Stop The War Machine |
|
| Stop The War Machine |
PARLIAMENT IS being recalled on 24 September to debate plans for military action against Iraq. "The pendulum swinging between war and 'peace' over Iraq has yet to come to rest. The speech by President Bush to the United Nations (UN) accelerated the momentum to war... By Cllr Dave Nellist, Leader of the Socialist Group on Coventry City Council, was a key organiser in Parliament against the Gulf War in 1990/91 |
|
SADDAM HAS, to quote the Daily Mirror, called Bush's bluff by agreeing to the return of UN weapons inspectors. |
|
| While Bush Beats The War Drums... |
Planes bomb Iraqi air bases: PRESIDENT BUSH has been stepping up his war plans, culminating in US and British warplanes bombing Iraq's air intelligence HQ at Tallil air base. |
| Sweden - Spectacular Gains For Socialists In Local Polls |
MEMBERS OF the Swedish section of the Committee for a Workers' International, Rattvisepartiet Socialisterna (RS), are celebrating spectacular gains in the general election held on 15 September. By Laurence Coates |
| Fighting Low Pay And Casualisation |
Stoke Socialist Party's campaign STOKE-ON-Trent Socialist Party are campaigning against low pay and casualisation, Stoke-on-Trent having a very high number of recruitment agencies. By Sharon Evans Working In The Pie Factory: AGENCY WORK is often low-paid, with long hours and they put you on jobs nobody likes to do. The Socialist Party calls for: The unions to take immediate action to implement their current minimum wage demands, as a step towards the European decency threshold of approximately £8 an hour, with no exemptions. |
|
SADDAM HUSSEIN is "a significant problem and a serious threat and something this country must deal with", says George W Bush. But while the US president and his ally Tony Blair prepare a military attack on the Iraqi dictator, it's worth reminding these 'freedom loving' leaders that Saddam's regime only exists because of the backing of previous US and British governments... Iraq -Britain's Former 'Colony': AFTER World War One the imperialist powers of Britain and France seized the Middle Eastern territories of the Turkish Ottoman Empire and divided the spoils, reneging on independence agreements made with Arab leaders.... United Nations: A Fig-Leaf For Imperialism: PRESIDENT BUSH went to the United Nations (UN) on 12 September, demanding UN assistance in his war against Iraq, or else Saddam Hussein could face attack and overthrow by US-led forces...
|
|
| Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism - by Lenin |
This socialist classic is reviewed by Jane James: Challenging The Power Of Finance Capital THE WARMONGERING of George Bush and Tony Blair over Iraq, the recent failure of the Earth Summit to stop environmental destruction, huge corporate scandals and the mass anti-globalisation protests around the world, have all generated discussion on the pernicious role of global capitalism or what Marxists term,' imperialism'. |
|
Home | The Socialist 20 Sept 2002 | Subscribe | News Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Bookshop Stop The War MachineDemonstrate on 28 SeptemberAssemble 12.30pm, Embankment.March to Hyde Park
PARLIAMENT IS being recalled on 24 September to debate plans for military action against Iraq. Cllr Dave Nellist, Leader of the Socialist Group on Coventry City Council, was a key organiser in Parliament against the Gulf War in 1990/91: "The pendulum swinging between war and 'peace' over Iraq has yet to come to rest. The speech by President Bush to the United Nations (UN) accelerated the momentum to war. But before the UN could announce an agreed resolution giving Iraq a choice between unfettered access for weapons inspectors or a UN authorised/US led bombardment or even invasion, a spanner was thrown into the works - Saddam Hussein agreed to weapons inspectors returning to Iraq for the first time since 1998. This might delay war but it doesn't mean that it won't take place. Bush is determined to overthrow Saddam. But his and Blair's arguments for war are full of holes. It's not that Saddam Hussein treats his "own" people badly, though he obviously does. How about a little humility from those Western governments who financed and trained Iraq's army in the 1980s! I was in the House of Commons when reports came through in March 1988 that 5,000 people had been killed by Saddam's chemical weapons in the town of Halabja. Weeks later the then Tory government extended a further £340 million of trade credits to Iraq! It's not about Iraq having a history of invading another country and being capable of doing so again. The US has bombed or invaded 23 other countries since 1945! It's not about Iraq being prepared to use weapons of mass destruction. In March it was revealed that the Bush administration is in the advanced stages of planning the first-strike use of nuclear weapons against Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria, Russia and China. It's not about Iraq having ignored United Nations resolutions. Tony Blair accuses Saddam of having ignored 23 UN resolutions. Israel has ignored 66 up to 1990. Since 1991 America has personally vetoed a further 29! It's not about any of these things - but the profits and prestige of the most powerful country in the world backed up by military muscle. NO DOUBT when Parliament meets on 24 September, some Labour MPs, like certain trade union leaders at the TUC conference, will still call for military action only to be taken with the 'moral legitimacy' of the United Nations. Leaving aside the fact that this will be the same United Nations whose sanctions over the last 12 years have killed a million people in Iraq, half of them children, this shows a naivety about the role of the United Nations. The UN is not an impartial "court" operating to a moral or ethical code before taking balanced decisions. It is a den of deals. The 13 Security Council members (the US and Britain already being wedded to an invasion plan) are being bought, threatened, cajoled, bribed (choose your own word) until the US can win the vote. War (UN sponsored or not) will cost thousands of lives, create instability in the countries immediately in the area and, if the price of oil rises as in 1973 and 1990/91, risk deepening the world recession. But Bush is prepared to risk all that in an attempt to restore and extend US prestige and profits, and working class people in the Middle East and throughout the world will be told to pay the price. The softening up has started, with dozens and dozens of US and British planes involved in bombing raids. Opposition is mounting around the world. Let's make 28 September a huge demonstration against US and British war plans. It's not US imposed 'regime change' that's needed, but whole system change. Join the Socialist Party and the CWI to fight for international socialism." Demonstrate on 28 SeptemberNational demonstration: assemble 12.30pm,Embankment. March to Hyde Park
Home | The Socialist 20 Sept 2002 | Subscribe | News Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Bookshop What We Think:War Threat Still LoomsSADDAM HAS, to quote the Daily Mirror, called Bush's bluff by agreeing to the return of UN weapons inspectors. Bush went to the UN under pressure from the huge opposition that was mounting at home and internationally to his unilateralist plans for military action against Iraq. He decided to try and use the cover of the UN, which many see as a neutral international body, to 'sell' war. The UN is not neutral but represents the interests of the imperialist powers of which the US is by far and away the most dominant economically, politically and militarily. His tactic seemed to be working. The Saudi regime, which had previously opposed military action, implied that it would be prepared for its bases to be used in a military attack, provided that it was sanctioned by the UN. This was undoubtedly aimed at putting pressure on Saddam to allow weapons inspectors in. It is not certain that in the event of a war Saudi Arabia could allow its bases to be used, given the huge unrest this would create within the country, threatening the overthrow of the ruling Saudi elite itself. The UN Security Council members, under economic and political pressure from the US, seemed to be uniting around a hardline resolution that would lead to war if Saddam refused to comply with the conditions outlined. The US appears to be preparing to add 'impossible' conditions, including 'coercive' inspections, which would mean that weapons inspectors would be accompanied by UN troops! Now, by agreeing to the return of weapons inspectors before a UN resolution, Saddam has thrown the ball back into the US's court. This should not have been unexpected. Saddam has a history of manoeuvring against UN resolutions and weapons inspections. It is not possible to say exactly what the next moves will be in this complicated 'war game'. But Saddam's 'climbdown' doesn't mean that the threat of war has been averted, it may just have been delayed. Bush and the 'war party' around him have made it clear that they will settle for nothing less than 'regime change', and that only military power is likely to bring that about. US defence secretary Rumsfeld spelt this out quite clearly when he said: "the absence of evidence does not mean the evidence is absent". The US hawks will be looking for any pretext, real or fabricated, to pursue their agenda of military might to overthrow Saddam, regardless of the death, destruction, instability and mass unrest that this policy would unleash. Bush's own prestige and that of the US ruling class is on the line and it's clear that if Saddam doesn't go then Bush could eventually end up going himself. The threat of a war can only be ended by a mass movement of the working-class and youth in the US and internationally. The demonstration which is taking place in London on 28 September could be an important step towards building such a movement. We must do all that we can to ensure that the demo is a massive show of strength as well as offering a socialist alternative to war and conflict.
Home | The Socialist 20 Sept 2002 | Subscribe | News Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Bookshop
While Bush Beats The War Drums...Planes bomb Iraqi air basesPRESIDENT BUSH has been stepping up his war plans, culminating in US and British warplanes bombing Iraq's air intelligence HQ at Tallil air base. In the fifth air strike by coalition forces this month, 20 bombers attacked Saddam's command and communications links, especially along the path that planes would take in the event of an attack from bases in Kuwait or the Gulf area. Some military experts say that the war has already begun and that "knocking out" Tallil is of vital strategic interest to an invading force. These bombings have been in the guise of enforcing the 'no fly' zones, both northern and southern, set up after the 1991 Gulf War but the number of raids has shot up. The Daily Mirror says there have been reports that US Special Forces had entered northern Iraq early this year, aiming to operate in the Kurdish autonomous area in the event of an invasion. Whatever effect Saddam Hussein's agreement to arms inspections may have, President Bush still seems committed to beating ever louder at the war drums.
Afghan warlords cosseted while children starveSINCE THE US bombers left Afghanistan, the main way to keep any stability has been for Britain and the US to dole out huge amounts of money to rival Afghan warlords to stop them rebelling against prime minister Hamid Karzai's government. While giving out money to rich warlords, Afghanistan's ordinary people have to get on with rebuilding the country with little help. The Western powers promised aid after the bombs. But up to now they have pledged only about £3 billion of the £10 billion needed to rebuild Afghanistan. A UN report says that a million children in Afghanistan, suffering after years of war and turmoil, are hungry and the situation is likely to get worse. A quarter of all Afghan children die before they reach five years old. One in ten is suffering from severe malnutrition and more than half suffer from stunted growth. Poverty and class divisions show that the interests of Afghanistan's people are only of secondary importance for Western governments.
US government spies - on American citizensLAST YEAR, after 11 September, the Bush administration allowed the FBI to spy on US citizens to combat "domestic terrorism", reversing Congressional limits imposed after the Watergate scandal 25 years ago. The American Civil Liberties Union described these changes as the "latest power grab by an administration that seems determined to undermine the bedrock values of liberty, equality and government accountability." Right-wing Attorney General John Ashcroft has also given the Immigration and Naturalisation Service powers to 'racially profile' people from the Middle East. Yet only one person out of 1,200 Americans and foreign nationals detained after 11 September has been charged with terrorist offences. Last week three male medical students - a Jordanian, an Iranian and a Pakistani - were falsely detained on suspicion of plotting a terrorist attack, based on the claims of a nurse who overhead their conversation. After their arrest, the Community Hospital in South Miami where they were studying was bombarded by emails demanding their exclusion. Scandalously the hospital management cancelled their internship.
Home | The Socialist 20 Sept 2002 | Subscribe | News Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Bookshop
Sweden - Spectacular Gains For Socialists In Local PollsMEMBERS OF the Swedish section of the Committee for a Workers' International, Rattvisepartiet Socialisterna (RS), are celebrating spectacular gains in the general election held on 15 September. Laurence CoatesIn the two most populous cities in northern Sweden, RS now has five city councillors (up from two in 1998). In Umea city council, where RS was first elected in 1991, our vote rose by 38% since the last election (2,948 votes), delivering a third council seat. In Lulea, RS more than doubled its result from 1998 to 1,497 votes, cruising into the council with two seats. In both cases, our gains were at the expense of the Left Party (ex-Communists) who were hammered for supporting spending cuts and privatisations and their "fatal attraction" to the ruling Social Democrats (SAP). The gains for RS show the potential for a fighting alternative on a national level. Nationally, the Left Party and the conservative Moderates were the biggest losers. The Left Party fell from 12% to 8.3%. One Left Party leader attributed the swing to the SAP (from 36.4% to 40%) to its "left policies" - a statement which stands reality on its head. Fear of a victory for the bloc of four official "bourgeois" parties and their programme of massive tax and spending cuts galvanised support behind the government. But the Left Party's rightward shift and track record in more than 100 local councils, which they control together with others, led to a haemorrhage of former supporters to the 'original' SAP. Within the 'bourgeois' alliance the Moderates, most associated with tax cuts, suffered their worst result since 1973 while the Liberals tripled their result by openly flirting with racism. Many international commentators have interpreted the result as reflecting a revival of the old, reformist, Swedish Social Democracy. On the contrary the SAP made few promises in the election and the Prime Minister told journalists he was prepared to make cuts "in every area" if necessary to avert a return to budget deficits.
Home | The Socialist 20 Sept 2002 | Subscribe | News Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Bookshop
Fighting Low Pay And CasualisationStoke Socialist Party's campaignSTOKE-ON-Trent Socialist Party are campaigning against low pay and casualisation, Stoke-on-Trent having a very high number of recruitment agencies. Sharon EvansThe agencies take advantage of the collapse of jobs in the pottery and other industries and the history of low pay in the area. Firms use the agencies because they see workers in the same light as a shelf full of widgets, to be used and cast off as required. We are calling for recruitment agencies to be brought under public control, so workers will have proper health and safety training, a decent wage, job security and the right to join a trade union. Simon Jones' case is at the forefront of our campaign. Simon was killed on 24 April 1998, aged 24. He was sent by a recruitment agency to Shoreham docks, operated by Euromin. On his first day at work, he was almost decapitated by a crane. Simon had no health and safety training or protection necessary for the work he was doing. Neither the manager of Euromin nor the recruitment agency - Personnel Selection - were held accountable for his death. Euromin and its general manager, James Martell, were subsequently acquitted on manslaughter charges. With information from the Simon Jones Memorial Campaign we have held stalls around the city, collecting signatures and building support, whilst exposing workers' exploitation by recruitment agencies. Our success can be measured by our high paper sales (100+ over two issues), over £70 donated to the Fighting Fund since we started and two new members who joined after our public meeting, where we showed the Simon Jones video. Almost everyone who comes to the stall has a story to tell about what it's like getting work through recruitment agencies (see right). The campaign is now moving forward in two directions - we are planning to focus on local businesses for the exploitation of workers, most of whom are temporary. Secondly the imminent election of a mayor of Stoke-onTrent. No candidates have yet put forward any proposals to tackle poor housing, low pay and unemployment, all of which are rife in the area. The British National Party are standing a candidate, Steve Batkin. Batkin masquerades as a caring voice for the working class, using asylum seekers as a scapegoat for social ills. Along with local organisations such as North Staffs Campaign Against Racism and Fascism and local trade unions, we are planning stalls, leafleting and a mass rally against the BNP.
For more information about the Simon Jones Memorial Campaign, see: www.simonjones.com or Simon Jones Memorial Campaign, PO Box 2600, Brighton BN2 2DX or by phone at 01273 685913 Working In The Pie FactoryAGENCY WORK is often low-paid, with long hours and they put you on jobs nobody likes to do. Most of the full-time workers don't like agency workers, because they see you as a threat to their jobs and the bosses use this to drive down their wages. Alan Holdway The food industry uses a lot of casual workers. When you arrive at the factories you are herded in like cattle, then they check you off and tell you where you are working and what line you are working on. Even if you have no experience or training, they put you on the job, expecting you to be able to do it. The bosses want the production lines to run non-stop. If the production breaks down, they all start shouting. I worked for a well-known bakery in Stoke-on-Trent, Wrights Pies. They have won awards but behind the scenes, it's a different story. I worked for there for 18 months. I'm diabetic, one day I became ill while I was working on the sausage roll line. I'd been on the line since 6am, the line was moving very fast and I started to feel sick and dizzy. I was completely drained of energy and feeling ready to pass out. But when I asked the production manager if he could get somebody to take me off the line, so I can go home to go and see my GP, he told me there was nobody and I would have to work until 10am. When he allowed me to go home, I went to my doctor, who put me on the sick for a month. That was not the first time it happened. The other time, the manager told me to go and eat some chocolate but that time I just walked out of the factory. There was no union in the place, so they took advantage. They made workers work until all production was finished. Even if the machines break down you had to stay behind. You started at 6am and you could be still there at 6pm or even later and they would expect you to been in at 6am the next morning. If you went home earlier, even if you'd done your time, they would sack you. It got that bad for me that I went on the sick and never went back. So the next time you buy a Wrights Pie, just think what the workers went through to make it. All the bosses are interested in is making big profits and getting those awards on their walls. The Socialist Party calls for:
Home | The Socialist 20 Sept 2002 | Subscribe | News Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Bookshop
When The West Backed SaddamSADDAM HUSSEIN is "a significant problem and a serious threat and something this country must deal with", says George W Bush. But while the US president and his ally Tony Blair prepare a military attack on the Iraqi dictator, it's worth reminding these 'freedom loving' leaders that Saddam's regime only exists because of the backing of previous US and British governments. During the 1980s Saddam was built up as a regional strongman by imperialism, notably the US, Britain, France and Germany. These powers made lucrative arms deals, trade agreements and brokered massive financial loans to help Saddam wage a bloody war against Islamist Iran. They feared the spread of Iran's theocratic, anti-Western ideology which threatened imperialist interests in the region. (It's ironic that, today, Bush and Blair claim Saddam is abetting "Islamic fundamentalists".) The brutal repression of Kurds and Shi'ites within Iraq along with the banning of trade unions, political parties and the imprisonment and murder of the regime's opponents, was conveniently overlooked by the West. The leaders of the former Soviet Union also cultivated Saddam as an important ally in the Gulf despite the Baathist leader's murderous suppression of the Iraqi Communist Party. Military conflictTHE IRAN-IRAQ War which lasted from 1980 to 1988 cost one million lives and an astronomical $1,190 billion. Western arms companies grew rich by ignoring UN arms embargoes and supplying both Iran and Iraq. One of the factors leading to the war was the assumption of full state power by Saddam Hussein in July 1979. Encouraged by the chaos of the revolution in Iran and by the deepening hostility between Tehran and the Western powers, Iraq attempted to unseat Khomeini's Islamist regime. Pre-revolutionary Iran had been a large market for British arms exporters but as relations between the two countries soured, Iraq became the new market. In February 1982 Baghdad signed a contract with London to repair 50 Chieftain tanks captured from Iranians on the battlefield. The Thatcher government encouraged neighbouring Kuwait to register its oil tankers in Britain thus allowing British Naval involvement in the Gulf against Iran. Although British arms sales were formally banned in 1985 non-military exports to Iraq soared to $665 million in 1986. However, an illegal flow of arms to Baghdad continued with Tory cabinet approval and despite their full knowledge of Saddam's gassing of 5,000 Iraqi Kurds in Halabja in 1988. Within one month of this atrocity Tory MP Alan Clark representing the Department of Trade flew to Baghdad and offered £340 million in export credits. Iraq was by now Britain's third largest market for 'dual use' machine tool exports. Astra, an arms company, according to its former chairman was 'taken over' by MI6 and used as a channel to Iraq. The subsequent Scott inquiry into this murky trade whitewashed the Tory government leaders, including Margaret Thatcher and John Major. US imperialismIN THE mid-1980's the US, anxious to secure the release of American hostages held in the Lebanon by pro-Iranian guerrillas, got colonel Oliver North to secretly negotiate with Tehran an 'arms for hostages' deal involving Israel. The revelations (known as 'Irangate') severely damaged president Reagan's domestic and international standing - Reagan was publicly pursuing an anti-Iran policy. Stung by this foreign policy failure and alarmed at Moscow's increasing bilateral trade with Baghdad, the US in 1987 offered Saddam $1 billion in agricultural commodity credits - a vital prop to war-torn Iraq. Washington also increased its military cooperation with Saddam's regime to frustrate Iran's attacks. At this time (July 1988) an Iranian civilian jet aircraft was shot down by the US navy in the Gulf killing 290 people. The US administration expressed no sympathy. Against the overwhelming weight of imperialism Iran was forced to accept a ceasefire on 20 August 1988. Without the massive financial and military backing of the US and Britain, it is an open question as to whether or not Saddam's regime would have survived the Iran-Iraq war - an irony which George Bush and Tony Blair must be rueing. Iraq -Britain's Former 'Colony'AFTER World War One the imperialist powers of Britain and France seized the Middle Eastern territories of the Turkish Ottoman Empire and divided the spoils; reneging on independence agreements made with Arab leaders. France grabbed Lebanon and Syria while Britain took Iraq, Trans-Jordan and Palestine to rule over the people of these countries as virtual colonialists. This plunder was sanctified by the newly created League of Nations (the precursor of the United Nations), scathingly described by the Russian revolutionary, Lenin, as the "League of imperialist Bandits". In 1920 an Iraqi revolt against British rule was put down after RAF bombing had contributed to the deaths of 9,000 civilians. But even after a stooge monarchy was installed by the British colonial secretary, Winston Churchill, uprisings and skirmishes with Kurds and Iraqis continued, along with regular RAF bombings (Churchill wanted to use Mustard gas!). Only after British and US oil companies had secured a grip on the country's vast oil fields did Iraq gain nominal independence in 1932.
United Nations: A Fig-Leaf For ImperialismPRESIDENT BUSH went to the United Nations (UN) on 12 September, demanding UN assistance in his war against Iraq, or else Saddam Hussein could face attack and overthrow by US-led forces. Roger ShrivesBush asked: "Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?" But what is the purpose of the UN? Many people - such as the leaders of Britain's TUC - still seem to see it as an 'impartial' body, working to international laws and above the petty interests of individual nations. Bush wanted the invasion of Iraq to get a UN seal of approval as a smokescreen to encourage critical countries' leaders to back the war and even 'sell' it to worried people at home. In reality, far from being impartial, the UN reflects the world's balance of power. Five big powers are on the Security Council and particularly since the USSR collapsed, the planet's only military and economic superpower - US imperialism - dominates it. After 11 September 2001 US forces started bombing Afghanistan with UN approval, rather than getting direct UN assistance. Widespread international opposition to attacks on Iraq, however, forced Bush to beg them to put their name to this adventure. The US is years behind with its UN dues. While at the UN Bush signed his government up to UNESCO, the international educational, scientific and cultural organisation after an 18 years absence. Bush said it was "a symbol of our commitment to human dignity" but it was a cynical sop to UN delegates. Blair talks about giving Saddam a final warning. Unless he lets in the UN-approved arms inspection body Unmovic to investigate his chemical, biological and nuclear capacity, he would face attack. Saddam though remembers what happened last time. Unmovic's predecessor, Unscom, was found to have been stuffed full of spies planted by the US government. But several US government officials have made it clear that Saddam's compliance or non-compliance with weapons inspectors is an irrelevancy - they want US imperialism to take action against Iraq, regardless. Weapons control - US hypocrisyWhat's more Bush's administration has hypocritically been blocking international controls on biological weapons. Last year they even forced the sacking of the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons because he planned to inspect five countries without consultation - including the USA. Bush of course opposes any such inspections on US soil - he has the world's largest stock of chemical and biological weapons and nuclear bombs. Bush's government even wants American UN 'peacekeepers' exempted from prosecution by the new International Criminal Court, ostensibly the first standing court for war crimes. A compromise with the UN gives a year's exemption. Bush though, wants US forces to act untrammelled by any laws. He says he sees the US as "the peacemakers" under his command while other lesser powers, the US's allies, would just be "peacekeepers". In the 1990/91 Gulf War Bush senior's government used the UN as a fig leaf for a US-led war. Then he threatened economic sanctions against countries such as Yemen that opposed the vote in the UN chamber. Now, with less support than in 1990, the US must again call on the UN. But socialists should have no illusions that the UN can act in workers' interests. Bush and Blair say Saddam's regime had breached 23 UN resolutions. But Israel - an ally of the US - has openly flouted no less than 70 UN resolutions; yet there are no bombers hovering over Tel Aviv, no punitive sanctions like those which have killed over half a million children in Iraq since 1990. The capitalist powers, alone or in the UN, have failed to remove from government or bring to justice those guilty of crimes against humanity. The UN didn't even discuss the growing threat of war between India and Pakistan despite both powers having the ultimate weapon of mass destruction - nuclear bombs. The United Nations, dominated by the wealthy and powerful capitalist nations of the world, cannot solve these problems. That's why we fight to unite the working class worldwide in the battle to create a socialist world.
Home | The Socialist 20 Sept 2002 | Subscribe | News Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Bookshop
Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism - V I LeninThis socialist classic is reviewed by Jane JamesChallenging The Power Of Finance CapitalTHE WARMONGERING of George Bush and Tony Blair over Iraq, the recent failure of the Earth Summit to stop environmental destruction, huge corporate scandals and the mass anti-globalisation protests around the world, have all generated discussion on the pernicious role of global capitalism or what Marxists term,' imperialism'. This is not a new phenomenon. The revolutionary socialist VI Lenin wrote the pamphlet Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism in 1916, in which he explained the development of worldwide capitalism. Lenin wrote this while in exile in the middle of world war one which he described as an imperialist war between the most powerful nations of that time for the division of the world. Throughout the book many statistics and reports are analysed as evidence of this new phase. The example is given of Germany in 1907 where 586 companies employed almost one-tenth of industrial workers using nearly a third of the all steam and electric power. As capitalism developed and more industrialisation took place so production became concentrated in fewer and larger companies. Competition is transformed into monopoly with the domination of a few powerful companies in each area of industry. The concentration of production increased from the 1870s onwards and through the boom of the late 1890s. The economic crisis of 1900-1903 forced many smaller companies to collapse giving way to the supremacy of monopolies and cartels. The monopoly stage of capitalism - imperialism - had arrived. Financial muscleDuring this period the strongest companies within particular industries formed cartels in which agreements were made, prices fixed and markets divided up as opposed to the earlier period of capitalism where competition between numerous companies was the general rule. Such cartels and monopolies had huge advantages over smaller companies in terms of size, and more advanced technology. Their aim was to smash all competition. Not only industries but also the banks went through change. From middlemen who used the investment from some companies to lend to others in order to further production - banks too became monopolies eventually controlling all of the money capital of the capitalists. These powerful banks, through the centralisation of capital, played the role of developing national and then a world economy as well as speeding up the concentration of capital and monopolies. Links and relationships are established between the banks, industry and government which Lenin calls the "division of the labour of the rich". Bank and industrial capital merges to form finance capital and a powerful financial oligarchy grows up. The domination of finance capital is a key feature of imperialism. Corporate crimeCapitalists today denounce the fraudulent and supposedly unusual practices of Enron and World Com ignoring the fact that this has existed throughout the history of capitalism and more so since the imperialist stage. Lenin describes the "swindling tricks of finance capital" by referring to the Spring Steel Company of Kassel in 1914. This was a very powerful company in Germany whose dividends collapsed. A dodgy loan to another company "was never mentioned in its balance sheets" which had been approved by the chairman. Some things never change! Just as a small number of powerful companies and banks dominate one country or a particular world industry, so eventually a small number of financially powerful states dominate the world. Lenin explained that in 1916 just four countries - Britain, the US, France and Germany - owned 80% of the world's finance capital. Most of the rest of the world were in debt to them. Whereas previously capitalism exported goods - imperialism developed the export of capital in the form of loans and investment. With a surplus of capital - more profits could be made investing in underdeveloped countries where costs were lower. Loans were granted on condition they were used to buy goods from the country loaning the money as a report written at the time shows: "The construction of the Brazilian railways is being carried out chiefly by French, Belgium, British and German capital. In the financial operations connected with the construction of these railways the countries involved stipulate for orders for the necessary railway materials." The epoch of colonial policy where the powerful countries invaded and ruled various parts of the world is also a feature of imperialism. Finance capital seeks to control not only raw materials already discovered but potential resources too, so fuelling the drive for new territories. In 1876, 10.8% of Africa 'belonged' to the European colonial countries. This had risen to 90.4% by 1900. Lenin explained that such was the power of finance capital that it was not necessary for imperialist countries to directly rule these colonies - they could be indirectly exploited and controlled by finance capital. This was borne out after the second world war when many colonies gained formal independence from their imperialist oppressors only to remain economically dependent on them. Today this is more stark than ever. The programmes of the World Bank and IMF operating in the interest of the most powerful capitalist countries have devastated countries already impoverished. 600 million children live in absolute poverty while 30,000 children die each day from preventable diseases. Once most of the world was divided up between the super powers there would be a continual struggle to re-divide the world decided by economic and military strength and decided ultimately by wars. OpportunismLenin outlined how the monopoly stage of capitalism tends to lead to decay and parasitism. Those that own capital play less and less of a role in actual production - many just becoming richer by playing the stock exchange. The huge profits gained from the colonies were used, particularly in Britain, to buy off or bribe the upper strata of working class in the advanced capitalist countries. These more privileged sections of the working class grew apart from the broad mass and the need to struggle. This led to opportunism and a period of decay in the working class movement. One result was the capitulation of the leaders of social democracy when the first world war led to them supporting their own ruling class against the interests of the international working class. Karl Kautsky (a leading social democrat) disagreed with Lenin's analysis of imperialism and believed it to be just a particular policy of capitalism which could be changed. He also speculated that imperialism could reach a phase where finance capital would unite internationally and rule a world without the need for wars. Certain economists of the time believed it possible to return to a more progressive and fairer era of capitalism where free competition was the rule. (How similar to many in the anti-globalisation movement who for example argue that trade can be 'fairer'.) It is not the "imperialist phase" or "globalisation" that must be changed, capitalism itself must be overthrown. Global capitalism today is more intensive and exploitative than in 1916 but is fundamentally the imperialist stage of capitalism that Lenin described. In 1916 Lenin spoke of three major powers' domination the world. Today the US alone is the supreme imperialist power in the world attacking states which threaten its resources or prestige and ultimately its profits. Other powerful countries exploit and oppress weaker nations while struggles continue between big powers and regional blocs over resources and markets. Lenin spoke of the socialisation of production as being progressive. Within capitalism can be seen the possibility of harnessing the technology, inventions and resources developed by capitalism but for the benefit of humankind. To do this production needs to be socially and not privately owned. For an understanding of the capitalist global economy today, this pamphlet should definitely be studied. Home | The Socialist 20 Sept 2002 | Subscribe | News Join the Socialist Party | Donate | Bookshop
|
|