Should Marxists Support Venezuela’s New Socialist Party?

IST Debate Raises Vital Questions for the International Left

By IAN ANGUS

President Hugo Chávez’s call for a new socialist party in Venezuela has provoked widespread discussion and debate among socialists in Venezuela, across Latin America, and around the world.

The liveliest discussion in the English-speaking left has been a public debate among supporters of the International Socialist Tendency (IST), a loose affiliation of groups in about 25 countries. Identified historically with the view that the post-1928 Soviet Union was a state-capitalist society, this current has recently been among the most consistent and effective builders of the international movement against the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

The IST discussion deserves careful attention from partisans of socialism around the world, because it focuses on fundamental issues about our attitude towards the new wave of struggles now being waged in Latin America.

The IST’s affiliates have defended Venezuela and the Chávez government from imperialist attack and have helped to expose Washington’s efforts to destabilize the Bolivarian government. But they are not unanimous on what policy socialists in Venezuela and internationally should adopt towards the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), which is now being organized.

Venezuela’s New Socialist Party

Chávez called for a new mass party in December 2006, as a means of breaking through the bureaucracy, cronyism and corruption that have long characterized Venezuelan politics. He described it as "a political instrument at the service not of blocs or groupings but of the people and the Revolution, at the service of socialism."

Socialist Voice was enthusiastic about the proposal: "If built as Chávez advocates, the new party could solve the central challenge facing the Bolivarian movement: that of linking the worker and farmer base together with their chosen leadership in a cohesive, democratic political movement."

The British Socialist Workers Party, the most prominent organization in the International Socialist Tendency, had a different view. Writing in Socialist Worker, SWP leader Chris Harman said the Venezuelan workers need to fight for socialism, but "Chávez merely decreeing from above that all the political forces that have defended him should unite into a single party will not make this happen."

In a subsequent article, Harman described the PSUV as Chávez’s "from above" attempt to overcome "the chaos" in Venezuela. The PSUV includes, he wrote, three political currents: those who want to stop any further social changes, those who want "a Cuban-style authoritarian regime," and those who want "the destruction of capitalism and genuine revolutionary democracy."

"A party, in the real meaning of the term, is an organized current of people committed to a single political orientation. … The attempt to combine in a single organization what are effectively three different parties cannot overcome the chaos."

Harman was particularly critical of the plan to base the new party on the thousands of communal councils that have been formed in neighbourhoods, towns and cities across Venezuela. Community-based structures, he wrote, are "open to manipulation from above." Rather, Venezuela needs "class movements arising from the point of production … a central focus based on those connected to the means of production" and "rank and file soldiers’ councils" in the military.

It was not clear whether Harman was arguing that socialists should call for workers’ and soldiers’ soviets in Venezuela now, or should simply criticize the PSUV for not being based on such organizations.

Another View

On May Day, 2007, the New Zealand affiliate of the IST issued a statement that expressed a quite different view. Describing the Bolivarian revolution as "the most important leap forward for the workers’ cause since the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution," they urged "all revolutionaries inside Venezuela … to join this mass socialist party" and called on "revolutionary groups in other countries … to establish comradely relations with the PSUV."

Their statement was unequivocal in its endorsement of the new party: "Socialist Worker-New Zealand believes the PSUV is vital to educate, unite and organise the grassroots masses in Venezuela so they can push forward the socialist revolution."

The statement rejected the idea that the presence of multiple political viewpoints is a barrier to building the PSUV: "It would be utopian to think that the PSUV could be an instantly homogenous party of revolutionaries. It will, however, be a mass socialist party with organic connections to grassroots people who support the unfolding revolution. The process of building the PSUV will challenge the reformist wing of the Bolivarian movement and precipitate a ‘battle of ideas’ in which the masses will participate."

The New Zealand statement called on the IST to begin "facilitating this global debate among all Marxist groups."

"The forward movement of the Venezuelan revolution and the wider Latin American uprisings look likely to provide the essential material foundations for a positive regroupment of the socialist and radical left on every continent, and the parallel emergence of a mass socialist international."

The SWP Replies

UK SWP leader Alex Callinicos responded to the New Zealand statement on May 24. He repeated the SWP’s commitment to "defending Chávez and giving solidarity to the movement in Venezuela," but added a qualification: "the most important single internationalist task of revolutionaries today is to build the international movement against the ‘war on terrorism.’"

As for Chávez: "He presides over a bureaucratic state machine that continues to sustain capitalist social relations against the mass movements on which any real revolutionary breakthrough depends."

Chávez, in Callinicos’s view, is engaged in a "constant balancing act between the state and the mass movements that he is constantly forced into." The PSUV is a "forced merger" that is in danger of becoming "a bureaucratic transmission belt for the government."

Callinicos approvingly referred to Chris Harman’s assertion that the PSUV "cannot provide an answer … cannot overcome the chaos."

Similarly, the International Socialist Organization, Australian affiliate of the IST, wrote that "the PSUV cannot in any sense be conceived as a revolutionary party," and that "It is a mistake to uncritically support Chávez’s confused and eclectic strategy."

Proceed from Reality

Socialist Worker-New Zealand had called for a global debate that extended beyond the ranks of the IST, offering to publish contributions on their website, UNITYblog. About a dozen groups and individuals from various countries have responded to date.

One insightful contributor is Stuart Munckton, a member of the Australia-based Democratic Socialist Perspective, and a frequent writer for Green Left Weekly. He wrote: "The Callinicos/ISO position says, we support the gains and the advances, BUT the most important thing is all the problems and contradictions. The NZ comrades have turned this on its head and said, we recognise the limitations and contradictions BUT the most important thing is the advances for the class struggle, that we recognise, support and seek to relate to this. …

"From what I can see, the NZ Socialist Worker has sought to proceed from the reality of the socialist revolution in Venezuela, not from an abstract measurement of a socialist revolution that demands any revolution has to score enough points on a scorecard to be recognised."

Strengthen Anti-Imperialist Collaboration

Socialist Voice editors Roger Annis and John Riddell contributed their views in an article that was also published in Socialist Voice #128.

Agreeing with Callinicos that "opposition to the war against Mideast peoples is the most urgent task of world solidarity," they nevertheless insisted that the Venezuelan revolution is "creating an historic opportunity to strengthen international anti-imperialist collaboration and rebuild the revolutionary socialist movement worldwide."

They warned against the temptation to "exaggerate the gains of the Venezuelan process or to project onto it our own hopes and goals."

"The revolution is now unfolding within the framework of a struggle against imperialism and for national sovereignty and democratic rights. Capitalism still dominates the Venezuelan economy, shaping the daily existence of working people. Capitalism is now balanced against the growing power of working people, and this uneasy coexistence could continue for some time."

"Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution is still in its early stages. Yet as it moves forward, it will — like the Russian revolution of 1917 and other great revolutions of the 20th century — become a test for all tendencies in the workers movement, dividing those who identify with and defend real-world revolutions from those who remain in sectarian isolation….

"The founding of the new party offers revolutionary forces the possibility to unite against bureaucratic and patronage-ridden political machines and against left sectarianism. It is a creative process that deserves support."

Annis and Riddell placed particular stress on the importance of Venezuela’s close relationship with Cuba. "These two peoples, acting in concert, are now the vanguard of a popular upsurge across much of Latin America and the Caribbean."

Second Statement

On July 7, Socialist Worker-New Zealand issued a Second Statement on the Venezuelan Revolution, which took up the relationship between leadership and mass movement in Venezuela.

"For some socialists, only the mass movement is propelling the revolution forward, while Chávez merely responds to pressures ‘from below.’ This analysis essentially characterises Chávez as someone unwillingly pushed along by the movement, whose main interest is trying to cling to power in the same way a reformist leadership might do.

"Socialist Worker-New Zealand rejects this view, which we see as one-dimensional and non-dialectical. We believe that Chávez, through what he says, and more importantly through the chain reaction of events he is able to set in motion, is advancing the confidence, awareness and organisation of the masses. Rather than having to be pushed forward by the movement, Chávez has grown into a huge motivational and practical initiator of the socialist cause.…

"A socialist leadership based on the masses and promoting their self-emancipation transcends the reformist dichotomy of ‘from above’ and ‘from below.’ "

They reiterated their view that "serious revolutionaries must be inside the PSUV, helping the party to integrate Marxist theory with the often unique practice of a real-life revolution."

"Sadly, some ‘revolutionaries’ inside and outside Venezuela seem to believe an alternative ‘pole of attraction’ to the PSUV must be built. Yet standing outside the mass socialist party would be to invite sectarian isolation from the masses."

They also rejected Callinicos’s argument that organizing against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is more important than supporting the Venezuelan struggle. Socialists must do both:

"Anti-war activism and Venezuelan solidarity are two sides of one coin. Each needs the other. That’s why Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution are an inspiration to freedom fighters across the Middle East. By refusing to prioritise one struggle over the other we don’t buy into imperialism’s bid to divide-and-rule the global grassroots."

The Discussion Continues

While this discussion was taking place, over five million Venezuelans formally declared their desire to join the PSUV. SWP leader Mike Gonzalez commented: "The ‘socialist battalions’ of Venezuela’s new political party met last week in open assembly in various districts of the capital Caracas.…

"There were debates throughout the movement as to whether to register. The problem was, and is, that none of the structures or aims of the PSUV have yet been defined….

"Chávez has announced that the PSUV will not be a Marxist party nor will it be based on class. The base units of the new organisation are to be geographical. This points to an electoral machine based on constituencies."

In Gonzalez’s view, the mass movement must remain independent of the PSUV if it is the party of government.

"If, on the other hand, it becomes the political expression of that movement, challenging and questioning the government of Hugo Chávez, it will be a very different party from the one that is being built today."

Daphne Lawless, a leader of Socialist Worker-New Zealand, responded that Gonzalez’s article was "one long missed opportunity."

"His report seems to begin from a fixed idea — that a workers' revolutionary movement can only grow in opposition to the government of Hugo Chávez. This is a regrettably short-sighted attitude that neglects the mutually reinforcing dialectic between Chávez's government and the mass movement….

"The pessimistic scenarios envisioned in Mike's report can be prevented if Venezuelan revolutionaries join and help build the PSUV — and if those of us overseas seriously engage with it."

‘With the mass struggle against imperialism’

The Canadian affiliate of the IST, the International Socialists, has not participated in the public debate, but one of its best-known leaders, Paul Kellogg, recently published his views on the PSUV, describing it as "an enormous step forward in the advancement of the Bolivarian process in Venezuela."

"The first job of socialists in an oppressed country is to be with the mass struggle against imperialism and for sovereignty. Clearly the new vehicle which will express this struggle will be the PSUV.

"In fact, the stronger the left wing is inside the PSUV, the more the movement will be well placed to deal with the inevitable careerism and opportunism that will accompany an initiative on this scale.

"The second — and equally difficult job — is to make the links, in theory and in practice, between the fight against imperialism and for sovereignty with the need for a complete break from capitalism, and a new state of democratic socialism.

"A left current with that perspective that enthusiastically joins the PSUV will be able to begin that work.

"The job of the left in Canada and the Global North is to publicize this process inside our social movements, and to be prepared to move quickly to oppose any attempt by imperialist governments to intervene and crush the mass movement in Venezuela and elsewhere in Latin America."

Participants and Partisans

One of the most important lessons of the revolutionary struggles of the past century is that every mass social upheaval has new and unexpected characteristics. Revolutions are complex events that evolve in unpredictable ways, making use of the human and social raw material that is at hand when the struggle breaks out.

That lesson is being taught again today by the social upheavals in Latin America and the Middle East. The challenge before Marxists is to understand and relate to new forms of struggle, new issues, and new leaderships. The lessons of these events cannot be learned from the sidelines: to understand them, we must be participants and partisans, actively engaged in the struggle.

The IST’s discussion of Venezuela is a concrete example of how a real revolution promotes engagement, rethinking, and debate among socialist and anti-imperialist forces internationally. It’s a vitally important process, one that all Marxists are challenged to join.

References (In the order they are cited in this article.)

John Riddell. "Chávez Calls for United Socialist Party of Venezuela." Socialist Voice, Jan. 11, 2007.

Chris Harman. "Venezuela, Hugo Chavez and permanent revolution." Socialist Worker, Jan. 27, 2007.

Chris Harman. "Latin America: the return of Popular Power." International Socialism, Spring 2007.

Socialist Worker — New Zealand. "Venezuela's deepening revolution & international socialist coordination." UNITYblog, May 6, 2007.

Alex Callinicos. "The Venezuelan Revolution and the IS Tendency." Unityblog, May 28, 2007.

International Socialist Organization (Australia). "Response To Socialist Worker-New Zealand From National Executive." UNITYblog, June 18, 2007.

Stuart Munckton. "Much Common Ground on Venezuela." UNITYblog, June 26, 2007.

Roger Annis and John Riddell. "Venezuela and the International Struggle for Socialism." UNITYblog, June 25, 2007.

Socialist Worker — New Zealand. "The Bolivarian Revolution & Socialist Internationalism." UNITYblog, July 9, 2007.

Mike Gonzalez. "Questions mark the birth of Hugo Chavez’s new party." Socialist Worker, July 28, 2007.

Daphne Lawless. "Mike Gonzalez on Venezuela: a reply." UNITYblog, Aug. 8 2007.

Paul Kellogg. "Venezuela: Chavez Calls for a New Party." Socialist Worker (Canada), Aug 13, 2007.

Related Reading

John Riddell. "Venezuela Shakes the Empire: Why Socialists Support the Bolivarian Struggle for Sovereignty and Latin American Unity." Socialist Voice, Feb. 18, 2007.

Federico Fuentes. "Venezuela’s Revolution Accelerates." Socialist Voice, May 2, 2007.

Climate change threat urgent

10 years to prevent climate chaos

by VAUGHAN GUNSON

The full extent of the looming climate catastrophe is becoming ever clearer. A batch of scientific reports released in the last few months make for shocking reading. According to a study by the US National Academy of Sciences CO2 emissions have increased by 3 per cent a year this decade, compared with 1.1 per cent a year during the 1990s. This is much higher than figures included in the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The University of California’s National Snow and Ice Data Center has completed research which shows that Artic ice is melting rapidly, declining by 7.8 per cent a decade over the past 50 years. Much worse than the average estimate by IPCC computer models of 2.5 per cent.

This new research reveals that the world doesn’t have the luxury of 30 or 40 years to cut back greenhouse gas emissions. The threat is urgent right now. As the report by NASA and the Columbia University Earth Institute makes clear, “moderate additional” greenhouse emissions are likely to send the earth’s delicate eco-system past “critical tipping points”, which will lead to irreversible climate change with disastrous consequences for life on the planet.

In what is quite simple science, the NASA report highlights the runaway climate change momentum of melting ice. The frozen parts of the planet currently reflect sunlight back into space, but as the sheets of ice melt liquid water forms on the surface, which being darker does not reflect heat. Rather it absorbs it, making the earth hotter, which melts more ice, and so on and so on.

In Greenland and West Antarctica water is already forming pools on the surface of these massive ice sheets. That water will also be trickling down through ice -sheets, breaking them up and causing the ice to slide into the ocean. Once ice falls into warmer sea water it quickly melts. As the ice retreats back towards the North and South poles there is more dark ocean and dark ground uncovered. The NASA report notes that dark forests are expanding northwards towards the Artic, replacing lighter snow cove red tundra, again reducing the amount of frozen ice and snow that reflects the suns rays.

At some point this process will be unstoppable, leading to the disappearance of the massive ice sheets in the Artic and Antarctic. The result will be rapid sea-level rises of 20 metres or more in less than a century, which would be catastrophic to human populations.

James Hanson, who led the NASA team, says we have less than ten years to drastically cut greenhouse emissions before it’s too late.


Pro-market parties lead us to catastrophe

by VAUGHAN GUNSON

British environmental campaigner George Monbiot, responding to the dire warnings in the NASA report, says we’re being led to catastrophe by governments. Writing for the Guardian newspaper in Britain (3 July, 2007), Monbiot says: “A good source tells me that the British government is well aware that its target for cutting carbon emissions – 60% by 2050 – is too little too late, but that it will go no further for one reason: it fears losing the support of the Confederation of British Industry.”

The same thing is happening in New Zealand. The two major parties, Labour and National, are leading us to catastrophe, for the same reason as the British government . They don’t want to upset big business, who refuse to have their profits affected by the urgent measures needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Corporate heads and pro-business lobby groups have been delivering a strong message to the government: don’t touch our profits. On National Radio, Federated Farmers of New Zealand president Charlie Pedersen, argued that New Zealand shouldn’t do anything about climate change, because our output of CO2 is a small percentage of global output and to limit emissions will cripple the competitiveness of farmers.

The farming lobby has warned the government off doing anything to curb methane emissions from farm animals, which accounts for half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. Hence, Clark & Co are keeping their noses covered to the smell of 25 million tonnes of methane belching into the atmosphere each year (one tonne of methane has the same atmospheric warming potential as 21 tonnes of CO2).

A carbon trading wave

The mainstreaming of climate concern is, however, forcing governments around the world to give the appearance of doing something. Labour, after some half-hearted flirtation with emissions taxes, is now riding the carbon trading wave that’s being propelled by corporate bosses and neo-liberal politicians globally.

Carbon trading is part of an ideological struggle to maintain the hegemony of the “free market”. Capitalists don’t want public solutions that make social, economic and environmental sense – like free and frequent buses – catching on. This would undermine the whole ethos of privatisation and corporate competition.

Labour has been going along with everything else business wants, they’re not going to go head-to-head with powerful corporate interests over climate change. So they’re embracing carbon trading as something they can sell to New Zealand people, but which won’t harm their partnership with big business.

Labour is already working with Australia’s Howard government to set up a trans-Tasman emissions trading scheme. The Australia-NZ trading scheme will be compatible with international emissions trading.

One task of the closed-door meetings between government officials and trans-Tasman bosses will be to decide at what level emissions are “capped”. When carbon trading was introduced in Europe corporations put pressure on market regulators to keep the cap high. This meant that some companies were already under the cap and were immediately able to start selling their “carbon credits”. Businesses were handed million dollar windfall profits for doing nothing. Unsurprising carbon trading in Europe has not reduced emissions, which have continued to rise since the scheme was introduced in 2005.

Greens drift to the right

The threat of catastrophic climate change is sharpening the divisions between “left” and “right”. Labour’s gone with the capitalists. Any measures they introduce will be minor and ultimately ineffective. It’s no good taking an aspirin when you’re having a heart attack, urgent critical intervention is required. With the planet in the early stages of cardiac arrest there’s no time to stuff around with small measures that won’t change the course of events. Otherwise the patient dies.

The best environmental thinkers and activists are calling for solutions that go against the market. Sadly, this isn’t the message coming from the Green Party of New Zealand. Their recently released policy statement, ‘Kicking the Carbon Habit’, endorses international emissions trading as a way to combat climate change. On his blog, Greens co-leader Russell Norman, tried to justify the party’s pro-market policies: “we have to intervene on the market system to place a price on resource use and pollution so that we can save the planet. And in the process we will quite possibly save the market system from its natural tendency to destroy or consume all resources leading to its own demise.”

The rightwards policy direction is one outcome of the Greens’ long-term focus on parliament. The goal of getting seats around the cabinet table has neutralised the Green Party’s activist base and the party has become increasingly distant from the grassroots movement.

Despite being shafted at the last election, the Greens leadership is still looking to secure a political alliance with Labour. This means being “reasonable”, “responsible” and “ready to govern” – all these conservative phrases translate into accepting the status quo and not rocking the boat.

So Jeanette Fitzsimons , the Greens’ other co-leader, was all smiles when Labour announced a few extra million dollars would be spent on promoting solar energy for homes. With a rapidly approaching tipping point for irreversible climate change this is but a drop in a rising ocean. A fact recognized by Green Party members on their blogsite. The leadership has a hard time selling these few crumbs to grassroots members.

Political crisis

The extent of the political crisis within the Greens has seen some in the leadership openly talk about a coalition with National. Fitzsimons says they want to “leave the door open”. She claims the Greens are beyond “left” and “right”. Some in the party are arguing that to make itself attractive to National as a potential coalition partner, the Greens should ditch their social policies and just concentrate on environmental issues.

But the same people who want to crush workers, cut public services and slash welfare are the same ones who would continue to destroy the environment rather than have their profits checked. And how can a party hope to win the support of the grassroots majority if they’re not going to fight for other things that concern grassroots people, like decent pay, union rights, free healthcare, livable benefits, etc.?

The measures needed to urgently cut greenhouse gas emissions will see business up in arms – that’s unavoidable. Getting serious about climate change will mean standing up to big business and their political representatives in parliament and on local body councils. What’s required is leadership that’s prepared to tell it like it is and win the “battle of ideas”.

This isn’t the political path the Greens are on. The leadership seems to be in the grip of a new kind of climate change denial, one where they think they can continue to play politics with the pro-market parties, Labour and National. In the process they’re putting themselves to the right of the movement that’s emerging around the climate change issue.


Is carbon trading the indulgences of the 21st century?

by PAT O’DEA

Martin Luther, a 16th century church professor at Wittenburg Catholic University, was troubled. The citizens of Wittenberg, many of whom belonged to Luther’s flock, were in the habit of seeking forgiveness of sins by purchasing indulgences.

Luther had previously already preached in condemnation of indulgences. On Halloween, the Eve of All Saints, in 1516, he spoke out, drawing everyone's attention to his revolutionary view that the Pope could not free souls from purgatory. He condemned the very idea that money payments could wash away sins as pernicious. Logically it simply meant that the wealthy could sin with impunity.

Martin Luther couragously did this despite the fact that the Castle Church at Wittenburg, and even the university where he was employed , were both dependent to a large extent on this lucrative source of revenue.

Here in 21st century New Zealand, Green Party politicians fail to condemn carbon trading, allowing the rich to sin with impunity. And instead have given their secular blessing. They could do worse than heed Martin Luther, who once wrote: “Indulgences are most pernicious because they induce complacency and thereby imperil salvation.”

KiwiSaver – let’s call it Kiwi Slaver

KiwiSaver – let’s call it Kiwi Slaver by PAT O’DEA & VAUGHAN GUNSON In Budget 2007 the Labour government came down openly on the side of capital. The corporates were delivered a $1 billion dollar tax cut when the company tax rate was lowered from 33 to 30 cents in the dollar. Or to put it another way, companies operating in New Zealand were gifted a 10% boost to their profits. The other “flag ship” initiative was the government’s announcement of a major extension of the KiwiSaver retirement income scheme. There’s plenty of spin coming from Labour as to how KiwiSaver will benefit the country. The reality for workers is something else. As Matt McCarten quite rightly said in his column for the NZ Herald (20 May, 2007): “The KiwiSaver idea is sold on the basis of securing pensions for retired workers. But what it really signals is that the welfare state, as we know it, is finished. The principle of superannuation and other societal benefits is now being replaced by individual, user-pay schemes run by private investment corporations.” The carrot Labour has dangled in front of workers is a $1000 one off government contribution to KiwiSaver for everyone who signs up. You’ll then have to make regular contributions of a minimum 4% of income into a KiwiSaver account. This will be matched by 4% payments from employers, to be phased in over the next four years. Unlike workers, employers will get a tax credit from the government when they do. The scheme will only be a cost to employers in the case of high wage earners. The money will be managed by approved KiwiSaver providers, private banks and investment companies. You won’t be able to touch it until you turn 65, except to use for the purchase of a first home or to pay for critical health treatment. High cost for workers The cost to low paid workers will be high. Someone earning $25,000, as many workers currently do, will have to pay $19.20 a week into KiwiSaver. This is a big chunk of money to someone already struggling to pay the bills. Michael Cullen admitted on Radio NZ that “we are unlikely to see low income people opt in to Kiwi Saver.” If workers do sign up they can choose which investment firm their money goes to. If they don’t, the money will go to “default providers” selected by the government. These private investment companies can invest the money where they wish. What’s not being widely publicised is that this money is not secured by the government. If an investment company goes belly up, workers will lose their contributions. Cullen has said: “The government doesn’t provide a guarantee for private savings.” Despite workers having few options for securing a decent retirement income, and workers starting a new job will be automatically signed up to the scheme, by arguing that KiwiSaver is voluntary the government protects itself from any liability. Evidence so far from KiwiSaver providers is that it’s older and wealthier people who are signing up. The scheme favours those on higher incomes. Auckland economist and poverty campaigner, Susan St John, says KiwiSaver will increase income inequalities. Green Party MP Sue Bradford, says KiwiSaver is evidence that: “There are two New Zealands emerging, – one enjoyed by those who can afford to save for retirement, and one in which low paid workers and beneficiaries are barely keeping their heads above water. Michael Cullen has simply walked away from traditional Labour concerns about the low wage economy and inadequate benefit levels – in favour of corporate tax cuts and savings schemes for the relatively well-to do (18 May 2007).” Workers see hidden stick Opinion polls show workers aren’t excited by KiwiSaver. Workers, however, will be feeling the pressure to join, because the message has been coming though loud and clear from politicians that the country can’t afford National Superannuation anymore. Many workers are resigned to joining KiwiSaver at some point, because they fear there won’t be a pension when they retire. Workers are not so much taken by the carrots offered, but can see the hidden stick. When asked by Radio NZ if KiwiSaver would eventually replace National Superannuation, Michael Cullen replied: “Definitely not. Because we must realise how low National Superannuation is.” An admission from Cullen that current pension payments are inadequate. The policy direction is towards a privatised model where the current pension system becomes increasingly irrelevant. KiwiSaver will force workers to take a pay cut now in order to achieve a level of income in retirement that used to be a right. For low income workers who can’t afford the 4% pay cut, and beneficiaries (who won’t get the government subsidised employer contributions), the future is even worse. They’ll only be eligible for a pension that by the time they retire has been eroded to virtually nothing or has been scrapped altogether. Combine this with an increasingly user pays heath system then old age looks like being a nightmare for most working class people. Labour is creating this nightmare situation for workers because, once again, it’s the health of business profits that concerns them most. To give billion dollar tax cuts to business Labour is reducing the same amount each year that would have been available for healthcare, education, public transport, or anything else that might benefit grassroots people. KiwiSaver delivers a 4% wage cut for up to 50% of the working population and allows the government to trim spending on National Super and give it to business in the form of tax cuts. KiwiSaver should be re-named Kiwi Slaver. Economic tool to boost profits Privatising retirement income delivers the first benefit to capital. The second benefit is the hoped for impact on the economy. Capitalist economists have long been worried about the low levels of domestic saving within New Zealand, which puts upwards pressure on interest rates, increasing the costs to New Zealand capitalists wanting to borrow to invest in their business. Cullen will be hoping that KiwiSaver will lower interest rates, because banks and investment companies will now be rolling in money that’s been levied from workers’ pay packets. According to Treasury estimates KiwiSaver will deliver a quarter of a trillion dollars into the control of private investors by 2028. Mark Weldon, chief executive of NZX, New Zealand’s biggest stock market firm could barely hide his greed when he gleefully described the KiwiSaver fund as “a wall of cash”. Weldon says KiwiSaver in its revised form, on top of recent tax changes, including those for portfolio investment entities and overseas investments, have given businesses a rare opportunity. “Put all those things together,” says Weldon, “and you have a substantially meaningful long-term wave of money forming that will be available to the New Zealand corporate sector broadly and largely through the stock market.” Weldon was quoted in an article in the Business Herald (May 26 2007) titled “Up, up and away”, a catch cry first attributed to Dick Turpin as he mounted his horse, Black Bess, after a successful highway robbery. For Cullen, the hope is that workers’ money can be redirected into profitable investment rather than spending today. Workers make the sacrifices while business gets it on plate. Cullen has even had the gall to suggest that the employer contributions – despite being covered by tax credits should be factored into wage bargaining. This continues Cullen’s repeated statements last year that workers shouldn’t demand wage increases because they were inflationary and damaging to the economy. Union leaders praise KiwiSaver If this is wasn’t all bad enough, the leadership of the CTU and affiliated unions are right behind KiwiSaver. No matter that KiwiSaver disadvantages low income workers and excludes beneficiaries, and clearly signals the more towards the privatisation of superannuation. “KiwiSaver is good news for many workers” says CTU secretary Carol Beaumont. “There is strong interest in KiwiSaver from workers, and unions are working hard to make sure their members know about their entitlements and get the best opportunities to benefit from KiwiSaver.” In a glossy leaflet produced by the CTU and widely distributed to union members it says: “KiwiSaver does not replace NZ Super. But, as many New Zealanders now find that NZ Super does not provide enough for them to comfortably retire, KiwiSaver aims to help workers save for a better standard of living when that time comes.” Union leaders who are acting as cheerleaders for KiwiSaver are doing just what Helen, Michael & Co want, they’re deflecting attention away from the corporate tax cuts and the further erosion of public services that will occur. The enthusiasm for KiwiSaver coming from union leaders is the result of years of pushing partnership between workers, bosses and the government. All the rhetoric around KiwiSaver is about how it’s going to be “good for the country”; it’s going to be a “team effort”, as it says in a government brochure on KiwiSaver. It’s the same stuff many union leaders are happy to repeat, even though the “partnership model” is increasingly out of step with the anger that exists amongst workers, combined with a growing willingness by sections of workers to fightback. Many workers will see the CTU’s glossy leaflet on KiwiSaver for what it is: an attempt by the union hierarchy to sell workers a dodgy deal. It raises more questions in workers’ minds about why the leadership of union bodies like the CTU are prepared to back Labour when that party is most often playing the role of taking away from workers and giving to big business. As more and more workers learn the lessons of the struggles against Progressive and Spotless, this will undermine the politics of partnership coming from union leaders who maintain close ties to Labour politicians. Just as partisan unionism is the way forward on the industrial front, so is partisan politics the way forward for workers on the political front.

John Minto on Rising Rates and the Labour Party

Local body funding

It says a lot about the outcomes the government wants from an inquiry when one looks at the person they appoint to lead it.

In the 1980s Labour chose businessman Brian Picot to propose a new model for school management and we got Tomorrow’s Schools which sees them as competing businesses in a marketplace. In the 1990s John Banks as mayor of Auckland picked ex National MP Bill Birch to make proposals on Auckland City finances and needless to say savage cuts were proposed.

Last year Labour set up an inquiry into local body financing after a public outcry at rapidly rising rates. The person they appointed to lead the inquiry was David Shand who had recently returned to New Zealand after many years overseas which included eight years working in Washington for the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

The World Bank and the IMF make up two-thirds of what is known as the “Washington consensus” (the other third being the US government) This so-called consensus is the view that economic progress requires countries to privatise their resources, sell their assets and deliver policies such as health, education and water supply through the private sector as “user pays” services. These policies have been implemented around the world under “structural adjustment” programmes whereby financial assistance is provided to countries on condition their governments agree to restructure their economies to match the needs of international business.

The trail of economic destruction these undemocratic, un-elected, all-powerful bodies have left throughout the world can perhaps best be described as a crime against humanity. Under their policies poverty for the world’s poorest has deepened with basic services now frequently unaffordable. The benefits go to the companies that now own the infrastructure and assets at the expense of ordinary people.

Frequently the indebtedness which has led to the structural adjustment programme in the first place has come from World Bank and IMF advisors who have encouraged countries to borrow heavily for large infrastructure projects. When the host country has difficulty making the repayments these same organisations then insist on their business-friendly policies. The debt is restructured and the economic screws tightened further. The IMF and World Bank are really just a more sophisticated version of the shop-front loan shark.

So what did David Shand’s report suggest were the answers to our high rates? In the report released last week there should be no surprise that the solutions proposed are along the same lines as an IMF prescription.

It’s not a structural adjustment programme but it has all the same elements. Shand is proposing such things as user-pays charges for water and wastewater, more flat charges for services, bringing in the private sector to build infrastructure such as roads which we would be charged tolls to use.

Shand knows public opinion is strongly opposed to more asset sales so he hasn’t advocated outright that council sell their assets but in an exercise of verbal gymnastics says Councils should justify not selling these assets such as ports and airports.

In true IMF style he is also proposing councils go into debt for long-term projects. Future councils would then be faced with the sale of assets to cover these debts. (Government debt was the reason given for selling off our prized assets 20 years ago)

The single biggest change he recommends is to “remove the business differential for rates”. Translated into English this means a massive shift in the rates burden from businesses onto householders.

It shouldn’t be any surprise that the report has been welcomed by business groups. David Shand has done them proud.

The report does say that government and councils should keep a close eye on the affordability of rates for "the two lowest income quartiles". In other words Shand realises his prescription will increase hardship markedly for low and middle-income households and this line is a sop to notions of social responsibility.

Councils should keep down their spending – fair enough! There are plenty of projects local body politicians dream up as monuments to themselves rather than to meet community needs. But this problem has been used as an excuse for transferring the rates burden onto those least able to pay.

It just doesn’t make sense. Rather than stabilising or reducing the burden, local body rates and service charges will increase rapidly for most of us under Shand’s proposals. Labour sees our future in the hands of business.

Earlier this month the government appointed the same David Shand to head the Tertiary Education Commission. Grim tidings for the future Labour sees for our kids’ education.

APEC Security breached by Bin Laden!

Eleven people from Australian comedy show The Chaser team have been charged with entering a secure APEC area. More charges may follow but at the moment they face up to 6 months in gaol.

Anti-APEC protesters: united and peaceful

Emma Murphy, Sydney

8 September 2007 SYDNEY-Organisers of the Stop Bush/Make Howard History anti-APEC rally have announced that there are 10 000 gathered at Sydney’s Town Hall. Green Left Weekly’s Stuart Munckton reports that hundreds of high school students arrived at Town Hall, chanting “Troops out now!”, while the trade unionists also arrived chanting “The workers united will never be defeated!”

8 September 2007 Chris Williams Stop Bush rally September 8, Sydney

Rally marshal Damien Lawson urged the crowd to respect that this will be a peaceful protest, which was received with huge cheers. He encouraged people not to be provoked, and drew attention to a group holding a banner with neo-nazi symbols on it. It is a suspiciously professional looking banner, and Lawson emphasised that while there may be people attending today to deliberately provoke protesters into violence — including plain-clothes police — the rally would remain unified and peaceful. There is very diverse attendance. Theresa Suddaby has come from Bulla Burra in the Blue Mountains, and told GLW “I’m here protesting for the right to protest.” Peter McGregor, who came to town on the “Stop Bush Express” from Newcastle, explained to GLW why he was protesting: “whenever war criminals such as George Bush and John Howard appear in public, it’s important people come out also in public, to protest them.” Many people at the rally are claiming that the heavy handed tactics of the NSW police over the last few weeks has actually galvanised support for the protest, and brought more people out to defend their right to protest. GLW’s Graham Matthews reports that the diversity of the crowd is extraordinary, from the very young to the very old, and the placards held high indicate the whole range of reasons why people are opposed to APEC. The rally has begun to march down Park Street, which is lined on either side by police. Defying all the claims that there would be a full-scale riot today, the mood is peaceful and jubilant. While police have built blockades using converted buses — which they plan to use as portable holding cells — so far there has been no need for them, in what looks to be an inspiring display of peaceful protest and defiance. The march is being led by the Maritime Union of Australia and the Fire Brigade Employees Union.

Illegal Attacks- Ian Brown

Ian Brown, former lead singer of the Stone Roses, is fed up and speaking out against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His new anti-war song is passionate and is called Illegal Attacks. It's no-holds-barred and features Sinead O' Connor on guest vocals. The single is out September 17th and precedes his new album The World Is Yours. The album will be available on September 24th. Ian Brown's MySpace.

So what the fuck is this UK
Gunnin’ with this US of A
In Iraq and Iran and in Afghanistan

Does not a day go by
Without the Israeli Air Force
Fail to drop it’s bombs from the sky?

How many mothers to cry?
How many sons have to die?
How many missions left to fly over Palestine?
‘Cause as a matter of facts
It’s a pact, it’s an act
These are illegal attacks
So bring the soldiers back
These are illegal attacks
It’s contracts for contacts
I’m singing concrete facts
So bring the soldiers back

What mean ya that you beat my people
What mean ya that you beat my people
And grind the faces of the poor

So tell me just how come were the Taliban
Sat burning incense in Texas
Roaming round in a Lexus
Sittin’ on six billion oil drums
Down with the Dow Jones, up on the Nasdaq
Pushed into the war zones

It’s a commercial crusade
‘Cause all the oil men get paid
And only so many soldiers come home
It’s a commando crusade
A military charade
And only so many soldiers come home

Soldiers, soldiers come home
Soldiers come home

Through all the blood and sweat
Nobody can forget
It ain’t the size of the dog in the fight
It’s the size of the fight in the dog on the day or the night
There’s no time to reflect
On the threat, the situation, the bark nor the bite
These are commercial crusades
‘Cos all the oil men get paid
These are commando crusades
Commando tactical rape
And from the streets of New York and Baghdad to Tehran and Tel Aviv
Bring forth the prophets of the Lord
From dirty bastards fillin’ pockets
With the profits of greed

These are commercial crusades
Commando tactical raids
Playin’ military charades to get paid

And who got the devils?
And who got the Lords?
Build yourself a mountain – Drink up in the fountain
Soldiers come home
Soldiers come home
Soldiers come home
Soldiers come home

What mean ya that you beat my people
What mean ya that you beat my people
And grind the faces of the poor

Galloway in New Zealand- On Film

Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq

What Bush calls “progress in Iraq”

September 7, 2007 | Socialist Worker USA

DAHR JAMAIL has spent eight months in Iraq since 2003 as an “unembedded” reporter, providing an indispensable independent analysis of the disastrous U.S. occupation. His book Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq will be released this month, and Dahr will appear at meetings around the country in conjunction with its publication.

Here, he talks to ERIC RUDER about the fact and fiction of the Bush administration’s “surge” of combat troops and the future of Iraq.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

GEORGE BUSH seems to have already concluded, even before he gets the report from Gen. David Petraeus, that his troop “surge” has produced good results. What’s your assessment?

I THINK that all we need to do is look at the statistics. These hard facts counter the Bush administration’s propaganda that the surge is working.

More Iraqis have fled their homes during the period of the surge. There has been a 50 percent increase in the number of Iraqis detained in all U.S. detention facilities in Iraq. The number of U.S. troops killed has increased dramatically during the surge. Same with the number of soldiers wounded.

A majority of Baghdad remains out of the control of the U.S. military. And as usual, having one focused giant military push in one main area--that is, in Baghdad (although a few troops have gone to Anbar province)--has essentially spread the resistance all around the country to places where it didn’t have a strong presence before.

What else to read Dahr Jamail’s articles and commentary on the Middle East are available at Dahr Jamail’s MidEast Dispatches Web site, along with images by Jeff Pflueger. His book Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq, will be published later this year by Haymarket Books. You can preorder it now through Amazon.com. For daily news updates and analysis of Iraq, see the Electronic Iraq Web site, as well as Juan Cole’s Informed Comment Web site. The crucial book on Iraq for antiwar activists is Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal, now republished in an updated paperback edition from the American Empire Project with a foreword by Howard Zinn. Two other books that provide valuable information and analysis about the U.S. occupation and the ensuing civil war are Patrick Cockburn’s The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq and Nir Rosen’s In the Belly of the Green Bird: The Triumph of Martyrs.

And of course, access to clean water, electricity and other services are still below pre-invasion levels.

WHAT DO you make of the withdrawal proposals from Democrats?

LET’S BE clear--none of the mainstream Democratic candidates (basically, everyone except Kucinich and maybe one of the other fringe candidates) has any intention of withdrawing U.S. forces.

The Democrats have twisted the word “withdrawal.” Most people think withdrawal means the withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. The reality is that they’re talking about possibly drawing down the number of troops--which makes for a permanent occupation.

A few months ago, Bush himself said that we need to be thinking about the U.S. presence in Iraq along the lines of South Korea, where troops have been for decades. This is nothing new for the U.S. There have been U.S. troops in Germany and Japan for six decades now.

The Democrats’ plan for Iraq--Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama--doesn’t differ one iota from the Bush administration or mainstream Republican goals. They have no exit strategy because there’s not going to be an exit.

AT A recent debate of Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton said she thought the U.S. should “stay focused” on keeping al-Qaeda “on the run, as we currently are doing in Anbar province.” Do recent events in Anbar province support this view?

FIRST, CLINTON’S statement is misleading because it suggests there have been some successes against al-Qaeda because of something the U.S. military has done. This is false. The reality is that Iraqi resistance groups have been fighting against al-Qaeda since almost the very beginning, when al-Qaeda started infiltrating Iraq’s borders, thanks to the U.S. occupation.

U.S. military commanders on the ground admit they have been unsuccessful in fighting al-Qaeda because they can’t find them. It’s actually the resistance groups that are the only ones having any successes in this respect.

Clinton is again just piggybacking on the Bush administration’s rhetoric that we have to “fight them there so that we don’t have to fight them here.” There is a small presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq, but even according to the U.S. military, they compose a single-digit percentile of the forces that are actually launching attacks on the U.S. military in Iraq.

Clinton’s claims also parallel the Bush administration’s assertion that there’s progress in Anbar province, and that Falluja is a model of success, but I like to defer to the facts on the ground.

Embedded reporters may parrot the military’s claim that new life is being breathed into Falluja thanks to the U.S., but one of my colleagues who lives there reports a very different story.

Yes, there are fewer attacks at the markets in Falluja, but that’s because the city is essentially dead. Unemployment is up over 80 percent, according to my source, and there are still tens of thousands of refugees who fled from the U.S. sieges in 2004 who have not come back because more than 70 percent of the city is totally destroyed.

Whole neighborhoods and quarters of the city have been without water and electricity since the 2004 siege. There’s rampant sickness in the city because there’s no medical care and no ambulances allowed to move. In fact, there’s been a ban on the use of all vehicles in the city since May.

We can say similar things about other cities in Anbar--Samarra, Ramadi--but we only have to look at the number of attacks on the ground. It’s still an extremely insecure place. There is no area in Anbar where U.S. soldiers walk around or go outside their bases without using armored vehicles or as part of a large operation.

A Blackhawk helicopter was shot down a few weeks ago right outside the U.S. base, which is a couple miles from Falluja. That killed four soldiers. There have been so many U.S. military operations and air strikes that the few people who remain there are basically staying in their homes.

THE U.S. seems to have an uneasy relationship with the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Why?

I DON’T spend too much time investigating the machinations of Iraq’s puppet government, precisely because it’s a puppet government. Just to give you an idea of how “democratic” it is, Maliki was installed by the Bush and Blair administrations.

If you think back, there were elections in January 2005, and the politicians elected were supposed to choose a prime minister. They did, and that person was Ibrahim Jaafari.

But he wasn’t toeing the line of the Bush/Blair administrations, so Condoleezza Rice and her UK counterpart Jack Straw flew out to Baghdad just a couple months after Jaafari became prime minister. By the time they left Baghdad, Jaafari was out, and Maliki was in.

Today, the Iraqi government has no popular support whatsoever. More than 90 percent of Iraqis now favor total U.S. withdrawal and are completely against the government. The government wouldn’t exist for five minutes without the U.S. occupation there.

People in Baghdad now say that whenever the Americans leave, all of these people will be riding out in the tanks with them, because they won’t be able to walk in safety anywhere in Iraq for the rest of their lives.

BUT IF Maliki is such a puppet, why is the U.S. upset with him?

THE U.S. is upset because he’s no longer doing exactly what they say. A recent example is Maliki’s visit to Iran. Bush ratcheted up the rhetoric against him and threatened him with “consequences” if he becomes too friendly with the Iranians. In Tehran, he met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and they made a deal to run a pipeline from Iraq to Iran, as well as other business deals.

Bush then continued his taunts, but Maliki went on to Syria, met with President Bashir Assad and declared that we can find friends elsewhere--in other words, we don’t need only the Bush administration. This creates friction, of course. Their puppet is loosening a couple of the strings and threatening to cut more.

On top of that, Maliki is becoming a whipping boy. He’s useful for the Bush administration to point to as the reason for everything that’s going wrong in the country. Bush assumes that most people in the U.S. are ignorant of the fact that the U.S. installed the man they’re blaming.

WHAT’S BEHIND the clashes between Moktada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army and the Badr Organization in Karbala?

IT’S COMPLEX. First, it’s important to understand that the recent clashes are not a new phenomenon. They are part of a larger ongoing conflict between the Mahdi Army and the Badr Organization, which is the armed wing of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC).

SIIC was formerly the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and was formed as a mirror group of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iran. The SIIC is the religious and political wing governed by the dictates of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who came to Najaf from Iran in 1953.

So essentially, we have Moktada al Sadr, the anti-occupation nationalist cleric, and his Mahdi Army vying for control of the south of Iraq against SIIC and the Badr Organization. In Basra alone, there have more than 5,000 assassinations and tit-for-tat killings between these two groups in the last two years.

The recent clashes occurred during a massive pilgrimage to Karbala. Hundreds of thousands of Shia pilgrims were making their way to a shrine when guards from the Badr Organization opened fire on some of the Mahdi Army guards who were traveling with the pilgrims, according to one version of the story that I received from sources who had just come from that location.

There are other reports that a renegade loosely affiliated with the Mahdi Army attacked the guards of the Badr Organization, which set off the clashes.

Later on the same day, Sadr announced that he was halting all operations of the Mahdi Army for six months and didn’t say why. This indicates that maybe it was actually a renegade group, not directly under his control, which launched this attack.

In the 48-hour period following the clashes in Karbala, Mahdi Army members attacked SIIC offices in at least five different cities and did the same thing in several neighborhoods of Baghdad--attacking offices, setting them on fire, kidnapping and killing people. I think this ongoing--and savage--war will continue to escalate.

WHAT ARE the political differences between these groups?

ONE KEY difference is that the Badr Organization and SIIC have far cozier relations with Iran. Sadr also has ties to Iran, but he has been more consistently opposed to the U.S. occupation and pushing to maintain the national unity of Iraq, while the SIIC and the Badr Organization have been “playing ball” with occupation forces.

Make no mistake--Badr/SIIC are anti-occupation. But for the moment, they are trying to use the U.S. occupation powers and the U.S. military as leverage against their rival group, which is Sadr and his Mahdi Army.

Without that U.S. military leverage, Sadr and the Madhi Army are the most powerful force in Iraq. U.S. backing is critical to keeping SIIC/Badr from being overwhelmed by Sadr’s forces. Sadr essentially controls the majority of Baghdad, and the Mahdi Army, I would argue, already controls most of southern Iraq.

The important thing is that Sadr has gained so much more popularity during the occupation because he has consistently opposed it--while political games have cost the Badr Organization, SIIC and Sistani much of the power and respect they once had.

IN LATE August, Bush accused Iran of trying to destabilize Iraq. Is Iran responsible for Iraq’s “instability”?

THE PRIMARY force responsible for the violence, chaos and instability in Iraq is, of course, the U.S. military. Needless to say, it is the largest group of foreign fighters in Iraq.

They have caused more death in Iraq than any other single group. They are destabilizing the entire region. If you look at the level of violence across the Middle East today compared to before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, it’s night and day.

The Bush administration’s claim that Iran is responsible for the problems in Iraq--specifically, the attacks against U.S. forces--is hypocritical and even absurd. The U.S. is in no position whatsoever to say Iran has no right to have influence in Iraq--or even to have soldiers and weapons in Iraq. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

The U.S. has more than 160,000 heavily armed military personnel in Iraq. They are building permanent bases there with massive airstrips. They are flying an average of more than 60 combat missions a day in Iraq. I think the U.S. is “meddling” in Iraq a little more than Iran is.

Iran does give political support to groups in Iraq, but there is absolutely no evidence on the ground to back up the claim that Iran is giving these groups military support. The fact that they’ve found some weaponry in Iraq that has come from Iran is not proof at all that the Iranian government is itself involved.

There are now reports that U.S. weapons are turning up in Turkey. Does that mean that the U.S. government is directly arming groups in Turkey? Absolutely not. The U.S. itself admits that more than 190,000 U.S. weapons have gone missing. These are turning up in black markets all over the region, including Turkey.

The same is true of Iran. There are mortar shells, rocket-propelled grenades, rockets and artillery shells from Iran that are turning up in Iraq, but that doesn’t mean the Iranian government has even knowledged that these weapons are crossing their borders into Iraq.

It’s also well documented that $8 billion in U.S. reconstruction funds went “missing” under the watch of the so-called Coalition Provisional Authority, which was set up and ran Iraq for the first year of the occupation. Was it spent in Iran? No one knows where this money is. Did it find its way into resistance coffers somehow? Was it used to finance weapons purchases? Again, no one knows.

DO YOU think the U.S. is preparing to attack Iran?

I ALWAYS caution people not to use logic in trying to predict what the neoconservatives in the Bush administration want to do regarding Iran.

We are at a very dangerous time. I wouldn’t call Bush a lame-duck president because he basically has the powers of a dictator. Enough of the laws of this country have been changed and parts of the Constitution have been shredded, so he can do whatever he wants.

Politically and in the polls, he doesn’t care--what does he have to lose? Anything that goes wrong, blame Bush, he’s out anyway, everyone knows that he’s a done deal. So why not go ahead and finish the job with Tehran?

“Everyone wants to go to Baghdad, real men want to go to Tehran,” was the slogan of the neocons in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And that’s the mindset right now. Israel has been calling for the U.S. to attack Iran since even before the invasion of Iraq.

All of the chatter I’m hearing from the ex-CIA analysts I’ve been talking to in recent weeks is that there are plans for an attack on Iran before the Bush administration leaves office, and the only thing that would stop it would be the prompt impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

We know for sure that there are U.S. plans for a massive propaganda campaign against Iran sometime this month in an attempt to justify why the U.S. must launch a strike against Iran. The American Enterprise Institute, all of the neocons, Fox News--these are just some of the mouthpieces ready to begin the propaganda offensive.

It’ll be a lot like during the propaganda campaign against Iraq, when Andrew Card said you don’t roll out new products until the fall. And it was September 7, 2002, when Bush and Blair at Camp David began accusing Saddam Hussein of trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

This blitz will continue into the fall. Personally, I think they’ll take time to let the propaganda work--I could be wrong--and let it filter down to the public that relies on mainstream news sources. I suspect a spring attack, again similar to what happened with Iraq, sometime between February and April 2008.

Seymour Hersh talked about what an attack would entail a while ago in an excellent piece in the New Yorker--massive air strikes and cruise missile attacks across Iran, and targets would include Iranian infrastructure and suspected sites where Iran is carrying out nuclear activities.

But what would happen if these attacks take place? As a Pentagon adviser told Hersh, “Southern Iraq will light up like a candle.”

The two largest Shia militias in the country are already vying for control in the south. Immediately, both of those militias--including Sadr, who has also visited Tehran and expressed solidarity with Iranians, and said that any attack on Iran is an attack on us--will immediately turn from fighting each other and go against the U.S. military.

The main supply line--basically the umbilical cord of the occupation--is a highway that runs from Kuwait to Baghdad. The U.S. military occupies one-third of the geographic area of Kuwait, right up near the Iraqi border. There’s a massive Kellogg Brown and Root truck yard there, and every day, an average of 2,000 supply trucks run from Kuwait into Baghdad, and then the supplies flow to bases around the country.

The supply line is already tenuous, at best. The truck convoys are guarded by Humvees and Bradleys, and sometimes with air support. And there are already daily attacks on this road.

That supply line will immediately be cut once those bombs start falling on Iran. All of the bases, the Green Zone and the rest of the U.S. military infrastructure will find themselves undersupplied.

The road will become unusable--as has long since happened along the main road from Amman, Jordan, to Baghdad, because of Sunni resistance forces that operate in that region. The U.S. isn’t able to bring supplies from the massive bases in eastern Jordan because they can’t control that highway.

What’s more, Sistani has not once, throughout the entire U.S. occupation, called on his followers to take up arms against the occupation, but once Iran is attacked, I think we can safely assume that this will change, and we’ll see five, six, seven times more fighters willing to launch attacks against U.S. occupation forces.

There’s lots of bombastic rhetoric from the U.S. about how its military has already targeted critical sites throughout Iran. But Iran can say the same. It’s well known--anyone can get on the Internet and see where the U.S. bases are in Iraq. Those sites are already targeted by Iranian missiles.

Missiles will rain down on most of the U.S. bases in Iraq immediately. There will be dramatic numbers of U.S. military casualties when that happens.

The oil infrastructure of the Persian Gulf will be torched. Iran knows what that would do to the U.S. economy, when oil cross the $100-a-barrel threshold--to $200 or maybe $250 in the matter of a few days’ time.

Overnight, these are a few of the things that would happen. Around the region, there are other possible consequences. It could ignite another war between Hezbollah and Israel, which basically guarantees that Syria will become involved because Israel will attack southern Lebanon, then Iran starts using missiles against Israel, and Israel has more than 200 nuclear weapons.

Iran is already shelling areas of northern Iraq because Kurdish rebels, backed by the U.S., are launching incursions into Iran. Turkey has been shelling and even mounting incursions into Kurdistan for the same reasons--because Kurdish rebels have been killing Turkish soldiers and civilians for years now. Turkey has more than 140,000 troops on the border of Iraq, so the possibility of a Turkish invasion of Iraq looms if there’s another huge destabilizing event in the region.

These are just some of the highlights of how the region might unravel in the immediate aftermath of a U.S. attack on Iran.

Hollow Men tread the boards

THE HOLLOW MEN
A tale told by e-mails,
full of guile and perfidy.
Adapted from the book by Nicky Hager.

“As the head of ‘spin’ for the National Party leader’s office, one of Richard Long’s main jobs was scripting the words used by the politicians when talking to journalists. Long always referred to these as ‘lines’, a term borrowed appropriately from the world of theatre and fiction…”

Opens Sept 26, Bats Theatre, Wellington.
Then at Centrepoint, Palmerston North.

On stage! The horror!

Venezuela: Uniting revolutionaries to end capitalism

Venezuela: Uniting revolutionaries to end capitalism

Federico Fuentes, Caracas

From Green Left Weekly, 5 September 2007.

“The internal situation will intensify over the next months, more contradictions will emerge, simply because we have no plans to hold back the march of the revolution”, said Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on March 24, speaking to more than 2000 promoters of the new socialist party being constructed in Venezuela. “These contradictions”, he said, would “intensify, because we are dealing with the economic issue, and there is nothing that hurts a capitalist more than his pocket, but we have to enter into this issue, we cannot avoid it”.

On July 28, while attending a meeting of his local battalion of the provisionally named United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), Chavez reiterated this point: “We are in the presence of one of the most important moments [in this revolution], like during the coup [in April 2002].” Chavez explained that this was because, as well as open enemies of the revolution, there were also “snakes” who worked to undermine the revolution from within, which the new party aimed to combat.

Since Chavez was re-elected on an explicitly socialist platform on December 3, the Bolivarian revolution — as the process of transforming Venezuela in the interests of the poor majority is known — has gone on the offensive. The first half of this year has seen the revolutionary government advance its plan to nationalise strategic industries and promote the “explosion” of popular power — primarily through the communal councils, as well as calling for the creation of worker, student and campesino (peasant) councils. The most recent initiative is Chavez’s proposed constitutional reforms aimed at enshrining popular power and creating a legal framework for the creation of a “new socialism of the 21st century”.

These moves have intensified the class struggle, and Chavez has called for the construction of the PSUV to enable revolutionary militants to unify their efforts. In response, almost 5.7 million people have registered to become members.

Unity from below

Although Chavez’s public announcement of plans for the new party came on December 15 during a speech to activists who worked on his election campaign, he made numerous references to the need for a new party during the campaign. Several months earlier, Chavez had called a closed meeting to bring together the leaders of the various pro-Chavez parties and key individuals to explain his proposal for a new party to be formed post-election.

Chavez, in his December 15 speech, proposed all left currents unite to form “a political instrument that puts itself at the service of the people … at the service of socialism”. As part of this process, Chavez has continuously called on the other pro-Chavez parties to dissolve, following the example of his own party, the Movement for the Fifth Republic (MVR), to help facilitate building a new united party, arguing the revolution does not need “an alphabet soup … We need a political instrument that unites wills and is not worn down in intestinal fights.”

While most of the smaller parties have followed the MVR, the Homeland for All Party (PPT), Podemos, and the Venezuelan Communist Party (PCV) — which, after the MVR, receive the most electoral support in the pro-Chavez camp — have so far declined to dissolve, although many members from these parties have left to participate in the PSUV.

Chavez argued the new party should build on the existing organisation of the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans in grassroots groups that carried out the immense mobilisation that saw Chavez re-elected the highest number of votes in Venezuela’s history. “In this new party the bases will elect the leaders. This will allow for the emergence of real leaders.”

He added that “A new party needs new faces”. He insisted that the new party cannot simply be a “coming together of what already exists”, as “that would be fooling the people”.

In a speech on April 19, Chavez explained the relationship that should exist between the party and the “multitudes”. The party had the role of developing consciousness among the broadest layers, while at the same time “out of the multitudes emerge the cadre, the leaders”.

Reformism and dogmatism

Chavez argued that it was necessary to combat two currents within the revolution that would undermine the creation of a mass revolutionary party. One was reformism, which he dubbed in his March 28 speech “the silent assassin”, that aims to put a brake on the process. Chavez has repeatedly pointed to Podemos, which defines itself as social democratic, as representing this current. Leaders of Podemos have argued increasingly right-wing positions, echoing some of the views of the US-backed opposition.

The second current is dogmatism. Chavez argued that the PSUV was not “a Marxist-Leninist project”. He claimed that “If Karl Marx and Vladimir Ilich Lenin were alive today” and studied the modern world, “I am sure that they would not come up with a radically different thesis, but with a number of differences to the thesis they developed …” Chavez pointed to what he argued were dogmatic errors committed by Latin American communist parties, including by the PCV both through its history and in the current period.

In his December 15 speech, Chavez emphasised the new party would not be Stalinist, pointing out that after the premature death of Lenin, the Bolshevik party, which had led the Russian Revolution in 1917, fell prey to a “Stalinist deviation”, creating an elitist regime that could never create socialism.

However, Chavez also argued: “We know that one of Karl Marx’s proposals was precisely that of the dictatorship of the proletariat; but that is not viable for Venezuela in these times.”

Instead, Chavez stated, “We, here, are going to construct a Venezuelan socialism, the original Venezuela socialist model and a political instrument that helps us conquer that objective!”

Bolivarian socialism

According to the document being distributed by the national promoters team to the battalions formed to construct the PSUV, the “point of unity” for the different strands of “revolutionary and socialist thoughts” within the PSUV would be the ideology of Bolivarianism — which takes its name from Simon Bolivar, who liberated much of South America from Spanish rule in the 19th century. This ideology is described as the sum of “the most famous effort for national and social emancipation of our past, the most genuine Latin American internationalism”, and as being “the motor of the socialist revolution unfolding in Venezuela”.

The document argues that the declaration of principles for the new party, which will be the product of widespread discussion, would represent “the synthesis and surpassing of all the revolutionary forces of Venezuela”, embracing those that belong to “the exploited and oppressed classes, along with all the men and women that embrace the Bolivarian ideal”.

The document argues that “capitalism in its imperialist phase has reached its limits” and claims that capitalism can only continue to expand the gap between rich and poor — within and between countries — and threatens the planet with extinction.

“The conclusion is clear”, the document says, “to end poverty, it is necessary to give power to the poor and construct socialism; to end war, it is necessary to put an end to imperialism”. This is the task that the Venezuelan revolution has set itself, “placing itself in the vanguard of this struggle” around the world.

The second document for discussion deals with the question of what program the new party should have. It notes that while there is no single political program “for all times and all places”, the PSUV should have as its clear objective the construction of “a government based on councils of popular power, where the workers, campesinos, students and popular masses are the direct protagonists of political power”.

It proposes moving towards “a democratically planned and centralised economy, capable of ending the alienation of labour and satisfying all the necessities of the people”, which should “plan production and the satisfaction of collective necessities in harmony with the requirements of the ecosystem”.

The document of principles states that “just as it is indisputable that private ownership over the means of production, in any society, determines labour relations, human relations and all aspects of life”, in the transition beyond capitalism, it is necessary to “guarantee the conscious participation of the majorities, and the necessary efficiency to comply with all the requirements of national life …”

The document argues that central to the party’s revolutionary strategy should be “the alliance of the people with the Armed Forces, just like that of the workers with the middle classes of the countryside and city (small and medium campesinos, small industrial bourgeois and urban and rural commerce)”.

Its method of struggle should be based on “the largest possible number of men and women [involving] themselves in the resolution of all the problems” through the communal councils, the military reserves, and “in the specific area of industrial workers … through workers’ control and self-management”.

Internationalist

According to the document, the current world situation creates, and makes necessary, the formation of “an international anti-imperialist bloc on a grand scale” made up of governments, social movements and parties “to unite in action hundreds of millions of people in all the world against imperialism and its wars”.

Moreover, the current wave of rebellion in Latin America opens up the possibilities of “qualitative transformation”, in the struggle for liberation being waged by “tens of millions of exploited and oppressed”. Therefore, the document states that internationally the PSUV should work to construct “a world anti-imperialist bloc” and “socialist and revolutionary convergence of the people of Latin America and the Caribbean”, conscious of its role as “a vanguard in an era of immense challenges and great victories: capitalism is international; the revolution is international; international must be the thought and actions we carry out”.

Speaking on August 26, Chavez stressed the internationalist character of the PSUV and called for a new “international” of left-wing parties, saying “2008 could be a good time to convoke a meeting of left parties in Latin America to organise a new international, an organisation of parties and movements of the left in Latin America and the Caribbean”.

Chavez concluded: “There is a resurgence of consciousness of the people and we must continue building the movements and leaders of a new left, of a new project.”