Leninism 21 – Paul Le Blanc on the revolutionary party today

Dredging the internet for articles addressing the question “are Lenin’s ideas relevant today”, the name of US activist and academic and Paul Le Blanc comes up a lot.

He has written two books that address this issue, 1989’s “Lenin and the Revolutionary Party” and “Marx, Lenin, and the Revolutionary Experience” in 2006, and these have been widely referenced and reviewed, particularly by socialists who, like Le Blanc himself (and UNITYblog) place themselves in the Trotskyist tradition.

In addition to this article, there’s an interview with Le Blanc from Monthly Review and a statement from him about why he decided to join the International Socialist Organization last year.

This article was published on the Canadian website Socialist Voice on June 25, 2008, the comments there are also worth reading.

Lenin and the revolutionary party today

by Paul Le Blanc

Paul Le Blanc was a guest speaker at the “Socialism 2008” conference of the International Socialist Organization in Chicago, June 20, 2008. This article is based on his talk.

We are focusing here on someone generally acknowledged to have been one of the greatest revolutionary theorists and organizers in human history: Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, whose intimates knew him affectionately as “Ilyich,” but whom the world knew by his underground pseudonym — Lenin. He was the leader of the Bolshevik wing of the Russian socialist movement, and this revolutionary socialist wing later became the Russian Communist Party after coming to power in the 1917 workers and peasants revolution.

For millions Lenin was seen as a liberator. Appropriated after his death by bureaucrats and functionaries in order to legitimate their tyranny in countries labeled “Communist,” he was at the same time denounced for being a wicked and cruel fanatic by defenders of power and privilege in capitalist countries — and with Communism’s collapse at the close of the Cold War it is their powerful voices that have achieved global domination. But the ideas of Lenin, if properly utilized, can be vital resources for challenging the exploitation of humanity and degradation of our planet.

There are Marxist-influenced democratic socialists who would argue that “whoever wants to reach socialism by any other path than that of political democracy will inevitably arrive at conclusions that are absurd and reactionary both in the economic and political sense.” In fact, these are the words of Lenin himself. Many critics of Lenin have pointed to his repressive policies of 1918-1922, when the early Soviet republic was engulfed and overwhelmed by multiple crises, accusing him of being the architect of the Stalinist totalitarianism of later decades. Much of my recent book Marx, Lenin, and the Revolutionary Experience (Routledge 2006) is devoted to disproving this grotesque distortion. Contrary to the claims of his detractors, Lenin’s writings reveal a commitment to freedom and democracy that runs through his political thought from beginning to end. They also reveal an incredibly coherent analytical, strategic, and tactical orientation that has relevance for our own age of “globalization.”[1]

In my remarks today I would like to do three things. First, I want to touch briefly on what I think are essentials of Lenin’s thought. Second, I want to touch on a couple of major problems that have cropped up in efforts to build organizations aspiring to be Leninist. Third, I want to talk about the necessity of building such an organization.

NZ petition targets financialisation, the heartless heart of capitalism

by Grant Morgan

Michael Lewitt, who founded capital management firm HCM in 1991, has just authored a fix-the-system book titled “The Death of Capital: How Creative Policy Can Restore Stability”. He is a conservative free market capitalist.

In a recent column (see below), Lewitt bemoans how “the United States has strayed from a free market model to a system that privatizes gains and socializes losses”.

He continues: “During the last two decades, the American economy has suffered from a series of legal, fiscal and monetary policies that have favored speculation over production. The result has been the financialization of the economy, which has been characterized in economic terms by an unhealthy growth in debt at all levels of the economy and in cultural terms by the monetization of all values.”

Lewitt is calling for “a Tax on Speculation that would apply to the types of speculative activities that have so badly damaged the American economy, including naked credit default swaps, leveraged buyout, quantitative stock trading strategies and other stock and bond transactions”.

Lewitt’s strident criticisms of “speculation” and “financialisation”, and his call for a “Tax on Speculation”, personify the raging disunity within global elites which is starting to unravel their “Born to Rule” legitimacy. The Anti-Revolution is starting to eat its own babies.

Lewitt is trying to rein in financialisation in the belief this is required for American capitalism to overcome its critical “challenges”.

Marxists, however, understand that financialisation is capitalism’s main last hope of surviving a systemic crisis of profitability. If financialisation goes down the toilet, so does capitalism’s global economy. That’s why financialisation cannot be reformed into something else.

(For much more information on financialisation, and the convergence of systemic crises, see my essay, “Beware! The end is nigh! Why global capitalism is tipping towards collapse, and how we can act for a decent future”, http://unityaotearoa.blogspot.com/2010/03/grant-morgan-beware-end-is-nigh.html.)

On Budget Day, 20 May, it looks like the National-led government in New Zealand will raise GST to 15%. That is similar to save-the-speculators austerity measures by Europe’s governments which are sparking popular protests not only in Greece, but also Portugal and Spain.

On 22 May, two days after National’s budget, Socialist Worker and the Alliance are jointly launching a nationwide tax petition calling on Parliament to remove GST from food and tax financial speculation.

In effect, our petition is targeting financialisation, the heartless heart of neoliberal capitalism. As seen in Europe’s protests, financialisation is becoming the central battleground over what sort of economy we should have and who it should serve.

For more information on the tax petition, keep your eyes on UNITYblog website or email campaign co-ordinatir Vaughan Gunson at socialist-worker(a)pl.net.

Leninism 21 – Hugo Chávez’s latest gift idea

Over the next month or so UNITYblog will be examining “Leninism in the 21st Century”.

We’re seeking the views of socialists and other radicals on the relevance of the Russian revolutionary’s theory of party organisation in today’s struggle against capitalism.

This week, we will start by posting articles from Marxists in the Leninist tradition who have taken a new look at Leninism over the last few years.

First up is “Hugo Chávez’s latest gift idea”, published in the US newspaper Socialist Worker, where researcher Lars Lih outlines his retranslation and re-interpratation of Lenin’s classic “What Is to Be Done?”

Has anyone heard if Chavez has presented “What Is to Be Done?” to Obama?



Hugo Chávez’s latest gift idea

Lars Lih, the author of Lenin Rediscovered: “What Is to Be Done?” in Context, which offers a new interpretation of Lenin’s 1902 book, comments on the news that Hugo Chávez has a new book ready to present to Barack Obama.

June 9, 2009

HUGO CHÁVEZ, the president of Venezuela, has announced on Venezuelan television that the next time he meets with President Barack Obama, he will give the American head of state a short book written in 1902 by one Lenin, entitled What Is to Be Done?

A surprising announcement. The last time Chávez showed his willingness to fill out Obama’s reading list, he gave him a topical book on the situation in Latin America. But what topical interest can be found in a book over a century old, written under the drastically alien circumstances of Tsarist Russia?

Besides, many of us will remember being taught about this book in a poli sci or history class. Isn’t What Is to Be Done? a “blueprint for Soviet tyranny”? Isn’t this the book in which Lenin expressed his contempt for workers--or, in any event, his worry that the workers would never be sufficiently revolutionary?

These worries, so we are told, led Lenin to advocate a party of “professional revolutionaries” from the intelligentsia that would replace a genuine democratic mass movement. All in all, isn’t What Is to Be Done? something of an embarrassment for the left--a book much better forgotten than thrust into the hands of world leaders?

Leninism 21 – Are Lenin’s ideas relevant in the 21st Century?

During the month of May (and possibly beyond) UNITYblog will examine “Leninism in the 21st Century”, and we’d like you to participate.

Contributions from Leftists (both Leninist and not) from Aotearoa (New Zealand) and around the world will be posted from the second week of May (In the first week we’ll post some existing articles off the net) [OK, running a bit behind schedule on that one!].


Old debates

Last Century versions of Lenin’s ideas were followed by socialists around the world. Many others, from left to right condemned Leninism as a fast road to dictatorship.

Even among those who call themselves Leninists, there are many interpretations of Lenin’s theory of socialist organisation. Some argue he wanted a “small party of professional revolutionaries” others a mass party of rank-and-file workers, but one where all members were committed to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. Some say the aim of this party was to take all power in to its own hands, other to lead the working class to take power for itself.

These are old debates, but still important to anyone who sees Lenin’s ideas as relevant today – either as a guide to action, or something to argue against.

It’s the relevance of Lenin’s ideas, specifically his theory of party organisation, that UNITYblog would like your views on. What (if anything) should socialists, revolutionaries and other radicals take from Lenin and apply to the struggles of today, and what (if anything) should we reject?


New context

The context for asking these questions, include the rise of broad left parties and alliances in many countries, including Venezuela and Bolivia, where socialist revolutions are being led by broad alliances of parties and social movements, not a single Leninist organisation.

In a number of Western countries, some well-known Leninist groups appear to be abandoning Lenin’s principle of an exclusively revolutionary organisation.

Broad Left parties such as Denmark’s Red Green Alliance, Portugal’s Left Blog and German’s Left Party include revolutionary and non-revolutionary groups and individuals.

In France the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR – one of the world’s biggest Trotskyist groups) dissolved itself in order to establish the broader New Anti-Capitalist Party. Over in Australia, the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) has also dissolved itself into the Socialist Alliance, which includes revolutionary and non-revolutionary socialists.

Here in Aotearoa, Socialist Worker, (publishers of UNITYblog) is one of several socialist groups who traditionally identify as “Leninist”. But we are also advocates of a broad left strategy and hope to see the formation of a “new workers party” or “broad left party” that includes not only reformist socialists, but also opponents of neo-liberal economics who are not socialists at all.



What is to be done (today)?

In raising the question of Leninism in the 21st Century? we are asking for your views on “what is the best way for the Left to organise today?” and “what is the relevance of Leninism to that?”

We’re asking these questions of a wide range of Leftists, many who are current or former members of Leninist groups, some who are not. So I am anticipating a wide range of interpretations about what Leninism is, let alone what is of value today.

You may find it helpful to answer the following questions, or you may prefer to address these issues in your own way. Either is fine by me:

• Are you (or have you ever been) a Leninist?

• How would you sum up Lenin’s ideas on socialist organisation?

• What are the greatest challenges facing the the Left today?

• Are Lenin’s ideas on organisation relevant in the 21st Century?

• How should we organise to meet those challenges?

Those of you who identify as Leninists or Marxists may also like to consider the following questions raised in UNITYblog’s first post on this topic Happy birthday Lenin:


• Have the former members of the LCR and the DSP have abandoned Leninism? Does it matter?


• What is the role of revolutionaries and Marxists within these broader reformists (or not explicitly revolutionary) parties?


• Was Lenin wrong to advocate organisational separation of Marxists from other socialists? Or was this idea right at the time, but not now?


Awaiting your response with interest,

David Colyer | colyer@pl.net
editor www.UNITYblognz.com

Offensive images?

A picture of Lenin in a party hat cropped from the first of these images accompanied last week’s post Happy Birthday Lenin, which announced UNITYblog’s up-coming discussion on Leninism in the 21st Century. A lively debate has already begun.

One contributor, Don Franks objected to the image of Lenin, seeing it as symbolic of UNITYblog’s supposed rejection of Leninism.

He writes:

“What is the point of that? Political images are not chosen randomly. To me it looks like you are putting some previously fun childish thing [Leninism] aside before getting on with the grown up business of the day.”

As I have said in the comments on this post, I chose the image because, “Making fun of an authority figure can open up space for critical discussion, which is my intention. I feel that this picture may help cut through the unhelpful duality of Lenin as a idol beyond question or a dictatorial hate-figure. I want to promote debate on Lenin’s legacy, from a wide range of Leftist perspectives.”

So for those who have not seen them before, here are the two “Communist Party” images. My only objection to them is that they include Stalin and Mao.

Meanwhile I have sent an open invitation to join the discussion on Leninism in the 21st Century to just about every Lefty on my email list and all members of the UNITYblog Facebook group. I'll be posting it here in a day or two.


David
UNITYblog editor

Happy birthday Lenin

April 22 was the birthday of Russian Marxist Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known to the world as Lenin.

Lenin was the founder of the Bolsheviks (later the Communist Party) and became president of USSR as a result of the 1917 October Revolution. The success of the Bolsheviks in founding the world’s first socialist government won wide support for Lenin’s ideas on how a socialist party should be organised.

But as an advocate of the overthrow of the social and economic order, Lenin was always going to be a hate figure for defenders of capitalism. Today the mainstream view (shared by many on the Left) is that Lenin was a dictator who, if not quite as bad as Stalin, certainly paved the way for him.

As for Lenin’s idea on party organisation, these are often seen as a blueprint for dictatorship, both within the party and in any country unfortunate enough to fall under Communist control.

Lenin’s fans – including UNITYblog – hold a different view. We remember that Lenin argued that “democracy is indispensable to socialism”, that he wanted “every cook” to help govern the new socialist state. That the Russian Revolution failed to achieve this goal, we argue, was because of many factors beyond Lenin and the Bolshivik’s control.

What about Lenin’s theory of party organisation?

The fundamental point was that revolutionary socialists / Marxists should form their own parties, independent from the “reformists” who rejected the idea of revolution, believing instead that the problems of capitalism could be solved through gradual reform.


Abandoning Leninism?

In the Western countries, a number of the most most well-known Leninist groups appear to be abandoning Lenin’s principle of an exclusively revolutionary organisation.

Broad Left parties such as Denmark’s Red Green Alliance, Portugal’s Left Blog and German’s Left Party include revolutionary and non-revolutionary groups and individuals.

In France the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR – one of the world’s biggest Trotskyist groups) dissolved itself in order to establish the broader New Anti-Capitalist Party.

Over in Australia, the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) has also dissolved itself into the Socialist Alliance, which includes revolutionary and non-revolutionary socialists.

Here in Aotearoa, Socialist Worker is one of several socialist groups who traditionally identify as “Leninist”. But we are also advocates of a broad left strategy and hope to see the formation of a “new workers party” or “broad left party” that includes not only reformist socialists, but also opponents of neo-liberal economics who are not socialists at all.

This raises some big questions about Leninism and its relevance today:

Have the former members of the LCR and the DSP have abandoned Leninism? Does it matter?

What is the role of revolutionaries and Marxists within these broader reformists (or not explicitly revolutionary) parties?

Was Lenin wrong to advocate organisational separation of Marxists from other socialists? Or was this idea right at the time, but not now?

Over the next month or so UNITYblog will examine the problems of Leninism in the 21st Century.

We will start by posting several international articles from Marxists in the Leninist tradition who have taken a new look at Leninism, before sharing the views of leftists (both Leninist and not) from Aotearoa and elsewhere.

The CTU’s Alternative Economic Strategy – a way forward for workers?

Bill Rosenberg [pictured], author of the Council of Trade Unions proposed
 Alternative Economic Strategy, will be speaking on the reasons the 
Strategy was written, what it says and its potential as an 
organising and campaigning tool for the union movement.


Also speaking will be Socialist Worker National Chair, Vaughan
Gunson, who will discuss whether the Alternative Economic Strategy 
can be the basis of a broad left campaign against neo-liberalism.



A Socialist Worker Forum



Tuesday April 27, 7pm


at the Socialist Centre

86 Princes Street, Onehunga

For more information, or to organise a lift to the venue, phone Len
: 634 3984.

GST off healthy food: a broad campaign is the right thing to do

by Vaughan Gunson

Gordon Campbell, editor of the online magazine Werewolf, has written an invaluable article, Do the Right Thing, that completely knocks the stuffing out of all the arguments against taking GST off food.

Campbell’s well researched and timely article draws on the Australian experience – where there's no GST on basic food – to destroy the chimerical argument that it’s too hard to exempt food from GST. In Australia, current computer technology makes the exemption process easy.

In December last year, the Australian Taxation Office released a computer package that makes it quite simple for a lot of businesses to manage the food exemptions. The same technology could be adapted for New Zealand. The supposed difficulty has been one of the main excuses used by defenders of across-the-board GST, including the leadership of both National and Labour. But there are options available which would overcome any major inconvenience for retailers.

Campbell also highlights the results of a research project released in March this year by the Wellington School of Medicine, which confirmed that price decisively determined people’s food choices at the supermarket. Despite education on healthy foods, when it came to loading up the trolley, people went for the cheaper options, even if they were less healthy. From the study, the conclusion of Professor Tony Blakely is that price intervention works in encouraging people to choose healthier food. The research gives support to Maori Party MP Rahui Katene’s private members' bill to remove GST from healthy food.

As Campbell correctly points out, what makes GST on food an immediate issue is the government’s plan to increase GST to 15% and lower income tax. That shift, Campbell says, “will leave more money in the pockets of the relatively well off, and place a heavier burden on workers on low incomes, and on beneficiaries. That’s because those on benefits and the working poor have less discretionary income, and spend a higher proportion of their income on basics, such as food.” The poor will be worse off from the proposed tax changes, while the rich will get the benefits.

And this is the crux of the debate, it’s not about degrees of difficultly or “tax anomalies”, it’s about where you stand on tax justice for grassroots people. As Campbell asks: “why not do something so easy, so readily manageable by business, so justifiable on grounds of social justice, and so likely to deliver practical health benefits to the community?”

The answer for the National government – and the Labour leadership also, who are refusing so far to budge – is that removing GST from food would undermine a central pillar of neo-liberalism. GST is a regressive tax that has strong support within corporate, banking and government circles.

Removing GST from food would be a decisive step towards shifting the tax burden off grassroots people. At the same time it would de-legitimise the tax in the eyes of many people.

We know the call to remove GST off food is popular. In 2008, a small group of activists from RAM-Residents Action Movement collected nearly 30,000 signatures in a matter of months. Opinion polls and everyday conversations point to continued opposition to our food being taxed.

With food prices rising dramatically, and many global experts predicting further sharp increases in 2010, the cost of food for grassroots people will be major issue, which will bubble into the media and become a political issue. We can expect any re-launch of the GST off food campaign to be met with widespread support.

Rahui Katene's private member's bill to remove GST from healthy food will have the best chance of getting the support it needs from MPs – particularly Labour MPs – if there's a high profile campaign outside of parliament. That campaign could include a number of organisations and groups working together.

In 2008, RAM's GST-off-food campaign received support from the Maori Party, Grey Power and individual trade unions. Today, a number of other groups outside of parliament, like the Alliance, Child Poverty Action, Socialist Aotearoa, Global Peace and Justice Auckland, the Workers Party, and the NZ Council of Trade Unions, have positions which are critical of GST. This common ground would suggest there’s potential for a broad coalition in support of removing GST from healthy food. A broad coalition, if achieved, would provide the necessary capacity to mount a serious campaign in support of Rahui Katene's private members' bill.

Campaigning for GST off healthy food would require any coalition to raise tax alternatives to address the prospective government revenue loss. A frontrunner would have to be a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) or Robin Hood Tax, as it's been recently named by a popular campaign in Britain.

A Robin Hood Tax targets the banks and the mega-wealthy. Following the global financial implosion, and the role played by the banks and other financial speculators, the time is right to popularise a tax which hits the most hated global purveyors of greed and exploitation. There's already support among a number of grassroots organisations for a Financial Transaction Tax, many of the same ones that oppose GST. So the potential for cooperation exists.

Initiating a broad campaign to remove GST from healthy food would be an important step towards achieving tax justice for grassroots New Zealanders. In recent months there’s been significant cooperation around Unite’s $15ph minimum wage petition, which has been encouraging. A campaign to remove GST from healthy food would deliver similar tangible benefits to grassroots people and also mount a political challenge to neo-liberalism, especially if combined with advocacy of a Robin Hood Tax that targets the banks and other financial speculators. It’s time to do the right thing and join together in a broad campaign that could spark a wider grassroots political resurgence.

It’s interesting that in the comments to Gordon Campbell’s article, two people who support removing GST from food ask very similar questions. Duncan Graham asks: “[W]here’s the political will to push this proposal?... When are we going to get a party with the energy to really run with an issue, particularly one with such widespread benefits?”

And Liz asks: “When are we going to get a viable opposition party that will push for things like this, strongly and loudly?” Something else for us to think about.

Vaughan Gunson is the national chair of Socialist Worker-New Zealand and the campaign manager for Bad Banks. To contact Vaughan email svpl(at)xtra.co.nz or ph/txt 021-0415 082.

See also Hey, Labour MPs, why not support GST off food?

Michael Albert: Fifth International?!

By Michael Albert 


Znet January 21, 2010 
 To be a contender, “21st Century Socialist” vision needs elaboration, advocacy, and program. To improve focus and increase power, worldwide anti-capitalist organizations, projects, and movements need shared coherence and mutual solidarity. To fulfill these needs, Venezuela’s President Chavez recently announced to widespread support and also some critical response that a gathering in Caracas this April would establish a new International. [See Historic decision to form socialist Fifth International] But what might this new International look like? What might it accomplish? How might people, such as those reading this essay, and particularly people in grassroots movements around the world, relate to it?

Keep reading

Proposal for a Participatory Socialist International

From Znet

We, the undersigned, endorse the idea of a new International and urge that its creation include assessing, refining, augmenting, and then implementing as many of the following points as the International’s participants themselves, after due deliberation, decide mutually agreeable: 

1. A new International should be primarily concerned (at least) with: • economic production, consumption, and allocation, including class relations • kinship nurturance, socialization, house keeping, and procreation, including gender, sexuality, and age • cultural community relations including race, nationality, and religion • politics including relations of law and legislation • international relations including matters of mutual aid, exchange, and immigration • ecology including relations with the natural environment and other species And that the new International should address these concerns without elevating any one focus above the rest, since (a) all will critically affect the character of a new world, (b) unaddressed each could subvert efforts to reach a new world, and (c) the constituencies most affected by each would be intensely alienated if their prime concerns were relegated to secondary importance.
 

2. Our vision for a Participatory Socialist future should (at least) include that: • economic production, consumption, and allocation be classless - which includes equitable access for all to quality education, health care, food, water, sanitation, housing, meaningful and dignified work, and the instruments and conditions for personal fulfillment • gender/kinship, sexual, and family relations not privilege by age, sexual preference, or gender any one group above others - which includes ending all forms of oppression of women while providing day care, recreation, health care, etc. • culture and community relations among races, ethnic groups, religions, and other cultural communities protect the rights and identity of each community up to equally respecting those of all other communities - which includes an end to racist, ethnocentric, and otherwise bigoted structures while simultaneously securing the prosperity and rights of indigenous people • political decision making, adjudication of disputes, and implementation of shared programs deliver “people’s power” in ways that do not elevate any one sector or constituency above others - which includes participation and justice for all • international trade, communication, and other interactions attain peace and justice while dismantling all vestiges of colonialism and imperialism - which includes canceling the debt of nations of the global south and reconstructing international norms and relations to move toward an equitable and just community of equally endowed nations • ecological choices not only be sustainable, but care for the environment in accord with our highest aspirations for ourselves and our world - which includes climate justice and energy innovation
 3. The guiding values and principles informing internal strategic and programmatic deliberations of an International highlight at least the following values which includes implementing whatever structural steps prove essential to organizationally embody the values as well as possible in the present: • solidarity, to help align worldwide movements and projects into mutual aid and collective benefit • diversity, to spur creative innovation, respect dissent, and recognize that minority views thought to be crazy today can lead to what is brilliant tomorrow • equity, to seek wealth and income fairness • peace with justice, to realize international fairness and fulfillment • ecological sustainability and wisdom, to seek human survival and interconnection • “democracy” or perhaps even a more inspiring conception of “people’s power,” “participatory democracy,” or “self management,” to foster participation and equitable influence for all
 4. That a new International be the greatest sum of all its parts, including rejecting confining itself to a single line to capture all views in one narrow pattern. To achieve this the new International should: • include and celebrate “currents” to serve as vehicles for contending views, help ward off sectarianism, and aid constant growth 
 • establish that currents should respect the intentions of other currents, assume that differences over policy are about substance and not motive, and pursue substantive debate as a serious part of the whole project
 • afford each current means to openly engage with all other currents to try to advance new insights bearing on policy and program. 
 • guarantee that as long as any particular current accepts the basic tenets of the International and operates in accord with its norms and methods, its minority positions would be given space not only to argue, but, if they don’t prevail, to continue developing their views to establish their merit or discover their inadequacies
 5. Members of the new International would be political parties, movements, organizations, or even projects, where: • members, employees, staff, etc., of each new International member organization would in turn gain membership in the International
 • individuals who want to be members of the International but have no member group that they belong too, would have to join one
 • every member group would have its own agenda for its separate operations which would be inviolable 
 • at the same time, each member group would be strongly urged to make its own operations consistent with the norms, practices, and agendas of the International,establishing solidarity but also autonomy. 
 • member groups would have a wide range of sizes - but since the International’s decisions would not bind groups other than regarding the collective International agenda, a good way to arrive at decisions might be serious discussion and exploration, followed by polls of the whole International membership to see peoples’ leanings, followed by refinements of proposals to seek greater support and to allow dissidents to make their case, culminating in final votes of the membership 6. Programmatically, of course what a new International chooses to do will be contextual and a product of its members desires, but, for example: • a new International might call for international events and days of dissent, for support campaigns for existing struggles by member organizations, and for support of member organizations against repression, as well as undertake widespread debates and campaigns to advance related understanding and mutual knowledge... 
 • more ambitiously, an International might also undertake, for example, a massive international focus on immigration, on ending a war, on shortening the work week worldwide, and/or on averting climatic catastrophe, among other possibilities. It might prepare materials, undertake education, pursue actions, carry out boycotts, support local endeavors, etc.
 • general program would be up to member organizations to decide how to relate to, yet there would be considerable collective momentum for each member organization to participate and contribute as best it could in collective campaigns and projects since clearly one reason to have an International is to help organizations, movements, and projects worldwide escape single-issue loneliness by becoming part of a larger process encompassing diverse focuses and united by agreements to implement various shared endeavors. === To Endorse please: Click Here!

Socialist Worker's 2010 National Conference, 6-7 February

Socialist Worker-New Zealand is holding its 2010 National Conference on 6-7 February (Waitangi Weekend) in Auckland. The twin themes of the conference are capitalism's collapse tendencies and building a broad left alternative to neo-liberalism.

The conference is open to all members of Socialist Worker. If you are interested in joining Socialist Worker prior to conference, or would like more information, please contact Vaughan Gunson, email svpl(at)xtra.co.nz or ph/txt 021-0415 082.

You may wish to read Socialist Worker's ten point programme Where We Stand.

Venezuela’s Chavez calls for '5th International' of Left Parties

by Kiraz Janicke Venezuelanalysis.com 23 November 2009 Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called for the formation of a “Fifth International” of left parties and social movements to confront the challenge posed by the global crisis of capitalism. The president made the announcement during an international conference of more than fifty left organisations from thirty-one countries held in Caracas over November 19-21. “I assume responsibility before the world. I think it is time to convene the Fifth International, and I dare to make the call, which I think is a necessity. I dare to request that we create my proposal,” Chavez said. The head of state insisted that the conference of left parties should not be “just one more meeting,” and he invited participating organizations to create a truly new project. “This socialist encounter should be of the genuine left, willing to fight against imperialism and capitalism,” he said. During his speech, Chavez briefly outlined the experiences of previous “internationals,” including the First International founded in 1864 by Karl Marx; the Second International founded in 1889, which collapsed in 1916 as various left parties and trade unions sided with their respective capitalist classes in the inter-imperialist conflict of the First World War; the Third International founded by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, which Chavez said “degenerated” under Stalinism and “betrayed” struggles for socialism around the world; and the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938, which suffered numerous splits and no longer exists, although some small groups claim to represent its political continuity. Chavez said that a new international would have to function “without impositions” and would have to respect diversity. Representatives from a number of major parties in Latin America voiced their support for the proposal, including the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) of Bolivia, the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) of El Salvador, the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) of Nicaragua, and Alianza Pais of Ecuador. Smaller parties from Latin America and around the world also indicated their support for the idea, including the Proposal for an Alternative Society (PAS) of Chile, New Nation Alternative (ANN) of Guatemala, and Australia’s Socialist Alliance, among others. Sandinista leader Miguel D´Escoto said, “Capitalism has brought the human species to the precipice of extinction… we have to take control of our own destiny.” “There is no time to lose,” D’Escoto added as he conveyed his support for the proposal of forming a fifth international. “We have to overcome the tendency of defeatism. Many times I have noted a tendency of defeatism amongst comrades of the left in relation to the tasks we face,” he continued. Salvador Sánchez, from the FMLN, said “We are going to be important actors in the Fifth International. We cannot continue waiting – all the forces of the left. The aspiration of the peoples is to walk down a different path. We must not hesitate in forming the Fifth International. The people have pronounced themselves in favour of change and the parties of the left must be there with them.” Other organisations, including Portugal’s Left Block, Germany’s Die Linke, and France’s Partido Gauche expressed interest in the proposal but said they would consult with their various parties. A representative of the Cuban Communist Party described the proposal as “excellent,” but as yet the party has made no formal statement. Many communist parties, including those from Greece and Brazil, expressed strong opposition to the proposal. The Venezuelan Communist Party said it was willing to discuss the proposal but expressed strong reservations. The Alternative Democratic Pole (PDA) from Colombia expressed its willingness to work with other left parties, but said it would “reserve” its decision to participate in an international organisation of left parties. Valter Pomar, a representative from the Workers Party of Brazil (PT), said its priority is the Sao Paolo Forum – a forum of various Latin American left, socialist, communist, centre-left, labour, social democratic and nationalist parties launched by the PT in 1990. A resolution was passed at the conference to form a preparatory committee to convoke a global conference of left parties in Caracas in April 2010, to discuss the formation of a new international. The resolution also allowed for other parties that remain undecided to discuss the proposal and incorporate themselves at a later date. Chavez emphasised the importance of being inclusive and said the April conference had to go far beyond the parties and organisations that participated in last week’s conference. In particular, he said it was an error that there were no revolutionary organisations from the United States present. The conference of left parties also passed a resolution titled the Caracas Commitment, “to reaffirm our conviction to definitively build and win Socialism of the 21st Century,” in the face of “the generalized crisis of the global capitalist system.” “One of the epicentres of the global capitalist crisis is the economic sphere. This highlights the limitations of unbridled free markets dominated by monopolies of private property,” the resolution stated. Also incorporated was a proposed amendment by the Australian delegation which read, “In synthesis, the crisis of capitalism cannot be reduced to a simple financial crisis, it is a structural crisis of capital that combines the economic crisis, with an ecological crisis, a food crisis and an energy crisis, which together represent a mortal threat to humanity and nature. In the face of this crisis, the movements and parties of the left see the defence of nature and the construction of an ecologically sustainable society as a fundamental axis of our struggle for a better world.” The Caracas Commitment expressed “solidarity with the peoples of the world who have suffered and are suffering from imperialist aggression, especially the more than 50 years of the genocidal blockade against Cuba…the massacre of the Palestinian people, the illegal occupation of part of the territory of the Western Sahara, and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, which today is expanding into Pakistan.” The conference of left parties also denounced the decision of the Mexican government to shut down the state-owned electricity company and fire 45,000 workers, as an attempt to “intimidate” the workers and as an “offensive of imperialism,” to advance neoliberal privatisation in Central America. In the framework of the Caracas Commitment, the left parties present agreed, among other things, to: • Organise a global week of mobilisation from December 12-17 in repudiation of the installation of U.S. military bases in Colombia, Panama and around the world. • Campaign for an “international trial against George Bush for crimes against humanity, as the person principally responsible for the genocide against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan”. • Commemorate 100 years since the proposal by Clara Zetkin to celebrate International Women’s Day on March 8, through forums, mobilizations and other activities in their respective countries. • Organise global solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution in the face of permanent imperialist attacks. • Organise global solidarity with the people of Honduras who are resisting a U.S.-backed military coup, to campaign for the restoration of the democratically elected president of Honduras, José Manuel Zelaya and to organise a global vigil on the day of the elections in Honduras, “with which they aim to legitimise the coup d´etat.” • Demand an “immediate and unconditional end to the criminal Yankee blockade” of Cuba and for the “immediate liberation” of the Cuban Five, referring to the five anti-terrorist activists imprisoned in the United States. • Accompany the Haitian people in their struggle for the return of President Jean Bertrand Aristide “who was kidnapped and removed from his post as president of Haiti by North American imperialism.” See also Message from Socialist Worker-New Zealand to PSUV founding conference.

Response to Socialist Aotearoa

Joe Carolan at Socialist Aotearoa has called for a “United Front on the Left” in response to recent attacks on unions and the threat of John Banks ruling the Auckland supercity.

1. Socialist Aotearoa would like to see the Campaign for a Living Wage achieve its target of 300,000 plus signatures to initiate a Citizen's Referendum to increase the minimum wage. 2. We would also like to see the struggles of the busdrivers, firefighters, telecom engineers, dairy workers and others unite in one union led mass protest on the streets -- joint strike action would send the National led government an even stronger message. 3. The need for the Left to overthrow John Banks and the right wing Supercity agenda in Auckland is also urgent. We would welcome debate and discussion from others on the Left and in the Trade union movements about these three theatres of class struggle.

I posted the following response on their blog, and encourage UNIYTblog readers to post your thoughts on both blogs.

Joe’s three points for unity are good ones, although they are not the end of the list. Here’s three more: * Socialist Worker’s Auckland branch has initiated a Bad Banks campaign, but is inviting others on the Left to join in. * Climate change threatens all who live on this planet, and a pollution market(whether the National-Maori Party version or the Labour-Green version) is a completely inadequate response. We need an eco-socialist alternative. * The Government is considering increasing GST, while Maori Party MP Rahui Katene is has put forward a Bill to remove GST from food. These events have RAM considering a revival of its popular campaign on the issue. It’s probably a bit optimistic to imagine that everyone on the “left” or even every socialist would unite around all these issues, but it should be possible to form broad coalitions around each issue. One thing that you would hope everyone who considers themselves “on the left” would be able to agree on would be supporting the various groups of workers currently under attack. The next question is how can socialists work together to promote a millitant response, such as united mass protest and strike action by unions, which may not necissarily be the prefered option of the union leaders involved?

Time for a United Front on the Left says Socialist Aotearoa

Joe Carolan, Socialist Aotearoa

See original post at the Socialist Aotearoa blog Our busdrivers are threatened with lockout. Our firefighters who risk their lives for us have to strike for a pittance. Our Telecom engineers are forced to give up their sick pay and holidays and become private contractors at the very time we need a decent broadband system. And those who work the hardest and dirtiest jobs are paid the lowest- hundreds of thousands of workers try to make ends meet on a minimum wage of $12.50, or not much more. The anger is building noticably in the last few weeks, and this time, it's not just socialists or revolutionaries or the usual suspects on the Left who are talking about it. There's a real mood in Auckland city to unite these struggles, and there's a lot of people talking to each other again about making something happen. Socialist Aotearoa activists have been out talking to people in other unions and in other parties of the Left. Initatives such as the Campaign for a Living Wage are seeing the beginnings of a United Front effort to organise the working poor. Of course, in a United Front, the different political and social organisations will maintain their individual identities and viewpoints. But the need for the Left to unite and begin organising the fightback against this rotten government and its policies takes precedence. 1. Socialist Aotearoa would like to see the Campaign for a Living Wage achieve its target of 300,000 plus signatures to initiate a Citizen’s Referendum to increase the minimum wage. 2. We would also like to see the struggles of the busdrivers, firefighters, telecom engineers, dairy workers and others unite in one union led mass protest on the streets- joint strike action would send the National led government an even stronger message. 3. The need for the Left to overthrow John Banks and the right wing Supercity agenda in Auckland is also urgent. We would welcome debate and discussion from others on the Left and in the Trade union movements about these three theatres of class struggle. Solidarity Joe Carolan, Socialist Aotearoa

Caracas to host world meeting of left parties

by Federico Fuentes, Caracas from Green Left Weekly 9 September 2009 Caracas will play host to one of the most important international gatherings of left parties in years, when delegates from across the world meet for the First International Meeting of Left Parties in November this year. The meeting has been called by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), a mass revolutionary party headed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The gathering was agreed upon at the recent Sao Paulo Forum (FSP) held in Mexico City over August 20-22. There, the PSUV delegation presented the proposal to organise an international meeting of left parties. The FSP was first established in 1990 at the initiative of the Workers’ Party (PT) of Brazil. At the time, the PT had a good reputation on the international left. It was forged out of the workers’ struggles against the Brazilian dictatorship and had developed into a mass workers’ party that spoke of the need to break with capitalism. Since then, the FSP has evolved in a reformist direction, although several important revolutionary parties such as the Cuban Communist Party continue to be involved. Some of the member parties — like the PT — are now in government in Latin America and are carrying out policies they once strongly denounced. The new call by the PSUV for an international gathering of left parties comes in a different context. In August 2007, Chavez said it was necessary to convene ``a meeting of left parties of Latin America and organise a type of international, an organisation of parties and movements of the left in Latin American and the Caribbean”. He added that “there is a resurgence of the consciousness of the peoples; the movements, leaders and leaderships of this new left, of this new project, this need to continue to grow”. There is a revival of socialist ideas that, at least in Venezuela, has become embodied in the actions of millions who are fighting to create “socialism of the 21st century”. Millions more people worldwide look to Venezuela as proof that revolutionary change is possible. The challenge is to see how this force can be organised, in each country and internationally, into a powerful force capable of defeating capitalism. See also Message from Socialist Worker-New Zealand to PSUV founding conference (12.2.08)

Why we need to battle the banks

by Vaughan Gunson The recession is taking grip in New Zealand. People are losing their jobs. In some grassroots communities unemployment is already turning into a social crisis. 138,000 people are officially unemployed. Thousands more will be desperately looking for work. And the situation is going to get grimmer as the economy slumps further. Job losses and income cuts are putting many homeowners in a terrible situation. They can’t meet their mortgage payments. The banks are knocking at the door. And with property values falling some people are left owing more money to the banks than their home is worth. They face financial ruin. For grassroots people, this is all very frightening and unfair. Grassroots mood against the banks Jobs and homes are gut issues for people. Rising concern about these gut issues is intersecting with a mass mood against the banks. Last year, RAM activists took a survey out on to the streets, which questioned people about the operations of the banks in this country. Over 90% of people thought the banks were doing no good. That sentiment has probably hardened. It can be picked up in everyday conversations. It’s reflected in the stories being carried in the media. You know there’s a mass mood on an issue in New Zealand when two things happen. The first is when it becomes a storyline on Shortland Street. Scotty and Shanti are in trouble with the bank, owing more than their house is worth. The second indicator of a mass mood is when you start hearing calls for a public enquiry. This is what the Green, Labour and Progressive parties have been voicing. They want an independent public enquiry into the banks. They’ve sensed the mood and the political opportunities that it presents. Not right In the eyes of grassroots people it’s not right that in these times of increasing hardship the banks are continuing their profit run. The Big Four Australian-owned banks, ANZ National Bank, BNZ, Westpac and ASB, control 90% of the banking industry in New Zealand, putting them in a near-monopoly position. With so much market control, there’s no pressure to lower interest rates. In 2008, the income the Big Four banks received from loan interest went up a whopping $4.6 million. As a result the profits of these Aussie-owned banks totalled over $3 billion in 2008, up 3.7% on the year before. To add fuel to the fire, the Big Four are trying to avoid paying a tax bill of $2.25 billion. BNZ has been convicted by the High Court and told to pay up. Undaunted, the banks are using their extreme wealth to hire teams of lawyers to fight the ruling. The feelings people have towards the banks has been heading South for sometime. This was before the banks started turfing people out of their homes. To maintain their own equity position the banks are getting tough and forcing mortgage sales in rapidly increasing numbers. In April this year, there were 250 foreclosures. The numbers are only going to escalate as mortgage pressures worsen with further waves of job losses. The banks are the bad guys. They could become public enemy number one. A Bad Banks campaign In isolation grassroots people have no power against the banks and the laws written to protect the money men. But mass feelings are strong. It is the job of mass Marxists to tap into those mass feelings. That’s why Socialist Worker is launching a “Bad Banks” campaign. We believe the Aussie banks are vulnerable to a broad and inclusive campaign that connects with the anger ordinary people feel towards these mega-rich interest gougers. A campaign to expose and shame the banks must be out on the streets. We’ll produce mass leaflets and posters. There will be street stalls. We can build towards publicity pickets outside targeted banks. We will organise public meetings. Send out media releases, write submissions. We will liaise with others on the left about organising jointly hosted campaign conventions. The campaign will have a web presence http://www.badbanks.co.nz/. A Bad Banks Facebook group is up and running (log into Facebook and search for “Bad Banks”). We will pursue multiple publicity strands that aim to connect with masses of grassroots people. The first stage of the campaign will be educative. We’ll tell people what the banks are up to. We’ll even explain in popular language “fractional reserve lending”, the credit creation mechanism which literally allows the banks to make money out of thin air. Our leaflets and other publicity will connect the operations of the banks to the Great Implosion. Explaining what’s happening globally and pointing the finger at who’s responsible. Knowledge, as they say, is the first step to empowerment. As the Bad Banks campaign evolves we begin to put forward concrete demands and campaign goals. These will emerge through dialogue with other leftists and through listening to grassroots people themselves. Broad left cooperation A multi-headed campaign against the banks has the potential to bring networks of indebted homeowners, political parties, unions, community groups and grassroots activists together. The campaign on the streets should work in tandem with the good initiative of the Green, Labour and Progressive parties to set up their own independent public enquiry into the banks. Parliamentary and street campaigning can both work to build a movement. Linking these two essential political arenas will get the best out of each. The Bad Banks campaign (or some other campaign name that emerges through discussions with others) could become an invigorating example of broad left political cooperation in practice. This would be extremely positive. Joint work, sharing of ideas and on-the-ground collective organisation around this “flashpoint” political issue will hopefully encourage a further coming together of broad left forces. Such political cooperation is needed if the left is to rise to the challenge of the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Banks and the “bubble economy” The role the banks and international money men have played in the Great Implosion needs to be widely exposed. The banks are at the centre of the “bubble economy” built on trillions of dollars of debt and speculation. The floundering of the real economy since the 1970s has seen workers, business and the state increasingly reliant on the extension of credit. Over the last four decades debt has ballooned. This has allowed the banks and other money lenders, facilitated by governments, to assume a dynamic role within late capitalism. So entwined are industry giants, big banks and governments, that when the credit crunch hit last year, following the bursting of the worldwide housing bubble, the leaders of the world’s big economies raced to save the banks. In January this year, Oxfam calculated that $8.424 trillion had so far been raised by governments to bailout the banks and other financial institutions. That’s a vast sum, one which could easily put an end to world poverty. And the bailouts haven’t stopped. In the US alone, the Obama administration’s bailout commitments could reach as high as $23.7 trillion, according to an official independent report. However, the bailouts have not prevented the economy from nose-diving, far from it. There’s a global pandemic of job losses and other social miseries. Smaller banks and other financial institutions continue to go under. Yet some of the big banks, like Goldman Sachs, one of the main players behind the housing bubble, are now posting record profits. With trillions and trillions of government money floating around, these experts at financial manipulation are creaming it. Helped by government insiders the really big banks are now set on dominating like never before the creation of credit, the fragile base upon which the world economy rests. The banks left standing are profiting out of lending to cash-strapped governments at high interest rates. They’re speculating again in financial markets. It’s “win-win” for them and “lose-lose” for the rest of us. Given all the social and environmental problems besetting the world the bailout of bankers is a crime against humanity of obscene proportions. Debating the nature of capitalism A system that can divert trillions of dollars to a mega-rich minority and let the majority fend for themselves in an increasingly scary world is an unjust one. Without a doubt the global economic crisis, and the response by governments, is eroding the legitimacy of the market. And it’s happening in the so called “first world” economies of Northern America and Europe. That’s significant. A broad campaign against the banks in this country will, if successful, begin to expose the structures of power within monopoly finance capitalism that locks in place gross inequalities globally. A mass-based campaign against Bad Banks has the potential to stimulate a nationwide debate about the nature of capitalism and the need for a human centred economy. Socialists and leftists from a number of political traditions will want to see this happen. Lots to learn, lots to get excited about The Bad Banks campaign that Socialist Worker is initiating will be a long term one. We will be trying things out as we search, hopefully alongside other activists, for a connection with a mass audience. There’s lots to learn about the operations of the banks in this country and internationally, and how to connect their operations to a system in crisis. It’s going to be a big learning curve for everyone involved. While the Bad Banks campaign is only just hitting the streets, it’s yet to be fully tested in practice, we do know there’s great resentment towards the banks amongst ordinary Kiwis. We should have confidence that this path will bear fruit for the left in this country. That prospect should be an exciting one. Vaughan Gunson is the publicity coordinator for the Bad Banks campaign. To contact him with feedback or offers to help, email socialist-worker(at)pl.net or ph/txt 021-0415 082.

Marxism Alive 2009 conference video, Part 3

This third and final post of video footage from Socialist Worker's Marxism Alive 2009 conference, held on June 27, features Green MP Catherine Delahunty and Labour MP Darien Fenton speaking in the third conference session: Transitioning to a human centred economy in Aotearoa

Green MP Catherine Delahunty

Labour MP Darien Fenton

Marxism Alive 2009 conference video, Part 2

Several dozen activists attended Socialist Worker's Marxism Alive conference on June 27. It was broadest gathering of the Left in Auckland in recent memory. Over the course of the day-long educational forum, the panel speakers and participants contributed to a penetrating analysis of trends and charted moves to unify the Left. Here is the second in a series of video highlights from key conference debates.

Conference participants discuss Broad Left unity

Don Archer, Socialist Worker

David, Socialist Worker

Grant Brookes, Socialist Worker

Calls for British left to come together after electoral wins by British Nazi party

The breakthrough for the Nazi British National Party in the European elections held earlier this month has sparked a renewed push to bring Britain's radical Left together. Significant statements have come from three of the main groups – Respect (the party of George Galloway MP), the British Socialist Workers Party, and No2EU:Yes to Democracy (an electoral coalition backed by the Communist Party of Britain, the Socialist Party and the railway workers union). BNP victory shows the need for Broad Left to work together, by Councillor Salma Yaqoob, Respect Party leader. Left must unite to create an alternative: An open letter to the left from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Call for unity to Defeat BNP, press statement by No2EU: Yes to Democracy coalition convener Bob Crow.

Trade unions and New Zealand’s economic crisis

by Grant Brookes from UNITY Journal May 2009 Comparisons now abound between the global economic crisis of 2009 and the Great Depression of the 1930s. Naturally, there are similarities and differences. The following bleak assessment of the role of trade unions in the early 1930s comes from the best known book by one of New Zealand’s foremost social historians of the 20th century: When their interests were attacked in 1931, they [the trade unions] passed resolutions. In March 1932, after a sec­ond civil service wages cut, a 10 percent reduction in all Arbitration Court awards, and the abolition of compulsory arbitration to bring wages down more rapidly, a confer­ence of the Alliance of Labour, the Trades and Labour Councils, and the civil service again sidetracked a strike proposal and spent a good deal of time in discussing forms of organization. The unions had been wet-nursed by an anaemic Arbitration Court, and now that this had gone their weakness was apparent. Union secretaries had become advocates before a court rather than militant leaders in collective bargaining with the strike weapon in the background and the organization experience and rank and file discipline that this entails... Union membership dropped to lower levels, for trade unions seemed to offer little protection. First published in 1942, The Quest for Security in New Zealand by W. B. Sutch was still in use as a history textbook at my high school in the 1980s. The vital questions today are whether the role of unions in 2009 will be similar to its authoritative assessment or different, and what union and radical activists can do about it.

Continue