initiatives coming from Chavez and his political comrades have not been explicitly revolutionary, they have inspired millions of grassroots Venezuelans to action. As SW-NZ wrote in July 2007: "Many of the initiatives promoted by Chavez since his election in December 1998 have acted as 'bridges' across which the masses have moved from a lower level of struggle to a higher one, often in response to obstacles put up by opposing class forces. Each step of the way has seen the revolutionary consciousness of the masses develop." There is a two-way relationship between reform and revolution. British socialist Andy Newman puts it this way: "Reform and revolution are not counterposed. Revolution is a decisive culmination of a process of uncompromising reform." The unprecedented intensity of corporate and state rivalry in today's globalised world demands a "race to the bottom" for workers everywhere. Winning reforms, therefore, demands mass struggles of the magnitude that invites the questioning of late capitalism and the drawing of revolutionary conclusions. Transitional platform + transitional mechanism Putting forward concrete demands that strike a chord with the grassroots can be crucial in activating mass movements. In 1936, exiled Soviet Marxist Leon Trotsky said it was "necessary to help the masses in the process of daily struggle to find the bridge between present demands and the socialist programme of the revolution". "This bridge", he insisted, "should include a system of transitional demands, stemming from today's conditions and from today's consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat." Trotsky saw these transitional demands as being put forward by non-Stalinist Marxist groups, which at the time were too small to connect in sustainable ways with the working class. What he didn't theorise was the need for a "transitional mechanism", a larger party uniting a broader range of activists than Marxists alone, thus providing the necessary weight and impetus to a transitional platform. Transitional demands need a transitional mechanism. This unity of politics and organisation can be achieved by a broad left party. Marxists in a broad left party will be working with conscious reformists who want to achieve goals of immediate benefit to the grassroots, such as free public transport to counter climate warming, but who shy away from sharply-drawn revolutionary conclusions. Others who enter a broad left party will not have a sophisticated reformist ideology, particularly young dissenters and new activists. They are simply joining an organisation that offers hope of a more equitable and ecological future. They have not been dumb-trodden by the corporate orthodoxy, in stark contrast to many official leaders of the workers' movement. A reformist consciousness may well be a stop on the road to somewhere else. The key thing is bringing people together in an inclusive party that's constantly campaigning on the side of the victimised, the voiceless and our natural and social habitats. At the same time, a broad left party must also contest elections. Believing that parliament has the power to change things for better or worse, grassroots people in New Zealand turn out to vote in large numbers. So standing candidates in general elections is important in building a broad left party. In Greater Auckland, New Zealand's main population centre with 1.4 million residents, impressive votes have been gained by RAM in the last two council elections. RAM's anti-corporate platform attracted 87,000 votes in the 2004 Auckland Regional Council poll, with one councillor elected, and 100,000 votes in 2007's local body elections. RAM now wants to grow from an Auckland-only council-centred broad left ticket into a nationwide broad left party eligible to stand for the list vote in general elections. That will require RAM to sign up a paid membership of 500. RAM's decision to go nationwide has important implications for outwards-focused Marxists in Aotearoa. While the RAM Executive has no illusions about any easy breakthrough against the Labour-National stranglehold on parliamentary politics, it may be possible for RAM to gather sufficient votes in general elections to boost the party's name recognition and supporter base around the country. Combining parliamentary with community campaigning will establish RAM's reputation as a party that is serious about organising an all-sided, broad-based challenge to corporate domination. RAM's strategic goal, unanimously agreed by the RAM Executive this year, is to become the natural rallying point for mass resistance to attempts by the ruling class to shove the burdens of looming economic and ecological crises onto the backs of grassroots people. When crisis breaks, RAM aims to have built the nationwide structure, the name recognition and the broad credibility to give political leadership to the resistance from below. This would start to undermine the Labour-National duopoly, thereby opening up new horizons for the workers' movement. Marxists inside a broad left party The prospect of Marxists participating alongside activists from other traditions within a broad left party is an exciting one. It opens up an opportunity for common political work that can advance the cause of the grassroots at a time of neo-liberal hegemony and threatening global catastrophes. A Marxist analysis of the class struggle and the need for socialism will continue to inform the political practice of Marxists within RAM. Other activists in RAM will bring their own ideas about what polices should be prioritised and how best to engage a mass audience. This lively and democratic cross-fertilisation of ideas is likely to produce both a set of transitional demands and a type of transitional mechanism most in tune with the grassroots. Marxist ideas brought to a broad left party will, if accepted by the wider membership, be tested in mass practice. Both Marxists and non-Marxists will then be able to gauge their impact on wider society. If the results are bad, then Marxists will have to change their approach. If the results are good, then the possibility arises of non-Marxists reshaping their political horizons, bringing them closer to a Marxist world view. This is a powerful way of attracting people to Marxism, far more so than through "narrow" socialist propaganda alone or a managerial relationship with others in a broad-narrow coalition. A broad left party opens up a broader space for Marxists to operate, while conversely activists from other traditions have a direct influence on how Marxism develops within their country. While this political reciprocity will bring its own tensions, it also has the capacity to add strength, versatility and innovation to the broad left project. This does not mean Marxists dissolving into a broad left party. It remains important for Marxists to debate important questions independently as Marxists and, where appropriate, to reflect those opinions directly into wider society. What it does mean is Marxists working as much as possible as committed members of the broad left party, with the aim of building that party as an independent political force in close alliance with non-Marxist members. SW-NZ produces a quarterly journal titled UNITY which is Aotearoa's premier Marxist publication. We have our own website called UNITYblogNZ.com. We publish a monthly Operational E-Zine for SW-NZ members. We hold branch meetings and national conferences to debate Marxist strategies and tactics, and to elect people to positions of local and national responsibility. We are a Marxist group which can act independently for specific political reasons. Such things will continue in the aftermath of the unanimous decision by the February 2008 SW-NZ national conference to support RAM's plan to go nationwide. Exactly how SW-NZ maintains this independence of thought and action must, of course, be framed by our broad left strategy, along with other happenings in wider society. A priority must be creating an environment of open democracy and mutual trust within RAM which will empower all members, regardless of what political tradition they come from. That requires a high degree of tactical sophistication. Political debates should be as public as possible, so that all members of a broad left party and beyond are witnesses to the exchange of ideas and can contribute their own opinions. A Marxist group cannot impose decisions on a broad left party, or vice versa. Both are independent, though interlinked, organisations. Thus Marxists should not caucus before meetings of the broad left party with the intention of sticking to a pre-decided line, nor should adherents of any other tendency. How could any pre-decided political, tactical or organisational line be open to modification as a consequence of free-flowing debate? Such practices could only result in mistrust and disunity which would imperil the broad left party. Rather, all members of a Marxist group who have agreed to help build a broad left party must retain the maximum tactical flexibility and the right to publicly disagree among themselves about the ever-changing issues thrown up by the actual process of building the broad left party. While open debates among and between Marxists and non-Marxists may be messy, such grassroots democracy can also empower both participants and observers. But is public dissension between Marxists and radical changes in their political organisation in step with the practices of Karl Marx and of Lenin's Bolsheviks? Well, yes. Marx famously advised his political co-workers to question everything, including what he said. And Lenin's attitude to party building evolved according to the demands of history, In the early years he promoted a narrow underground group of "professional revolutionaries" to counter the impacts of extreme secret police oppression. After a grassroots revolt against Russia's Tsar exploded in 1905, Lenin opposed his own "professional revolutionaries" in order to broaden the party to include "every striker" across the country. When the rebellion faltered and imperial reaction set in, he advocated a coalition between the pro-party Bolshevik "hard left" and the Menshevik "soft left". In the years afterwards he advocated a series of other fundamental shifts in party building as the Bolsheviks adapted to changing circumstances. Lenin's dictum was, in short, "the party is dead, long live the party!" All strategies carry consequences, both negative and positive, but not necessarily of the same order of magnitude. So members of a narrow "pure" group retain their homogenous belief in their own sectarian version of Marxism, but at the suffocating cost of near total irrelevance in the struggles of the masses. Marxists who try to face both ways by promoting a broad-narrow coalition may temporarily expand their peripheral influence over other activists, but soon face the discontents flowing from a majority of "outsiders" being bossed around by a self-selected cadre of "insiders". Outwards-focused Marxists committed to a broad left project often suffer a loss of organisational cohesion, yet find their ability to influence a mass audience exponentially expanded. One way or another, there's a price to be paid for every choice. In the opinion of SW-NZ, any organisational negatives we face will be worth it to help create a mass alternative to social liberalism. And we believe that such organisational downsides can be offset by stepping up ideological work around our UNITY journal, UNITY blog, Operational E-Zine, Marxist Forums and other avenues of socialist information and debate. Moving the masses It's often said that effective socialist leadership can only be one step ahead of the masses. This, however, presupposes that we're actually reaching the masses. There is no point in having "correct" ideas that hardly anyone hears. Helping to build a broad left party while retaining our Marxist identity makes us worthy successors of Lenin, that greatest of socialism's tradition-breaking strategists. In the current era, faced with the task of breaking the stranglehold of social liberalism, the broad left party can provide a transitional mechanism that links Marxists and non-Marxists around a transitional programme offering hope to society's majority: the disappointed, the downtrodden and the dispossessed. RAM's impressive votes in two council elections indicates that a sizeable constituency is willing to support an in-your-face pro-grassroots, pro-ecology, pro-democracy challenge to the corporate elites running Greater Auckland. While it will be harder to undermine the Labour-National duopoly in parliamentary elections, RAM going nationwide is a serious bid to build a broad left party that moves the masses. RAM's success or failure will hinge on the degree of buy-in from grassroots activists around New Zealand. But even failure would be only a temporary set-back, since history is crying out for a broad left breakthrough against the ruling elites who ignore our needs and crush our spirit and ruin our habitat. Act on the call of history!

Different pictures of Europe’s left

Different pictures of Europe’s left

by Alex Callinicos

The collapse of Romano Prodi’s centre-left government in January was a miserable end to the hopes of all those who had wanted to see an end to the sleazy right wing politics of Silvio Berlusconi.

Italy was the European country where the prospects of a renewal of the left seemed very real after the 2001 Genoa protests and the 2002 European Social Forum in Florence. But that was squandered when Rifondazione Comunista joined a government committed to neoliberal policies and the war in Afghanistan.

But one shouldn’t draw the conclusion that it’s all over for the European radical left. In Germany and Greece, the picture is very different.

The German political scene has been galvanised by the formation of Die Linke (The Left) in June last year. Die Linke brings together former members of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in western Germany and the PDS, the old East German ruling party turned reformist.

In recent state elections Die Linke has been winning significant scores – crossing the barrier of 5 percent of the vote required to win parliamentary seats in Hesse and Lower Saxony and achieving 6.5 percent in Hamburg a fortnight ago.

The rise of Die Linke represents a rebellion by working class voters against the SPD’s swing to the right. Ruling under Gerhard Schröder in coalition with the Greens between 1998 and 2005, the SPD forced through Agenda 2010, a platform of “reforms” that slashed unemployment benefits.

Defeated in the 2005 elections, the SPD formed a “Grand Coalition” government with the CDU conservatives under Angela Merkel. The precursors of Die Linke won 8.7 percent of the vote and 54 seats in the federal parliament.

Scuppers

Under new chair Kurt Beck the SPD is running scared of Die Linke. It has dumped Agenda 2010, pushed through an increase in unemployment benefit for older jobseekers, and forced the Grand Coalition to introduce a minimum wage for postal workers that effectively scuppers plans to privatise the post.

Merkel has been leading a government campaign against the tax haven in Lichtenstein. “What you see happening is the SPD leading the CDU by the nose while Die Linke is leading both Greens and the SPD by the nose,” complains Guido Westerwelle, leader of the neoliberal Free Democratic Party.

Meanwhile in Greece there have been two massive general strikes in the past four months. The right wing New Democracy government is facing resistance to its policies of pensions “reform” and privatisation and has been engulfed in scandal.

But this isn’t benefitting the other big party, the centre-left Pasok. Pasok, which adopted New Labour-style policies under its last prime minister Costas Simitis is also in crisis.

When I was in Athens a fortnight ago, an opinion poll gave New Democracy 31 percent, Pasok 28.3 percent, left coalition group Synaspismos 16.2 percent, the Greek Communist Party 7.1 percent, and the far right LAOS 3.8 percent.

The most dynamic factor in the situation is Synaspismos, which originates from different fragments of the KKE, traditionally the dominant force on the radical left in Greece.

Until recently, Synaspismos struggled to pass the 3 percent barrier to win MPs. Now, together with the KKE, it has won the largest share in public opinion for the radical left since the 1950s.

The successes enjoyed by Die Linke and Synaspismos reflect a combination of two factors – the crisis of social democracy and militant workers’ struggles. Both countries have seen important strikes recently.

But both parties also face the same trap – coalition with the centre left. “I can assure you,” a top SPD leader told the Financial Times a few weeks ago, “as long as the chairman [Beck] and I have anything to say about it, there will not be an alliance with Die Linke at the federal level.”

But more recently Beck floated the idea of an SPD-Die Linke coalition in Hesse.

Die Linke and Synaspismos need to learn the lesson of the Prodi government. It’s the struggles from below that offer the way forward, not parliamentary manoeuvres and combinations.

Cyprus Republic: An Historic victory for the Left

A resounding defeat for Greek Cypriot Nationalism and Neo-liberalism

The results of last Sunday¹s (24/2) crucial presidential runoff in Cyprus (Southern part) brought to office Dimitris Christofias the Communist Party leader who clinched 53% of the vote in an unprecedented victory for the island's communist AKEL party, beating the conservative Yiannis Kasoulides, who polled 46% of the vote. As the biggest Greek Cypriot political party, AKEL controls one-third of the vote but for the first time in its 82-year history fielded its own candidate for president. The communists have preferred to form a strategic alliance with a centrist or leftwing contender and play a back-seat role in government. It¹s no surprise then that Sunday¹s (24/2) results led its jubilant supporters, among them many Turkish Cypriots who crossed from North to South, to flood the streets of capital Nicosia, waving red and Che Guevara flags, honking car horns and lighting flares.

Nationalism defeated
Christofias¹ victory added to another surprise victory in the first round when Tassos Papadopoulos, the incumbent president of the Republic of Cyprus was ousted.
All previous opinion polls leading up to the first round (17/2), showed the three main candidates for the presidency ­ Demetris Christofias, Yiannis Kasoulides from the right wing DISY party and Papadopoulos who was supported by two other small parties, to be neck and neck.
The defeat of the 74-year old Papadopoulos, a renowned anti-Turk who adopted a hard-line approach to the Cyprus issue, was the undisputed favourite to win the elections.
Papadopoulos was the president who led the "no" campaign for the Annan Plan on a nationalist basis during the referendum in 2004 when 76% of Greek Cypriots (G/C) rejected it. During the whole of the election campaign the Papadopoulos camp made nationalism and his hard-line approach towards the Turkish Cypriots (T/C) the central theme of their rhetoric, declaring that these elections were a second «referendum». The other two rival candidates had campaigned on a platform of resuming peace talks ­ frozen for five years under Papadopoulos ­ and in favour of a solution based on respect for both communities.
Interestingly, of those who voted against the Annan Plan in 2004, 60% supported the two main challengers sending them through to the second round. The results of the first round confirm what we in Workers Democracy have been arguing in our analysis of the referendum that not all Greek Cypriots who voted "NO" were nationalists but they rejected the Annan Plan because they did not trust George Bush and his accomplice Tony Blair to promote peace in Cyprus - only their own plans for Cyprus as the 'unsinkable aircraft-carrier' in the region.

AKEL¹s recent record
In February 2003 Papadopoulos won the presidency with the support of communist AKEL and another two nationalist smaller parties. As a result AKEL joined a coalition government with 4 out of a total of 11 ministers.
Papadopoulos¹ election coincided with the massive anti-war demonstrations internationally as well as in Cyprus against the invasion of Iraq by the US and Britain.
Despite Papadopoulos¹ rhetoric that he will be an obstacle to the conspiracy by Great Powers against Œlittle Cyprus¹ he proved to be a faithful ally to USA-Britain and Bush¹s war against Œterrorism¹. During his 5-year administration he offered every facility to US for logistics and communications in attacking Iraq, offered the use of Cyprus ports, airspace and the two British bases by US warships and aircraft carriers, much to the embarrassment of AKEL, its major partner.
During his term Papadopoulos apart from his nationalist-intransigent stance towards the T/Cs, the racist measures he adopted towards immigrants he followed a neo-liberal agenda while AKEL took a tolerant stance. During this period, Papadopoulos clashed repeatedly with sections of the working class and the youth when he increased the retirement age for public sector workers from 60 to 63 and tried to increase it also in the private sector. Large scandals engulfed also his government, much to the discontent of ordinary people.
All these, forced the leadership of AKEL to withdraw from the coalition government six months prior to presidential elections when it became clear to the leadership that its rank and file would not stomach another five-year term of a Papadopoulos government. It was on this basis that AKEL decided for the first time to stand its General Secretary, Christofias, as a presidential candidate in this election.

Class polarisation
What became a determinant factor in these elections was not nationalism but the unprecedented class polarisation seen in society, the clash between left and right.
The choice for Greek Cypriot (G/C) workers was clear: people had to choose between the Tory DISY party and the reformist AKEL. The candidate of DISY, Kasoulides a genuine candidate of the G/C ruling class, endorsed the ŒHelleno-Christian¹ ideals, the insistence on ŒGreekness¹, anti-communism, the alliance with Great Powers, and the full acceptance of the Papadopoulos¹ hard-line on the Cyprus issue. It¹s no surprise then that Kasoulides enjoyed the open support of the employers, of the Archbishop and of the ultra-nationalist ŒAssociation of ex-EOKA fighters¹.
Christofias, the candidate of AKEL pulled in the runoff the support of the other two parties who formed previously the coalition government. AKEL¹s candidate is seen by a large section of ordinary people as the representative of the working class and a symbol of peaceful co-existence with the T/Cs and historically committed to re-unification of the island. The preference shown to Christofias as the new president among the T/Cs is rated at the high 85% according to the T/C daily "Kibrisli".
AKEL may still boast busts of Lenin and red flags at its headquarters but it is a reformist, Œpatriotic¹ party which has been associated for decades with the choices of the G/C ruling class and G/C capitalism. Christofias repeatedly stated that as president Œwill manage capitalism but with in a humane way¹. However, the majority of the people that voted Christofias with enthusiasm last Sunday, anticipating a better life, a more "just society" and an "equitable settlement" of the Cyprus issue as declared by Christofias, will not return home after the elections. They want to see these promises delivered. The people forming a large left section existing inside and outside AKEL, who united they fought the battle for the election of Christofias they will be the same people who will dash again to the front line of the battle to support Christofias when he will be hard-pushed by the right but also to oppose him mightily when he will turn adversely to the working class interests.

Now it is the time to start building a left alternative fighting for socialism, the only real just society that can exist. Building a left alternative that will wage a persistent war against nationalism and racism, which would confront and not appease the imperialists in return for diplomatic gains in Œour national question¹. An anti-capitalist left that it would support the working class struggles.
The unity among the left that was brought about first by the candidature of Christofias and the euphoria and the self-confidence reigned by tonight¹s victory can give a robust impulse to that direction.

Phaedon Vassiliades ­
Workers Democracy Group

Another breakthrough for the Left party in Germany

Without us it would be deadly boring in [Hamburg's parliament]," said Left party activist Gregor Gysi at an election rally in the port city on Wednesday.

The Left Party took 6.4% of the vote in the Northern German city state of Hamburg, winning 8 seats in the provincial legislature. Merkel's CDU won 42.6 percent of the vote compared with 34.1 percent for Kurt Beck's Social Democratic Party, the SPD's second-worst result in Hamburg since World War II, preliminary results showed today. The Greens, which took 12.3 percent last time, landed at 9.6 percent, while the Free Democrats, with 4.7 percent, fell short of the 5 percent threshold to enter the state parliament.

The arrival of the Left Party in Hamburg scuppered the hopes of the SPD and the Greens of forming a coalition. The Left's gains in Hamburg bring its representation to 10 of Germany's 16 regional assemblies, underscoring the party's widening national appeal. The Left's rise, bolstered by an investigation this month of hundreds of people on suspicion of evading German taxes by funneling funds to Liechtenstein, makes coalition-building between the main parties and their political allies increasingly problematic.

The Left Party, a combination of former Communists, disillusioned Social Democrats and western radicals and revolutionary socialists, won enough votes last month in the states of Hesse and Lower Saxony to win parliamentary representation. While the Left Party is well represented in the east and has parliamentary seats in the northern city-state of Bremen, it had never sat in one of the large western states’ parliaments.

The votes contributed to a brewing sense of political helplessness.

“The German political system is now effectively in gridlock,” said Jackson Janes, director of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, a research group based in Washington. “And no one knows how to get it out.”

"The success of the Left have recognizably altered the discussions on policy in the other parties," said Renate Koecher of the Allensbach Institute for public opinion research.

"The efforts of the SPD to re-establish itself with leftist positions ... have brought it little benefit but have rather strengthened the Left," she said.

Venezuela: Danger signs for the revolution

Kiraz Janicke & Federico Fuentes, Caracas

22 February 2008


In recent weeks, external and internal pressure against Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution, as the process of change led by socialist President Hugo Chavez is known, has intensified dramatically.

It is clear that US imperialism and the US-backed Venezuelan opposition see the defeat of Chavez’s proposed constitutional reforms on December 2 as a green light to push forward their plans to destablise the government.

In addition, growing internal problems, with a strengthening of the right-wing of the Chavista movement — known as the “endogenous right", who support implementing some reforms without breaking with capitalism — pose a serious threat to the survival of the revolution.

Chavez’s proposed constitutional reforms were aimed at institutionalising greater popular power and increasing restrictions on capitalists to the benefit of working people. In response, the capitalist-owned private media launched a campaign based on lies and disinformation aimed at confusing the Venezuelan people.

Combined with low intensity economic sabotage — contributing to shortages of basic goods such as milk — the opposition was able to stoke the discontent that exists among the poor over problems such as corruption and bureaucratism.

Nearly 3 million people who voted for Chavez in the December 2006 presidential election abstained in the referendum, handing the opposition its first electoral victory since Chavez came to power in 1998.

Imperialist offensive

Attempting to build on this, a renewed US offensive has been unleashed aimed at isolating Chavez internationally, and undermining the process of Latin American integration spearheaded by Venezuela.

A key part of the strategy has involved fanning the flames of conflict between Venezuela and neighbouring Colombia. A dispute broke out after right-wing Colombian President Alvaro Uribe initially invited Chavez to help negotiate with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)— Colombia’s largest left-wing guerrilla group — over a potential prisoner swap with the Colombian state, only to abruptly terminate Chavez’s role in November.

Chavez nonetheless negotiated the unilateral release on January 10 of two prisoners held by the FARC. He also called for an end to the inclusion of the FARC on lists of banned terrorist organisations as a step towards finding a political solution to Colombia’s decades-long civil war.

The US responded by having a number of high-profile US officials visit Colombia and verbally attack Venezuela.

Although “not aware of any specific support Mr Chavez has provided the FARC”, the Pentagon’s joint chief of staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, in January still levelled false allegations that Chavez was granting the FARC “strategic support”.

John Walters, the director of the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, accused Chavez on January 29 of being a “major facilitator of the international drug trade”, despite an increase in interdiction of drug trafficking by the Venezuelan state.

The most serious imperialist attack came via a series of court orders obtained by US oil giant ExxonMobil, backed by the US State Department, to freeze US$12 billion worth of assets of Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA, in both British and Dutch courts — a move described by Chavez as part of an “economic war”.

The move is in retaliation to the nationalisation of ExxonMobil investments in Venezuela’s Orinoco oil belt last year. PDVSA provides up to $13 billion a year for government-initiated social programs that provide free education and healthcare to Venezuela’s poor.

ExxonMobil’s actions are intended to also send a message to other Latin American countries considering resource nationalisation — imperialism will fight back.

Internal destablisation

The Venezuelan opposition is also intensifying its destablisation campaign. The previously hopelessly divided opposition, boosted in confidence by the referendum results, is working towards a strong, unified campaign for the November elections for state governors and mayors.

This is combined with increasing extra-parliamentary destablisation, including a stepping up of economic sabotage by capitalists — reminiscent of the sabotage against the left-wing Chilean government that preceded the US-backed military coup by General Augusto Pinochet in 1973.

The campaign involves the hoarding, speculation and smuggling of food, contributing to shortages. This is combined with a virulent media campaign aimed at fuelling discontent.

The opposition is increasing its focus on the poor majority that make up Chavez’s support base. It is seeking to take advantage of discontent to infiltrate the barrios through what it calls “popular networks”, which work to spread rumours, promote discontent and divisions among Chavistas — and mobilise people against the government.

According to Eva Golinger, who has exposed the extent of US intervention into Venezuela, these networks receive funding and training from the US government-funded USAID.

There are also reports of growing links between right-wing Colombian paramilitaries, organised crime and sections of the Venezuelan opposition, especially in the states bordering Colombia. Large landowners have contracted paramilitaries to murder at least 190 campesinos (peasants) in recent years in an attempt to sabotage the land reform process promoted by the government.

Paramilitaries have also developed a presence in Caracas barrios. Funded by local businesses and dressed as civilians, they engage in drug dealing and act as hired assassins. This has helped impede community organising.

In response to such pressure, Chavez has called for greater unity within the revolution.

Chavista divisions

However, serious divisions exist within the Bolivarian movement, which includes powerful pro-capitalist economic and political blocs — some with important influence in the military. This sector controls a number of ministries and a large part of the National Assembly, as well as mayor and governor offices, and is linked to a state bureaucracy unwilling to cede power.

There is also a more radical left, strong among the grassroots as well as elements within the state, which wants to deepen the process and overcome the corruption and bureaucratism holding back the revolution’s advance.

Since the peak of the period of intensive mobilisation by the poor and working people against the US-backed attempts to bring down the government — with the failed coup in 2002, the oil industry shutdown in 2002-03 and the recall referendum in 2004 — the level of ongoing popular mobilisation has decreased significantly.

Under the whip of the counter-revolution, the oppressed demonstrated their willingness to fight — and ability to defeat — attempts by the old elite to reclaim power and eradicate the gains associated with the Bolivarian revolution.

However, with the weakening of the opposition after each defeat, combined with increased living standards for the poor, frustration with the state bureaucracy sabotaging those gains has become a bigger concern for many.

These problems have been exacerbated by a growing gap between government rhetoric and reality. Also badly undermining the revolution has been the severe weakness of the bitterly divided workers’ movement.

These factors have impeded the creation of a unified force based on the grassroots militants that would be capable of leading the deepening of the revolution in the direction of socialism — as repeatedly called for by Chavez.

In this context the endogenous right-wing has grown in strength. Many of these forces, which give lip service to the goal of socialism, publicly called for a “Yes” vote in the referendum but worked behind the scenes to discourage voting for the radical reforms that threatened their interests.

By promoting a “personality cult” around Chavez, the right has sought to silence criticism of its own actions, presenting such attacks as being against Chavez and assisting US imperialism.

The conflict between left and right within the Bolivarian movement is most clearly expressed in the struggle over the formation of the new United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

Called for by Chavez to create a political instrument to unite militants on the ground and help lead the struggle for socialism, it has become a battleground between bureaucratic sectors determined to keep control and activists from the popular movements fighting to build a mass, democratic and genuinely revolutionary party.

Such a party, if it succeeded in uniting the base with the leadership of Chavez over the heads of the bureaucrats, would be a severe blow against the right-wing forces that have maintained positions through factional power blocs.

The popular sectors have had a strong influence in the direction and discourse of the founding congress that began in January and ends in March. However, the outcome is far from decided, with the right-wing fighting hard.

A controversy has broken out over false claims by former vice-president Jorge Rodriguez (now national coordinator of the PSUV) and Diosdado Cabello (governor of Miranda, a major capitalist with strong influence in the military and identified as a key leader of the endogenous right) that National Assembly deputy Luis Tascon had been expelled from the PSUV by a unanimous vote of delegates.

No such vote occurred, and the question of Tascon’s expulsion is still being fought over. However Rodriguez and Cabello have been forced to back down, declaring Tascon has been “suspended” and will be given a right to reply after the congress has decided on the statutes and principles of the new party — a decision also never debated or voted on by delegates.

Tascon has made corruption allegations against Cabello’s brother, now head of Venezuela’s tax agency. Chavez had called for people to expose corruption.

Rodriguez and Cabello have also argued for the new party to be subordinated to the government and stated it is not necessary to include anti-capitalism as one of its principles, which have become key points of debate.

Other organisational disputes have resulted from manoeuvring by the hand-picked congress organising committee, specifically on the question of how documents to be voted on will be drafted and whether they will be presented to the PSUV ranks with enough time for discussion.

Class struggle

Attempts to silence dissent and bureaucratically take over the PSUV are part of the plans of the endogenous right, which aspires to “Chavismo without Chavez” — and without socialism. Such actions aim to further demoralise the popular sectors.

These divisions reflect the class struggle within the revolutionary process.

In an interview with Green Left Weekly in 2006 (“Oil, revolution and socialism”, GLW #681) Tascon argued: “there will undoubtedly be a confrontation between different Chavistas. I am sure there will be a conflict of particular interests between the left and the right. But it will not be the traditional right [who are in the opposition], but a Chavista right-wing.”

As a process that aims to overcome the subordination of the Venezuelan economy — and state — to the needs of US imperialism, broad forces have been attracted to the Bolivarian movement.

It has included those who hoped that breaking from US domination would assist economic development within a capitalist framework, right through to revolutionary socialists for whom nothing short of a thorough-going social revolution will solve the needs of the oppressed majority.

Under attack from imperialism and the local capitalist class, the revolution has increasingly radicalised, with Chavez repeatedly insisting the goal was socialism.

However, at the same time the revolution swung further left, the strength of right-wing forces has increased within much of both the pro-Chavez political parties and the notoriously corrupt state..

This contradiction is being fought out over the question of whose interests the PSUV will serve — the oppressed majority or the pro-capitalist bureaucrats? The organisation and unity of the left forces will be crucial to determining the future of the PSUV — and the revolution.

The internal and external battles are clearly linked, as revealed by the fact that discontent over problems either caused or exacerbated by the Chavista right helped cause the defeat of the constitutional reform — a victory for the US-backed opposition that has given it badly needed momentum.

Without a real “revision, rectification and relaunch” of the revolution — the “three Rs” Chavez has called for — the Bolivarian forces could face significant defeats in the elections at the end of the year. This could pave the way for an escalated opposition offensive to drive Chavez from government, via constitutional or other means.

[Kiraz Janicke and Federico Fuentes are part of the GLW Caracas bureau, and are members of the Democratic Socialist Perspective, a Marxist group in Australia that is part of the Socialist Alliance.]

Organising to build a global broad left movement

Statement by the central committee of Socialist Worker-New Zealand on the occasion of the two separate Respect conferences taking place in London on 17 November 2007. The political crisis in Respect that has led to a split is a setback for the movement in Britain. Many activists involved with Respect must be incredibly frustrated and disappointed that this happened at this time and in this manner. Some of that frustration and disappointment is shared by Socialist Worker-New Zealand. As an organisation we have watched closely the development of Respect, as an example of a broad left political formation. That this split has occurred, however, should not detract from the urgent necessity of building broad left alternatives. It’s not inevitable that a coalition that brings together people from a range of political traditions and experiences should fracture in this way. And there’s hope that out of the split, and the important political lessons it contains, a viable broad left project which maintains the original vision of Respect can emerge. For us in New Zealand, building a mass-based broad left alternative is central to the political strategy of our organisation. It is a strategy that we believe has global reach. Why broad left formations are necessary To many activists, workers and other grassroots people it’s apparent that the world’s becoming more dangerous, unequal, and at risk of environmental catastrophe. Corporate imperialism is driving the US ruling class to pursue a global war, currently centred on the Middle East. The same forces of corporate domination and control are marching the world headlong towards irreversible climate change. While the wealth gap between the world’s elite and the vast majority of humanity continues to grow. Grassroots people in every country are deeply concerned and angry at the twisted world that’s been created by three decades of neo-liberalism. In recent years – though globally uneven – there have been signs that anger is being combined with a growing willingness to fight back. Internationally, a layer of younger anti-capitalist activists has emerged. In some countries there’s increased militancy by unionised workers. And in Latin America, led by the revolutionary process in Venezuela, millions of people are now in revolt against corporate rule. So while the world faces the most urgent problems which threaten the lives of billions of people, there are also opportunities for building a political challenge to the corporate imperialists and the political parties that represent them. This is being recognised by activists in many countries, who are forming broad left networks, coalitions and parties. There’s a growing realisation that mass-based political alternatives to formerly social democratic parties that have embraced neo-liberalism have got to be built. For Socialist Worker-New Zealand such broad left formations are necessary for raising the confidence of working class people, because they begin to establish the prospect of an alternative society with different norms of collective behaviour and social responsibility. A programme of general and specific demands Central to many broad left initiatives is a common strategy: which is, the vital importance of presenting a programme of general and specific demands out to the wider movement. Such demands include free healthcare, free education, the nationalisation of wealth for the people, measures to protect the environment, rights for workers, rights for indigenous people, and so on. These demands can mobilise people in the struggle, uniting them into a potentially powerful force for social change. This is an essential strategy for advancing the movement after years of neo-liberal attacks and often severe defeats for workers and other grassroots people. Creating a viable electoral platform to present progressive demands out to masses of people is a necessity. Achieving legitimacy and authority in the eyes of grassroots people requires committed efforts to mount serious electoral campaigns. This is one part of building organic links with people who have been politically marginalised for so long. This electoral work must, of course, go hand-in-hand with grassroots campaigning in communities and workplaces. Mass outreach publications are needed which aim to bring broad layers of people into common activity. Such publications are important for maintaining an outwards focus and encouraging participants in broad left formations, both individuals and groups, to regard this work as a political priority. New Zealand’s Workers Charter Our organisation has worked with other radical leftists in New Zealand to establish the Workers Charter, a document which includes a ten-point list of human rights (see Appendix). At the beginning of 2006 the Workers Charter paper was set-up to promote the charter and to connect with workers and other grassroots people beginning to radicalise. The paper is distributed at protests and through union networks. The aim has been to bring socialist, leftists and other activists closer together, where debates can take place in the context of an orientation to the wider movement. The ten-point Workers Charter is also part of the manifesto of the Residents Action Movement (RAM). RAM was formed in 2003 by leading members of Socialist Worker-New Zealand in coalition with other grassroots activists on the back of a rates revolt in Auckland, New Zealand’s biggest city. In the 2007 local body elections RAM stood candidates across Greater Auckland (population: 1.4 million) and received over 100,000 votes campaigning on a clear anti-corporate, pro-people, pro-environment platform. Key policies were free and frequent public transport and shifting the rates burden off residents and onto big corporations. We see RAM and the Workers Charter as part of the struggle to build a serious challenge to the increasingly neo-liberal and reactionary New Zealand Labour Party. Breaking the hold that social liberal parties still maintain over workers and the wider movement will remove a crucial barrier to advancing the confidence of grassroots people. This is going to be a difficult struggle, but one which Socialist Worker-New Zealand believes must be embarked on with total commitment. Free debate and open democracy Broad left formations are by their very nature going to bring people with a range of views and experiences together. This is to be celebrated. Different ideas, shades of socialist and left politics, will generate much needed political creativity as broad left formations strive to connect with working class people. Any broad left network, coalition or party that is to have a long term future must foster a spirit of trust and equality based on free debate and open democracy. And certainly no one group can claim ownership and control. But because this is the real world of politics, there will be differences and often quite intense debates at every stage of the struggle, but all individuals and groups must make every effort to avoid behaviour that destroys long term political relationships between activists. Further, uncomradely argument and bureaucratic pettiness simply alienates ordinary grassroots people, particularly those new to political activity. Who are the very people that any broad left coalition or party must seek to attract. An outwards focus, where the goal is always to relate to grassroots people who are becoming radicalised in the current political context, is crucial to maintaining a political culture which encourages the free exchange of ideas. The significance of the Venezuelan revolution Socialist Worker-New Zealand believes the question of building broad left alternatives should be considered in relation to the Venezuelan revolution and its global impact. The revolutionary process in Venezuela involves millions of people, it is democratic, it is anti-imperialist, and it is empowering grassroots Venezuelans. A whole society is being transformed. These historic events provide all of us who hope for social change an opportunity to point to a real life alternative. This must be utilised by any broad left formation serious about advancing the movement in their own country. In addition, it is our opinion that the Venezuelan revolution holds some important lessons for broad left formations looking to build a mass movement. Socialism for the 21st century is being achieved by a strategically and tactically astute leadership putting in front of grassroots Venezuelans inspiring but attainable goals that have then been acted upon by millions of people. Through this process the struggle has pressed on towards socialist goals. We can look to advancing the movement in this way inside our own countries through broad left formations presenting well considered demands and policies out to masses of ordinary people. A new mass socialist international Recently, Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez proposed a new International of socialist parties and the left for Latin America and the Caribbean. An international forum is being planned for 2008. It’s our belief that the Venezuelan revolution and the wider Latin American uprisings are indeed providing the essential material foundations for a new socialist international of the type that Chávez is proposing. A new International would be a hugely significant development for a grassroots, inclusive and democratic struggle against corporate imperialism. A mass socialist international that links the inspiring example of the Venezuelan revolution with radical forces in other countries would have moral and political authority in the eyes of millions. It could give real leadership and coordination to the global struggle against poverty, eco-destruction and war. As a step towards creating a new International, Socialist Worker-New Zealand is proposing to comrades in Venezuela and international socialists the urgent formation of an International Editorial Committee to facilitate a multi-language international discussion on the global significance of the Venezuelan revolution. A global programme for a living world The formation of a new mass socialist international would expand prospects for building a global broad left movement. It is Socialist Worker-New Zealand’s belief that the broad left strategy being pursued within individual countries can be supplemented and enhanced by a global broad left programme. A global programme for a living world, founded on the rights of humans to dignity, prosperity and peace, would electrify and unite the international struggle. Especially if it was promoted by an International that included the newly formed United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), set to be the biggest mass party of the left in the world. A global programme that includes general and specific demands generated by the movement would build practical solidarity between peoples in different countries. A common programme that has mass buy-in from left and socialist forces on every continent would be a truly powerful force for social change. Such a bold international strategy would provide a massive lift to the struggle in every country, potentially acting as a force to overcome unevenness in the global movement. By forging bonds of international solidarity we strengthen the struggle in our own countries. Relating to the struggle here and now The political focus of socialists and the radical left has to be on relating to the problems and opportunities in front of the movement now. To miss the opportunities that are present, through a lack of vision or through sectarian political practices, could bring grave consequences for humanity and the struggle to achieve a just society. In the absence of broad left coalitions or parties with a mass following it will be the right that stands to benefit in a situation of intensified capitalist crisis. It was not predetermined that the activists who have worked in and alongside Respect since 2004 would come to see the project arrive at its present point. Given the correct political outlook, commitment and vision, socialists and radical leftists can work cooperatively in broad left formations. Socialist Worker-New Zealand believes this is possible and absolutely necessary in the current political context. Organising to achieve increased confidence and political involvement of grassroots people in a progressive movement for social change should be the immediate priority of the international movement. We would like to establish links with all activists who are interested in our thoughts on building a global broad left movement. Contact socialist-worker@pl.net In solidarity, Central committee of Socialist Worker-New Zealand SIGNED BY Don Archer Grant Brookes Vaughan Gunson Bernie Hornfeck Peter Hughes Daphne Lawless Grant Morgan Len Parker Tony Snelling-Berg Appendix New Zealand's 10-point Workers Charter has been endorsed by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and is included in the manifesto of RAM (Residents Action Movement). The 10 points of the Workers Charter are: 1. The right to a job that pays a living wage and gives us time with our families and communities. 2. The right to pay equity for women, youth and casual workers. 3. The right to free public healthcare and education, and to liveable superannuation and welfare. 4. The right to decent housing without crippling mortgages and rents. 5. The right to public control of assets vital to community well-being. 6. The right to protect our environment from corporate greed. 7. The right to express our personal identity free from discrimination. 8. The right to strike in defence of our interests. 9. The right to organise for the transfer of wealth and power from the haves to the have-nots. 10. The right to unite with workers in other lands against corporate globalisation and war.