Mobilisation for the climate and anti-capitalist strategy

The following article dealing with capitalism’s climate crisis was presented at the 16th World Congress of the Fourth International, held in Belgium in February 2010.
 
It raises similar issues and comes to striking similar to Socialist Worker NZ’s annalysis of the probability of capitalist collapse, as outlined in Grant Morgan’s essay ‘Beware! The end is nigh!’ Why global capitalism is tipping towards collapse, and how we can act for a decent future.


By Daniel Tanuro

Three billion human beings lack the essentials of life. The satisfaction of their needs requires increased production of material goods. Therefore increased consumption of energy. Today, 80 per cent of this energy is of fossil origin, and consequently a source of greenhouse gases which are unbalancing the climatic system.

Video: Wellington public meeting on the Nepal revolution

There’s a revolution going on, but most New Zealanders – including most activists – haven’t heard of it.

That’s why the current national speaking tour by Australian socialist Ben Peterson is important.

Ben has been talking about the unfolding revolution in Nepal. Last year, he spent four months in the country with the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

“It’s so hard to get good information about what’s going on”, says Ben. “That’s why I decided to go there myself”.

The national tour was jointly organized by the Workers Party, Socialist Worker (publishers of UNITYblog) and the International Socialist Organisation.

The third meeting of the tour drew over 20 people to the Newtown Community Centre in Wellington. Ben explained some of the history of Nepal and its oppressive monarchy, before focusing on the development of the Maoist revolutionary movement.

“They launched a People’s War On February 13, 1996. It wasn’t a meaningful insurgency initially, but the Maoist movement started to gain popular support.

“They would take up people’s day to day demands, the rights of women, people of low caste, of national groups to be taught in their native language. They would redistribute land to people without it and force corrupt police, or money-lenders, out of the village.

“In 2001, the Maoist Party adopted the Prachanda Path, getting away from some of the more dogmatic beginnings and started to look to the cities for people to get involved in a broad democratic movement against the King.

“In 2002, King Gyanendra dismissed Parliament and took all power back under his personal control. In 2006, the Jana Andolan 2 (the Second People’s Movement) started as a call for a general strike. The King declared ‘shoot on sight’ notices for protesters. He was forced to back down.

“Under popular pressure, led by the Maoists, elections to the Constituent Assembly were finally decreed in 2008. The Maoists won 40 percent of the seats. The Royalist parties got less than half a dozen seats. It was a vindication of the revolution.

“As part of the peace agreement, it was agreed that the old Royalist military and the Maoist Peoples Liberation Army would be integrated into a new army around a new constitution drafted by the people.

“After repeated insubordination, the Maoists dismissed the head of the army. Then the right wing parties used the president to reinstate him unconstitutionally. The Maoists resigned from the government.

“The whole time this process has been happening, the real fundamental change has been happening at the grassroots level. I spent two weeks with the Peoples Liberation Army. There’s a lot of frustration. They wanted to be out doing meaningful development tasks.

“The biggest changes in Nepal are the social changes. The fact that a dalit (someone from a low caste family) can marry someone from a different ethnic group would not even have been close to a realistic possibility a few years ago. The gender roles have been challenged, too.

“The Maoists are a listed terrorist organisation in the US. From the mainstream political parties, there are accusations that there is supposedly a culture of fear in the countryside. Those claims of oppression are hollow.

“In the villages of Rolpa, road building was organized by the Maoists and made by their activists and the local community. The police and military arrested people for working on the road, and some were shot. That shows how oppressive the police and military are.

“Since 2006, the Maoists have been able to operate overground. They’ve been able to play a role in trade union organizing, building up democratic, rank-and-file unionism.

“The thing that’s exciting, that makes it a revolution, is that the people of Nepal have the absolute knowledge that they have the power to change the way their society operates. That is what I saw when I was in Nepal.”

The discussions and questions from the floor that made up the last part of the meeting focused on the current balance of power in the country, the tactics and alliances that the Maoists have pursued, the role of Western NGOs and aid agencies operating in Nepal and the Maoist approach to the peace process.

You can watch full video footage of Ben’s talk below.

Call for protests during US president Obama's visit to Guam, Indonesia & Australia

We, the undersigned progressive, anti-war, anti-neoliberalism and anti-imperialist organisations in the Asia-Pacific region, call for a wave protests to meet U.S. President Barack Obama's planned visits to Guam, Indonesia and Australia in March this year.

While President Obama was awarded Nobel peace prize last year, in fact his administration is escalating U.S.-led military aggression all around the world and continuing the Bush administration's so-called “war on terrorism” – which was in reality a return to colonial military occupations in the Third World justified by lies and a campaign of fear and racism. The war-like policies of the U.S. serve to protect and advance its economic exploitation and domination all around the world.

Left-wing historian Howard Zinn has died

Best known for “A People’s History of the United States” (1980) Zinn was a leading activist since the civil rights movement of the 1950s. In October 2008 Zinn was interviewed about US election, the global economic crisis and his own life by National Radio’s Kathryn Ryan. You can listen to that interview here. This obituary from the Boston Globe gives a brief outline of his life and acheivements. The short video interview below was posted on the Monthly Review Zine. They also have a transcript and another short interview.

Western Australia: Socialist wins council seat

by Alex Bainbridge Perth 17 October 2009 from Green Left Weekly Socialist Alliance WA co-convenor Sam Wainwright was elected from the Hilton Ward to the Fremantle Council in the October 17 poll.

Wainwright polled over 33% (438 out of 1310 valid votes). His nearest competitor, an ALP member, polled 337 votes (25.7%). Under the new, undemocratic first-past-the-post local government electoral laws in WA, Wainwright was elected as the candidate with the most votes. In the mayoral poll of six candidates, Greens member Brad Pettit triumphed with over 45% of the vote, well in front of two fellow Greens Michael Martin and Jon Strachan. Both Pettit and Strachan were endorsed by the Fremantle Chamber of Commerce. Of the six new councillors elected there is one ALP member, two Greens, two independents and one Socialist Alliance. However under WA electoral law local government candidates can not formally run for political parties and Wainwright was the only candidate to declare his political affiliations in his campaign material. Issues Wainwright campaigned on included: making Fremantle a “fight climate change” council; better public transport, including linking Fremantle to Beaconsfield, Hilton and Samson with CAT buses; for council and community workers’ rights; maintaining the areas beaches, parks and green spaces for everyone; for rates based on ability to pay, not just house value; and council democracy. For more details of Wainwright’s campaign, visit www.samforhilton.blogspot.com.

British socialists supporting 'No2EU - Yes Democracy'

Previous posts on UNITYblog highlighted the new electoral coalition in Britain No2EU - Yes to Democracy, which is contesting the upcoming elections to the European Parliament. Significantly, leading members of the coalition are unionists from the Rail Maritime and Transport Union (RMT), Britain's biggest transport union. See The question for NZ unionists: stick with Labour or start building a political alternative? and New left alliance for EU elections Whether to support 'No2EU - Yes Democracy' is being debated by the radical left in Britain. A good statement has been produced by Socialist Resistance, a group involved with the Respect party led by George Galloway. See Supporting ‘no2eu-yes to democracy’ on June 4th

Ferment in Nepal: A dynamic vortex of revolutionary change

by Bill Templer

from LINKS – International Journal of Socialist Renewal 3 January 2009 One remarkable laboratory that discussion in much of the world’s progressive press tends to neglect is the dynamic vortex of revolutionary change in Nepal. Since spring, Nepal has something that may be making genuine history: a Maoist people’s movement, that, led by the CPN (Maoist), and the struggle of the People's Liberation Army over a decade, has come to state power through the ballot box. As Tufts University historian Gary Leupp wrote last April: “It ought to be the ballot heard 'round the world. It ought to be front page news. This moment may in the not distant future be seen as another 1917, another 1949.”

Continue

George Galloway backs wildcat strikes

from Socialist Unity [UK blog] 30 January 2009 Galloway: ‘It’s about decent jobs, available to all’ Reacting to news of wildcat walkouts from construction sites across Britain, Respect MP George Galloway says: “Despite attempts to confuse and misreport, the fundamental issue that’s led thousands of construction workers to defy the anti-union laws and walk off the job is simple: decent jobs, open for all to apply for. “These walkouts come after years of the construction conglomerates trying to weaken union organisation, divide up workforces and introduce super-exploitation across the industry. “Union activists have told me of unofficial blacklists operating, made all the more widespread by a culture of subcontracting to cut-throat companies. “We used to have a nationally-owned energy sector, which provided secure and relatively good jobs as well directly employing building workers and entering long term contracts with construction companies. “Now we’ve got privatisation, chaos and a race to the bottom where employers across Europe are attempting to drive down pay and conditions. “That’s why the defence of national agreements is so important. It is the only way whereby working people can raise up conditions in the worst companies to those where unions are better organised and have won a fairer share. “So those little Englanders or downright racists who claim they are supporting the construction workers’ walkouts are doing no such thing, because they oppose the very trade union strength that makes a national rate for the job possible. “The Unite union – including the TGWU, which I’ve been a member of for over 30 years – has always stood against scapegoating and discrimination. And it’s stood against the exploitation of foreign workers as a means to lowering pay and conditions here. “The union has been calling for national agreements to prevent undercutting, and for jobs to be open to all construction workers, without blacklisting or discrimination. “That’s got my support. If Gordon Brown really wanted to help construction workers he would rigorously enforce the highest employment standards instead of playing to the right wing gallery with slogans about British jobs, for British workers.”

British socialist Jerry Hicks on refinery disputes

from Socialist Unity [UK blog] 30 January 2009 STRIKE ACTION ESCULATES AS WORKERS FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO WORK, But it should come as no surprise! I spoke to Jerry Hicks a few minutes ago. Jerry is the left candidate in the forthcoming election for General Secretary of the Amicus section of Unite. Jerry tells me he has been in touch with the strikers, and this is very far from being a racist or reactionary strike. Indeed, one protester contacted Jerry after reading one of his election leaflets, and had decided to join Unite on the basis of Jerry's socialist arguments - there is no way that a racist would agree with Jerry Hicks explicitly socialist campaign. Jerry points out that socialists, and members of Respect are very welcome at these protests, and we should oppose the attempts by the far-right BNP to hijack these working class protests towards their own racist and anti-working class agenda. Earlier today Jerry Hicks released a statement reminding us that an emergency meeting of the national construction shop stewards forum took place in London as long ago as the 8th January. The meeting discussed the escalating crisis in construction following a series of protests in November and December of last year, over employment rights and also the proposed exclusion of UK workers by foreign companies on power stations and other major UK contracts. The meeting was originally called for at Newark on the 3rd December following a series of protests at the gates of Staythope Power Station. At the meeting shop stewards voted overwhelmingly to organise a programme of demonstrations toward targeted construction projects within the UK power generation sector. Shop stewards and trade union activists find it is hard enough as it is to get a job in the industry because of the black listing by the employers. It is a way of reducing their costs and attempting to break union organisation on the major projects. Rank and file members are preparing for mass disruption on projects throughout the country that refuse to recognise union national agreements. There will be organised demonstrations strikes and mass disruption. We are preparing for a battle to defend our jobs. Jerry Hicks a candidate in the coming election for General Secretary in the UK's biggest union Unite-Amicus is supporting the action. He was present at a recent protest at Staythorpe power station where he sustained a fractured leg, having been assaulted by the police. He said: “This should come as no surprise to anyone. The employers have deliberately and actively been looking for ways to exploit cheap labour while covering their eyes and ears to the growing rage of discontent and ignoring all the warning signs, it's outrageous". Mr Hicks went on to say, "To its shame the union leadership failed miserably to grasp the nettle months ago when the dispute was a crisis in the making. The union needs to confront the employers and organise a national campaign for industrial action." The employers watch and listen to everything we say and do. If the union does little and says even less they drive the boot in harder and our situation gets worse. This is not about race or prejudice it is about the exploitation of labour, playing one worker against another. It is about the employers trying to break nationally agreed arrangements and in doing so it is an attack on the union. Gordon Brown, who at the last Labour party conference said "British jobs for British workers" has created a huge problem all of his own making. He can no longer simply sit on his hands waiting on the sidelines. Meanwhile, other energy companies are observing what happens next as they seek to further exploit the cheap foreign labour market. This issue is as a result of the Employers deliberately exploiting a situation, the union leaderships woeful lack of response and Browns pronouncement, Now they act like the like the three monkeys. Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil.

The struggle to redefine the workday

In the photo above ordinary Venezuelans meet together in a Communal Council to discuss community issues and the revolutionary process. The Venezuelan constitution recognises the importance of everyone having time in the day to participate in these democratic structures. In his article 'The capitalist workday, the socialist workday' (included below) Micheal Lebowitz says that the Communal Councils are part of the struggle to redefine the workday.

In New Zealand today there's a democratic and social deficit being created by low pay and overwork. Working people are struggling (and often failing) to earn enough money to meet the most basic human needs, like housing, food, electricity etc. This is having a terrible impact on the health and well-being of individuals, families and communities. Lebowitz argues that this human cost is ingrained in capitalism, it's the direct result of the exploitation of workers' labour - the source of the capitalist's profits.

In his conclusion Lebowitz says:

"[W]hen we look at the workday from the perspective of socialism, we see that the simple demand for reducing the workday is a demand from within capitalism. Its message is simple - end this horror! This is an "infected" conception of the workday. It starts from a view of labour as so miserable that the only thing you can think of doing is reducing and ending it.

When we think about building socialism, however, we recognise that the demand is to transform the workday - to recognise all parts of our workday explicitly and to transform that day qualitatively. Rather than only "free time" being time in which we can develop, from the perspective of socialism it is essential to make the whole day time for building human capacities.

In short, there are two ways of looking at the demand for the reduced workday: one way talks simply about a shorter work week and thus longer weekend vacations; in contrast, a second way stresses the reduction of the traditional workday in order to provide the time on a daily basis for education for self-managing, for our work within the household and our work within our communities. In other words, it is the demand to redefine and transform our workday."

Should we in New Zealand make the struggle to redefine and transform the workday a core part of the broad left project?

The capitalist workday, the socialist workday

by Michael A. Lebowitz

from Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal
24 April, 2008

As May Day approaches, there are four things that are worth remembering:

1. For workers, May Day does not celebrate a state holiday or gifts from the state but commemorates the struggle of workers from below.

2. The initial focus of May Day was a struggle for the shorter workday.

3. The struggle for the shorter workday is not an isolated struggle but is the struggle against capitalist exploitation.

4. The struggle against capitalist exploitation is an essential part but not the only part of the struggle against capitalism.

What I want to do today is to set out some ideas about the capitalist workday and the socialist workday which I hope can be useful in the current struggles in Venezuela and, more immediately, in today's discussion.

Continue

10 Commandments to Save the Earth

Speaking at the United Nations on 21 April popular left-wing Bolivian president Evo Morales proposed 10 commandments to save the planet, life and humanity. They were:

1. Acabar con el sistema capitalista

Putting an end to the capitalist system

2. Renunciar a las guerras

Renouncing wars

3. Un mundo sin imperialismo ni colonialismo

A world without imperialism or colonialism

4. Derecho al agua

Right to water

5. Desarrollo de energías limpias

Development of clean energies

6. Respeto a la madre tierra

Respect for Mother Earth

7. Servicios básicos como derechos humanos

Treat basic services as human rights

8. Combatir las desigualdades

Fighting inequalities

9. Promover la diversidad de culturas y economías

Promoting diversity of cultures and economies

10. Vivir bien, no vivir mejor a costa del otro

Living well, not living better at the expense of others

From Climate and Capitalism

What do UNITYblog readers think of Evo Morales' 10 "commandments"? Post your feedback by clicking 'comments' beneath this post. Or maybe come up with your own list of commandments.

South African dockers refuse to unload guns from China bound for the Mugabe regime

A rally of MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) supporters in Zimbabwe. The actions of the South African dock workers helps their struggle.

South African dock workers have defied the South African government and refused to unload the Chinese arms ship bound for Zimbabwe. The ship has been sent packing into the Indian Ocean looking for another port to unload its cargo.

The Mbeki government, who has maintained a close relationship with Mugabe, was politically embarrassed by these workers.

Randall Howard, general secretary of the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (Satawu), to which the Durban dockers belong, had given this staunch warning: “If they the Mbeki government bring replacement labour to do the work, our members will not stand and look at them and smile."

The Zimbabwe ISO, who’ve been throwing their energies into the democratic movement against the brutal Mugabe regime, “salutes what the South African workers have done. If similar actions can be done globally in solidarity with the working people of Zimbabwe, Mugabe will be removed.”

“Mugabe’s intentions to import arms shows how prepared he is to cling to power by hook or crook. These days armed police and military are found everywhere on the streets of Zimbabwe, whilst they've initiated a terror campaign in most rural areas. People are being killed and some tortured”, says the Zimbabwe ISO.

The Maritime Union of NZ has sent a message of solidarity to the dockers’ union in South Africa, passing on the full support of New Zealand maritime workers for their principled stand.

UNITYblog has previously featured an appeal for the Zimbabwe ISO, who are doing great work under extremely difficult circumstances. $1000 dollars has been sent already.

If you would like to donate money to help comrades in Zimbabwe as they struggle for democracy email grantmorgan@paradise.net.nz

Venezuela: Steel nationalisation marks 'new revolution within revolution'

by Fred Fuentes
from Green Left Weekly
19 April 2008

Denouncing the "coloniser attitude" and "barbarous exploitation" of workers by the management of the Sidor steel company, Venezuelan Vice President Ramon Carrizalez announced at 1.30am on April 9 that President Hugo Chavez had decided to nationalise the company.

"This is a government that protects workers and will never take the side of a transnational company", said Carrizalez.

The decision of the Chavez government to nationalise Sidor has begun the process of returning to state hands one of the most important steel factories of Latin America, located in the heartland of Venezuela's industrial belt in Guayana.

Sidor was privatised in 1997, one year before Chavez was elected. The major share-holder has been an Argentinean-controlled conglomerate Techint. Since privatisation, the workforce has been slashed from around 15,000 to just over 5000 and the company has used contract labour in violation of a government decree banning the practice.

The move to re-nationalise Sidor came after more than a year of intense struggle by the Sidor workers, together with the people of Guayana, against not just Sidor management but also the policies of the local "Chavista" governor, Fransisco Rangel Gomez, and the labour minister Jose Ramon Rivero — both of whom have been accused of anti-worker actions.

Continue

Malaysia: Newly launched People’s Alliance claims it is ready to topple government

from LINKS - International Journal of Socialist Renewal There have been dramatic developments in Malaysia since the ruling National Front (Barisan Nasional ­ BN) government had its majority in parliament reduced sharply in general elections on 8 March. Opposition parties, which won five out of 13 state governments, formed a new People’s Alliance (Pakatan Rakyat) on 1 April. Police disrupted a large opposition rally on 14 April to mark the end of the government’s five year ban on opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim participating in politics. Anwar claimed at the rally he now has enough defections from government MPs to form federal government but will not make the move till he increases his majority. At this stage, the People's Alliance comprises the Justice Party (Parti Keadilan - PKR), the Islamic Party (PAS) and the Democratic Action Party (DAP). Peter Boyle, from the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) in Australia interviewed S.Arutchelvan, the Secretary General of the Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM) on 18 April. The PSM won a state and a federal seat in the recent elections, running under the logo of the Justice Party because the government refuses the PSM registration as a political party, having branded it a “threat to natonal security”.

You were present at the police disrupted April 14 opposition rally addressed by Anwar Ibrahim last week. Can you describe what happened?

It was a huge rally drawing easily more than 20,000. The crowd was very well-behaved throughout the program which was held in open air sports complex. The speeches besides Anwar’s were very short. Around 10.20pm, about 20 police personnel moved towards the rostrum while Anwar was still speaking. The crowd was irritated with police interference. Anwar spoke to the police, told the crowd to be calm and then he announced that he is ending his speech. He thanked everyone. The crowd then dispersed peacefully. At 6.30am the next morning the police went to serve 111 notices to four leaders of Pakatan Rakyat including the new Chief Minister of Selangor state, Khalid Ibrahim, and PKR President Dr Wan Azizah Ismail. This is sheer harassment and an infringement of the freedom of assembly.

Continue

France: Coming together 'to build a party of struggle and mobilisation'

26 March 2008 from LINKS. Interview with the LCR's Olivier Besancenot, conducted by the Swiss revolutionary socialist newspaper SolidaritéS SolidaritéS: Is there in the history of the French or international workers' movement precedents for the construction of a new "anti-capitalist party", as initiated by the LCR congress? Besancenot: We do not claim to be inventing anything. But it's true, this project is rather unique. First, it is unusual for a political organisation that has not been discredited -- and has even experienced some success -­ to pose the problem of its disappearance! Of course, this is not about assessing the profit and losses of the history of the political current that the LCR represents. But instead, to write a new page, with others. With many others. And neither is it about a merger between political movements, even if we are ready to discuss with all those who might be interested in this project. In fact, this project is based on an analysis of a new situation, in particular the extent of the crisis of the workers' movement. And on the idea that it is both urgent and possible to take a giant step. This is urgent because of the violent attacks from the employers and the emptiness of the institutional left. This is possible because, despite the points scored by the MEDEF (Mouvement des Entreprises de France, an employers' organisation) and the right, the popular layers still show remarkable abilities of resistance and there is an expectation of something new. The [proposed] new party aims to integrate currents from various traditions of the radical left. Does this integration have as its condition an explicit discussion on the legacy of these traditions, or can it only be done through practice and the convergence of concrete struggles? The discussion on the various ideological and historical "legacies'' can be interesting. It will also undoubtedly be long. But we cannot start with that! Especially since the objective is to bring together men and women who, rightly, do not have a long history of party political commitment and do not identify with any of these traditions particularly. One of the main reasons - although not the only one - for the failure of previous attempts to bring together the various anti-capitalist currents is that there was a "top down'' approach and that inevitably came up against the past of various people, their old differences. This time, we will try to do it differently. And starting from common practices, all the resistance struggles that bring us together on a daily basis. And that, in outline, sketches the contours of a radical and revolutionary change in society. What will be the attitude of the new party towards existing political institutions? Does it, for example, intend to take part in the management of local councils or regions, as part of alliances with other left-wing parties or independently? Participating in institutions and management is not a matter of principle. The social liberals and their allies accuse us of now wishing to "get our hands dirty'' with political responsibilities. That is not correct. We are not simple "witnesses''; our goal is to participate in the implementation of measures and policies that we defend. But not to serve as a left cover for social liberal policies! And herein lies the basic problem, and what differentiates us from many "anti-neoliberal'' currents, we have no plans to participate in a coalition (with the Socialist Party), which "in power'' applies during the week ... the very policies which we demonstrate against at the weekend! The Greens and particularly the Communist Party of France (PCF) tried, a few years ago, under the Jospin government. With the results that we know, they were ... politically discredited. Imposing - as we advocate - the redistribution of wealth in favour of the vast majority of the people who produce it by their labour will inevitably lead to confrontation with the small minority that currently scoops it up. This means a real relationship of forces in society ... not just in the institutions. Will the new party be a revolutionary party, like the LCR, and if so what meaning does this word have in the current context? Revolutionary and "revolutionary like the LCR''? Probably not. Otherwise, we could merely continue with the LCR as before, but better obviously! We need of course, a common basis: the defence of radical proposals, opposition to the capitalist system, a strong commitment to mobilisations, political independence from the Socialist Party. This common platform will not answer *a priori* any questions, tactical or strategic. Some will remain open. But we believe that there are tens of thousands of men and women who are available to build a party of struggle and mobilisation. A left that is not afraid to face down the attacks from the right and the renunciation of the left. A new political representative for the workers, young people and victims of oppression. A left that does not confine its ambitions to limiting the damage of capitalist globalisation, but which wants to do away with the system and radically change society. And, indeed, change society! On these tens of thousands of men and women who are ready, like us to "revolutionise society'', we do not impose our past, whether the general history of Trotskyism or the specific history of the LCR. But put them together to build something new! Olivier Besancenot is a political bureau member of the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire (LCR -- Revolutionary Communist League), French section of the Fourth International. As the LCR's presidential candidate in 2002 and 2007, he achieve 1.2 million votes (4.5%) and 1.5 million votes (4.2%), respectively. This interview was conducted by Razmig Keucheyan during the 17th congress of the LCR, held in Plaine-Saint-Denis from January 24-27, 2008. A version of this interview also appears in International Viewpoint at http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1451

VENEZUELA-AOTEAROA SOLIDARITY NEWS

Venezuelan diplomat's NZ tour An outstanding success - that's the general opinion of the week-long tour of Aotearoa by Nelson Davila, Venezuela's top diplomat for the Pacific region, who is based in Canberra. At short notice, many dozens of local activists helped to organise Nelson's visits to Wellington, Christchurch, Ruatoki, Rotorua, Hamilton and Auckland. As Nelson's tour manager, I know how these activists were crucial to the success of the tour. So - "Gracias!" Many hundreds of people attended Nelson's meetings to hear how:

• Hugo Chavez's Venezuela is putting human beings at the centre of government policy, not the "almighty dollar".
• Mass illiteracy has been eliminated in just nine years.
• Free quality medical care now reaches everyone in the poor areas who, before Chavez became president in 1999, had never seen a doctor.
• Venezuela's indigenous peoples have seen their stolen lands returned and now get state funding for sustainable co-operatives.
• "Workers management" and "socialism of the 21st century" are central themes of government policy.
• 20,000 state-funded communal councils have been elected to take control of their localities in a major power shift from the elites to the grassroots.
• Venezuela is becoming a global pole of grassroots opposition to the US world order.

In short, the democratic, socialist revolution led by Hugo Chavez is not only boosting the living standards and human rights of the vast majority of Venezuelans, but also changing the unjust power relationships of the old society. There is still serious inequality in Venezuela, though the number living below the poverty line has fallen from 60% of total population to less than 30% during the term of the Chavez government. There is still a long way to go, but the direction is positive and the pace is accelerating. As Nelson Davila put it "Think of the Venezuelan Revolution as a climb of 20 steps, and we are now on step four." Setting up a solidarity network Growing out of Nelson's tour, over 200 people in towns around the country have indicated their willingness to help establish a NZ-wide Venezuelan solidarity network. The general aims of a solidarity network include:

• Share and spread information about the ongoing revolution in Venezuela.
• Set up a common solidarity website.
• Mobilise public opinion against attempts by the US state to destabilise and destroy the popularly elected Chavez government.
• Branches of the network will organise in whatever ways are logical for their own locality. For instance, Wellington has a pre-existing Latin American Committee, so activists there see the Venezuela solidarity network as being part of LAC. Christchurch activists are setting up a stand-alone committee which aims to build good links with other networks. Activists in Rotorua and Tauranga are keen to form a twin-city committee to maximise their outreach. It doesn't matter how we do it in our own localities so long as we do it.

Things are starting to roll:

Christchurch activists have already held their first planning meeting. Contact Dave in Christchurch - colyer@pl.net

Wellington activists will be holding their first meeting within days. Contact Julie in Wellington - jwebbp@gmail.com

In Auckland on 15 April, there will be a film screening and an organising meeting.

Do you want to set up a solidarity group in your locality? The rule is - there are no rules. Just get together with other locals and do it. Let me know what you're doing so it can be advertised in a future newsletter. If you need help to make contact with other like-minded people in your region, email me back.

To promote the networking, I am issuing this first newsletter. As sympathisers of the Venezuelan revolution get organised around Aotearoa, we will need to collectively decide on:

1) A common name for our NZ-wide Venezuela solidarity network. One suggestion has been VAST - Venezuela Aotearoa Solidarity Team. Any other suggestions?

2) A common website to share information about Venezuela and news about branches of our solidarity network. Any volunteer(s) to set up and maintain a site?

Auckland film screening/organising meeting

John Pilger's latest film "The War on Democracy" is his best yet. It exposes the decades of US coups and imperial bullying in Latin America. It features a recently-retired senior CIA thug in Latin America who candidly admits that the US state will kill untold thousands of Latinos in the name of "democracy" if it's in "our national interests".

It includes an in-depth interview with Hugo Chavez. Best of all, it contains wonderful scenes of grassroots activists in Venezuela and Bolivia organising for a new society fit for human beings.

Pilger's film will be screened ahead of an organising meeting to start up an Auckland branch of the Venezuela solidarity network. Here are the details:

WHEN: Tuesday 15 April WHERE: Latin American Centre, 37 Selwyn St, Onehunga 7pm: Film - The War on Democracy 8.30pm: Organising meeting for solidarity network

All sympathisers with the Venezuelan revolution are welcome. Spread the word to your family and friends. Hope to see you there. Solidarity, Grant Morgan grantmorgan@paradise.net.nz

THIS is how you deal with a housing crisis, Helen

A private company got in the way of the Venezuelan government's plans to improve housing - and tried to starve its workers into submission, into the bargain. So it has been simply nationalised. If Michael Cullen had shown this kind of nerve when Toll Holdings were holding the government to ransom about buying back our trains, we would all be better off. It's also important that this decision of the Venezuelan government has not been made with dollar signs (or even bolivar fuerte signs) in mind, but on the basis of what's good for the people of Venezuela - in this case, making sure there's enough steel and concrete to build drastically needed houses. Will our government take similar measures to solve our own crisis of skyrocketing rents and housing shortages? Hardly - everything is geared to protect the profits of private capitalists first. And that's why Labour is not worth voting for, and why we need a new party that will put working people's interests first.

Chavez to nationalize Venezuela's top steelmaker by Ana Isabel Martinez Reuters 9 April 2008 CARACAS - Venezuela will take control of the country's largest steelmaker in the second major takeover of foreign businesses in a week as president Hugo Chavez resumes his socialist drive to nationalize key industries. Just days after Chavez announced the takeover of the cement industry, his government said on Wednesday that steelmaker Ternium Sidor would fall back into state hands, sending the Argentine-controlled company's shares tumbling. Chavez increased state control of swathes of the oil-rich economy in a multi-billion dollar campaign last year, but had spent recent months focusing on day-to-day issues like crime and trash collection after voters rejected his push for wider powers in a December referendum. Venezuela's vice-president Ramon Carrizalez said parent company Ternium would be compensated for the takeover and could even stay on as a minority partner, but accused it of an arrogant attitude toward employees. "In this government, the worker comes first," he said. The leader of the union at the sprawling Ternium Sidor complex about 500 km southwest of Caracas said workers were pleased with the decision, made after months of short strikes in a fierce labor dispute with the company. "We are here celebrating in an assembly the decision that Sidor returns to state hands," leader Nerio Fuentes told Reuters. Ternium's New York-listed shares fell 9 per cent to $35.20. It pleaded with Chavez in a letter to intervene and find a "constructive solution" to the nationalization. Chavez first threatened to take over the steel firm last year, during the takeover of oil projects and telecom companies. He renewed his nationalization campaign last Thursday by ordering the takeover of the country's largest cement companies, which are all foreign run. He has also threatened in the past to nationalize banks and food companies. CHAVEZ'S COMPLAINTS Criticized by supporters for shortages of low cost housing, Chavez complains the steel and cement industries do not put a high enough priority on supplying the domestic market, and he will almost certainly now force them to change. "The takeovers of both cement and steel industries will be used to breathe new life into construction in Venezuela as well, especially in the form of lower tier housing," Lehman Brothers analyst Gianfranco Bertozzi said in a research report. Last year's nationalizations targeted US and European companies, but the latest wave has also included companies from Latin America. Carrizalez said he did not expect the steel nationalization to hurt relations with Argentina, a close ally with whom Venezuela shares debt and trade co-operation deals. Ternium, with a market capitalization of about $7.7 billion, is controlled by Argentine conglomerate Techint. Chavez is a former paratrooper who tried to seize power in a botched coup in 1992. Since winning power at the ballot box in 1998, he has implemented much of his coup-era manifesto to re-nationalize companies privatized by prior governments. Ternium Sidor was privatized in 1997. It produces about 4.5 million tonnes of liquid steel annually and has 5,600 unionized workers, plus more than 4,000 contract employees. It has struggled this year with sporadic strikes and growing worker anger at a drawn-out conflict over pay and conditions which turned ugly in March when a union leader was shot and wounded as workers and police clashed. Ternium's main operations are in Mexico, Venezuela and Argentina. For the fourth quarter of 2007, it reported a net profit of $221 million. Its holdings include steelmakers Siderar in Argentina and recently acquired Grupo Imsa in Mexico. The Venezuelan operation is 60 per cent controlled by Ternium, with the rest belonging to the state, workers and retirees. The cement takeovers, where the government wants a majority stake, include the Venezuelan assets of Mexico's Cemex as well as Switzerland's Holcim and France's Lafarge.

Venezuela’s largest steelmaker back in the State’s hands

Bolivarian Government Confirms Sidor Nationalization

Presidential Press Office

April 09, 2008

Privatized in 1997, Siderúrgica del Orinoco (Sidor) joins again the Venezuelan State’s strategic companies. The information was confirmed by the Venezuelan Vice-president, Ramón Carrizales. He affirmed they will negotiate compensation to current main shareholders.

The decision of nationalizing Venezuela’s largest steelmaker Sidor was confirmed on Wednesday during a press conference offered by the Venezuelan Vice-president Ramón Carrizales.

“We want to inform that after a long negotiation process failing to find a solution to a conflict between Sidor and its workers, President Chávez made the decision (…) of taking control of Siderúrgica del Orinoco, a company privatized ten years ago,” he said. He explained that the Venezuelan government and Sidor discussed three points on which no agreements were reached: the role of contractors, the adjustment of pensions and the workers’ wage. “We are going to negotiate as we have done with different companies without any violations,” Carrizales added.

So far, the Venezuelan State has owned just 20% of Sidor shares, other 20% has been owned by Sidor’s workers and former workers, and 60% by Ternium.

Sidor, privatized two years before the Bolivarian Revolution took office, joins again the Venezuelan State’s companies within the framework of the recovery of strategic sectors, such as electricity, oil, lands and cement, carried out by the Venezuelan government.

US general's glum message to Senate links into crisis times for late capitalism

by Grant Morgan
Chair of RAM - Residents Action Movement


With practical military precision, retired US general William Odom told the Senate foreign relations committee on 2 April that Washington's Iraq strategy is doomed to fail.

Rather than creating a centralised political stability in Iraq suitable for US corporates to exploit Iraqi oil and for the US state to expand control over the Middle East, the general explained why that Washington's strategy was spreading political instability, bolstering the strength of regional militias and their political allies, and pushing Iran into the role of a regional power-broker utterly hostile to America.

The general is, of course, speaking for what he sees as being in the best interests of the US state - not in the interests of grassroots people. However, as an experienced military leader he knows what works and what doesn't.

Odom's Senate testimony exposes the huge divisions within America's elite circles over how to preserve US economic, political and military mastery over the world at a time of growing crisis for the US state.


GLOBAL TSUNAMIS

Washington is facing not only the unravelling of its Iraq strategy, but also:
• The rise of the European Union and, especially, China as economic super-rivals to America.
• The return of Russia as a nuclear-armed energy giant linking up with Beijing in a contra-US alliance.
• The threat of international financial meltdown on the back of a credit crunch, weakening stock market values and a faltering US dollar.
• Venezuela's "socialism of the 21st century", a political challenge to corporate imperialism which is infecting much of Latin America.
• The global uncertainties of an accelerating climate crisis that threatens human extinction unless there is an emergency mobilisation detrimental to market forces.
• The de-legitimisation of neo-liberalism as both an ideology and a political strategy which is spreading like a virus around the world.

In short, global tsunamis of a size that could swamp even the "unsinkable" USS Imperial are being whipped up by the storms of late capitalism. That forecast, given the central role of Washington in the way the world is run, has huge implications for the global system itself, not just the US state.

Naturally, ruling circles everywhere will try to escape the consequences of their own crises by trying to do what they've always done - shove the crisis burdens onto the backs of the world's majority: the workers, small farmers, professionals, homemakers and other grassroots people who do society's useful work for very little pay and even less say in how society is governed.


BROAD LEFT ALTERNATIVE

But it's not all doom and gloom for the grassroots. In many places in many countries, broad left parties are starting to arise which look likely to mobilise the mass forces needed to put humans at the centre of society, not the dollar.

Important successes are being won by broad left parties like the 5-million strong United Socialist Party of Venezuela, The Left in Germany and the Coalition of the Radical Left in Greece.

And important moves towards the creation of broad left parties are happening in countries like Indonesia, France and Malaysia, led by groups of socialists.

A similar process is underway even in New Zealand, sparked by the decision of RAM (Residents Action Movement) to spread nationwide from its Greater Auckland base and to contest parliamentary as well as council elections. (For more on RAM, email grantmorgan@paradise.net.nz or go to UNITYblog sidebar feature "Do we need a broad left party?" - www.UNITYblogNZ.com)

It is a global contest between the oppressive anarchy of system crisis, on the one hand, and the humanistic plan of broad left unity, on the other. Who will win this global contest? That is not pre-determined. Late capitalism's institutional insanity can be overcome through grassroots people uniting for a co-operative, democratic and ecological world.

Our progressive vision stands in stark contrast to the growing crises plaguing even late capitalism's heartland - the US state.

Below is a full reprint of general Odom's testimony to the US Senate. As well as exposing the US state's strategic incoherence, it reeks of a systemic decay that refuses any political quick-fix. Read it and get a better understanding of the system's crises so that people like us are in a better position to mobilise for a grassroots alternative.


US general William Odom tells Senate:
Rapid Withdrawal is Only Solution

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON IRAQ


By William E. Odom, LT General, USA, Ret.

2 April 2008

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success.

I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims.

Last year, General Petraeus wisely declined to promise a military solution to this political problem, saying that he could lower the level of violence, allowing a limited time for the Iraqi leaders to strike a political deal. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant inseveral other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province.

More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic.

No less disturbing has been the steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities.

Also disturbing is Turkey¹s military incursion to destroy Kurdish PKK groups in the border region. That confronted the US government with a choice: either to support its NATO ally, or to make good on its commitment to Kurdish leaders to insure their security. It chose the former, and that makes it clear to the Kurds that the United States will sacrifice their security to its larger interests in Turkey.

Turning to the apparent success in Anbar province and a few other Sunni areas, this is not the positive situation it is purported to be. Certainly violence has declined as local Sunni shieks have begun to cooperate with US forces. But the surge tactic cannot be given full credit. The decline started earlier on Sunni initiative. What are their motives? First, anger at al Qaeda operatives and second, their financial plight.

Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans, including al Qaeda. The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq. The Kurds do not allow them in their region, and the Shiites, like the Iranians, detest al Qaeda. To understand why, one need only take note of the al Qaeda public diplomacy campaign over the past year or so on internet blogs. They implore the United States to bomb and invade Iran and destroy this apostate Shiite regime. As an aside, it gives me pause to learn that our vice president and some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda on spreading the war to Iran.

Let me emphasize that our new Sunni friends insist on being paid for their loyalty. I have heard, for example, a rough estimate that the cost in one area of about 100 square kilometers is $250,000 per day. And periodically they threaten to defect unless their fees are increased. You might want to find out the total costs for these deals forecasted for the next several years, because they are not small and they do not promise to end. Remember, we do not own these people. We merely rent them. And they can break the lease at any moment. At the same time, this deal protects them to some degree from the government¹s troops and police, hardly a sign of political reconciliation.

Now let us consider the implications of the proliferating deals with the Sunni strongmen. They are far from unified among themselves. Some remain with al Qaeda. Many who break and join our forces are beholden to no one. Thus the decline in violence reflects a dispersion of power to dozens of local strong men who distrust the government and occasionally fight among themselves. Thus the basic military situation is far worse because of the proliferation of armed groups under local military chiefs who follow a proliferating number of political bosses.

This can hardly be called greater military stability, much less progress toward political consolidation, and to call it fragility that needs more time to become success is to ignore its implications. At the same time, Prime Minister Maliki¹s military actions in Basra and Baghdad indicate even wider political and military fragmentation. What we are witnessing is more accurately described as the road to the Balkanization of Iraq, that is, political fragmentation. We are being asked by the president to believe that this shift of so much power and finance to so many local chieftains is the road to political centralization. He describes the process as building the state from the bottom up.

I challenge you to press the administration¹s witnesses this week to explain this absurdity. Ask them to name a single historical case where power has been aggregated successfully from local strong men to a central government except through bloody violence leading to a single winner, most often a dictator. That is the history of feudal Europe¹s transformation to the age of absolute monarchy. It is the story of the American colonization of the west and our Civil War. It took England 800 years to subdue clan rule on what is now the English-Scottish border. And it is the source of violence in Bosnia and Kosovo.

How can our leaders celebrate this diffusion of power as effective state building? More accurately described, it has placed the United States astride several civil wars. And it allows all sides to consolidate, rearm, and refill their financial coffers at the US expense.

To sum up, we face a deteriorating political situation with an over-extended army. When the administration¹s witnesses appear before you, you should make them clarify how long the army and marines can sustain this band-aid strategy.

The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order. Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping US strategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regional stability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq. And progress toward that goal requires revising our policy toward Iran. If the president merely renounced his threat of regime change by force, that could prompt Iran to lessen its support to Taliban groups in Afghanistan. Iran detests the Taliban and supports them only because they will kill more Americans in Afghanistan as retaliation in event of a US attack on Iran. Iran¹s policy toward Iraq would also have to change radically as we withdraw. It cannot want instability there. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, and they know that Persians look down on them. Cooperation between them has its limits.

No quick reconciliation between the US and Iran is likely, but US steps to make Iran feel more secure make it far more conceivable than a policy calculated to increase its insecurity. The president¹s policy has reinforced Iran¹s determination to acquire nuclear weapons, the very thing he purports to be trying to prevent.

Withdrawal from Iraq does not mean withdrawal from the region. It must include a realignment and reassertion of US forces and diplomacy that give us a better chance to achieve our aim.


A number of reasons are given for not withdrawing soon and completely. I have refuted them repeatedly before but they have more lives than a cat. Let try again me explain why they don¹t make sense.

First, it is insisted that we must leave behind a military training element with no combat forces to secure them. This makes no sense at all. The idea that US military trainers left alone in Iraq can be safe and effective is flatly rejected by several NCOs and junior officers I have heard describe their personal experiences. Moreover, training foreign forces before they have a consolidated political authority to command their loyalty is a windmill tilt. Finally, Iraq is not short on military skills.

Second, it is insisted that chaos will follow our withdrawal. We heard that argument as the ³domino theory² in Vietnam. Even so, the path to political stability will be bloody regardless of whether we withdraw or not. The idea that the United States has a moral responsibility to prevent this ignores that reality. We are certainly to blame for it, but we do not have the physical means to prevent it. American leaders who insist that it is in our power to do so are misleading both the public and themselves if they believe it. The real moral question is whether to risk the lives of more Americans. Unlike preventing chaos, we have the physical means to stop sending more troops where many will be killed or wounded. That is the moral responsibility to our country which no American leaders seems willing to assume.

Third, nay sayers insist that our withdrawal will create regional instability. This confuses cause with effect. Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran¹s regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies¹ interest.


I implore you to reject these fallacious excuses for prolonging the commitment of US forces to war in Iraq.

Thanks for this opportunity to testify today.

ZIMBABWE SOLIDARITY APPEAL

ZIMBABWE SOLIDARITY APPEAL Grant Morgan, Socialist Worker central committee member and RAM chair, has initiated an urgent appeal to help our comrades in Zimbabwe. The International Socialist Organisation (ISO) is at the cutting edge of a mass movement against the dictatorial rule of Robert Mugabe. The ISO were leading players in the recent People's Convention, whose 3,000+ delegates adopted a People's Charter, which is described as "drawing from the Workers Charter of... New Zealand". The People’s Charter is being taken out to workers, peasants and students across Zimbabwe to act as a rallying point against both Mugabe and the forces of neo-liberalism. In order to fund their important work, the poverty-stricken ISO has made an urgent international appeal for funds. Can you make a donation? Because of their very difficult situation in a dictatorial and chaotic land, the ISO say that the best way for them to receive funds is by a money gram. Grant Morgan will be organising a money gram to send to the poverty-stricken ISO. Mail cheques (made out to Grant Morgan) to 24 Church Rd, Mangere Bridge, Manukau City. Or transfer money directly into Grant's account, details are: Account name: G.C. Morgan Bank: ASB Bank Branch: Green Bay Account number: 12 3070 0123624 50 When the money is collected and sent Grant will email a statement out to all NZ donors. If you have any inquires contact Grant (09) 634 4432 (h+w), 021 2544 515 or grantmorgan@paradise.net.nz Please contribute towards this very worthwhile cause.