Neocons or fascists?

Despite the alarmists, Pastor Brian Tamaki and his followers are not fascists. While in the recent march in Wellington Destiny Church members wore black and kept waving their fists in the air, black shirts and one-armed salutes by themselves are not fascist, any more than having a number 2 haircut is a sign of descent into such behavior. To be fascists Destiny Church would have to mobilise violently against not only gays and lesbians, but jews, migrants, and most of all communists.

During the heyday of fascism in the 1930’s Trotsky wrote that fascism arises in response to extreme crisis and organises the ruined middle class into a political movement to smash the labour movement to prevent a socialist revolution. “Fascism has for its basic and only task the razing to their foundations of all institutions of proletarian democracy.”(See L. Trotsky, Struggles Against Fascism in Germany.p. 159). The Destiny Church marchers are stormtroopers-in-a-teacup and fall far short of a fascist movement.

The Destiny Church are fundamentalist Christians. A bunch of narrow minded, bigoted individuals who like to worship so-called “family values.” Of course, when they talk of families they mean what they define as a family. Their notion of Mum, Dad and 2.5 children is some sort of throwback to a by-gone era which never really existed anyway. While glorifying a 1950’s heterosexual nuclear family structure they seem to conveniently forget that within this structure domestic abuse and abuse of children was often ignored and sometimes tolerated.

They also pick and choose their rules and values from the bible with gay abandon (pun intended), discounting what they don’t like (I bet Brian eats pork) and taking with extreme literalism what can only be described as cultural prohibitions written for a culture which existed a couple of thousand years ago.

They represent the extreme end of a wedge in our society which seeks to fetishise and almost deify the family. In this respect they are the wet dream of capitalists, who know these fanatics with their quasi-Calvinist work ethic are willing wage slaves given that they need to support their families. They help keep the wheels of capitalism turning and oil the machinery of their own oppression.

10% for Jesus on a Harley

Brian Tamaki is a businessman and the Destiny Church is like similar churches all over the world run along capitalist lines with the focus being on “strong leaders” (who are usually wealthy living off their members’ ‘tithes’ on their wages). Their approach to dealing with inequality is to look to charity as a way of helping out rather than questioning the structures in society that gives raise to the inequality in the first place.

It comes as no surprise that fundamentalists in the United States are squarely behind George Bush. They not only share his right wing moral views, they also bleat on about “personal responsibility.” If you are in the gutter, it is because you have put yourself there (or god has to test you). But the good news is that with god’s help you can be “blessed” with wealth. They see nothing wrong with being rich; in fact it is merely a sign that you are in the favour of the almighty.

From a sociological point of view, Tamaki is a recognizable and well-studied type. His church is largely a personality cult which revolves around him. He may be genuine, but it is probably the case that his followers are as much converted to him as fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Studies have shown that churches such as these often revolve around a central charismatic figure like Tamaki.

One morning, up early and watching TV for some reason I glanced at the Tamaki Tele-vangelist show. Brian was praising a couple who had been to a meeting he held in Rotorua, and had been so impressed they sold everything and moved to Auckland so they could attend the Destiny church and be closer to Brian. They seemed to delight in such menial tasks as parking the big man’s car. This cannot be healthy!

Smite the deviants save the family

They are the most visible face of opposition to the civil union legislation. The extent of the opposition has surprised many. Although most of those opposed do not subscribe to the extreme platform of the Destiny Church members, they are clearly not happy with gays and lesbians having some sort of state recognition of their relationships.

Many people seem to believe legislation such as the Civil Union bill signifies what is wrong in our society. Everything from crime and young people out of control to teen pregnancies are pointed to as examples of societal decay. Words like “promiscuous” and “immorality” have made a comeback. These terms haven’t had such a strong airing since the Homosexual law reform debate of 1985-86. It’s worth noting that many of the critics of that legislation predicted the imminent collapse of New Zealand society as a result of the passing of that legislation.

Rather than turning their anger on the real enemy (the capitalist system) they put their energy into fighting a battle against human nature. They fail to see that crime and other social ills are largely the result of a system which is manifestly unjust.

Steven Franks: Arthur or Martha?

And where are the liberals of the right on this issue? Right-wingers like Steven Franks don’t know whether they’re Arthur or Martha. Franks sees gays and Lesbians as just another group of consumers, but he also knows many of Acts supporters subscribe to a right-wing moral ideology.

Speaking on Linda Clarke’s Nine to Noon programme on Tuesday 24 August, Franks was all over the show saying he would support this bit of the legislation but not another part of it. He was clearly uncomfortable and so he should be. His hypocritical position shows up the internal contradictions of the Act party. On one hand they like to paint themselves as the “liberal” party, in favour of freedom, but when the crunch comes they retreat back into the shadows of the right. There freedom clearly extends to only to certain people and certain ‘acts’.

But while the right is largely united against the legislation, the left is divided.

Left divided

The left positions can be broadly summarized into three groupings.

The first (and largest) are those who support the legislation, such as gay MP Chris Carter. The second are those who believe that the Bill doesn’t go far enough and it should be marriage or nothing. Marilyn Waring spoke against the legislation at Select Committee hearings on the grounds that it was not giving equality to gays and lesbians (in that they were still excluded from marriage). The third point of view tends to find favour amongst radical gays and lesbians who don’t want to buy into heterosexual structures such as marriage.

These views all have valid points. Marriage is a bourgeoisie institution, so on that point there can be some agreement with the “queer” activists. And because ‘civil unions’ is not marriage, Marilyn Waring is right in this respect, that there will be inequality for gays and lesbians in the law.

Finally the Carter position that the legislation is a step forward for gays and lesbians is valid. After all, why should gays and lesbians be excluded from having their relationships recognized, even if it is by a state that props up a system of capitalist inequality.

It is interesting to note that when briefing papers were first put before Attorney General Margaret Wilson, one proposal, perhaps the most radical, was for the state to endorse a form of civil unions and for marriage to be consigned to a secondary position. This would mean people could go to a church to marry if they wanted but the state would have it’s own endorsement which would take precedence.

This idea would not rest comfortably with a lot of people because it strikes at many people’s aforementioned idealisation of marriage.

So, should workers support the civil union legislation.

Yes we should. The right of all couples to have a civil union which is recognized by the state, regardless of whether they are gay, lesbian or straight, is an extension of democratic civil rights.

The fact that ‘civil union’ gives couples legal equality without the need for marriage must be a good thing. It undermines the institution of marriage, and with it the often repressive gender relations that marriage sanctions. Anything that hastens the end of the bourgeois family is to be welcomed!

We need to recognize the nature of the attacks against the legislation for what they are. They attack the gay and lesbian community and single them out for lies and hatred. This was the case in 1985 when Homosexual Law reform was before Parliament and it is the case now. These are done in the name of ‘family values’ that reinforce the family as a bulwark of capitalist oppression. We need to defend our gay brothers and lesbian sisters from these attacks and stand with them against the bigots.

The fundmentalist attack on ‘civil unions’ today might under conditions of social crisis in the future become part of a more general reactionary attack on the democratic rights of all minorities. To prevent such a generalised reaction from becoming a full blown fascism workers have to organize to stamp out all expressions of intolerance and hatred now.

Nor should we foster any illusions that the capitalist state can ever deliver freedom from oppression for gays and lesbians. When the working class mobilises to get rid of the capitalist state and create a new society, individuals will no longer need the crutch of religion, and will be able to freely associate in ‘unions’ of their choice without discrimination.

Dear Class Struggle comrades,

I thought I’d bring you up to date with some of the events in myWest Aucklandlocal of Unite! CommunityUnion. Unite! was founded as a union for beneficiaries and low-income earners. In recent times Unite! has been controlled by Matt McCarten, and has been divided into two sections, a Community union for beneficiaries and some low-income earners, and a ‘workers’ union for employees as diverse as English language teachers, chefs, and hotel staff.

Our local is opposed to the expansion of Unite! into these new areas, because it has involved poaching members from other unions, a practice which is always counter-productive, and which is giving Unite! a bad reputation in the union movement. We are also concerned at the recent attempts of Unite! organiser and McCarten ally Mike Treen to bring prison guards into the union. We see prison guards as no better than cops, and we don’t think they belong in the workers’ movement.

We are alarmed by the way that unemployed and other beneficiaries are now being marginalised through the whole of Unite! We insist that Unite! was formed in the first place to organise and unite low-paid workers, unemployed workers and beneficiaries – in fact, we would argue that Unite! has no other reason to exist.

Our local is standing candidates in the upcoming Unite! national executive elections - we hope to join with leftists from other parts of the union to highlight the errors of the union leadership and increase the weight of the opposition on the national executive.

Our branch suffers from chronic poverty, so that even getting members to meetings is difficult. We have no full-timers, our secretary is an honorary secretary only, none of our members has been a union delegate in the past, and until recently we have not been constituted as a local.

We find it difficult to get out propaganda and we have little or no capacity to ‘help’ people who are just going to pay a fee and not be active members – hence we don’t get fees, and we have the bare number needed to form a local. Our five leading members have been relying mainly on a benefit, and one has been ‘Jobs Jolted’ onto anAMEScourse far below his intellectual capacity and education. Another is a PhD student and thus on a limited income.

We were very pleased, then, when we were recently recognised as a local, and received our first refunds from union headquarters. We now need to elect a treasurer along with a president, vice-president and secretary.

Despite our money woes, we have been very active so far this year. We made a special point of attending this year’s May Day demonstration, because we believe that beneficiaries and low income earners have to be recognised as an important part of the workers’ movement. The weather on May the first was bad, and the official demonstration was called off without authorisation by union officials belonging to the May Day Committee. An alternative march to the nearbyUSconsulate to oppose the war onIraqwas proposed by some of our members and despite the heavy rain part of the rally marched there and listened to speakers from a variety of workers’ organisations.

Several of us participated in the recent Global Peace and Justice Auckland demonstration against the war and the phoney handover of power inIraq. One of our members spoke to the demonstration, noting that our local arose out of the anti-war movement, and emphasising our solidarity with the unemployed workers ofIraq. Some of our members have attempted to investigate a ‘Work Track’ centre in New Lynn, a major working class area ofWest Auckland. We are concerned about the way that under the ‘Jobs Jolt’ the organisations running various compulsory courses have the right to ask WINZ to cut the benefits of beneficiaries who break course rules.

After observing work track courses ‘from the inside’ we believe that the providers of the courses must be creaming it off – they provide so little in the way of services, despite the generous contracts WINZ gives them!

We issued a press statement condemning the Budget for doing nothing for beneficiaries. We are being vigilant about the possibility that the special benefit may be cut – at present many of those able to get the special benefit rely on it as a top-up, to get them a socially acceptable standard of living.

Our branch decided to participate as strongly as it could in Unite’s attempt to unionise Burger King – four members of our group attended the initial briefing and five members participated with varying success. We deemed the Burger King drive a useful exercise, and it was very educational to see how the union access clause of the Employment Relations Act operated.

An important event in the life of our group took place on May the 8^th, when Warren Duffy represented us at the big anti-racism march called inChristchurchby Asians tired of harrassment and assaults. We raised the $300 for Warren Duffy to represent us at the demonstration, and he was able to repay us by making some personal links with left-wing Unite! members in other parts of the country. A new anti-racism march will take place inWellingtonon October the 23^rd, in response to the desecration of Jewish graves, immigration laws that humiliate Pacific Islanders, the Maori-bashing encouraged by politicians like Don Brash, and the activities of the neo-nazi National Front.

I am hoping that our local will be able to send members to this march, and that we will not be alone in representing the labour movement.

It is clear that racism is on the rise in Aotearoa because of the gaps in class consciousness created by the defeats of the union movement and atomisation of the working class in the 80s and 90s. The building of a strong union movement is the best long-term antidote to both the National Party and the National Front, but a strong union movement can only be built on an internationalist basis.

Sadly, our union movement is lacking in internationalism. Even some of our best unions cross the line - witness the Service and Food Workers Union's recent press release attacking the importing of foreign workers by an understaffed Sealords factory in Timaru, a press release issued in the same week as an appeal for international solidarity with a sacked union member!

Then we have Maritime Union of New Zealand, which mixes a good position on the war in Iraq with the economic nationalist campaign for cabotage. Don't get me started on the Amalgamated Workers Union, which helps the cops sniff out 'illegal' workers on Auckland's building sites. We can't oppose racism if our movement espouses racist policies. We should be uniting with workers of all races and nations, not with cops and prison screws!

I urge comrades in other unions to send representatives to Wellington on October the 23^rd.

Best Wishes,

Unite! rank and filer

To the CWG,

Once again we are bombarded with the outdated rhetoric of the communist party, now focusing on Tariana's reasonable comment to work with anyone, including National, to obtain equality and justice in Aotearoa.

Where is the alternative system of the communist party? I hear a lot of bullshit from the sidelines yet very little in the way of an alternative game plan.

You’re not still waiting for your 'revolution' are you? Do you mean to say that the vast majority of the masses would rise up against the system that supplies them security, income and a future to your unarticulated communist system?

Surely, you are not suggesting another failed communist experiment experienced in Russia, China and North Korea to happen here in Aotearoa?

Communist dictators make Donald Brash look like a lollipop. And you want the New Zealand public to take you seriously?

No, I’m afraid your ramblings are blinded by ideology and obviously flawed in the political reality of this country.

My advice to you is to wake up and get off the sidelines, and have a real go at the opposition like we are. Basically put up or shut up.

We need all hands on deck against the neo-liberal onslaught, and sometimes that involves getting inside next to them so we can beat them at their own game.

Jesse Butler

The CWG replies:

Jesse’s response to our criticisms of his article shows very clearly that Green Left Weekly and Socialist Worker were wrong to print his accounts of the hikoi and the formation of the Maori Party. Jesse’s anti-communism would make Joe McCarthy and Ben Couch proud!

Anti-commie, anti-Maori

It's sad to see some supporters of the Maori Party engaging in a red baiting that belongs to the days the Cold War, because it was Maori who were regularly asked to go abroad and die in the US's wars against 'communist tyranny' in Korea, Malaya, and Vietnam. Thirty-two of the thirty-five Kiwi troops who died in Vietnam were Maori - what did they die for? Hasn’t Jesse learnt anything?

And Vietnam and Korea weren't the first wars that New Zealand fought against 'the communist menace'. The Waikato and Taranaki wars were crusades against communism, fought for the interests of settler capitalists who were infuriated by the Maori refusal to sell collectively-owned land.

Te Whiti and his followers at Parihaka was targeted by the warmongers not because they wore feathers in their hair but because they praised 'the miracle of collective labour' and refused to sell their collectively-owned land.

The gardens of the Maori kingdom in the Waikato were destroyed not because the people who worked them were using collective land ownership and labour to feed the fortress city of Auckland, where would-be land grabbers railed against 'the socialistic natives'.

The CWG remembers the communism of Te Whiti, as well as the communism of Marx and the communism of the occupied factories movement in today's Argentina. We want to see the foreshore and the whole of Aotearoa run collectively.

That’s why we reject the Maori Party.

Different party, same mistakes
The Maori Party's strategy is to capture the balance of parliamentary seats, and try to get good deals for Maori, and especially for iwi commercial interests, by using the balance of power in negotiations with the major parties. This strategy cannot succeed for two reasons.

In the first place, the ability of the major parties to influence the economy in favour of Maori business is limited, because the New Zealand economy is mostly owned offshore, by US and US-Aussie companies.

The domination of the Kiwi economy by US and other imperialisms means that iwi businesses have little chance of succeeding, or even surviving.

They do not have the capital to compete with the multinationals, and as little fish will inevitably be swallowed up by the big fish. But even if Maori capitalism were a viable venture, the Maori Party would not benefit many Maori, because very few Maori are capitalists.

The vast majority of Maori are workers or the dependents of workers. All Kiwi workers have an interest in better pay and conditions, and better social services like health and education.

These interests clash with those of capitalists, because capitalists make their profits from the wages of workers. It's no coincidence that employers' groups have been at the forefront of campaigns against pro-worker arguments and policies like the minimum wage, the right to strike, paid parental leave, and increased funding for public health.

Brown bosses are no more pro-worker than white bosses, and the mini-capitalists of the iwicorps are now fighting class wars of their own. Look at Ngati Whatua bosses wanting to sell off housing their own people won back in the Bastion Pt struggle. Look at the struggles against Robert Mahuta and more recently Tuku Morgan by Tainui Maori sick of corporate cowboy behaviour.

The Maori Party's strategy has been repeatedly tried and repeatedly found wanting over the past few years.

The tight five of NZ First and then Mauri Pacific tried to advance Maori interests in coalition with National, and ended up supporting the privatisation of Auckland Airport and rimu logging on the West Coast. In return they got fat salaries and some nice undies. Nice for them, but not so good for their supporters, who booted them out in 1999.

Mana Motuhake entered government in 1999, but Willie Jackson and Sandra Lee were as unable to win concessions as the tight five before them. They couldn't even stop Labour junking its weak-as-water Closing the Gaps scheme after National kicked up a proto-Brashian fuss. In return for his non-existent policy wins Jackson ended up having to back the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, on the grounds that 'The SAS boys are Maori and they want to go'.

Tariana played a key role in the Pakaitore occupation in 1995, but got sucked into the Labour Party by the promise of winning those elusive policy concessions. We all know how she got on there.

The hikoi could have turned into an alternative to parliamentarism – there were militant elements on it that rejected the failure of repeated attempts to work 'within the system'. Why get blisters walking from Te Hapua to Wellington, if you can influence policy from the comfort of the cabinet room?

Back to the future!
For these advocates of extra-parliamentary protest action, the hikoi looked back to the great days of the 1970s and early 80s, when Maori and their supporters waged a series of struggles which shook the Kiwi ruling class to its core.

The Great Land March of 1975, the epic occupation of Bastion Point, the struggle to reclaim the Raglan Golf Course, and the hikoi to Waitangi in 1984 were all examples of Maori direct action against 'the system'.

Before it got tied up in the red tape of the 'Treaty process', the Maori direct action movement managed to win a whole series of victories.

Make no mistake: Bastion Pt was won back by direct action, not parliament. The Maori land at Raglan is no longer a golf course because of direct action, not some cabinet seat.

Language nests exist today because Maori kicked up a stink in the streets in the 70s and early 80s, not because of Tau Henare or Tariana.

The partial victory Tariana helped win at Pakaitore in the mid-90s stands in stark contrast to the same woman's utter failure to influence Labour policy as a cabinet minister.

And the hikoi struck far more terror into the hearts of the establishment than the electoral triumphs of Tau, Willie and the rest of them combined. 'Wellington under siege!' the Herald screamed.

There was a palpable sense of relief when Tariana turned the final day of the hikoi into an electoral rally, and went on TV with Gerry Brownlee to announce her openness to a coalition deal with National.

Tariana played the same role in Wellington as Dame Whina played after the Land March. Dame Whina told the militant young Maori who set up an occupation of parliament grounds to pack up and go home and work inside the system, and the militants were right to refuse, and to lay the ground for the occupations that were to come!

Today Tariana is telling us to forget about the old hikoi, that the 'next hikoi will be the ballot box'. We should refuse her call too, and organise occupations of threatened sections of foreshore up and down the country.

While Tariana sets out her election stall and promises the same things as Tau and Willie promised, the theft of the foreshore proceeds, the American mansions go up on wahi tapu, and the 'free' trade deal gets closer and closer. Labour and the bosses aren't stopping, so why should we?

Browns and reds unite!
We can make sure occupations and other direct actions are successful by building on the tradition of Maori-communist struggle which Jesse mocks.

We have already mentioned the armed struggle to defend the collectively-owned and worked Waikato from capitalists in the 1860s, and the passive resistance to privatisation which Te Whiti is famous for, but Maori struggle against capitalism didn't stop in the nineteenth century.

There is a long history of collaboration between revolutionary socialists and Maori, a tradition which includes the solidarity the Tainui Maori showed to the Red Federation of Labour during the revolutionary General Strike of 1913, through the socialist and trade unionist presence in the occupations of the 70s, to the anti-Springbok protests of 1981, right up to the present day actions of communist Maori activists like Justin Taua.

Communists have always understood that only the muscle of organised workers can win crucial struggles like the Maori struggle for land rights. Unlike Tau or Tariana, communists recognise the common interests of Maori and Pakeha workers, and the importance of getting them together on the picket line.

Since we've mentioned it already we'll use the example of Bastion Pt to illustrate the point we’re making in more detail.

By the 1930s almost the only piece of land the 'friendly' tribe of Ngati Whatua possessed was a small strip of coast near Bastion Pt.

Auckland city authorities wanted to strip Ngati Whatua of this piece of land and the village that stood on it, but they reckoned without the alliance which Ngati Whatua's Tainui ally Princess Te Puea had made with the Pakeha-dominated trade union movement and with the Communist Party.

Tainui solidarity with the workers' movement went back to 1913, when iwi leaders urged Maori not to undermine the General Strike by signing on to do the jobs of strikers.

Communist Party unionists returned the favour by championing the grievances of Waikato Tainui, who since returning from exile in the Rohe Potae in 1883 had struggled relentlessly to regain their confiscated lands.

When word went out that the government was about to move on the Maori village near Bastion Point in 1937communists in Auckland's trade unions swung into action.

Ron Mason, who was organising with the General Labourers Union, put out an urgent call to the city's builders, and four hundred of them descended on the threatened settlement.

With the help of Ngati Whatua and Tainui, the builders worked non-stop to fortify the village, laying tall palisades in a concrete foundation. Workers prepared to defend the village, and the government backed down.

It was not until sixteen years later, in 1953, that the government was finally able to burn the village of Orakei to the ground.

It is no coincidence that this act of ethnic cleansing took place after the defeat of the radical workers movement in the Great Waterfront Lockout of 1951. Without the support of organised labour Ngati Whatua were weakened. The fortunes of the workers' movement and Maori have always been linked.

When the struggle for Bastion Pt and surrounding land revived in the 70s, trade unionists and a new generation of communists were amongst the vanguard.

Unionists took the issue into their organisations, raising thousands of dollars in aid and bringing in work teams to help the occupiers build a new village on Bastion Point. Communist organisations turned their dinky printing presses to the task of publicising the cause.

When Muldoon sent in the armed forces to crush the occupation at Bastion Point, trade unionists and communists stood on the picket line, and thousands of workers walked off the job around Auckland in a spontaneous protest strike.

Carpenters and truckies who had been called out to a mysterious 'big job' refused to work, when they found that they were being asked to help demolish the Bastion Point settlement.

Solidarity continued into the 80s, when Ngati Whatua were finally able to recover their land. The degeneration into corporatism of the leadership of Ngati Whatua doesn't wipe out the victory of Bastion Point, but it does show once again that without a strong workers' movement the Maori flaxroots are weak.

Occupy for sure!
Today we need to revive the spirit of Bastion Point by building on the support for the hikoi shown by unions like the National Distribution Union, the Service and Food Workers Union, Aste, and the Manufacturing and Construction Union.

Neither Pakeha nor Maori unionists will ever back a party that makes overtures to National, but many of them will back occupations of a foreshore which all ordinary New Zealanders value and worry about losing.

By occupying the foreshore and inviting ordinary Pakeha to join them, Maori can take the wind out of the sails of the right-wingers who say that the hikoi was about Maori privatisation, while at the same time thwarting the iwicorp opportunists who think that Maori sovereignty means Maori capitalism.

Sea farming and tourism ventures can be controlled by workers, not by brown or white capitalists.

And if the foreshore and its industries can be socialised, then why not the whole economy? A movement to socialise the whole of Aotearoa can take inspiration from the occupied factories of Argentina and the collective farms being established in Venezuela, as well as the indigenous communism of Rangiaowhia and Te Whiti.

This is the argument that the CWG made on the hikoi and has been making at Maori Party hui.

The argument from which this reply is taken can be read in full at: http//indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/20084/index.php

New Labour, ‘old’ labour recycled

When the New Labour Party was formed in 1989 it held out the promise of uniting the left against the anti-worker policies of the Fourth Labour Government. But workers failed to follow it and Jim Anderton and Matt McCarten turned the NLP into their own voting machine to piss on Labour from outside the tent. They forgot that they were also pissing on Labour's worker supporters who came back to Labour in large numbers in 1993 to almost secure a Labour victory.

Anderton and McCarten antagonised these workers big time when they refused to support Mike Moore's push to form a minority government in 1993. Instead of drawing the obvious conclusion to go back into the Labour Party it was as if Anderton saw himself as the messiah and that only he could save Labour.

Had Anderton backed Moore to form a minority government there was a fighting chance that it could have won the numbers and put a stop to National's anti-worker agenda in 1993.This would have given the left the chance of exposing Labour in office. The militants in the NLP could have pissed on Labour from the inside. We could have rallied the unions to repeal the ECA and restore the benefit cuts. That could have led to a fight for renationalisation of the privatized state assets under workers’ control. But the leadership of Anderton and McCarten was never going to submit to the Labour Party bureacracy except on their terms.

Anderton shacks up with middle class

Failing to act on this lesson the NLP and Mana Motuhake rank and file got dragged after Anderton looking for any political partners that could give him more seats. They took on board the Greens, a middle class outfit, the remnants of the old Social Credit movement in the Democrats, and populist Gilbert Myles personal vehicle, the Liberals, to form the Alliance. They buried whatever small worker support there was for the NLP along with Maori support for its sister party, Mana Motuhake, in this populist pot of stew.

Breaking up Labour's constituency left the field open to that other populist Winston Peters to campaign for the Maori vote. Leading up to the 1996 election Peter's conned Maori into deserting Labour on the promise that he would never go into government with National. He then exercised the 'balance of power' under the new MMP system to put National back into office. This was the first time a party abused Maori voters to split them away from their Labour base since Ratana made its historic alliance with Labour in the 1930s. Maori learned the hard way as Peters and the Tau Henare rat pack grandstanded at the expense of their jobs and welfare.

Having helped the Nationals use the 1990s to attack workers, the Alliance actually made it into government in 1999 and formed a coalition with the Labour Party. But by this time the Labour Party was not only locked into the neo-liberal reforms of the 1980s but most of the 1990s economic reforms as well. Cullen swore by a balanced budget and an independent Reserve Bank. Rogernomics plus Ruthonomics added up to one hell of a 'social deficit'.

So Labour, as a capitalist government elected to manage kiwi capitalism, had to deliver growth in profits before it could try to make up the 'social deficit’ to its supporters. This forced it into a Blairite position where it made huge concessions to business in order to pursue its modest social agenda. The Alliance for the most part had to tag along.

When Labour went too far and supported the US invasion of Afghanistan, most of the Alliance split from Anderton. Without his seat, and failing to hit the 5% threshold in the 1992 election, the Alliance was out of parliament and questioning its future.

Radical stocktaking shows bankruptcy

Surely the time was overdue for a radical stocktaking. Sticking with Anderton had drawn a blank. Worse, the balance sheet of those 13 years was almost totally negative. Anderton's split in 1989 was too little and too late. When the NLP failed to win significant sections of union support in 1990 it should have seen the light and moved back into the Labour Party. Whatever the Alliance won for workers in government with Labour from 1999 it 2002 it lost a lot more by default in the previous decade.

The NLP stalwarts believed in the mission to replace Labour from the outside. They did not understand that the Labour Party will not be removed as a roadblock to the workers movement except as a result of an internal class struggle.

In NZ the history of the labour movement for nearly 100 years has been tied to the life of the Labour Party. It was formed in 1916 after the experience of bloody defeats in strikes to take the fight for socialism into parliament. It was the main vehicle for the rising prosperity of NZ workers after the war. Its shift to the right was dictated by the weakness of the NZ economy and the weakness of organised labour. Yet for most workers it’s still the only game in town.

This means that the working class will not develop any real independence until it stages a fight to the death to revive and split the Labour Party from inside the Labourite unions. And it can only do this by first rebuilding the unions under rank and file control. Trying to push Labour left from the outside without a base in the unions is a futile exercise that further weakens the labour movement and sets back the day of reckoning for Labour.

But instead of learning this lesson, what was left of the Alliance followed Anderton's main bother boy McCarten into his scheme for building a personal army of workers to get him elected in Auckland Central. This was a sort of caricature of Anderton's electorate machine in Riccarton.

Tragedy becomes comedy Central

McCarten took over the shell of UNITE! a tiny, almost stillborn union, founded by Alliance unionists including Robert Reid back in the mid 90s. UNITE! was set up to be a union of lowpaid workers, unemployed and beneficiaries. McCarten rebranded it as lowercase Unite without the emphatic (!), formed an ‘workers’ branch in Auckland and did his best to keep unemployed and beneficiaries out. McCarten and his left handyman, Mike Treen, ex-Socialist Action activist, set about recruiting show dancers, fast food workers and English language teachers.

The intention to build a union of the low paid (even without the unemployed and beneficiaries) is good and necessary. (See UNITE! report in this issue). To his credit, McCarten instinctively saw the need to unionise the thousands of casualised service workers left alone by the established unions. But he didn’t want to the burden of organising the unemployed and beneficiaries. He picked the eyes out of sites that could get him the numbers and financial backing to build his electoral machine.

Instead of creating a democratic union that could be a model for rebuilding the rest of the unions, McCarten created separate branches for each worksite where only he as the 'secretary' of all these 'unions' could control them. Not until this method of union building came into conflict with other Alliance members working in unions whose members were being poached, did McCarten come under fire. And even then it wasn’t McCarten's strategy but his poaching that raised the ire of other Alliance unionists. But by then McCarten was already preparing to take the Alliance and his 'Unite' into the Maori Party.

When Anderton supported the Labour Government in sending troops to Afghanistan, the stand taken by other Alliance MPs and the party against this was principled. The problem, however, was that the Alliance had no union base to mobilise against the war. McCarten's new union was not built on a political program but his personal patronage. Unite lite was no base to oppose the war.

Unite lite and Alliance left back cops

In fact Unite lite couldnt even oppose the cops. McCarten proved this when he crossed the picket line formed by UNITE! members of the UNITE! West Auckland, against his partner, Alliance member Kathy Caseys exhibition 'Comrades and Cossacks' that was co-sponsored by the NZ Police and publically opened by high-ranked police officers. As he crossed this picket line opposing NZ working class history being funded by policewho had played a key role in smashing the 1913 general strike, McCarten challeged the picketers to attend one of his recruitment rallies!

While McCarten got some internal criticism from other Alliance members for his fraternatisation with the cops, other Alliance ‘lefts’ also crossed the picket line relegating class struggle to academic ‘history’. Then McCarten was re-elected leader shortly afterwards. At the same time the Alliance left was regrouping around a new Manifesto in which the Alliance was identified as a 'socialist party' based on 'working people'. Yet nowhere in this Manifesto was there any serious orientation to the unions as the base of any 'socialist' party. Class struggle had been relegated to the history of ‘Comrades and Cossacks’ and Parliament remained the holy grail.

But the Alliance was still outside the Labour Party and with no prospect of getting a base in the wider labour movement. McCarten's search for an 'army' of workers to get him elected in Auckland Central was more like pissing in the wind. The demise of the Alliance looked certain when the political shit hit the Foreshore and Seabed fan.

Along Comes Tariana

At first the Alliance backed Labour's decision to block the Appeal Court's decision and turn the F&S into 'public domain'. But the Hikoi changed that when McCarten and Treen found a few thousand potential voters marching to Wellington. Never mind that the Hikoi was against putting the F&S into 'public domain' the Alliance turned on its toes and next thing we know is McCarten is offering to run Turia's election campaign in Te Tai Hauauru. The Alliance Council came out in support of the new Maori Party without any idea what its program would be.

With Turia's overwhelming by-election victory the Maori Party seems set to challenge Labour for all the Maori seats. The scene is also set for a deal between the Alliance and the MP to campaign against Labour. But while the Anderton split with Labour damaged the Labour movement by pissing into Labour's tent, the Maori Party looks like splitting the labour movement and pissing into its own tend somewhere in 'middle ground' of parliament. The Maori Party has made it clear that it is organised on an ethnic basis and will canvass support for 'Maori' interests from both Labour and National.

Matt backs Turia, left splits?

By backing this move by the MP and taking his workersinto this party McCarten is creating a potentially more damaging split with the labour movement than Anderton did 15 years ago. While Anderton's Alliance spent a decade in the wilderness failing to renew the fight inside the Labour Party, McCarten's propospal for a Maori Party/Alliance shackup looks like taking Maori workers out of an already weakened labour movement into tribal politics where they will be abused as electoral fodder for a bunch of iwi bureaucrats, politicos and capitalists.

This is dragging the best working class fighters, who can revive the labour movement and lead the fight against imperialism and kiwi crony capitalism, into the arms of their class enemies – Bush and Brash. The corporate ‘warriors’ in the Maori Party who have benefited from the Treaty settlement process will try to use the 'balance of power' to pressure the bosses to get a larger share of the profits of kiwi capitalism distributed into their pockets.

But they will be even less successful than they were under the Treaty settlements that funded the birth of small-scale Maori capitalism over the last 20 years. The imperialist ruling class and its kiwi cronies will use MMP to buy off the Maori bosses at the expense of the vast majority of Maori who are members of the casualised working class.

What to do?

Those few hundred members of the Alliance who are serious about building a 'socialist party' based upon working people,who are for 'democratic socialism' in practice, must turn their backs on their attempts to rebuild the Labour Party from the outside.

The debates taking place inside the Alliance are still dominated by electoral strategy and tactics to recruit members (See Jill Ovens ‘Strange saga of the Alliance’ Red &Green No 3, 2004 p.75). Liquidating into the Maori Party or the Greens abandons the real fight inside the labour movement to build united democratic unions. But building an independent party of the left without a base in the unions also avoids the basic issue. The way to remove the Labour roadblock is to fight for a new workers party by smashing the labour bureaucracy’s hold over workers in the the unions.

Leon Trotsky writing just before he was killed in 1940 on: “Trade Unions in the Epoch of Imperialist Decay” says that because the unions have become “semi-state institutions” it is necessary to “struggle to turn the trade unions into the organs of the broad exploited masses and not the organs of the labor aristocracy…The primary slogan for this struggle is: complete and unconditional independence of the trade unions in relation to the capitalist state.” http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1940/1940-tu.htm

Workers will remain trapped inside Labour until they begin to rebuild their unions under rank and file control and break from the bureaucracy and the state. Those Alliance members who are serious about socialism should dedicate themselves to the task of workers democracy and repudiate McCarten's sell-out into a Maori Party splitting the labour movement and diverting workers into 'cargo cult' deals with Brash or Clark and away from united working class struggle.

Communist Workers Group has made clear its stand on the necessity and urgency of mobilising a united working class to fight the sell-out of the F&S against the dead end of the parliamentary road. Equally we have insisted that such mobilisations will not happen unless all socialists put their practice where their rhetoric is and fight to rebuild the labour movement to break from the labour bureaucracy of the 'big three' unions and the Blairite ideology of the Labour Government.

Finally, none of this will happen if NZ workers remain trapped in patriotic alliances with any bourgeois party trying to negotiate deals with Australian, US or other imperialist interests to defend our jobs and freedoms. We have to build internationalist unions capable of defending the jobs and freedoms of workers everywhere. CWG pledges to play its part in all united fronts where socialists unite to “strike together, but march separately.”

Unite to Occupy the Foreshore and Seabed!

Build Fighting, Democratic Unions!

Solidarity campaign for Iraqi workers!

Endorse the Abdul Raheem Appeal!

The possible scenarios for the future of Iraq are many. But there are only two certainties – Revolution or Counter-revolution!

There are powerful forces with competing interests at play in Iraq. The US and its allies want to dominate Iraq, establish long term control of the region and keep the Middle East safe for capitalist investment. Many of the surrounding dictatorships, notably the Baathists of Syria and the Mullahs of Iran, want to destabilize the US plans in order to save their regimes.

The bourgeois forces in Iraq want to strengthen their position in order to win for themselves the biggest slice of the profits that they can. Tactics vary, while the aim remains the same. While some Baathist and Islamist forces clash with the occupation militarily, ultimately they are willing to cut deals with the occupation forces. These people are not capable of defeating the occupation, let alone rebuilding Iraq.

All of this makes for a grim scenario. Between the Imperialist robbers and the reactionary bourgeois, the Iraqi workers are relegated to a future of immiseration. Or are they? This working class is the forgotten factor that the bourgeois academics and Third Worldist liberals will never take into consideration. Liberals are quite happy to support “Shiite resistance” and “Sunni resistance”, but prefer to ignore the working class, just as they ignore the working class here in New Zealand preferring to reach out to churches and bishops.

What role do the workers and the communist movement have to play in the future of Iraq?

It is possible for a powerful Iraqi workers movement to defeat the U.S. and its allies. Let us recognise that Iraq too is a class society. Iraq too has a bourgeoisie and a proletariat. Iraq had a massive Communist Party in the 1950s and 60s. And if the Iraqi proletariat turned away from the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP) in 1960 it did so as a result of the political zig-zags and compromises that the ICP went through. The historic defeats of the ICP did not stem from sectarianism towards the bourgeoisie, but from a failure to arm an independent working class basis.

This Iraqi working class is today occupying factories, and defending them by force of arms not only from the occupation, but also from the Islamist gangs. It has flocked to the Union of Unemployed of Iraq (UUI), which is the biggest organisation of any sort in Iraq, boasting 300,000 members. Working women have joined the Organisation for Women’s Freedom in Iraq in their thousands, raising the slogan ‘No to the occupation and the veil!’ Both the Union of Unemployed and the Organisation for Women’s Freedom were founded by the Worker Communist Party of Iraq, a revolutionary Marxist organisation with offices across the country.

The working class has rallied in cross-ethnic solidarity. While the Islamists target Shiite shrines, churches and power plants, the workers have formed neighbourhood and factory defence committees, institutions which could form the basis for a workers’ government. They have proclaimed that certain areas and neighbourhoods are under their protection.

The proclamations include explicit warnings that any attempt to enter the area will be met by force of arms. Here we quote from a press release from the Worker Communist Party of Iraq (WPIraq):

WPIraq’s Armed Squads Protect Residents of al-Jihad and al-Furat

With jubilation, the residents of al-Jihad suburb in Baghdad received a statement by the WPIraq entitled “In Defense of the Residents of al-Jihad Suburb.” Hundreds of copies of this statement were distributed in the suburbs of al-Jihad and al-Furat. In the following days dozens of residents joined the armed squads of the Worker-communist Party of Iraq to defend the residents of these two suburbs. On August 13, 2004, four armed men using motorbikes tried to carry out a military operation in al-Jihad suburb, however the armed patrols of the WPIraq chased the group and forced them to flee the suburb after wounding one of them.

Also, comrade Sami abu Muhamad, the party leader in al-Jihad, warned the US troops against entering al-Jihad and al-Furat suburbs and asked them settle their accounts outside of these cities. Since the day the above mentioned statement was issued, the armed squads of WPIraq have continued to meet the residents of the suburbs who welcomed them and expressed happiness to see them in the suburbs. In these meetings, members of the WPIraq explained the policies of the party in protecting the residents. Many members of the Iraqi police joined squads of the WPIraq which are now responsible for conducting patrols and running check points 24 hours a day in both of these two suburbs.

On July 12, 2004 another group ordered the shop owners in al-Jihad suburbs to close their shops, however the party’s statement and a visit by the party’s delegation headed by comrade Sami Abu Muhammad, assured them and encouraged them to keep their shop open till midnight. We want to assure all residents of al-Jihad and al-Furat suburbs that their security and safety is the responsibility of the Worker-communist Party of Iraq. Therefore, their support for the party is in turn a support for themselves against the terrorist actions, which claims the lives of dozens of innocent people everyday.

Worker-communist Party of Iraq, 15 Aug 2004”

          While the “left” internationally rallies to the support of the “freedom fighters” of Moqtada, the same paramilitary reactionaries are engaged in a very real war against the workers of Iraq. Fallujah is regarded by many as a symbol of resistance to imperialism. But that is not the whole story. Fallujah is a town where no woman dares to step outside her home unaccompanied for fear of the Islamists.

If the western left chooses to ignore the role of the Iraqi workers and their organisations, the Islamists do not. They have targeted the offices of the Unemployed Union of Iraq, the Iraqi Communist Party, the Worker Communist Party of Iraq and the Organisation for Women’s Freedom in Iraq in a series of bombings and armed attacks.

Nor do US occupiers ignore the workers’ movement in Iraq. They have retained Saddam’s old law banning strikes, and last December they attacked and closed down the headquarters of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions in Baghdad.

It is true that Iraq is a country that is under US occupation. While anyone fights against the occupation, we support them in their legitimate struggle to liberate Iraq from the invader. However we must also recognise that the Iraqi working class and its organisations are real, and that only their armed independence can win a truly independent Iraq. To this end we are committed to supporting the Iraqi workers’ movement to the utmost of our abilities.

The workers’ movement of Aotearoa made a small step in the right direction when its Council of Trade Unions opposed the US invasion of Iraq. Since then, some unions have showed solidarity with their comrades in Iraq. The Rail Maritime and Transport Union gave its name to the international trade union petition calling for the reopening of the Baghdad Trades Hall.

Unemployed members of Unite! community union have spoken at anti-war rallies about the activities of the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq. But words are not enough. The Iraqi workers’ movement needs practical support.

Recently comrade Mohammed Abdul Raheem of the Worker Communist Party (photo) was attacked and killed by a gang of Islamists in the town of al-Kut. Comrade Abdul Raheem joins the ranks of fallen heroes of the Iraqi workers movement.

In honour of Comrade Abdul Raheem we are launching an appeal to raise money for the workers organisations in Iraq, and specifically for the Organisation for Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI).

We ask all unionists and all organisations of the left to endorse the Abdul Raheem Appeal. Email us at <[email protected]>

In the UK some news on union solidarity:

http://www.workersliberty.org.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2457

http://www.dlandmj.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/iraq.html

In the US:

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=4434

Australian solidarity at: grouphttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/ausiraq/

French solidarity at:

http://www.solidariteirak.org/

Act of the pre-conference in Brazil

10 and 11 of July of 2004

Presentations of the attending groups:  POM, CCR, FT (TCI), Workers Opposition, Marxist Trench, Revolutionaries in Fight, all of Brazil; POR Argentina; and (TCI) Bind Trotskista de Peru;  Loi-ci of Argentina;  COPOI (GOI/NOT) of Chile, FTI in Urus in Action in Bolivia, all members of the FTI-CI.  (Trotskyist International Fraction – Fourth International).

Reading of messages of adhesion from the CRI of France and CWG of New Zealand. (see ‘Five Points for Revolution’ in Class Struggle #56).

Discussion began on the current world situation (conjuncture) and the 21 points document (see Class Struggle # 51).

From the communications of the different participants the following agreements arose:

(1) Facing the war in Iraq and the imperialistic war of aggression: we fight in the trenches alongside trench all oppressed nations attacked by imperialism, for their military victory and the defeat of imperialism. We fight for the revolutionary proletarian leadership of the national and anti-imperialist wars to transform them into the start of the socialist revolution in the oppressed country and in the aggressive imperialistic nation. Revolutionaries and anti-imperialists in the imperialistic countries are for the defeat of their own imperialism and of the victory of the working class and the nations oppressed by imperialism.

(2) To fight against the treacherous leaders of the working class: of social democracy, stalinism, the labour bureaucracy and workers aristocracy, the great majority of them grouped in World Social Forum.

(3) Against the popular front and the governments of the bourgeois-worker parties in power. Against all policies of class collaboration. To denounce and to face the conter-rrevolutionary role of the government of Lula, and Castrism, and its continental policy of containment which strangles the revolutionary struggles of the masses of Latin America and maintains the governments and client states of imperialism.

(4) Confrontation and struggle against the liquidators and renegades of Trotskyism. Against the pseudo-Trotskyist centrism that is subordinated to the reformist apparatuses, and that, for example in Brazil, is in alliance with ministers of the pro-imperialistic government of Lula as in the case of Socialist Democracy (United Secretariat), or who act like pressure groups on the same government like the PSTU.

(5) For the defense of the principles of proletarian and revolutionary morality: as it is stated in point 19 of the 21 points document: "the social democracy unions, stalinism and labour bureaucracies have eliminated the most elementary principles and working class morality. The liquidating centrists, revisionists and of Fourth International follow them to do the same. The proletariat is thirsty of frankness, honesty, devotion, and the fullest workers democracy. In order to discuss, to solve and to act, the workers and youth must renounce the workers organizations use leaders use the method of trying to dissolve or silence political differences inside the labor movement by means of the lies, distortions and the use of physical violence ".

In the debate, the following points also arose around which programmatic differences were expressed, that is to say:

(a) Method of understanding the current reality and to characterize the world-wide situation and concrete situations of the class struggle (Argentina 2001, Bolivia 2003) and tasks that derive from this method.

(b) In particular, in Iraq, divergences on the slogans ‘Arms for Iraq’ and ‘international workers’ brigades’.

(c) On the situation and the present program for Argentina. Precise divergences around the declaration on the massacre of the miners of Turbio River, as it is expressed in texts already written.

(d) On the tactics of Anti-imperialist United Front, expressed in the materials already written by the TCI, Fti-ci, Marxist Trench, POM, CCR, and on its application in Argentina; on the Proletarian Military Policy; the work inside the FFAA, [Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (in texts written of TCI and Fti-ci)

(e) On the position on the police, expressed in concrete discussions about events in Argentina, Brazil and Peru.

(f) On how the revolutionaries must act inside the unions.

(g) On Brazil, with respect to the characterization of the government of Lula, the divergence was over whether it is a pro-imperialistic bourgeois government in general, or if it expresses the characteristics of a popular front.

(h) A debate opened about what revolutionary program of action is necessary to intervene against governments, the capitalist state and all its institutions.

(i) All the participants agree to fight to construct Leninist parties with democratic centralism. Nevertheless, there is a debate opened about the conception of party and democratic centralism, as well as around the conception of constructing an international.

(j) It is necessary to deepen the debate on characterization of worker states, degeneration of such and capitalist restoration.

(k)There is a need to deepen the debate on the International Moral Court.

On the base of this development it was agreed that the present state of the programmatic differences and of the debate, and the fact that new organizations have only recently become involved in the formation of the committee, did not allow the constitution of a Parity Committee that could proceed to call an International Conference as had been anticipated for December of 2004 in Brazil.

Therefore, it was resolved to constitute a Liaison Committee on the basis of the points in agreements, and the recognised programmatic differences and areas of debate.

The Liaison Committee was charged to organize the debate with the objective to explore the possibility of increasing the programmatic agreements beyond those reached by the original organising groups, because the class struggle requires it, and to strike together with international campaigns, on those points where we have agreement.

Towards this end, the following resolutions were made:

(1) First, to communicate the resolutions of this pre-conference to the comrades of the CWG and the CRI, so that they can become members of the Liaison Committee.

(2) The production of a public Bulletin of common international debate of the member organizations of the Liaison Committee, in which all are committed to present their contributions in writing as briefly as possible.

(3) To invite to GB of France and the GG of Spain to join in this debate and the Liaison Committee, and to reverse their decision not to attend the Pre-Conference in Brazil, in spite of being specially invited, and in spite of being co-writers of the 21 points to convene the International Conference, turning their backs on the comrades who made a big effort to begin the task of building a new revolutionary international.

(4) To call on all groups to join the Liaison Committee and enter the debate if they agree with the 21 points, or agree on the five common points listed above in this document, and agree to the publication of the 21 points in its official materials.

(5) The members of this Liaison Committee are committed to guarantee a democratic discussion. Therefore, no current, group or tendency that is a member of the Committee can expel comrades who raise political differences that adhere to various positions of other groups, currents or tendencies of the same Committee.

(6) The Liaison Committee fixes its next meeting on 8, 9 of January 2005 in Buenos Aires, in order to make a balance sheet of progress over the previous six months of debate, and to explore if there has been a sufficient programmatic agreement to fix a date for an International Conference that, on the basis of a firm program with clear majorities and minorities, can form an International Center to advance the regroupment of principled Trotskyist and revolutionary workers’ organizations.

Approved international campaigns:

(1) For the freeing of comrade Tonhao, and his readdmissión to his work, as well as the other comrades sacked and persecuted by the bosses’ justice iin the fight against capitalist exploitation and the treachery of the labour bureaucracy.

(2) Campaign for the freedom of the political prisoners of Latin America and of the world.

(3) A tribute to the Trotskyist comrades who fell in the revolutionary fight, presented to the pre-conference of Brazil by comrades F and R

(4) International Campaign to call on the Brazilian workers to the fight against the Lula government that sells and sends arms to the imperialistic countries that massacre the Iraqi people, and to demand the removal of the Brazilian, Argentine and Chilean troops, and all the imperialistic troops, from Haiti.

Proposals of international campaigns for consideration, on the text base to present:

Proposal of the Fti-ci: International declaration against the popular front government in Brazil and with the program of action to face it in Brazil and its counter-revolutionary role in the continent.

Proposal of the Fti-ci: International declaration for the boycott to the referendum in Bolivia, and for a Congress of workers and farmers delegates of the COB and the organizations farmers.

Proposal of the Fti-ci: to all the constituent organizations of the Liaison Committee, to adhere and to work for international support of the declaration on the miners of Turbio River as has already been done by the FT and the POM of Brazil, the CWG of New Zealand and the Fti-ci.

Proposal of the Fti-ci: international declaration against the den of thieves of the European Parliament of the imperialistic oppressors, exploiters and murderers of the workers of the semi-colonies, the colonies and the oppressed peoples of the world, its own proletariats, and against all adaptation to the social-limperialist parties, as it is found in the texts of the CWG and the Fti-ci.

At the end of the pre-conference, all the participant organizations testified to the method of working class democracy that characterised the debates, and agreed that despite sharp political and programmatic discussions, nobody used moral accusations or lies or slanders to try to disguise political differences, setting a precedent for future meetings.

Editorial Board designated by Pre-Conference to consist of:

Gustavo Gamboa, Arg. (TCI) Antonio de Oliveira, POM Brazil; Andrade, CCR Brazil; Walter Towers, (delegated) FTI-CI; Otavio Lisbon, FT Brazil (TCI)

Act of the Pre-Conference in Brazil

10 and 11 of July 2004

The history of Trotskyism in Vietnam is one of tragedy. Vietnamese Trotskyism fulfilled Trotsky’s hopes and expectations in becoming the vanguard of the proletariat only to fall at the hands of the Stalinists at the critical moment in 1945. This tragedy is one of betrayal, not only of the Stalinists, but also of the French leaders of the 4^th International after Trotsky’s death.

While Trotsky warned of the dangers of the popular front and fought ruthlessly to expose those elements who succumbed, notably the POUM in Spain, these lessons were learned in vain. During the same years that Trotsky condemned the popular front in Europe, it was the practice of at least one of the Trotskyist groups in Vietnam to enter into alliances with the Vietnamese Stalinists who were covertly negotiating with the national bourgeoisie. For the brave Vietnamese these fronts were to tragically vindicate Trotsky’s warnings and prove to be their death sentence.

The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution

Trotsky warned of the dangers of the popular front after the defeat of the Chinese Revolution in 1927 (See Class Struggle, #46,47. 2002). The great betrayal of Stalinist policy in China in the 1920’s turned what should have been a military bloc into a popular front. Following Stalin’s takeover of the CP of the SU he proposed the theory of the ‘bloc of 4 classes’ in which the workers, peasants, and intellectuals were the allies of the national bourgeoisie against the imperialists. The CP of China allowed the Nationalist general Chiang Kai Shek to have overall command of its forces. The Left Opposition warned of the danger of this policy but could not prevent Chiang from turning on the Communist militants and wiping them out in their tens of thousands.

What is the lesson of China 1925-27? That workers can bloc with sections of the bourgeosie in an anti-imperialist united front (AIUF) provided they have complete political and organisational independence. In all cases of this independence must be expressed as a military independence. This is absolutely critical in the case of war. Where workers lose their independence within a front or bloc this leads to the liquidation of the workers vanguard by the bourgeoisie doing a deal with imperialism.

Having learnt this harsh lesson in China, and having lived through the failure of the united front in the face of fascism in the early 1930’s, Trotsky made the method of the united front the mainstay of his transitional program. This program of the Fourth International calls on the vanguard to ‘unite’ with the working masses to guide it over the bridge to revolution, by raising demands that expose and disarm the class collaborationists of the bourgeoisie in the labour movement. It was the failure of this method, of abandoning the leadership of the workers to the bosses and their agents that handed over the workers to the counter-revolution. This capitulation became evident in the Fourth International soon after the death of Trotsky in 1940, but its first incontrovertible demonstration came in Vietnam, 1945.

Vietnam: The First Betrayal of Trotskyism?

The first great betrayal of Trotskyism in the post war period, Vietnam 1945, resulted from the inability of Trotskyists to apply the Anti-imperialist united front a military bloc. That is, they failed to limit their collaboration with the Stalinists to a military bloc and succumbed to political alliances.

We can trace the causes of this defeat in the previous decade. One section of the Trotskyists united in a “Struggle Front” with Stalinists between 1933-1937. They retained their separate organisations but renounced their political independence by refraining from criticising their Stalinist front partners.

It was one thing to work alongside the Stalinists in united fronts to try and break away their rank and file. After all as early as 1929 the Communist Party Youth wing in Indochina rejected the Stalinist 2 stage theory as a result of the tragic betrayal in China. Leading youth cadres challenged the political line of the 6^th congress on the Colonial Question. They attacked the Youth League for its opportunism towards the Vietnamese Nationalist Party that had close relations with the Guomindang, and formed the ‘Indo-Chinese Communist Party’ as a “party of the Indo-Chinese working class” (TRD, 56). This party was united into the PCI when it was formed in 1931 following an upsurge in anti-imperialist struggle in 1930-31.

But it is quite another thing to suppress political criticism of Stalinism inside the united front. This became critical after May 1936 when the PCI adopted the turn to the Popular Front. Originating in France, the Popular Front was a political pact between the Communists and bourgeoisie in which the Communists abandoned the goal of revolution in order to strengthen the French ruling class stand against German fascism and the threat it posed to the Soviet Union.

Trotsky reacted by condemning the Popular Fronts as traps that would disarm the workers in the face of fascism and demanded that his supporters form united fronts to break workers from the Popular Front. But in Indochina the Trotskyists joined forces in a colonial mini-popular front, the ‘Indo-Chinese Congress’ which abandoned the struggle for independence to keep the peace with the ‘democratic’ French! (TRD, 66).

The Trotskyist movement split. One group opposed to all collaboration with the Stalinists and nationalists formed the International Communist League which published a news-sheet called The Vanguard. But the Struggle Group continued to work actively in hundreds of ‘action committees’ for national liberation where the politics of Trotskyism was buried in joint political work with the Stalinists. Not until the Indochina Communist Party broke the ‘Struggle Front’ in 1937 abandoning the goal of national liberation in favour of a popular front with the ‘democratic’ Vietnamese bourgeoisie against fascism, did the ‘Struggle’ Trotskyists critique the popular front.

The correctness of this belated break with the Stalinists was shown in April 1939, when contesting the Saigon city council elections on a full Transitional Program, the Struggle Group won over 80% of the vote compared with less than 1% going to the Stalinists! (TRD, 71; and Vietnam and Trotskyism (V&T), Communist League (Australia) 1987, 27-32). Such was the influence of the Trotskyists in these years, Ho Chi Minh sent his famous directive to his party in Hanoi to “politically eliminate the Trotskyists” (TRD, 46).

Revolution and Counter-revolution

According to Ngo Van “There was a complete absence of any opposition to French administration under the Japanese boot from 1940 to 1945. All the subversives were in prison, concentration camps or labour camps: (TRD, 47).

In 1945, the Stalinist Vietminh backed the Allies against the Japanese. Opposing this, the Trotskyists called for a workers and peasants government which won overwhelming support in the popular committees especially in Saigon. With the Japanese surrender on August 16, the Vietminh took over power from the Japanese and called for the imperialists to return so they could negotiate national independence! The Trotskyists led an armed insurrection against the British and French invasion and put up a strong military resistance.

When on Sept 1 the Vietminh called on workers to welcome the allies, 400,000 workers demonstrated their opposition. The Struggle Group contingent was 18,000 strong. At this point the question of the armed independence of the Trotskyists from the Stalinists was posed as a matter of life and death. The Stalinists ordered the disarming of all oppositionists. Three days later the allies invaded. On the 23 September the Saigon Insurrection broke out. Led by the ICL the workers of Saigon organised themselves into ‘workers militia’ and fought the British and French forces for control of Saigon. One week later the Vietminh began arresting the popular committees and smashing the militia. They did not face much resistance from some of the Trotskyists!

A member of the Trotskyist International Communist League writes: “We behaved like true revolutionaries, although there were more ofr us and we were better armed. We surrendered our arms, machine guns and automatic pistols. They destroyed our office, broke up the furniture, tore up our flags, stole our typewriters and burnt our papers.” (TRD,9). Others put up a fight and were killed in battle, or like the leaders of the Struggle group, were isolated, captured and shot by the Vietminh or by the imperialists. (V&T, 41-45).

What are the lessons?

Having survived the Stalinists in the prewar period, and now thrust to the fore of the armed revolution, why weren’t the Trotskyists prepared for the treachery of the Stalinists in 1945? Why did the Struggle Group propose a united front to the Vietminh against the imperialists? (V&T,55). And why give “critical support to the Vietminh government” not long before being rounded up and shot? (V&T, 58)

It was already clear that the most militant workers knew that the Vietminh was in league with the imperialists. They rejected the passive resistance of the Vietminh ‘patriotic front’. Some working class areas of Saigon put up a strong fight but they needed to be organised into militias. For example, why wasn’t the 18,000 strong Struggle Group contingent organised into an armed militia when the ICL, ‘Spark’ and the Tramway depot had formed militias?

It seems that the Trotskyists, especially the Struggle Group, were handicapped by their pre-war collaboration with the Stalinists. The ‘crisis’ among Trotskyists in France on the question of the popular front in the 1930’s contributed to the crisis in the French colony. Ultimately, it was the failure of the French section and of the Fourth International to provide the correct leadership during the 1930’s and 1940’s that led the Vietnamese Trotskyists into the trap of a popular front with the Stalinists and Nationalists and then to their massacre by the Stalinists.

These and other larger questions concerning the failure of the leadership of the Fourth International on the colonial question during and immediately after the war will be the subject of a a follow-up article to this review. The materials in this book add to the vital documentation of these questions helping us to find the correct causes of this historic betrayal.

What ended in a tragic historic defeat could have been the beginning of the revolution in Indochina, which now regrettably had to endure another 30 years of colonial rule followed by a Stalinist restoration of capitalism!

[1] See Revolutionary History Vol 3, No 2, 1990, and Vietnam and Trotskyism, by Simon Pirani, Communist League (Australia) 1987.

Class Struggle is the bi-monthly of the Communist Workers’ Group.

CWG has fraternal relations with Lucha Marxista (Peru) and Poder Obrero

(Bolivia) all adherents of the Liaison Committee of Militants for a Revolutionary Communist International -CEMICOR-.and with Democracia Obrera (Argentina), Workers Internationalist Group (Chile) and Groupe Bolchevik (France).

Mail address: PO Box 6595,

Auckland, New Zealand.

Email [email protected].

Class Struggle is also on our website http://www.geocities.com/communistworker/

Anti-commie, anti-Maori

Endorse the Abdul Raheem Appeal!

Liaison Committee formed

*Vietnam: Another Revolution Betrayed***