End the siege of Gaza!

Gaza siege is a war crime: End all support for Israel! Tony Iltis 1 February 2008 On January 23, a series of explosions ripped open the concrete and steel barrier that had sealed off the Gaza Strip from the outside world. The breach in the barrier allowed hundreds of thousands of desperate Palestinians, perhaps a third of Gaza’s 1.5 million residents, to surge into the Egyptian cross-border town of Rafah to buy some of life’s basic necessities — denied them by Israel’s siege of the 10 kilometre wide, 40-kilometre long Palestinian enclave. The explosion also blew holes in the inversion of reality anti-Palestinian propaganda in the Western media. For the past few months, mainstream media coverage of events in Palestine has been focussed on the US-orchestrated ’’Peace talks” between Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and Palestinian National Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas. The impression given by this coverage is that the US and its European Union allies are “honest brokers”, pushing for a settlement to the 60-year Arab-Israeli conflict based on Arab acceptance of Israel’s ’right” to exist with “secure borders” and Israel’s acceptance of an independent Palestinian state ruling over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Abbas-led PA has been presented as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and a “partner for peace”. The impression has been given that the main obstacle to a “peace” settlement is the alleged refusal of Hamas — portrayed as terrorists and agents of “rogue states” Iran and Syria — to “renounce violence” against Israel and recognise the Israeli state’s “right to exist”. Hamas is presented as having ’’seized” control over Gaza to use it as a staging ground for attacking Israel. Ignored is the fact that the Hamas-led administration in Gaza is all that remains of the PA government elected by Palestinian voters in early 2006, following the US- and Israeli-backed, unconstitutional takeover of the PA administration in West Bank by Abbas and his Fatah party in June 2007. War crimes Ignored is the fact that ever since September 2000, about 1800 Palestinian civilians in Gaza have been killed by Israeli military attacks, while over the same period only a dozen Israeli citizens have been killed by cross-border Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza. In the first two weeks of January, the Israeli military has killed 50 Palestinian civilians in Gaza, while Palestinian rocket attacks into Israel have slightly injured three Israelis. Yet, Israel and its Western backers, portray Israel, with the Middle East’s most powerful military machine, as the innocent victim of Palestinian aggression. Also ignored is the fact that Israel’s siege of Gaza — closing every access into the enclave, including for the delivery of fuel and food supplies, and the bombing of Gaza’s main power station — is a war crime. The 1949 Geneva Conventions state, in article 54 of their additional protocol, that, “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited”. It is also “prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population”. The dramatic events since January 23 have made two realities clear. Firstly, that the policies of Israel and its Western backers have turned Palestinians in Gaza into paupers and, secondly, that the Palestinian people retain a willingness to engage in mass defiance of their Israeli overlords. These events have also shown that far from being terrorist agents of outside powers, Hamas enjoys the support of the mass of Gazans because of its role in enabling this mass defiance. Occupied territories The 365km² Gaza Strip has been described as the world’s largest open-air prison. It is also the most densely populated place on Earth. When the Israeli state was created in 1947-49 through the violent seizure and ethnic cleansing of 78% of Palestine by Jewish colonists from Europe, some 800,000 Palestinian refugees fled to the West Bank and Gaza — the only parts of Palestine that remained outside of the new Jewish state. But in 1967, Israel invaded and occupied both of these territories. The bringing of all of the Palestinian nation’s homeland under Israeli rule did not mean that Palestinian refugees in Gaza and the West Bank could return to their pre-1948 home towns and villages. The UN-designated Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) remained administratively separated from pre-1967 Israel. This division did not stop Israel, in blatant violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, from planting settlements of its citizens in the OPT. From the outset Israeli control of the movement of people and goods, through military checkpoints and repeated border closures, was used to repress resistance to Israeli’s illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. When the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) under the late Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Accords with Israel in 1993, accepting a “two-state solution”, the assumption was that an independent Palestinian state would comprise the 22% of Palestine that remained outside of Israeli rule between 1948 and June 1967 — the West Bank and Gaza — with unimpeded access between Gaza and the West Bank. However, while the PLO was allowed by Israel to set up the PA — with the formal trappings of a government — the creation of such an independent Palestinian state was never the intention of Israel or its Western backers. Israeli settlements, with a population of just under half a million, along with by-pass roads and the “separation barrier” — an 8-metre high fortified concrete and steel barrier that encircles and divides the West Bank — have effectively annexed to Israel half of the West Bank. While Israeli settlements were withdrawn from the Gaza Strip in 2005, it was surrounded by a wall and its residents were denied access to Gaza’s own airspace and coastal waters, destroying the livelihoods of Gazan fishers. As if to underline the impossibility of these isolated and walled-off Palestinian ghettos somehow forming an independent state, Israel subjects the OPT to regular air strikes and periodic ground invasions. While Israel’s rulers publicly say they support a “two-state solution”, their actions show that what they really want is an “independent” Palestinian state consisting of a series of isolated apartheid-style ’’bantustans”. This is what the Israeli rulers want Palestinians to accept as a “two-state solution”. Hoever, Israel needs to maintain the illusion that a “two-state solution” is a viable possibility. Last November, Olmert made this clear when he told the Tel Aviv Haaretz daily: “If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.” Olmert had expressed the same fear in a 2003 interview with Haaretz, saying: “More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against ‘occupation’, in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man [sic], one-vote. “That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle — and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state.” The other part of Israel’s strategy is its attempt to turn the PA into a compliant collaborator in its apartheid-style “two-state solution”. While Arafat was never entirely willing to play this role, since Arafat’s death in a Ramallah compound besieged by Israeli tanks, Abbas has proved to be a much more willing Israeli “partner”. Western complicity It was in this context that the Hamas-led Change and Reform coalition, opposed to the widespread corruption in the Abbas-led PA, won the January 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections. Immediately after this, the US, the EU and other Western countries, including Australia, showed their real attitude to democracy in the Middle East by imposing an economic blockade on the OPT as collective punishment for not having voted for Abbas-aligned candidates. The only Western aid that continued to be given to the PA was military assistance to the Abbas-controlled security police. In June 2006, the US-financed and Israeli-armed Abbas-aligned PA secret police chief Mohamed Dahlan attempted to oust PA forces loyal to the Hamas-led coalition from Gaza. He failed, with pro-Hamas forces driving out Dahlan and his uniformed thugs. Israel, with support and encouragement from its Western allies, has since placed Gaza under a medieval-style siege. Food, medicine and fuel have become increasingly scarce, with electricity supplies from Israel being drastically cut. By mid-January, Gaza’s hospitals were on the verge of running out of fuel for electricity generators. While medical services in Gaza are barely functioning, Israel has even stopped ambulances from leaving, resulting in 85 preventable deaths since June. At least 95% of Gaza’s businesses have closed and 85% of Gazans are now dependent on foreign food aid which, the UN Relief and Works Agency reports, is rapidly running out. Caught between a US patron demanding that the Gaza prison-break be ended and a population disgusted by his complicity with Israel’s Gaza siege, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has restricted goods getting to Rafah and the nearby town of El Arish so as to discourage Gazans from crossing the border. On February 1, Egyptian soldiers tried to lay down metal barriers across several Hamas-made breaches in the Rafah border crossing, but Hamas militants, supported by hundreds of demonstrating Gazans, used bulldozers to tear down the barriers. The Gaza siege is a crime against humanity. It could not occur without the backing of Western governments. All support for the Apartheid state of Israel, and its war crimes, must be ended From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #738 6 February 2008.

Broad parties and narrow visions in Britain

Broad parties and narrow visions: the SWP and Respect By Murray Smith Part 1 ; Part 2 Extract:

In spite of their tradition of political resistance to Stalinism, many Trotskyist groups developed internal regimes based on what can only be called bureaucratic centralism. There are particular reasons in the history of British Marxism for the sectarian and bureaucratic character of many Trotskyist groups. It is not a question of putting the three organisations cited above in the same basket, neither Tony Cliff nor Ted Grant deserves to be compared to Gerry Healy. But they share one thing in common, the inability to accept democratic debate, the confrontation between different platforms, for any length of time. It is not considered normal. This is not however a purely British phenomenon, it is common to, for example, Lutte Ouvriere and the Lambertist PT in France. The Trotskyist movement as a whole, some of its components more than others, has paid a heavy price for decades of persecution and the pervasive influence of Stalinism, even on those who opposed it. It would be more correct to characterise these organisations and the international regroupments around them as factions rather than the parties they usually consider themselves to be.

Two important new articles from Fred Fuentes

The Struggle for a Mass Revolutionary Party in Venezuela

Despite the best attempts by the emerging power elites to kidnap the PSUV in order to advance their interests, many agree that grassroots leaders and left currents are well represented at the founding congress, or at least well enough to make their presence felt. The thoroughly revolutionary content of the draft program and statement of principles are another positive sign. Of course, these are simply words on paper, but these documents can provide a basis to fight for a genuinely revolutionary party — in practice.

Combatting Food Shortages in Venezuela (with Tamara Pearson)

The capitalists have fuelled the food shortages by holding goods back from the legal market where price controls lower profit margins, then selling them illegally at exorbitant prices on the black market. Another way around the price controls has been to smuggle food out of Venezuela to be sold in neighbouring Colombia. In this way, as well as maximising profits, capitalists also hope to destablise the government. That this would be an outcome of price controls over an economy still predominantly capitalist should come as no surprise. Yet it appeared it did for the government, which was completely unprepared for such problems. Even worse, sections of the corrupt state bureaucracy helped exacerbate the problem while attempting to deny it existed.

Protecting the people from the market crisis

by GRANT MORGAN chair of RAM - Residents Action Movement 19 November 2008 VALUING THE MAJORITY RAM wants a society based on the values of humanity, ecology, co-operation, equity and democracy. (For fuller details, go to The RAM Plan on http://www.ram.org.nz/.) These are the default values of workers, Maori, leftists, ecologists, immigrants, intellectuals, pensioners, feminists, religious believers, students, small proprietors and others at the grassroots who make up the vast majority of citizens. Yet these values are everywhere trashed by the corporate market, which revolves around profits, spoilage, exploitation, injustice and elitism. As the writer Howard Scott famously quipped, "a criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation". The structures of a tiny minority can triumph over the values of the vast majority only so long as the majority remain divided, uncertain and disorganised. In today's Aotearoa, the key to disempowering the majority is the legitimisation of the corporate market by Labour politicians, despite these market liberals having marginal differences with the market fundamentalists in National. Once the majority become united and organised around their own plan, the door can swing open to sustainable and systemic change. What is the path towards empowering the grassroots? RAM answers this way: - Challenge the corporate market and its tame politicians. - Rally majorities around things most folks see as "common sense". - Use a combination of campaigning and electioneering. - Aim to build a broad movement for popular change. HOW WELL HAS RAM DONE? How well has RAM done? Since March 2008, when RAM went from being an Auckland-only coalition to a nationwide party, the political results have been generally positive except for the parliamentary vote: RAM's GST-off-food petition attracted 25,000 signatures and, together with the People's Procession to Parliament, gained considerable media exposure. RAM's Ten Commandments leaflet proved extremely popular, with countless people reading it with gusto at RAM stalls and a steady stream of membership clip-outs from the leaflet arriving in the mail. 3,000 party members were recruited as RAM tapped into popular (though subterranean and disorganised) discontent with the LabNats in low-to-modest income suburbs. RAM's activist base expanded significantly by between 200% and 400% (depending how you define "activist"). RAM's vote in the 2008 parliamentary election was tiny: 1,000 candidate votes, 400 party votes. A majority of RAM members put their party vote elsewhere. POLLING POORLY In addition to RAM, two other independent left parties contested the 2008 election: the Alliance and the Workers Party. Of the three, only the Alliance had previously contested parliamentary elections. Here are the results since the Alliance entered its post-Anderton phase (2008 results are preliminary throughout paper): - 2002: 25,800 party votes, 1.2%. (Laila Harre, a sitting MP and new Alliance leader, came within 2,300 votes of taking the Labour seat of Waitakere.) - 2005: 1,600, 0.07%. - 2008: 1,700, 0.08%. Coming in behind the Alliance in 2008 was the Workers Party with 800 party votes, 0.04% of the total. RAM finished last with 400 votes, 0.02%. The Alliance and, to a lesser extent, the Workers Party tended to get more party votes than did RAM in those places where the three parties had no organised presence. That was probably due to higher name recognition for the Alliance, and to identification with the red flag logo used by the Workers Party on the ballot paper. In eight of the 11 electorates where RAM was organised on the ground, they gained more of the party vote than the Alliance and Workers Party. But it was all fractional stuff. The independent left's combined party vote was just under 3,000, a microscopic 0.14% of the total. All three parties scored relatively better (but still tiny) electorate votes. The average vote for each party's electorate candidates was pretty even. The highest scoring individual candidate was the Alliance's Victor Billot. Nine candidates (four Alliance, three RAM, two Workers Party) got more than 100 electorate votes. They were (in descending order): - Victor Billot (Alliance) in Dunedin North: 405 votes. - Martin Kaipo (RAM) in Whangarei: 251. - Kay Murray (Alliance) in Dunedin South: 192. - Don Franks (Workers Party) in Wellington Central: 150. - Roger Fowler (RAM) in Mangere: 138. - Byron Clark (Workers Party) in Christchurch Central: 136. - Grant Rogers (RAM) in Rotorua: 133. - Andrew McKenzie (Alliance) in Port Hills: 130. - Paul Piesse (Alliance) in Christchurch East: 112. The 2008 election laid bare the independent left's traditional weakness in the parliamentary arena, something aggravated by the mood of change which squeezed out smaller parties. Even if a pre-election accommodation had been reached between the Alliance, RAM and the Workers Party, it would not have significantly inflated their minuscule vote so long as all else remained the same. All else, however, is likely to change as the chill winds of economic crisis start to blow across New Zealand. The crisis, not the election, is the real test for the independent left. A VERY STRANGE AFFAIR In general terms, the 2008 election was a very strange affair. It was conducted in the deceptive calm preceding the arrival of an economic storm which will be bad at best, and may become the most destructive in living memory. During the electioneering, Labour and National both claimed that the crisis wouldn't get too bad in New Zealand so long as there was good government. Their politically-inspired optimism is at odds with economic storm warnings around the world. A National-led government was swept to power by a mood for change, helped significantly by large abstentions in Labour-voting city suburbs. Most of these people will be seriously disappointed at the change they get. In market slumps, typically the grassroots are made to carry the costs of restoring corporate profitability. Despite all the hype, the 2008 election was not a cathartic event. It was not something propelling the country in a new direction (whether seen as good or bad). Rather, it was an interregnum event. It was a soft shoe shuffle. National and Labour stole each other's policies more openly and frequently than ever before as they staked out the political centre. THE GLOBAL CRISIS A Combo Crisis is a rare event. It's when most or all of the economic dominoes topple on a global scale: finance, currencies, commodities, manufacturing, trade, shipping, services, retail, construction, housing, profits and employment. And of course the business confidence so vital for private investment in a market economy. That's what we're starting to see now. The world economy is falling into the first Combo Crisis since the Great Depression which began with a stocks and bonds crash in 1929, bottomed as a slump in the physical economy during 1931-34 and was only laid to rest with the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. An emergency summit of the G20 countries, comprising the world's biggest economies, was convened in hopes of stemming a Combo Crisis with co-ordinated state intervention and regulation. Their declaration was long on general wishes but short on policy solutions. The success of the G20 strategy is far from assured. Similar inter-government talks failed to halt the Great Depression. At best, say government and corporate leaders alike, the world faces a longish bout of recession. Here's what The Economist, the world's premier market magazine, said on the eve of the G20 summit: "Although the panic in the credit markets shows signs of abating, the economic news gets ever grimmer. Global demand is slumping as rich economies plunge into what, collectively, could be their deepest recession since the 1930s. Pernicious deflation, although still unlikely, is no longer an idle risk. Emerging economies are being hit by weakening exports and the collapse of private capital flows. The G20 summiteers cannot prevent this, but they can stave off a slump with zealous and co-ordinated action to prop up domestic demand and provide resources to cash-strapped emerging economies." When capitalism's cheerleaders at The Economist pin their hopes on government leaders saving the global market, you know two things are happening: 1. The world economic prognosis is dire. 2. The market faces a legitimacy crisis. 3. The future of global capitalism is being called into question by the market crisis. An appendix to this report contains two articles, penned by economists with hands-on experience of the market, which give a detailed analysis of the crisis and make some predictions. A CENTRIFUGAL FORCE In New Zealand, Treasury is forecasting that unemployment is heading for 5.7%, which would add 40,000 to the jobless queue. Their forecast is based on a questionable assumption: the local economy will handle the crisis better than most other countries. With farm export prices slumping, spikes in trade and financial deficits, and sharp contractions in retail and construction, the economic outlook may turn gloomier than Treasury thinks. Nobody can safely predict just how bad the downturn will hit New Zealand. The only certainty is that things are going to get worse for the grassroots. As the going gets worse, public opinion will become far more polarised. The elites will want the politicians to prioritise profits and privilege (which they call "market stability"). The grassroots will want the politicians to prioritise jobs, wages and homes. John Key will unveil the National-led government's stimulus plan in December. No doubt Labour and the Greens will be critical of details. However, both of the dominant political blocs will claim that a well-designed stimulus plan can meet everyone's needs. But this facade is bound to crack as the crisis continues. Throughout capitalist history, every major slump has forced the politicians to favour either the market or the masses. And the slump will fuel capitalism's war on nature, most worryingly seen in global warming, species extinction and resource depletion. National and Act will retreat from even the Labour-Green "pollution market" legislation which went nowhere near tackling climate change. All these pressures must exert a centrifugal force on today's crowded centre, claimed by both Labour and National. The dynamic political trend of the near future will almost certainly be movements (both left and right) away from the centre. This trend will be speeded up if the grassroots retain their hunger for change and start to express it in stronger ways. FIGURING THE BIG TWO The 2008 election results gave Labour 33.7% of the party vote to National's 45.4%, an emphatic gap of 11.7%. Here are Labour's results since 1999 when Helen Clark was elected prime minister: - 1999: 800,000 party votes, 38.7% of the total. - 2002: 838,000, 41.2%. - 2005: 935,000, 41.1%. - 2008: 706,000, 33.7%. National's results over the past four elections are: - 1999: 630,000 party votes, 30.5% of the total. - 2002: 425,000, 20.9%. - 2005: 890,000, 39.1%. - 2008: 951,000, 45.4%. Here is the combined party vote of Labour plus National since 1999: - 1999: 69.2% of the total party vote went to the Big Two. - 2002: 62.1%. - 2005: 80.2%. - 2008: 79.1%. CRISIS OF MASCULINITY ? According to Chris Trotter, a media-promoted "voice of the left", Labour's defeat in 2008 flows from New Zealand's "crisis of masculinity". Helen Clark was dumped by "men who just couldn't cope with the idea of being led by an intelligent, idealistic, free-spirited woman", he asserts. Blame for Labour's loss rests with "the gutless, witless, passionless creatures of the barbeque-pit and the sports bar (and the feckless females who put up with them)". (Sunday Star-Times 9.11.08.) Trotter cannot explain why many of the same men (and women) who he lambasts actually voted for Helen's party in 2005 and 2002 and before. His opinions are a vitriolic version of the blame-the-workers line often trotted out by Labour lads (and ladettes) when they don't want to look truth in the eye. Most workers, regardless of gender, no longer feel that Labour is "our party". And for very good reason. It is not their party. It is a party mostly run by middle class professionals mostly as the corporate market wants. It is a party of market liberals. Going by hearsay as well as polls, a large and growing proportion of the workers who vote Labour do so for pragmatic reasons, such as: They regard Labour as less bad than National. They don't relate to the Greens. They cannot see a winning alternative. Whatever the reasons, most Labour voters no longer feel an emotional or family or intellectual bond to Labour. The exceptions which prove the rule are now relatively small communities, notably most (but far from all) Pasifika, union officials, educationalists, older urban workers and cultural artisans. INTERPRETING THE CHANGE Most analysis of the 2008 election has revolved around the obvious: there was a mood for change which led to more voters opting for National to get Labour out. That point is conceded even by new Labour leader Phil Goff. Commonly, the media interpreted the mood for change along the lines of "New Zealand takes a big jump to the right" (as headlined by the Herald on Sunday 9.11.08). This simplistic conclusion, however, appears at odds with realities on the ground. Voter turnout was the second-lowest of the past eight elections, indicating a higher level of disillusionment with both major parties. The steepest falls were in the Labour heartland of South Auckland despite an unprecedented "get out the vote" drive by Labour activists and union officials. In Manurewa, many traditional Labour supporters stayed at home because they "didn't want to vote for us" but also wouldn't go to National, said Labour MP George Hawkins. In Mangere and Papakura, election day turnout dropped by 13%. In Manukau East, where turnout was down 20%, Labour MP Ross Robertson noted a "strong undercurrent for change". (NZ Herald 11.11.08.) In the months before the election, truly mass feedback at RAM's GST-off-food petition stalls indicated that most people were sick of "the politicians" in general, National as well as Labour. Their comments didn't point towards any swing to the right. They embraced "common sense" changes like GST off food, 3% state home loans, free lunches in poor schools, $15ph minimum wage and the free right to strike. While they loved the concept of "people power", there was little enthusiasm for overtly socialist objectives like "change the system". In light of this caution, it doesn't seem surprising that people wanting change would turn to the only party able to defeat an unloved government at election time: National. Or that people distrusting both major parties would stay away from the polls because they cannot see a realistic electoral alternative. Auckland University political scientist Raymond Miller believes the vote was for moderate change only. "John Key made a point of promising that he would stick pretty closely to what was acceptable to a majority of New Zealanders. I think the expectation on the part of voters is that while they will expect some changes, they will be more changes of party and leader than substantive policies." (Challenge Weekly 10.11.08.) Miller's observations are capable of being reconciled with RAM's experiences. Key tapped into a mood for change which was frustrated with Labour but did not want another round of right-wing extremism. This pressure from the grassroots has compelled Key to shift National towards the centre, a strategic setback for market fundamentalists. Shifting towards the centre brings National even closer to Labour in terms of policy and propaganda as well as core strategy. The centre is being crowded out at the very time that economic crisis is likely to exert a centrifugal force on the centre by sharply posing this question: Who should be bailed out? Grassroots people or corporate profiteers? CRISIS AND OPPORTUNITY As every strategist knows, crisis brings opportunity as well as pain and peril. The question is: who can seize the opportunity? A people's challenge to market politics could rise up swiftly in Aotearoa if three factors come into alignment: 1. Crisis conditions lay siege to the strategic consensus of Labour and National to protect and serve the corporate market. 2. The left solicits popular support for a plan to protect the people from the crisis at the expense of the market. 3. Mass enthusiasm for the people's plan is fanned as it finds favour among some members of parliament. The first factor will be driven by crisis events that are mostly beyond anyone's control. All the left can do is relate to these events in a timely and flexible manner. The second factor depends on the left's own capabilities. At a time of crisis, lack of numbers and influence count for much less than in normal times. Counting for much more are largeness of courage and vision. Most unpredictable is the final factor. It hinges on how the other two factors intersect with the small band of MPs who might risk a political storm by protecting the people ahead of the market. History shows that dissenting MPs can become rallying points for mass movements. Without discounting the possibility that Labour or National may produce such an MP, or even a handful, more likely sources are the Green and Maori parties. So let's take a closer look at them. GREEN PARTY The eight Green MPs (in order of their list ranking) are: 1. Jeanette Fitzsimons (co-leader). 2. Russel Norman (co-leader). 3. Sue Bradford. 4. Metiria Turei. 5. Sue Kedgley. 6. Keith Locke. 7. Kevin Hague. 8. Catherine Delahunty. Party votes for the Greens over the last four elections are: -1999: 106,000 party votes, 5.1% of the total. -2002: 142,000, 7%. -2005: 120,000, 5.3%. -2008: 134,000, 6.4%. The two central planks of the Green Party's philosophy are environmental sustainability and social justice. In theory, both planks carry equal weight. In terms of public perception, however, the Greens are usually seen as an environmental party first and foremost. That perception influenced the outcome of the 2008 poll, as did the Green pledge to go with Labour. Going into the election, three things were obvious. The mood for change would give National more votes than Labour. Barring a miraculous late surge, NZ First would be ousted from parliament. And the Greens would be returned to parliament, so all votes for them would count. On polling day, the Greens won 6.4% of the party vote, a gain of 1.1% which delivered an extra two MPs. This creditable result crowned the Greens as the third party in New Zealand politics. Yet the Greens had been expecting to benefit considerably more from the mood for change and the voters fleeing Labour. Russel Norman told the media he had been hoping for 10%. The party vote for Labour declined by 7.3%, NZ First by 1.5% and the Progressives by 0.3%. Added together, the erosion of support for Labour and its two government allies was 9.1%, over eight times higher than the lift in Green support. It's a reasonable assumption that most people deserting Labour, NZ First and Progressive were concerned more about social than environmental issues. It's a reasonable conclusion that most of them didn't go Green because they didn't feel a strong bond to an "environmental party", and because they reacted against the Green pledge to go with Labour. Yet in the past the Greens haven't been scared to go it alone. They were in public dispute with Labour over genetic engineering in 2002 when the Green vote rose to a high water mark of 7%. And in 1999 the Greens took the brave decision to leave Jim Anderton's Alliance and follow an independent path even though their parliamentary seats were put at risk. So why weren't the Greens in 2008 walking the same independent path as they had in 2002 and 1999? Part of the answer may lie in where much of their support is coming from. The ten wealthiest electorates (in terms of median income) gave the Greens 9.2% of the party vote, 2.8% higher than their overall tally in 2008. This "wealth bulge" has been a growing trend over the last three elections. While it allows the Greens to tap into some serious election funding, leaning on a social base more in tune with market ideology does carry critical implications. During the election campaign there were moves to re-define the Green accommodation with Labour on the Emissions Trading Scheme, which in plain language is a pollution market. No longer was the pollution market a better-than-nothing short-term expedient. Instead it became a sophisticated harnessing of market impulses to the Green vision. Lots of Greens worry about their core philosophy being politically modified by market forces. They are likely to embrace a broad campaign to protect the people from the market crisis. This would help them to show that social justice really is an equal partner with environmental sustainability in the Green ethos. MAORI PARTY The five Maori Party MPs, their Maori electorates and their majorities in 2008 are: - Tariana Turia, Te Tai Hauauru, 6,800 vote majority in 2008 (co-leader). - Pita Sharples, Tamaki Makaurau, 6,300 (co-leader). - Hone Harawira, Te Tai Tokerau, 5,500. - Te Ururoa Flavell, Waiariki, 6,000. - Rahui Katene, Te Tai Tonga, 700. Total party votes for the Maori Party since its formation four years ago are: -2005: 48,000 party votes, 2.1% of the total. -2008: 46,000, 2.2%. Electors on the Maori roll distributed their party votes between Labour and the Maori Party in these proportions: -2005: Labour 55% of Maori roll voters, Maori Party 27.1%. -2008: Labour 50.5%, Maori Party 28.4%. The foreshore & seabed mobilisation, which was supported by ex-Labour MP Tariana Turia, propelled the Maori Party into parliament. The party pledges to "uphold indigenous values" and promote Te Tiriti o Waitangi so that a "more ethical and inclusive community" can be built. (Policy Manifesto October 2008.) Staying independent of both major parties in the run-up to polling day, the Maori Party won an extra Maori seat off Labour, taking their tally to five out of seven. And they came fairly close in Hauraki-Waikato, where Angeline Greensill was 1,000 votes off the 8,200 scored by former junior minister Nanaia Mahuta. Maori are over-represented in statistics on poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, sickness and prison, out of which form large pools of despair and exclusion. Not surprisingly, the turnout of electors in the Maori seats was very low. About 55% voted, 20 points behind the national tally. In Tamaki-Makaurau, which covers Greater Auckland, the turnout was even more dismal at 50%. So half the voters on the Maori roll in our largest city were absent from the polls. "Something is terribly wrong with our democracy," commented Tariana Turia. "Our party worked solidly to spread the word about enrolling and voting... And yet, when we came face-to-face with some of the poverty-stricken communities across our electorate, we saw how seriously alienated and disenfranchised many whanau have become. It is an enormous task to bring hope to communities." (Manukau Courier 14.11.08.) Following National's election victory, John Key approached the Maori Party with the offer of a government "relationship". It seems certain that Key was motivated by pragmatic political objectives. He wanted to secure a left counterbalance to Act on his right so that National could portray itself as the party of the centre. He wanted a strong Maori Party which might be sympathetic to National in the likely event of a tighter race in 2011. Probably most of all, he wanted the Maori Party on board to gloss over National moves to shove the burdens of economic crisis onto the grassroots. The Maori Party, however, seized Key's offer and began to transform it into a history-making agreement. "This new turning point in our history," said Tariana Turia, "is another step in the journey towards fulfilling the promise of the Treaty. It is another step in the reconciliation between kawanatanga and rangatiratanga." (Maori Party media release 16.11.08.) In return for the Maori Party voting confidence and supply, National agreed to: - Retain the Maori seats and not include any question about their future in National's referendum on MMP. - Review the foreshore & seabed legislation to see if it promotes mana whenua and, if repeal of the law is needed, to protect full public access to the foreshore & seabed. - Appoint the Maori Party co-leaders to ministerial posts outside cabinet, with "control" over funding and service delivery in their areas of responsibility. - Pita Sharples to be minister of Maori affairs and associate minister of education. - Tariana Turia to be minister for the community & voluntary sector, associate minister of health and associate minister of social development & employment. - Only bind the Maori Party to a collective government line in relation to these ministerial posts, leaving the party free to act independently on all other matters. - Recognise that there are "areas of difference" between the Maori Party and National. Before signing the agreement, Maori Party MPs consulted tangata whenua at 40 hui throughout the land. "Our whirlwind consultation tour has been greeted with crowds of such significance that even we were surprised," reported Turia. "Our people [were] enthusiastic beyond all expectation." People attending the hui had "their eyes open to the risks that come with recession, the likelihood of unemployment rising, redundancies, hard times", she observed. "The people have spoken to us of the need to be wary, to be careful to avoid the pitfalls of the past," noted Turia. But the overwhelming message from the hui was that the Maori Party must sign the agreement in order "to make history happen". (Maori Party media release 16.11.08.) Almost before the ink was dry, Turia was resisting the notion that a corporate razor gang, part of National's deal with Act, should enter her areas of ministerial responsibility. The Maori Party's strategy is bold: get a foothold inside the citadels of power to improve the position of Maori while retaining the Maori Party's independence. This is an important struggle within the machinery of state in which success will go to the stronger. If the left gives solidarity to the Maori Party then it will be in a stronger position to make its strategy work. And that could foster co-operation between the left and the Maori Party on a people's plan to defend the grassroots from economic crisis. MOBILISING THE UNIONS Over 350,000 blue and white collar workers belong to New Zealand's unions. Given these numbers, what unions do can have a big impact. Most (but not all) union officials will be keen to organise mass mobilisations against National's moves to increase corporate profitability at the expense of workers. The left, as always, will give robust support to these union actions. For the sake of appearances Labour may give limited support, but only if the architecture of corporate power is not challenged. Labour politicians will bring their influence to bear against any union plan that wants to protect the people from economic crisis at the expense of the market. That's what market liberals do. Labour's sabotage within the unions can be overcome if the left strongly campaign for policies which workers see as "common sense". Co-operation with sympathetic union officials will be needed to reach out to networks of job delegates, the all-important opinion leaders among the general membership. And left-wing union leaders should be supported in their efforts to mobilise workers and communities around a mass-based alternative to market politics. Success may not come easily and quickly. But a "common sense" left campaign inside the unions is vital if workers are to protect themselves against government moves to make them pay for the market crisis. GETTING STARTED In December, John Key will unveil a stimulus plan to counter the economic slump. Under cover of tax cuts and a "relief package" for redundant workers, National and Act will begin moves to convert the crisis into an opportunity for the corporates. The economics, the politics and the propaganda of the crisis will test the NZ left. Can the left popularise a "common sense" plan to protect the people by making the corporates pay for their crisis? Will sympathetic MPs and union officials become rallying points for a serious left alternative to market politics? There are many barriers. There are many risks. There will be stumbles. So what. There are also opportunities. And there is no alternative. Where to start? Here are some fairly general suggestions: - Experiment. See what connects with the grassroots. Pool the results with other leftists. Start to pull together a people's plan. Amend as necessary. - Go broad. Knock on doors, including ones not painted red or green. Solicit wider co-operation on practical things. Start small and trailblaze towards broad grassroots unity. - Pick a suburb. Leaflet it. Poster it. Hold cottage meetings. Network with community activists. Build a base. - Pick a union. Leaflet its members. Hold pub meetings. Network with delegates and officials. Build a base. - Pick an issue. Publicise it. Run a petition on it. Host public meetings with drawcard speakers. Turn the issue into a popular crusade. We have a lot to do. We also have a lot of sympathisers to do it with. Tomorrow is a new day. Let us go forth and multiply! APPENDIX

Two detailed and thoughtful analyses of the global economic crisis appear in this appendix. The first is by Nouriel Roubini, a professor at the Stern Business School at New York University and chair of Roubini Global Economics. He warns of depression and deflation, traditional core elements of a market meltdown. See The worst is not behind us: Beware of those who say we've hit the bottom The second is by Paul Craig Roberts, assistant secretary of the US Treasury under president Ronald Reagan and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He warns of depression and inflation, a non-traditional type of economic slump. See Economic crisis is beyond the reach of traditional solutions

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.”[1] Leupp has been one of the very few in the left media in the geopolitical North to call attention to this momentous change, and its current developments, albeit with little echo. Editors of some well-known journals refuse to consider an article that mentions Maoism, however contemporary, in a favourable light. Washington-based trade union organiser David Hoskins has been one of the few on the Marxist left in the US to stress the world-historical significance of the struggle in Nepal: “The state of the revolutionary movement in Asia takes on new significance in light of the recent advances made in Nepal and the rising global capitalist crisis. It is our responsibility as US revolutionaries to offer our unconditional support to the Nepalese revolution.”[2] That solidarity was also voiced by the Party for Socialism and Liberation in the United States: “The election of Prachanda is an achievement that deserves the support of revolutionaries around the world. A struggle over Nepal’s new constitution is bound to pit conflicting class interests against each other in the months to come. International solidarity will play a key role in facilitating the victory of Nepal’s workers and peasants.”[3] The present article assumes one can be critical of certain historical aspects of socialism under Mao while still keeping an open mind about the Maoist-led social and political transformation now going on in Nepal, with all the internal upheaval and debate it is generating – and perhaps learning from its actual tactics and internal controversy. Whether you agree with CPN (M) analyses and strategies or not., blocking out any sustained focus on the Nepali revolution, labelling change there as ”Stalinist”, “bolshevik” or “authoritarian”, can only preclude analysis and critique. This is all the more pertinent at this extraordinary juncture in the planetary capitalist economic collapse, where conditions worldwide are changing the minds of many. Fred Goldstein notes: “Globalization, capitalist restructuring, the hardships of low-wage capitalism, and growing racism and national oppression are creating the material basis for a new era of rebellion and class unity.”[4] Convergence in diversity The recent mass anti-repression insurrection in Greece is one point of working-class upsurge, what really fuelled Barack Obama’s presidential victory from below is another. And the April 2008 election victory of the CPN (M)in Nepal is still another. These nodes of people’s ferment reflect that “convergence in diversity” of the oppressed and exploited from all walks and continents united in opposition to the neo-reactionary order which economist Samir Amin sees as the nucleus for a new stage in the revolutionary project today, “recognizing the diversity, not only of movements which are fragmented but of political forces which are operating with them, of ideologies and even visions of the future of those political forces.” In his projected scenario for grounded socialist change, he sees the Left finding a critical mass and “moving into the masses to defend, not in rhetoric but in fact in action and through action, their real economic and social interests”.[5] That is at the core of the struggle in the street and inside the government in Nepal today. Emergent dynamic agendas for struggle like Prachanda Path – and the very vigorous internal party debate on how to move forward without sacrificing revolutionary vision – belong more centrally on our own horizons of discussion. The revolution in Nepal faces what can threaten to become a quagmire of compromise, reformism and defeat. Internally, this is a struggle between hostile class enemies for control over the Nepalese state. It also is confronted with sustained efforts by political elites in Washington, Delhi and other quarters, and by opponents like the bourgeois Nepali Congress on its home turf (second-largest party), to undermine the revolutionary process. The other major Marxist party in the coalition, with some 15% of the National Assembly, the CPN-UML (United Marxist-Leninist) remains highly critical of the Maoist leadership, a long-standing rival, and could, in fierce rivalry, seek to topple the present government.[6] The Madeshi civil rights movement in the southern plain remains a powerful divisive force struggling for ethnic rights and greater autonomy, and members of the Madeshi People’s Rights Forum were involved in heavy clashes with the CPN (M) in March 2007. Demands for more autonomy in the Terai/Madesh south continue.[7] The Asian Human Rights Commission has issued The State of Human Rights in Nepal, which paints a complex picture in a highly diverse country with legacies of multiple ethnic oppression.[8] Yet nowhere else in the world has a movement oriented to Marxism and contemporary Maoist thought achieved the effective reins of democratic power, projecting its visions of “21st century socialism”. This article suggests some sources for looking more openly from afar at what's happening in Nepal, in a spirit of critical solidarity, getting better informed to enable grounded judgement. All footnotes are hyperlinks to relevant reports, largely in the Nepalese media. Revolution in a “least developed country” Nepal is a prime landlocked “least developed country” of 29.5 million, with some 80% of Nepalise labouring as poor agriculturalists. Literally sandwiched between Asia’s two giants, the famous dictum by Prithvi Narayan Shah, founder of the Shah monarchy in the 18th century recently abolished, was that “Nepal is a yam between two stones”. Much of the country is barely accessible by road, remoteness takes on an almost surreal quality in the hills and mountains north of the narrow southern plain of the Terai (Madesh). Space there is a largely vertical topography where a hundred languages flourish, where villages in one valley are totally cut off from settlements in the next. The top 5 per cent of landholders own 27 per cent of agricultural land, the bottom 44 per cent occupy only 14 per cent of the land. Land reform is crucial for the Nepali masses to dismantle the multiple structures of the feudal system that now still dominate the country.[9] The literacy NGO Room to Read is active in building village libraries: “A child growing up in Nepal faces some of the worst living conditions in the world. Roughly 50% of Nepalese live in poverty – on less than US$1 a day. Of every 100 children in Nepal, 84 live in villages, 47 are malnourished, and 40 belong to extremely poor families While 35% of males are illiterate, 57% of females cannot read or write.”[10] A steady torrent of migrant workers continues to pour into India to the south, with nearly 70% finding menial labour as porters, security guards and restaurant help. A recent study of trafficked Nepalese girls, most in their early teens, working in debt bondage and near slavery in Indian cities pointed up the desperate plight of young Nepalese women seeking to survive, and often disowned by their families back in the impoverished villages they were raised in.[11] Estimates are that some 200,000 Nepalese girls are working as prostitutes in virtual bondage in Indian cities, nearly a quarter under the age of 16.[12] Production for profit or for use? Some fanciful neoliberal development speculation sees Nepal as the future entrepreneurial link between China and India, with trans-Himalayan highways, IT parks, vast investment in fibre optics, arguing that “The rising middle classes – close to a billion – in the two countries can be a bonanza for Nepal” – at the same time turning the country into a huge Himalayan mega-resort, an illusory capitalist pipe dream.[13] Revolutionaries in the CPN (M) are guided by alternative visions of economy, society and workers’ democracy. But whether they can move forward to a major break with the capitalist cash nexus and, beyond subsistence agriculture, an array of forms of production for use, not profit, remains to be seen. After decades of disdevelopment, for example, Nepal faces the worst national electricity crisis in Asia, with power cuts lasting up to 10 hours daily, with load shedding up to 16 hours a day projected by early spring 2009.[14] That shortfall is also impacting on tourism, especially in towns like Pokhara. Some lateral socialist brainstorming is needed on practicable schemes for solar, hydro and geothermal energy. Transformation and people’s power are needed literally from the ground up. Experimentation with LETS (Local Economic Transfer System) in rural areas may be one avenue for cooperative change, building community support networks and mutual aid.[15] Below I touch on some of the contemporary discussion inside the CPN (M) and suggest online material and web sites to explore the dynamic changes in Nepal, largely through indigenous voices in the struggle, refracted in part through the lens of socialist theorist Samir Amin, a chief architect of the 2006 Bamako Appeal[16], and in basic solidarity with revolutionary developments on the ground in Nepal. Prachanda on the CPN (M) path As a point of departure, instructive is the interview with CPN (M) chairperson Pushpal Kamal Dahal (aka “Prachanda”), conducted earlier in 2008 by people from the IPS in Washington, visiting in Kathmandu, on video as Part 1 [17] and Part 2.[18] Candid and concise, Dahal lays out the vision of the movement in the early weeks of its ascendance to state power. This is lived experience over a long struggle, with a powerful legacy of liberation that is distinctive to Nepal but applicable far beyond: “As the CPN-Maoist has already declared its decision to write a 21st century Communist Manifesto, it has also started a debate and discussion in the Communist spirit, not only in the country, but also in the world.”[19] This can be supplemented by Chairman Dahal’s address, “A Maoist Vision for a New Nepal,” given at the New School University on September 26, 2008, followed by an extended question and answer period, along with the text of his earlier address that same day to the UN General Assembly. Likewise of interest is the historic interview with Prachanda by the US left journalist Li Onesto at the height of the People’s War in the spring of 1999.[20] ‘All the bases belong to the old class power’ Yet the compromises that now entails has deepened debate and divisions within the party on future anti-capitalist strategy in transforming Nepal and concrete tactics as the major formation in power, repeatedly frustrated by the actions and rhetoric of the Nepali Congress Party. Part of that discussion is on the dangers of succumbing to the pull of reformism. Netra Bikram Chand, aka “Biplap”, a member of the party’s central committee, provides critical analysis on “The differences of opinion within our party” in the biweekly English paper of the CPN (M), The Red Star.[21] Biplap discusses the tactics necessary to destroy the existing “bases and the bodies of the comprador capitalist power and shatter them.” In his view: The class character of the democratic republic is of a bourgeois class character. After the constituent assembly, the monarchy has been abolished and the republic has been established, however, there is no change in its class character. The party has reached up to the super structure of the state power, the constituent assembly government; but all of the bases belong to the old class power. He differs with the party’s leader on the shape of a road forward, and fears that if the CPN (M) follows the program proposed by Prachanda, “our party will be drowned into the swamp of reformism up over its head”. ‘On the brink of the change of an age’ The debate on the future path forward in Nepal came to a head in a national convention of the CPN (M) in November 2008, where, after pretty heated discussion, some solid basis of unity was achieved. The core issues are outlined by Indra Mohan Sigdel (aka “Basanta”).[22] A decision was reached to move toward a “people’s federal democratic national republic” as the longer-term goal, and that among the “three fronts of struggle” ­ the constituent assembly, the government and the street ­ “the street struggle would be the principal one”.[23] The street struggle also means involving the masses at the grassroots in the dynamic of discussion, experiment and change. Kumar Dahal has warned of possible counter-revolution, and likewise stresses the need for struggle “in the street”: “The workers should advance ahead to guarantee and establish the working class as the decisive force in the state. Workers should advance ahead to take the major responsibilities in the policy-making place.”[24] Part of that struggle in the streets and villages is being carried forward by the CPN (M)’s Young Communist League, with nearly half a million members. It is organising neighborhood cleanup campaigns, programs to counter youth unemployment, communal development initiatives in agriculture, initiatives against corruption and crime.[25] They remain controversial because accused of violence, and are often in a critical spotlight, but their mobilisation of the Nepalese young and hands-on contribution to social betterment cannot be denied. Agitating on campuses, the All Nepal National Independent Students Union (Revolutionary) is the student wing of the CPN (M), struggling to democratise education at all levels.[26] It has also been involved in strike action against conservative university administrations on a number of campuses, and in clashes with other student organisations. In early November 2008, Finance Minister Baburam Bhattarai announced the government’s intention to put an end to private primary and secondary schools in Nepal in the near future, because of the privilege that breeds. This is perhaps the only principled statement in any country to enact policy to eliminate privatisation and commercialisation of education in the name of educational equity. About a third of Nepal¹s schools are now private, catering largely, though not exclusively, to children from families with higher incomes. Bhattarai also outlined the government’s intention to issue some kind of academic certificate to men and women who fought in the people’s liberation forces and sacrificed their schooling.[27] Through all this, the CPN (M) is determined to stick to its principles. Stressing the unwillingness of the party to participate in a coalition government that frustrates the basic promises of radical change made to the Nepalese people, Prime Minister Dahal threatened in December 2008 that his party might leave the government by mid-January to struggle in opposition rather than compromise its program: “Steps of struggle still remain to fulfill what we want. We are on the brink of the change of an age.”[28] D. Bastola notes: “As long as the rooted feudalism and comprador bureaucrat capitalism is not abolished, the Nepalese people cannot be free, and the national economy cannot be built up.”[29] ‘Plain living, hard struggle’ In December 2008, the party prepared a battery of new “codes for simple living” for all Constituent Assembly members, with guidelines for type of vehicle (battery-driven Chinese bicycle preferred), simple clothing, use mainly of public transport, and a limit of two cell phones. The codes are in response to “criticisms that Maoist leaders were starting to lead opulent lifestyles opposed to their proletarian philosophy”.[30] A new democratic space Writing that “Nepalese society is committed to fulfil the dream of a new Nepal through an epoch making ideological, political, economic, and cultural transformation, raising the banner of mass insurrection against semi-feudal and semi-colonial conditions in the country”, the new minister of culture and state restructuring, Gopal Kirati, issued a concept paper in late 2008 for public discussion detailing new ideas for a radical transformation of local and regional organisation, and ethnic autonomous structures, including an “Autonomous Sherpa State”. In this revolutionary design, 800 districts are proposed. Outlining a new concept of ethnic pluralism and national consciousness, Kirati notes: “By abandoning the renegade definition of Nepal as a “yam between two rocks”, the Peoples of the Republic of Nepal will establish a strong definition of nationality. This definition will be a “dynamite between the two rocks in 21st century rather than a yam,” grounded on “proletarian internationalism.”[31] A new international? Flanking a spectrum of debate and self-criticism inside the party, Roshan Kissoon and Chandra have a new two-part interview with Samir Amin, “We need a new international”[32] and “Maoism is needed everywhere in the world”,[33] first published in The Red Star. Samir Amin is current chair of the World Forum for Alternatives.[34] The interview also echoes arguments from his new book The World We Wish to See.[35] In fundamental solidarity with the CPN (M), he stresses that: “the Nepalese have, at least, succeeded at the first chapter of basing their struggle in peasant revolt and then making, becoming, a force able to overthrow the regime, the King and his comprador servants; and then coming in to negotiation, agreement, with other possible partners in the building of a national, popular, democratic, hegemonic alternative block; alternative to the comprador ruling class submitting to imperialism and neo-liberalism.[36] He develops a strong argument for the need for the left in the West to look carefully at what is happening on the ground and inside the revolutionary echelon in Nepal. His book The Future of Maoism (Monthly Review, 1981) can now be read in the light of recent events. The Cultural Revolution revisited Bastola stresses that the November 2008 national convention of the CNP(M) was an exercise in the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution”, bringing the masses back into the dynamic of transformation. Changing perspectives on the legacy of Mao’s vision of transformation for China, and the actual reality of the Cultural Revolution, “counter-narratives” to the usual take on that era, are being re-explored in the West. A December 2008 symposium on “Rediscovering China's Cultural Revolution: Art and Politics, Lived Experience, Legacies of Liberation,”[37] was organised at NYU in Manhattan by Revolution Books, an affiliate of the Revolutionary Communist Party[38], and Set the Record Straight project, with input from Monthly Review and others. Typical of the widespread blockout on any renewed exploration of the Cultural Revolution in the progressive media of the global North, that symposium received scant coverage. Among its speakers, historian Dongping Han introduced his new book The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Life and Change in a Chinese Village (Monthly Review, 2008), that deals with his own experience as manager of a collective village factory during the Cultural Revolution, and his views on Mao’s thought and its vital relevance to struggles today worldwide.[39] Dongping provides an insider’s view of how farmers in China were empowered through education during the Cultural Revolution, and the special structures of communal democracy that were created: “Chinese farmers had a strong sense that they controlled their own destiny at the time. …most Chinese, not just farmers and workers, but professors and artists, were sincerely convinced they were building a better society for themselves, and not just for the working class. They had a new life.” Based on his research and personal experience, Dongping is certain that “despite the efforts of the last 30 years to bury the Cultural Revolution, this era will stand out for people in China, in other Third World countries, and in Europe and in US and the rest of the developed world as well. Mao's Cultural Revolution should be the most important event in human empowerment in humanity's 2000-year history.” Revised views of the Cultural Revolution also emerge from the volume edited by X. Zhong, W. Zheng and Bai Di, Some of Us: Chinese Women Growing Up in the Mao Era (Rutgers UP, 2001), here reviewed in depth by a Maoist-Third Worldist.[40] “Prarie Fire” stresses: The Cultural Revolution, whether intentional or not, was the greatest instance of youth liberation in history. Authority at almost every level could find itself challenged by youth. This did not just affect the public realm, but also the private realm of the family. In the Manifesto Marx wrote, “Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.” The early Cultural Revolution, more than any other period, realized the communist goal of youth liberation. Some of Us, despite its own bourgeois outlook, challenges typical, one-sided bourgeois narratives. Bai Di is director of Chinese and Asian Studies at Drew University, and also spoke at the December 2008 symposium on the Cultural Revolution at NYU. Another speaker was Li Onesto, whose book Dispatches from the People’s War in Nepal (Pluto Press, 2004) was the first account by a foreign journalist of the Maoist insurgency from the inside, as she travelled deep into the liberated guerrilla zones. [41] Perhaps an aspect of the Eurocentrism endemic in some quarters of the Northern left is the refusal to even engage with these voices and dissident perspectives. Why? Staying better informed Progressives interested in keeping informed about developments in Nepal can regularly read the biweekly The Red Star.[42] A daily more “mainstream” bourgeois political and economic news on Nepal is eKantipur.com.[43] The website Revolution in South Asia provides a solidarity window onto the rapidly unfolding events in Nepal and the broader South Asian region.[44] An Indian Maoist insurgency is spreading in Orissa and Chhattisgarh states, largely unreported outside India.[45] Policy analyst Sean Deblieck, in a bourgeois analysis of how to cope with and neutralise Maoist insurgencies in South Asia, gives an overview of Naxalite movements in India and the CPM (N) in Nepal. He concludes: “The reason that Maoism was able to take root in India and Nepal stems largely from the failings of politicians and their political systems. It is clear that the lowest castes and classes in these two countries have been largely ignored by their representatives, and development has passed them by. The Maoists on the other hand are the only party that seems willing to venture into remote areas and to work with the poor. Chairman Mao was unique in recognising the latent potential of such rural peasants, and left behind powerful tactics and a vague ideology that continue to be of use to this day.[46] The activity of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), of which the CPN (M)is a part, is a broader frame in South Asia.[47] Yet some currents of “Third-World Maoists” remain fundamentally critical of the RIM, the North American Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), its chairperson Bob Avakian, and RCP solidarity with the CPN (M) strategy to abandon the armed struggle at this juncture and form a coalition government.[48] This argument will rage on, part of a vibrant debate. Press freedom and social democracy One recurrent flashpoint of controversy within Nepal is press freedom, especially the role of the bourgeois press in its criticism of the CPN (M). United We Blog! For a Democratic Nepal, established in 2004 by Nepalese journalists during a period of great repression, continues to be a site for broad discussion of issues and developments.[49] Nepal Press Freedom is reporting on intimidation of journalists and fighting to protect and promote “free, fair, and vibrant journalism”.[50] In late December 2008, cadre from the CPN (M) attacked the offices of Himalmedia, which publishes three magazines, after an article appeared critical of the Young Communist League. The Revolutionary Journalists’ Association Nepal and CPN (M) activists condemned the violence, which left many Himalmedia staff injured.[51] Naturally, such conflict, involving the independent media, draws particular media attention. The FES-Nepal (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung), reflecting a longstanding German cultural presence in Nepal,[52] offers a more social democratic view on the path forward and the current situation.[53] So there is a rich heteroglossia of voices and opinions in a dynamic public sphere, as reflected in analytical commentary by political scientist Dev Raj Dahal (head of FES-Nepal) on the “multiple transition” the country is now facing.[54] Beyond the current clash of diverse camps, an alchemy of radical democratic synergy may emerge. Working-class protest In any event, the level of militant popular protest by the people is remarkable. On January 2, 2009, in an unprecedented protest action, local people in the town of Kirtipur outside Kathmandu, the home of Tribhuvan University, the oldest campus in the country, shut down the town and university over demands for compensation for land appropriated from their families to build the university 50 years ago and giving locals more employment opportunities on campus. They vandalised the Tribhuvan University central offices the day before.[55] That came amidst widespread labour protests by workers in various sectors across the nation, in part due to the severe power crisis. People are learning the power of acting collectively, to address critical grievances. Speaking to workers, Prime Minister Dahal stated that “pretty soon, the government will make an important announcement, which will help usher the nation in a new era”, stressing that the feudalistic mindset of political leaders had affected the performance of the Maoist-led government. He noted that previous political misrule was to blame for the prevailing power crisis: “During [their] 15-year-long rule, dishonest leaders never thought about the looming power crisis. People are suffering now because of their inaction.”[56] Progressive Nepali Forum in the Americas The newly formed PNEFA aims to “support activities intended to do away with unjust social, economic and political discriminations and exploitations upon the historically marginalized, working-class Nepalis”[57] centering in particular on eliminating caste-based discrimination against some 4.5-5.5 million Hindu Dalits (Untouchables) in the new Nepal.[58] Their plight is extreme, and they may make up nearly 20% of the total population.[59] They voted heavily for the CPN (M) in the April 2008 poll. Other social hegemonies However remote geographically, Nepal is one of the major laboratories for social and political transformation, and socialist discussion anywhere in the geopolitical South. The ferment of discourse and praxis developing there are relevant far beyond that country’s borders, wherever you may stand on the socialist left. Amin is optimistic about a coming upsurge in the tide of counter-globalisation: “conditions are ripe for the emergence of other social hegemonies that make possible a revival of development conceived as it should be: the indissociable combination of social progress, democratic advancement, and the affirmation of national independence within a negotiated multipolar globalisation. The possibility of these new social hegemonies is already visible on the horizon.[60] Nepal’s transformation may yet augur those emergent “new social hegemonies” at the very top of the world. In India, a segment of the comprador class may harbour growing fears that Nepal, with a huge impoverished rural agricultural population similar to India’s, could provide a radical example on the nation’s very doorstep for “revolutionary change in the countryside and self-determination for the great majority” (ibid.), as the global crisis in imperial hegemony deepens and a Maoist-led alliance to the north consolidates its position. [61] [Bill Templer is a linguist based in Asia. He worked a number of years in Nepal, connected with the Nepal Research Centre and Tribhuvan University.] Notes 1. G. Leupp, A Maoist sweep: Electoral revolution in Nepal, Counterpunch, 16 April 2008. http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp04162008.html 2. D. Hoskins, Nepal, Scientific socialism and people’s war, Workers World, 12 December 2008. http://www.workers.org/2008/world/nepal_1218/; podcast: http://www.workersdaily.org/podcast/ 3. N. Hrizi, Revolutionary leader Prachanda elected Prime Minister of Nepal, Party for Socialism and Liberation, News and Analysis, 19 August 2008. http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr011=9cq48mjkz1.app5b&page=NewsArticle&id=9721&news_iv_ctrl=1261 4. F. Goldstein, Low-wage capitalism. New York: World View Forum, 2008, p. viii. http://www.lowwagecapitalism.com//Low-WageCapitalism-lores.pdf; see also Sharon Black, The road to build consciousness, fightback, 22 December 2008. http://www.workers.org/2009/us/sblack_0108/ 5. S. Amin, There is no alternative to socialism, Frontline, Nos. 25-26, 20 December 2008. http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20090102252604400.htm; see also Samir Amin, The world we wish to see, New York: Monthly Review, 2008. In Amin¹s perspective, that diversity is ample enough to include social anarchists, eco-socialists and others, in some ways analogous to the breadth of the New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA) in France (http://links.org.au/node/814; see also http://www.npa2009.org). But for a more critical view of the Bamako Appeal and the problems of the WSF and the politics of “diversity”, see J.L. Hammond, The World Social Forum and the Emergence of Global Grassroots Politics, New Politics, No. 42, 2007. http://www.newpol.org/. The events in Nepal would seem to fly in the face of those within the WSF who believe that “political attack targeted on the state is increasingly irrelevant”. 6. CPN-UML will back off if Maoist continues violent activities: MK Nepal, eKantipur.com, 28 December 2008. http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?page=kolnews.php&nid=172504 7. TGW, Madhesi leader threatens “Nepal split”. Telegraphnepal.com, 28 December 2008. http://www.telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=4555 8. Asian Human Rights Commission, The State of Human Rights in Nepal – 2008. http://material.ahrchk.net/hrreport/2008/AHRC-SPR-013-2008-Nepal_AHRR200. 9. N. Hrizi, op. cit. 10. Room to Read, Country report: Nepal. http://www.roomtoread.org/countries/nepal.html. 11. A study of trafficked Nepalese girls and women in Mumbai and Kolkota, India, Terre des hommes, 2005. http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/traffic%20news/tdh_2005_study_trafficked_nepalese_girls_in_mumbai_kolkata_22%5B1%5D.pdf. 12. Z. S. Ahmed, Poverty, globalisation, social customs & South Asian children in prostitution, 2005. http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/AhmedAsianChildrenProstitution.pdf. 13. A. K. Bohara, Localising globalisation, eKantipur.com, 14 December 2008. http://www.kantipuronline.com/columns.php?&nid=170407. 14. Country may see 16-hr daily power cut; NEA to import additional electricity, 1 January 2009. http://www.kantipuronline.com/capsule.php?&nid=172992. 15. W. Rowell, An FAQ on the LETS system. http://www.gdrc.org/icm/lets-faq.html. 16. J. Sen et al., A political programme for the World Social Forum? January 2007. http://deletetheborder.org/node/1937. 17. Regenerate Film, An interview with Prachanda, Part 1, Youtube., 18 April 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQjNtyIXg0Q&feature=channel. 18. Regenerate Film, An interview with Prachanda, Part 2, Youtube, 18 April 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUdIizBxkGE&feature=channel. 19. Editorial, Opening of the great debate., The Red Star, vol. 1, no. 19. http://www.krishnasenonline.org/theredstar/issues/issue19/pdf-19.pdf, p.4 20. For the talks on 26 September 2008, see http://links.org.au/node/652; his address to the U.N. is available on video: http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/63/2008/ga080926am.rm?start=01:35:46&end=01:53:42. For Onesto’s interview, see: Red flag flying on the roof of the world. Inside the revolution in Nepal: Interview with comrade Prachanda, Revolutionary Worker, No. 1043, 20 February 2000. http://rwor.org/a/v21/1040-049/1043/interv.htm. See also fn. 41 below. 21. N. B. Chand, The differences of opinion within our party, The Red Star, vol. 1, no. 18. http://www.krishnasenonline.org/theredstar/issues/issue18/biplav.htm. 22. I. M. Sigdel, National convention: beginning the great debate, The Red Star, vol. 1, no. 19. http://www.krishnasenonline.org/theredstar/issues/issue19/basanta.htm. 23. D. Sapkota, National convention paves the way, The Red Star, vol. 1, no. 19 http://www.krishnasenonline.org/theredstar/issues/issue19/pdf-19.pdf.pdf , p. 8. 24. K. Dahal, Workers’ movement and new economic development. The Red Star, vol. 1, no. 20, December 2008. http://www.krishnasenonline.org/theredstar/issues/issue20/kumardahal.htm. 25. B. Peterson, Young people changing Nepal, Green Left Weekly, 25 October 2008. http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/772/39811. 26. All Nepal National Independent Students Union (Revolutionary). http://akhilr.org/nepali/index.php. 27. TGW, Private schools in Nepal will be nationalized: FM Dr. Bhattarai. Telegraphnepal.com, 7 November 2008. http://www.telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=4319; B. Sangraula, No more private school, Nepal’s Maoist government declares, The Christian Science Monitor, 15 November 2008. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1115/p90s04-woap.html. NYU instructor Jonathan Zimmermann, a former Peace Corps volunteer in the old Nepal 25 years ago, has a somewhat reactionary critique of this decision, a piece that has been widely circulated in the US electronic media, see: Nepal’s ban on private schools is unjust, The Christian Science Monitor, 28 November 2008. http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/57517.html. Dave Hill’s critique of the marketisation and privatisation of education across the planet is trenchant, see: Educational perversion and global neo-liberalism: A Marxist critique, Cultural Logic: An Electronic Journal of Marxist Theory and Practice, 2004. http://clogic.eserver.org/2004/2004/hill.html. He is heartened that the Nepali revolution is contemplating a ban on private pre-tertiary schooling across the nation (D. Hill, personal communication, 26 December 2008). 28. PM Dahal says Maoists may withdraw from govt , eKantipur.com, 8 December 2008. http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?nid=169519. 29. D. Bastola, Historic national convention ­ a milestone of revolution, The Red Star, vol. 1, no. 19. http://www.krishnasenonline.org/theredstar/issues/issue19/bastola.htm. 30. Nepal: “Plain Living” codes for Maoist politicians, Revolution in South Asia, 2 December 2008. http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/nepal-plain-living-codes-for-maoist-politicians/ 31. G. Kirpati, Perspectives on new state restructuring in Nepal, The Red Star, vol. 1, no. 20, December 2008. http://www.krishnasenonline.org/theredstar/issues/issue20/gopalkirati.htm 32. Interview with Samir Amin, We need a new International, The Red Star, vol. 1, no. 18. http://www.krishnasenonline.org/theredstar/issues/issue18/interview.htm. 33. Interview with Samir Amin, Maoism is needed everywhere in the world, The Red Star, vol. 1, no. 19. http://www.krishnasenonline.org/theredstar/issues/issue19/interview-saminamin.htm. 34. About the World Forum for Alternatives. http://www.social-movements.org/en/book/print/285 35. Amin, see fn. 5 above. 36. Amin, see fn. 32. 37. Report from groundbreaking NYC symposium. Rediscovering China’s Cultural Revolution. Revolution, no. 151, 28 December 2008. http://rwor.org/a/151/symposium-en.html. The report notes: “For a good number of the young people who came, this was the first time that they got a living sense of what it means for society to be organized around radically different and liberating principles‹cooperation, serve the people, and the continuing need to revolutionize all spheres of social life. And then to understand more deeply that this historical experience of socialist transformation has been systematically hidden from view and distorted.” 38. http://www.revcom.us/ 39. Interview with Dongping Han, author of The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Life and Change in a Chinese Village by Set the Record Straight, MRZine, 10 December 2008. http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/han101208.html 40. Prarie Fire, book review (part 3), Some of Us: Chinese Women Growing Up in the Mao Era. At Monkey Smashes Heaven, June 15, 2008. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/book-review-part-3-some-of-us-chinese-women-growing-up-in-the-mao-era/ 41. See Li’s website http://www.lionesto.net/index.html 42. The Red Star. http://www.krishnasenonline.org 43. eKantipur.com (Nepal). http://www.kantipuronline.com 44. Revolution in South Asia. http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/ 45. K.S. Reddy, Maoists’ new strategy to revive movement, The Hindu, 13 December 2008. http://www.thehindu.com/2008/12/13/stories/2008121354110400.htm. Li Onesto’s book on the People’s War in Nepal was issued in a Hindi translation in 2006, see http://www.lionesto.net/hindi_edition-dispatches.html. The banned periodical of the CPI(Maoist) is People¹s March, here the last issue locatable online (Dec. 2007): http://peoplesmarch.googlepages.com/PMDec2007.pdf 46. S. Deblieck, Why Mao? Maoist insurgencies in India and Nepal, Peace Conflict and Development, Issue 9 [July 2006] http://policy.miis.edu/docs/1aDeBlieckUKVersion.doc.pdf, p. 35. Arundhati Roy commented in 2007 on the Maoists in South Asia in a candid interview: “the Maoists in Nepal have waged a brave and successful struggle against the monarchy. Right now, in India, the Maoists and the various Marxist-Leninist groups are leading the fight against immense injustice here. They are fighting not just the State, but feudal landlords and their armed militias. They are the only people who are making a dent. And I admire that. …right now, it is important to acknowledge that they are bearing the brunt of being at the forefront of resistance. Many of us are in a position where we are beginning to align ourselves on the side of those who we know have no place for us in their religious or ideological imagination.” Interview with A. Roy, It’s outright war and both sides are choosing their weapons, 27 March 2007, http://naxalrevolution.blogspot.com/search/label/Arundhati%20Roy. 47. Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. http://cpnm.org/new/RIM/rim_index.htm 48. Prarie Fire, Prachanda wins. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is dead. Maoism-Third Worldism lives. At Monkey Smashes Heaven. n.d. [April-May 2008]. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/on-nepal-recent-analysis/. Prarie Fire argues: “If Prachanda’s way is really a Trojan horse for an imperialist reorganization of Nepalese society under leftist rhetoric, then Marxism-Leninism-Maoism will be rendered worthless as an oppositional force for other reasons. Imperialist finance capital’s reorganization of the economy and political system of Nepal under a social reformist program and rhetoric may, in the short term, genuinely translate into concrete gains for the masses in Nepal. Political power in the form of a corrupt, traditionalist system run by a God King is hardly the best option in terms of creating a stable, modern political climate to best expedite the transfer of value from Nepal to the imperialists. An older comprador state is being replaced by a more modern one under a trojan horse, MLM.” 49. United We Blog! For a Democratic Nepal. http://blog.com.np/about-united-we-blog-of-nepal/. 50. Nepal Press Freedom. http://www.nepalpressfreedom.org/index.php. 51. Maoist attack on Himalmedia draws widespread condemnation, eKantipur.com, 20 December 2008. http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=171374 52. The German Oriental Society maintains a major research facility, the Nepal Research Centre, in Kathmandu, which has been involved in the largest single manuscript preservation project (ancient Sanskrit, Newari and other manuscripts) in South Asia, the Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project, and, among other large-scale field investigations, the Nepal-German Project on High-Mountain Archaeology. http://www.uni-hamburg.de/ngmcp/nrc_history_e.html 53. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Nepal. http://www.fesnepal.org/ 54. D. R. Dahal, Democracy and peace-building in Nepal. Telegraphnepal.com, 19 December 2008. http://www.telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=4548 55. Locals shut down Kirtipur, eKantipur.com, 3 January 2009. http://www.kantipuronline.com/capsule.php?&nid=173317 56. PM wants end to protests. eKantipur.com, 3 January 2009. http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=173437 57. Progressive Nepali Forum in the Americas formed. Nepaldalitinfo, 17 November 2008. http://nepaldalitinfo.net/2008/11/17/546/ 58. Nepal: ending caste inequality and ethnic discrimination. Revolution in South Asia. 22 November 2008. http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/nepal-ending-caste-inequality-ethnic-discrimination/#more-1889 59. Asian Human Rights Commission, The state of human rights in Nepal – 2008. http://material.ahrchk.net/hrreport/2008/AHRC-SPR-013-2008-Nepal_AHRR2008.pdf 60. S. Amin, The Millennium Development goals: A critique from the South, Monthly Review 57 (10) [2006] https://www.monthlyreview.org/0306amin.php 61. Analytical Monthly Review, The global capitalist crisis and India: Time to start the discussion. http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/amr221208.html

Co-leader of RAM's candidates group interviewed for German left-wing newspaper

Grant Brookes, co-leader of RAM's candidates group, was recently interviewed by Thomas Berger, a freelance journalist with Germany's two left-wing daily newspapers, "Junge Welt" (Young World) and "Neues Deutschland" (New Germany).

Thomas Berger: What are the chances for a broad left party in New Zealand at the moment as well as in the future? Grant Brookes: The chances for a broad left party in New Zealand today are huge. Many of the reasons for this will be familiar to German readers - the rightward shift of the formerly social democratic Labour Party to embrace a social liberalism barely distinguishable from politics of the Tory National Party; a modest recovery in trade union membership and strength; a growing political convergence between the once-radical Green Party and the rightwards-moving Labour Party; and an emerging economic crisis which is shattering the stability of the 'business-as-usual' political consensus. On top of this, there is also another factor specific to New Zealand – the emergence and consolidation of the Maori Party. From the election of the First Labour Government in 1935 up until recently, the minority of New Zealanders with Maori ancestry had been an unshakeable part of Labour's core constituency. In the last four years, a majority of these Maori people registered to vote in the seven dedicated Maori electorates have abandoned Labour for the Maori Party, who have acted as an independent grassroots voice in Parliament. This has represented an important, partial break with Labourism in New Zealand - highlighting the opportunities for a more complete break among the broader population. The current situation was seen in a recent opinion poll, where a third of voters were either "undecided" on who to vote for, or were "likely to change their vote" before election day. Whether RAM, as a very new and relatively small political force, will be able relate to this situation at the upcoming general election is an open question. In the longer term, however, I believe RAM's chances are very good. TB: Is RAM a really new beginning or just a kind of rebirth of the once for a limited time successful Alliance Party? What has been learned from the problems and setbacks of the past? GB: The Alliance was very successful for a time - even outpolling Labour in the early 1990s, leading some commentators to speculate about the demise of the 80-year old Labour Party. The Alliance shot to prominence through a combination of electoral campaigns and grassroots campaigns - especially a huge community campaign against the privatisation of the Ports of Auckland in 1992. But the core and leadership of the Alliance came from the New Labour Party - a group of former Labour Party members who split away in 1989 in protest at Labour's capitulation to neo-liberalism. The baggage they brought into the Alliance included a tendency to view politics as the business of Parliament, rather than on the streets as well. Even more importantly, the Alliance emerged at a time when grassroots people were being hammered by a neo-liberal assault from a vicious National Party government. Wages and benefits fell, social services were cut, unemployment rocketed, and trade unions were decimated (with membership falling from 60 percent of the workforce at the end of the 1980s to under 20 percent, ten years later). Confidence and expectations at the grassroots collapsed. The combination of demoralisation at the grassroots and an overly parliamentary focus at the top of the Alliance led that party to abandon grassroots campaigning and look increasingly to joining a Labour-led coalition government as the 1990s wore on. When the Alliance had shifted sufficiently to the right to finally join a Labour-led coalition in 1999, the writing was on the wall. It was led to vote for the policies it had earlier campaigned against - policies of neo-liberalism and war. It suffered a similar fate to all those European left parties who have taken the same road - most recently, and most spectacularly, seen in the Partito della Rifondazione Comunista in Italy. After voting to support the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, the Alliance split and both of the resulting factions were abandoned by voters. (This will clearly be a crucial lesson for Germany's Left Party, Die Linkspartei, as it grows in strength and popularity). Given this potted history, RAM is not in any way a re-birth of the Alliance. Firstly, our core and leadership are made up of grassroots campaigners, not Parliamentarians. And secondly, even more important than that, RAM is emerging at a time when grassroots confidence and strength is recovering after a 20 year nightmare. TB: What are the most important left bastions in the country? GB: To some extent, this is unknown. What can be said is that the Green Party, in its more radical, campaigning orientation of past years, built up geographical bastions among inner-city urban dwellers, particularly in Auckland and Wellington. There is also the "ethnic bastion" of Maori voters who have opted to register on the Maori electoral roll, now held by the Maori Party. Our perception, developed through grassroots campaigning over recent times, is that other ethnic minorities traditionally wedded to Labour (like other Polynesian peoples with Samoan, Tongan or other Pacific Island ancestry) are also in the process of breaking with Labourism. Finally, in local body elections to city councils which RAM has contested in 2004 and 2007, our strongest electoral base has been built in South Auckland - a very large, predominantly working class area where a majority of the population is from Maori, or from Pacific Island and other immigrant groups. TB: Are there chances for RAM, Maori Party, Greens and the Progressives to find common ground as a broad alliance to build up left pressure on Helen Clark and Labour for a social policy? GB: We certainly hope so. Prior to Auckland local body elections in 2004 and 2007, RAM made formal approaches to the local Green Party organisation for talks on possible cooperation agreements. Sadly, we received no formal reply. The Auckland Greens chose instead to join with Labour-led local body candidate groups and spurned our grassroots campaign for free and frequent public transport. Earlier this year, we wrote to the Alliance (which still exists, in a much diminished capacity, in some parts of the South Island) with a similar request. We did receive a reply, but it was hostile. Since then, however, RAM has rapidly emerged as the largest and most active grassroots party of the left, and we are optimistic that cooperation with some in the Greens and Alliance will be more likely after the election. The highlight of broad left cooperation, however, has been the cooperation between RAM and the Maori Party around a combined campaign to remove GST tax (a sales tax currently set at 12.5 percent) from food. We believe that cooperation with the Maori Party will broaden and deepen next year, and serve as a shining example to others. TB: What do you think of the new immigration debate? GB: Unlike the 2005 general election, when immigration was made a key election issue by the right wing, anti-immigrant New Zealand First Party, it has scarcely featured this time round. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the incorporation of the NZ First leader into the Labour-led government (as foreign minister of all things, where attacking immigrants from New Zealand's major trading and defence partners is clearly impossible). And secondly, it's harder to whip up anti-immigrant racism when New Zealand has experienced several years of the lowest unemployment in two decades (under 4 percent, the lowest in the OECD). This second factor, of course, will change as the economic crisis bites. RAM will prioritise campaigns for immigrant rights under these circumstances. TB: Is there a right swing, with National ahead in some polls and the special campaigns of ACT (law and order) and NZ First (renewal of the anti-immigration debate)? GB: No. Despite the National Party lead in the polls, there is no major rightward swing at the grassroots towards support for neo-liberal and reactionary policies. Disaffection with the ruling Labour Party is the major driver of the polls. Part of National's success has come from shifting towards the centre on most major questions and embracing Labour Party policies. NZ First, which has very recently revived its anti-immigration rhetoric in a much-attenuated form, could well be wiped out at the election. ACT is polling at very low levels of support, too. There has been much speculation, some of it probably accurate, about a National Party "secret agenda". If they win the election as currently expected, it is likely that they will unveil some more right wing policies which they are currently keeping in hiding. We believe any such move is likely to be met with grassroots resistance, precisely because there hasn't been a shift to the right among people which would allow them to get away with it.