Issue 274 of SOCIALIST REVIEW Published May 2003 Copyright © Socialist Review
Media madness and the rationale of the francophobesChris Harman's analysis of the strategy of the US ruling class can help explain the recent vitriol directed at the French (April SR). It was noticeable that the likes of Richard Perle led the charge in attacking France, opening the gates to a flood of abuse in the US media, but also drawing in the British press (not too difficult a task), who were soon slavishly followed by the Blairites. Opening up this sort of rift between Britain and the rest of Europe plays directly into the hands of those Washington hawks who are concerned about the emergence of Europe as a more coherent superpower. Many British companies have already acted on the clear indications that were given by Blair that there might have been a referendum on the euro in the spring of this year. This means they have spent millions of pounds on economic monetary union projects, which have concentrated on making major changes to computer systems in order to allow a smooth conversion to the euro. Of course the war, and Blair's lack of popular support for it, has put paid to any notion that a successful euro referendum could take place in the near future. It is ironic that Blair, who is one of the most pro-European members of the cabinet, has been one of the most gung-ho supporters of Bush's invasion, and also that he has allowed US hawks to create clear divisions between different European states, not just over Iraq, but also within Nato. Clearly, US strategists are not only doubtful about whether or not a united Europe can be a success, they are also actively involved in trying to undermine the European project.
One obvious reason for this is demonstrated by the suggested threat from the oil-producing Opec countries to switch from trading in dollars to trading in the euro (significantly, a switch which Iraq had already made). This would certainly be a blow to the US, but also a major boost to the euro, and if this scenario was to be coupled with the possibility of Britain (with an important sterling sector) successfully joining the euro zone, the paranoia of certain US strategists doesn't appear to be quite as mad as it first looks. Neither is it impossible to see how a more serious conflict between the major western powers could arise if these sorts of tensions continued to develop in this way. In contrast to Socialist Review's anti-war coverage the media has been showing scenes around Basra of British medics treating wounded Iraqis alongside wounded British soldiers. The commentator, with solemn reverence, states that the medic does not differentiate between Brit and Iraqi, and all he recognises is the common suffering. The same commentator fails to mention that the screaming Iraqi children who are being cared for are also the victims of British aggression. How many dead and maimed civilians have British bullets lodged in them? And how many civilians are fleeing Basra because they cannot stand the daily and nightly shelling? And what about those who are now homeless? And how many are fleeing because airstrikes have knocked out electricity and water supplies? And how many civilians now hate the British as much as they are supposed to hate Saddam? The British army are trying to convey an image of benign lions fighting for a cause that is just. Yet they have made this humanitarian crisis that they are supposedly trying to prevent through their illegal and immoral invasion. This war is shameful. The blame for British involvement lies squarely with Tony Blair, who has allowed our troops to be used like mercenaries to try and ensure that the Bush gang allows BP and Shell a share of the rich pickings in Iraq. The British arms industry will also do well out of the bloodbath, since BAe Systems sells more to the Pentagon than it does to the Ministry of Defence.
While British troops involve themselves in bloody carnage our Tony will be working behind the scenes trying to broker the best deals for his pals in the oil and defence industries. Money is the root of all evil, and especially this evil blitzkrieg that that is killing and maiming so many innocent lives. |
We welcome letters and contributions on all issues raised in Socialist Review. Please keep your contributions as short as possible, typed, double spaced if you can, and on one side of paper only. Send to: Socialist Review, PO Box 82, London E3 3LH Fax: 020 7538 0018 Phone: 020 7538 3308 E-mail: sr@swp.org.uk |
This May is the 35th anniversary of the massive explosion of anger initiated by French students and supported by French workers in 1968. Spontaneity fused with working class struggle and created a mood of resistance that has formed the backbone of the class struggle in France. This solidarity is again being put to the test.
The Tory government of Jean-Pierre Raffarin is attempting to 'reform' the retirement system by bringing the public sector into line with the private sector. In 1993, the then Tory prime minister Edouard Balladur imposed an increase in the number of working years to qualify for retirement from 37.5 to 40. However, millions of workers struck in November and December 1995 and prevented the extension of this attack on public sector workers. It also demonstrated how workers have the ability to fight back and win despite the full ferocity of the capitalist state organising against them. Unfortunately, this triumph had been soaked up by the union bureaucracies and their faith in the pluralist left of the Communist, Socialist and Green parties.
Chris Harman, writing in a previous issue of Socialist Review, warned of the impending Thatcherite counter-offensive by the employers' class and of the treachery of the trade union bureaucrats. This is now being played out by Raffarin who has again decided to attack public sector workers. Whereas Juppé had refused to negotiate on the issue in 1995, Raffarin has asserted the need for dialogue but intends to implement the reforms in June regardless.
The unions have been divided over how to respond. The CGT, together with several other union confederations, has successfully mobilised against the government. The latest day of action took place on 3 April, with national stoppages in the public sector and hundreds of thousands taking to the streets in support of the strikes. Bernard Thibault, the general secretary of the CGT, said after the demonstrations that 'May will be a particularly agitated month' when there will be a national strike and day of action. While this in itself is a positive move the unions could and should organise further action. They can certainly rely on public opinion to justify this stance. A recent poll conducted in Le Monde revealed 72 percent support for the strike compared to 34 percent support for the government.
The anti-war and anti-capitalist movements have injected into the rank and file a much needed boost of confidence. When the anti-war movement in France finally took off, thousands of trade unionists participated and were encouraged by the youthfulness and militancy of these demonstrations. This has offset the imbalance being imposed downwards by union bureaucrats seeking to talk rather than fight and is especially true of the second largest union confederation, the CFDT, which disgracefully refused to join the 3 April day of action. However, rank and file members of the CFDT did take part and have put so much pressure on their leaders that it is looking increasingly likely that the CFDT will formally participate in May's forthcoming actions.
This is a big test for rank and file members combating not only a government intent on breaking the trade unions but also the treachery of their own union leaders. It is a battle we can win. The chant of 'tous ensemble' (all together) became the rallying cry in the victorious fight of 1995 and can again inspire the mass of the population to smash the government's attacks on society.
Peter Harrison
Paris
On behalf of the volunteers running the Marxists' Internet Archive I would like to thank Martin Empson and Socialist Review for the friendly review of the archive in the Martin's Web column (April SR). However, I would like to correct one impression created by the article.
Martin says that 'the MIA is very eclectic in its choice of Marxists to be archived. So Stalin and Mao's work sit uneasily beside that of Marx, Engels, Trotsky and Lenin.' This is not strictly true. In the introduction to the archive we state our criteria for categorising writers: 'If any of the following criteria apply the MIA Collective may decide to place the writer in the Reference Archive... (iii) their work is practically and theoretically unconnected or hostile toward the workers' movement...' A footnote makes clear what this means: 'In line with these criteria Stalin and Mao have been placed in the Reference Archive as a result of previous decisions taken by the MIA Collective.'
I think this makes clear that we don't place Stalin or Mao on the same plane as Marx, Engels, Lenin or Trotsky. We have included them because of their negative influence on the socialist movement and because it is difficult to understand the development of the movement if we exclude them. We also include Eduard Bernstein for the same reasons.
I would also draw attention to the James Connolly Internet Archive, the largest collection of his writings available anywhere. This can be found at www.marxists.org.uk. And we also have a selection of articles by Tony Cliff at www.marxists.org.uk
If any readers would like to support our work a CD of the contents of the archive is available for $30 (details at www.marxists.org). We also welcome volunteers (www.marxists.org) who are prepared to provide us with texts or to do mark-up.
Einde O'Callaghan
Germany
Ian Birchall (April SR) does a good job in outlining what genuine democracy could look like, given past historical experiences. The only problem is this: how do you stop councils of workers becoming dictatorships of party officials?
The problem with many revolutions is that the successful revolutionary party believes that the people cannot be trusted and must be better led--led by the party, that is. Hence a degree of compulsion is needed. Liberty, free speech and 'opposition' must be curtailed, at least for a while, until people see the benefits of the revolution. Human rights are a kind of post-revolutionary experience.
The Russian and Chinese revolutions are a good example of how easily things can go wrong. They were worse both in terms of living standards and human rights than the Western social democracies. Don't even think about North Korea.
What then must we do to prevent future mistakes?
Graeme Kemp
Edinburgh
Ian Birchall's article 'People Power' (April SR) really deserves a small book in reply but a point or two will have to suffice. Of course he is right to advocate a revival of workers' councils but we need to be clear where we are aiming. Soviets were a key institution in Russia in 1917 but they were a unique formation, fashioned by the historical and political circumstances.
Soviets were councils of delegates from workplaces in assembly, but they were effectively run by the executive, which was dominated by (previously repressed) political parties.
Soon after the revolution, two developments occurred. There was a massive geographical extension of soviets throughout the country, but these were largely local authorities with a few worker delegates and a name change. Secondly, the Central Soviet was increasingly bypassed as the Bolshevik Party assumed near total control. Existing workplace workers' councils were coerced into the trade unions.
Since 1917 there have been practically no examples of soviets of this pattern. Workers' councils in recent years--from Portugal in 1974 to those current in Argentina--have been area councils where delegates represent their workplaces and political representation as such has been specifically excluded. The reasons for this are many, but I would say that people's experience of the political exclusivity of the Leninist, Maoist and anarchist parties, all claiming a monopoly of the truth, must bear most of the blame.
Yes, we should all work for new workers' councils, but some clear thinking still needs to be done on their nature and the organisation and politics of the essential revolutionary party, or parties.
Alan Woodward
London
The failure of the US Marine Corps to secure the Iraqi museums and hospitals while securing the Iraqi oilfields and oil ministry has brought home to me more forcefully than ever before the profound truth of that maxim of Oscar Wilde: 'A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.' This was, of course, written at the height of British imperialism.
Allan Crabtree
Isle of Man