Issue 252 of SOCIALIST REVIEW Published May 2001 Copyright © Socialist Review
Phil Marshall and Clare Fermont paint a very clear picture of Ariel Sharon, the right wing thug and murderer (March SR).
Phil's argument that Sharon's record and politics are a reflection of Zionism in general (and its right wing revisionist current in particular) was especially welcome, given the liberal media's incomprehension over Sharon's victory.
The case against Zionism is even more damning when you consider that the young Sharon was a protege of Israeli Labour long before he was embraced by Likud prime minister Menachem Begin.
According to biographer Uzi Benziman, Sharon made enemies among his fellow military officers because of his rudeness and arrogance (Sharon: An Israeli Caesar, London, 1987).
But he was protected at key points of his career by Labour leaders. After the Qibya massacre, for example, prime minister Ben Gurion demanded a meeting.
Benziman records, 'Ben Gurion grilled him about his past and his education. He was surprised to find out that Arik [Sharon] was raised on a moshav, nominally within the labour movement... He was surprised that many of the members of the 101st [Sharon's unit] were members of kibbutzim and moshavim... Ben Gurion felt he had no choice but to come out in support of Arik.'
It was Ben Gurion who chose Sharon's Hebrew name: 'Ben Gurion...saw in Arik the realisation of the new Israeli.'
In 1971 Sharon evicted Bedouins from the northern Sinai with brute force. There was an outcry. Again it was a Labour leader who salvaged his career: 'Prime minister Golda Meir supported Sharon's actions... In one protest demonstration held at a kibbutz in the Negev, Meir addressed the assembled people: "My conscience is clear regarding the fact that the minings and murders [by Palestinians] were worse than the eviction of innocent people".'
Sharon's career is a revealing insight into what all Israeli leaders hold in common -- the dispossession and continued repression of Palestinians. Sharon has been a loyal attack dog for Israel, regardless of whether Labour or Likud have held his lead.
David Glanz
Melbourne
The western media, in reporting current US-China relations, is reluctant to put the question of Taiwan in the right place. In fact, the media has always used Taiwan in its pro-US propaganda. We want to make this very clear--there is (and will be) a socialist position in Taiwan that is completely different from those taken by the mainstream Taiwanese nationalist party (DPP) and the right wing reunificationists (KMT, New Party and the so called People First Party), as well as the Stalinist reunificationists (as found in various labour groups). Our position is one based on Lenin's theory of national oppression and the right of small nations to self determination, which is part of the Marxist tradition, and which sees class as an essential tool in understanding nation and nationalism.
In the face of Chinese nationalism and US military intervention, socialists in Taiwan should be opposed to both. The increasing US arms sales to Taiwan and the development of National Missile Defence systems since the beginning of the Bush administration should be exposed as part of a US exercise to secure its monopoly as an imperialist power in the region and the world, and should be strongly opposed and fought against. Taiwanese workers will write their own postwar history in which the US (government and corporations) had consistently backed the KMT dictatorship in suppressing workers' struggle. Let's not forget that part of history. And let's look at the US aggression in other parts of the world like the Middle East and South America, and learn lessons there.
The future of Taiwan should only be decided upon the will of the Taiwanese working class. As socialists we are in favour of open exchanges (for example, the lifting of various bans that were installed during the dark ages of Chiang's period) between the two countries, so that people will be able to travel and correspond freely.
When people across the strait have more opportunity to exchange ideas between them, antagonism will decrease and people may realise they have more in common with one another than imagined. More and more Chinese workers may come to the realisation that national reunification is not an absolute aim, and that national interests do not always coincide with their own interests. Although we are in favour of increasing contact between the peoples, we do not support the official negotiations and talks occurring between the ruling classes (represented by those government committees set up for the purpose of reunification) across the strait.
The bargaining and advance of nationalist goals on that level will not benefit the ordinary working class people in either China or Taiwan. In fact, they tend to blur class divisions in both societies.
As socialists in Taiwan, we should challenge the backwardness of the ruling DPP each time it concedes to the interests of big businesses. This has been recently manifested by its decision to carry out the construction of the fourth nuclear plant in Taiwan, which it previously fought against before getting into power. We have to fight for workers' rights to strike, now that it has just become legal, at the time of writing, for workers to form their own unions. Apart from national gains for workers, we should also support local campaigns against corporations (Taiwanese or American) which impose long hours, low wages and unsafe working conditions.
The DPP has struggled its way to the ruling position on the back of Taiwanese workers. But the DPP is not a workers' party and does not have workers' interests at heart. We have to argue for an alternative to mainstream Taiwanese nationalist politics. The old institutions (the old constitution is one of them) have remained intact following DPP's rise to power. We have to offer a serious critique of the DPP's nature as a bourgeois nationalist party and fight for our own future. We will say no to them--no, nation doesn't come before class. They are one struggle, perfectly summarised by the Taiwanese Communist Party in the party constitution of 1928. Side by side with its goal of national liberation, the Taiwanese Communist Party argued for the overthrow of the local landlord class, for the establishment of a national insurance and welfare system, and fought for workers' rights to assemble, to organise and to strike. This should be our tradition.
Hsiao-Hung Pai
Taiwan
Prior to the advent of the Socialist Alliance I watched in disbelief as the left lost its voice in mainstream politics. Now it has lost its mind in its facility for critical analysis. Rational discourse was replaced by simplistic soundbites, but, even this has been supplanted by emotional absurdity. In support of, or opposition to, a 'cause' the current vogue is to make a totally irrational statement or claim--packed, for preference, with glaring inconsistencies--and then not to question these. I listen to radio programmes where, in the guise of 'news and comment', these absurdities are uttered and gradually I become more angry to hear not a jot of ridicule or even dissent.
Since my present circumstances force upon me the acceptance that I am no one's genius, the inescapable conclusion is that our mainstream politicians' reasoning faculties have been so far reduced beyond average as to constitute brain death.
Take, for example, the Countryside Alliance's clever exploitation of the rural/urban divide. They portray themselves as the champions of every aspect of rural life--like foxhunting! They wail about the plight of farmers and weep over the effect of a ban on the rural population--agricultural workers. Indeed, where would the farmers be without anyone to trample their crops, and how would redundant agricultural workers pass the long hours of unemployment without the hunt? This does conveniently ignore the fact that the average agricultural 'oik' would be welcomed at a meet much as bubonic plague would be welcomed in a mother and baby unit.
They plead the case that hunting is the most effective and humane way of controlling these vicious predators. The Belvoir hunt dismissed concerns about cruelty by stating that only one fox had been killed out of the last 26 meets--that's what I call effective!
They indignantly claim that it would be an insufferable abuse of their human rights to have hunting banned simply because others disapprove of an activity which does not affect them--perhaps MS sufferers should share their 'joints' with the local hunt on the same basis.
They have welcomed the foot and mouth epidemic with open arms as a heaven sent opportunity to display their solidarity with the farmers. They paint the picture of farmers near to suicide because their stock has been slaughtered. Okay so they will get compensation at full market value, but 'it's not the money it's the sight of the stock they reared lying dead.' Of course, they were all being reared to enjoy a long and happy life as family pets, weren't they?
And then there's the claim that a ban would turn upright citizens into animals overnight! This assumes that these upright citizens will simply ignore the change in legislation and exercise their god given right not to have the law apply to them. After all, some of them are magistrates--what's the point of that if you then have to obey laws you don't like?
There should surely be a dispensation--without them, who would send the MS sufferers to their well deserved punishment for smoking cannabis? After all, others disapprove of such 'degenerate' treatment.
Just in case, we'll keep a few spaces for them in here. A tip--don't pack your pink jackets since they're not allowed. It might be an idea to bring the hard hats, though!
John Higgins
HMP Edinburgh