The Socialist 1 November 2002

Stand Firm Against Low Pay

Firefighters wages' battle: AFTER MONTHS of ignoring the firefighters' justified pay claim, the New Labour government has been forced - under the threat of strike action - to take it seriously.

"In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11 and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network..." More ...

How The Anti-Vietnam War Movement Grew

Editorial: NOT FOR many years have the preparations for a strike been so closely followed by the media, government, employers and trade unionists.

There has been significant support for the firefighters, especially amongst public sector workers, many of whom have already been on strike or are preparing to take action to end low pay. More ...

Firefighters Speak To The Socialist: Steve Godward, FBU West Midlands, who spoke at the Socialism 2002 rally reacted to the news that the strikes had being suspended by warning that the full claim must be met in any talks taking place between the union and the employers.

Dean Mills, Regional Secretary Southern Region FBU.: "THE GOOD thing about it is that it has gone back to the National Joint Council. Our position all along has been that that is the place to discuss pay and conditions.

BRAZILIANS TOOK to the streets to celebrate the overwhelming election victory of the Workers Party presidential candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, better known as Lula.

"IT SEEMS that every 25 years when the Queen has a jolly, we have a strike."

Steve Godward, a Birmingham firefighter introduced the opening rally with a resounding call to support the firefighters' strike action.

The power of protest: PRESIDENT GEORGE W Bush is still defying widespread international opposition and trying to mobilise support for US imperialism's war with Iraq. In the 1960s and 1970s opponents of the vicious war against the small Asian country of Vietnam grew into a serious political force, which helped make US troops withdraw. In the article below, written before Bush's latest threats, TONY WILSDON and PHILIP LOCKER look at how this movement grew. This article originally appeared in a recent issue of Justice, the paper of the Socialist Party's US co-thinkers.

Over one hundred dead in Moscow hostage crisis: PUTIN'S 'WAR against terror' has brought terror to Moscow itself. A group of 50 heavily armed Chechens drove through Moscow in two minibuses and seized a theatre full of people in the middle of a popular musical show.  By Rob Jones, Moscow

Chechnya: A History Of Oppression: THE LONG suffering Chechens have seen thousands killed and wounded and hundreds of thousands made refugees in two bloody wars with Russia in the last decade.

AT A special all-Wales meeting on Sunday 20 October, Socialist Party Wales members unanimously agreed to withdraw from the Welsh Socialist Alliance (WSA). Below are extracts from the Open Letter which Socialist Party Wales sent to the WSA National Council. (Full version)

"The decision to leave the WSA was taken with regret because, as a founding party of the WSA we have consistently striven to achieve the maximum unity on the left in Wales. More ...

Crisis In The Socialist Alliance: THE SOCIALIST Party took the decision to leave the Socialist Alliance (SA), England in December last year after its conference voted for a constitution which completely changed the nature of the Alliance.

Below we print a copy of Liz Davies' resignation letter.

Home  |  The Socialist 1 November 2002  |  Subscribe  |  News 

Join the Socialist Party  |  Donate  |  Bookshop

Firefighters wages' battle

Stand Firm Against Low Pay

AFTER MONTHS of ignoring the firefighters' justified pay claim, the New Labour government has been forced - under the threat of strike action - to take it seriously.

Ken Smith

Firefighters commented on national TV news - just before the suspension of the first two firefighters' strikes - that the government would not have even come to the negotiations without the threat of industrial action. As it was, the government, in the form of John Prescott, had to negotiate tight-lipped and with its tail between its legs, desperately trying to dig itself out of the huge hole it was creating.

The sustained government media offensive, calling firefighters Scargillites and wreckers, was only having a marginal effect in swinging public support away from the firefighters.

And amongst firefighters it was having the opposite effect, making them even more determined to stay loyal to the union and its struggle for £30,000 with no strings.

Public support for the firefighters is still incredibly strong, despite the media lies, because working-class people see the firefighters' struggle as their struggle against the low pay and conditions of modern-day slavery that bosses impose in Blair's sweatshop Britain.

As yet, firefighters and the general public do not know the details of any proposed offer which was the basis for postponing the strike. Many firefighters are unhappy and think it was a mistake to call off the strikes with seemingly nothing more concrete on the table than further negotiations.

Rank-and-file firefighters have begun campaigning immediately to ensure their union leaders do not accept anything less than the full claim of 40% without strings

These firefighters have seen the panic in the government's eyes and know they would have public support to press on for the full claim. This has to be the slogan in every fire brigade watch now.

Firefighters and other workers have seen that either the threat or carrying out of determined industrial action can force this government to make concessions.

Now, by standing firm for the full claim and resisting New Labour's modernisation plans - a euphemism for imposing longer and more unsociable working hours and attacking working conditions - the firefighters will be striking a blow for all workers.

Home  |  The Socialist 1 November 2002  |  Subscribe  |  News 

Join the Socialist Party  |  Donate  |  Bookshop

Stop The War Machine

"In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11 and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network..."

Ken Douglas

Ex-US presidential candidate Al Gore reflects on how sympathy for the US following September 11 has faded in the face of the arrogance of Bush and his pursuit of war with Iraq.

The reaction to the Bali bombing shows just how this mood is changing. A 35,000 strong anti-war demo in Australia held a minute's silence for those killed in the bombing but were also very critical of John Howard, the Australian PM, for his slavish support for Bush.

They recognise that it is the policies of US imperialism, backed up by Blair, Howard and Co. that are primarily responsible for these terrorist atrocities. As Independent journalist, Robert Fisk said after Bali, "none of us are safe and Britons could be next".

Russia's barbaric military occupation of Chechnya devastated its capital Grozny, wiped out whole villages with the use of fuel/air bombs and destroyed the country's infrastructure. The Russian army have killed whole villages by strapping all the villagers together, men, women, children, and then blowing them up with explosives.

These were the causes of the siege of the theatre in Moscow that was so brutally and disastrously ended by Russian Special Forces. Moreover, as in Bali and New York, it was ordinary working-class people who were the victims.

Yet Bush and his poodle Blair have uttered no criticism of Putin since S11, as they need his support for their military adventures.

It is this hypocrisy and arrogance that is helping to build the anti-war movement worldwide and make no mistake these protests will have their effect. Tony Blair may not have looked worried after the 400,000 strong 28 September demo but it has shaken him.

It was even mentioned by Condoleezza Rice, US head of security, and the US government barely acknowledges demonstrations in America, let alone the rest of the world.

The potential exists to build on the 28 September demo. The day of action against war on Iraq on 31 October could be a step towards developing vibrant anti-war groups with firm roots in every college, school and workplace; of developing plans for civil disobedience if a war starts.

We live in uncertain times; every country will be affected by the world economic crisis. Across the world privatisation and deregulation are driving down workers' pay and conditions; famine threatens the countries of sub-Saharan Africa.

Imperialism brings misery to billions across the planet and the US' wars are just the tip of this iceberg.

Only socialism can provide a solution, where working people worldwide, with the vast resources of capitalism at their disposal, can begin to democratically and rationally plan society and solve the problems afflicting humankind.

Home  |  The Socialist 1 November 2002  |  Subscribe  |  News 

Join the Socialist Party  |  Donate  |  Bookshop

Editorial:

Firefighters Must Fight For The Full Claim - With No Strings

NOT FOR many years have the preparations for a strike been so closely followed by the media, government, employers and trade unionists.

There has been significant support for the firefighters, especially amongst public sector workers, many of whom have already been on strike or are preparing to take action to end low pay.

A substantial wage rise for the firefighters would give confidence to other workers in their own pay battles. Blair and New Labour recognise this, which was why they were preparing to take on the FBU. But they also fear the wider consequences that a strike could have.

So there was a palpable sigh of relief from the government when the FBU announced that they had postponed their first two planned 48 hour strikes.

FBU members and other trade unionists however, will be asking what exactly this will mean. Will the firefighters get from negotiations what they have not been able to get up until now?

As we go to press the FBU is meeting the employers' side for discussions. As we can see from the comments below by those most closely involved, if the talks do not succeed in going a long way to meet the demands of the firefighters, strikes could once again be on the agenda.

The effect of a firefighters' strike would be more widespread than the last national strike 25 years ago.

Until the announcement of more talks, the capitalist press was working itself into paroxysms of fury over the demand of the firefighters. But there is also fear of the effects that a strike could have on industry, transport and daily life in Britain.

Much of industry and transport would be on the brink of being shut down. Workers are much more conscious of safety especially after rail and other disasters of recent years.

The government has been split between those who wanted to calm things down and those who wanted to 'take on the FBU'. Blair, who initially spoke about the reappearance of "Scargillism", was then forced to adopt a more conciliatory tone in parliament.

The government fears that a victory for the firefighters would 'open the flood gates' to other public sector workers who would use a firefighters' pay settlement as the bench mark for their own pay claims.

Millions of workers would draw the conclusion that the best way of advancing their own pay and conditions was by militant industrial action and the election of new leaders who support these methods.

The employers are demanding, in return for higher wages, concessions from the FBU including lifting the overtime ban. They want to reduce the number of firefighters on the night shift.

They are trying to get the firefighters to pay for their own pay rise by means of 'productivity increases'.

The firefighters are absolutely correct to resist these demands. Why should they make concessions? They have successfully fought changes which would lead to a worsening of their conditions. This will be something else noted by other groups of workers fighting to resist the employers onslaught on their working conditions.

British workers work the longest hours with the least holidays compared to other European countries.

The capitalist neo-liberal agenda has already gone a long way towards making the British workers the slaves of Europe. The firefighters are preparing to turn the tide not only for themselves but for many others as well.

Home  |  The Socialist 1 November 2002  |  Subscribe  |  News 

Join the Socialist Party  |  Donate  |  Bookshop

Firefighters Speak To The Socialist

Steve Godward, FBU West Midlands, who spoke at the Socialism 2002 rally reacted to the news that the strikes had being suspended by warning that the full claim must be met in any talks taking place between the union and the employers.

"I was shell-shocked by the news as I was catching the train back to Birmingham.

The National Joint Council (the employers' forum, made up of councils from across the UK) have not got the money and that's why we demanded the government pay the full claim.

It's clear that only the full £30,000 can reflect the increased professionalism required of the firefighters. Maybe if they offer it over three years it could be accepted. But even Jeff Ord (chair of the chief fire officers' association CAFCO) says only a substantial pay rise will do.

There has been a lot of talk about comparing us to the police but we have had an overtime ban since 1975, it was a crucial element in our campaign for a pay formula. The police work overtime and it would knacker up our pay formula if we did as well.

The firefighters after 14 years are still on £21,500, a PC gets £32,000.

We must have the rate for the job. We have never been more powerful or united. The leadership has a mandate and they should fight for it. They should oppose the 'shopping list' of the bosses to change our conditions."

Dean Mills, Regional Secretary Southern Region FBU:

"THE GOOD thing about it is that it has gone back to the National Joint Council. Our position all along has been that that is the place to discuss pay and conditions.

If we'd taken part in the Bain Inquiry as it was, it would have been the same as usual - every time the employers don't like something they set up another enquiry.

The place to discuss pay and conditions is the National Joint Council - why would they want to opt out of that? It's a bit of a cheek though Prescott saying that's the way forward and that's the place for negotiations when it was him who interfered in the first place. The Bain enquiry was just pulled out of a hat.

Like all people providing essential services, my members don't want to go out on strike but they certainly have a belief in themselves and their ability and they don't want to be sold short by anybody.

We'll have to wait to see what the NJC come up with but we've still got the eight-day strike planned for 6 November."

Home  |  The Socialist 1 November 2002  |  Subscribe  |  News 

Join the Socialist Party  |  Donate  |  Bookshop

Brazil: Workers' Hopes Raised By Lula's Victory

BRAZILIANS TOOK to the streets to celebrate the overwhelming election victory of the Workers Party presidential candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, better known as Lula.

The former trade union leader is the first working-class leader of South America's most populous country, (52 million backed him in last Sunday's second round run-off) and seen by many as the most left-wing elected leader since Salvador Allende in Chile in 1970.

Lula defeated the governing party's candidate, Jose Serra, winning 61.35% of the vote. Under incumbent president Fernando Cordoso, neo-liberal policies including widespread privatisations have been viciously carried out to satisfy the profit lust of international finance capital.

During this decade-long capitalist feeding frenzy the economy has sunk into recession and accumulated a massive $260 billion foreign debt. Brazil's ruling class accepted a $30 billion emergency loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) but this comes with a hefty price tag.

The IMF demands a budget surplus up to and including 2005. This can only be achieved by slashing public spending and more privatisations, driving Brazil's impoverished masses further into poverty.

Capitalists in Brazil and internationally hope Lula can deliver by holding back any movement against neo-liberalism by the working class. Right-wing US treasury secretary Paul O'Neill said he'd examine Lula's speeches "to assure the markets he is not a crazy person" i.e. would threaten to reverse the globalisation process.

While Lula has wooed big business and US capitalism with his non-threatening "peace and love" electoral programme and few policies to benefit the poor masses, Brazil's working class has big hopes of Lula redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, creating jobs, improving health and education and implementing land reform.

These contradictory pressures were reflected in Lula's first TV interview when he said he'd honour Brazil's commitment to repaying its foreign debt but added that "the markets must know that we cannot have people suffering from hunger every day." But unless capitalism is replaced with a socialist planned economy then poverty and suffering will continue in this deeply divided society.

Home  |  The Socialist 1 November 2002  |  Subscribe  |  News 

Join the Socialist Party  |  Donate  |  Bookshop

Socialism 2002 - An Inspiring Weekend

"IT SEEMS that every 25 years when the Queen has a jolly, we have a strike."

Steve Godward, a Birmingham firefighter introduced the opening rally with a resounding call to support the firefighters' strike action.

Steve explained how the massive majority for the strike had already forced Blair to come up with an 'independent review' but: "Blair and Brown have already said there's no money. They're scared that if they give a pay rise to us they'll have to give it to everyone else.

"Then they attack us and call us criminals. I'm a life-saver but Blair is a life-taker, he's bombing Iraq daily and he bombed Afghanistan daily. He uses our taxes for bombs but not for the services we need and demand as a class."

Janice Godrich, president of the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) explained how the Left and Socialist Party members in particular had had to battle against the extreme right-wing in the union to elect a fighting leadership and resist the right-wing's coup attempt.

The Left were elected because they were prepared to tackle issues like low pay, safety at work and cuts and organise action to defend members' interests.

"We didn't shy away from issues like calling a national demonstration in defence of public services, which is now official union policy after a national conference decision."

She urged everyone to join the fight for democratic and campaigning trade unions who are prepared to stand up for their members' rights at work and not just go along with government policy. "All socialists and trade unionists must do all they can to support the firefighters." The PCS have circulated all branches explaining how to do this.

"I'm looking forward to working alongside Mark Serwotka and other Left trade union leaders to release the potential of the TUC. To work together to provide a lead to millions of workers. New Labour recognise the potential of that power so that's why these leaders are already under attack. We must have confidence in our members and our class to withstand these attacks. We as leaders must be champions of our class and put forward policies and programme to better workers' lives."

Billy Hayes, general secretary of the Communication Workers' Union (CWU) recalled how the winter of discontent arose out of a pact between the trade union leaders and the government. It was the Labour government trying to hold down wages - similar to today - which eventually caused the explosion of discontent amongst workers.

Referring to the title of the rally "For a 24-hour public-sector strike to fight privatisation" he pointed out that BT privatisation had meant a halving of BT's labour force.

Finishing on a positive note, looking forward to the battles ahead, he said: "I'm glad to be part of the so-called awkward squad. We reject social partnership, we oppose PPP and PFI, we support effective campaigns against racism and sexism, we support the democratisation of the movement."

Oliver Campbell, jailed for 12 years for a crime he did not commit, thanked the Socialist Party for the support given to him over the years, explaining how he was still fighting to clear his name.

Dave Nellist, leader of the Socialist group on Coventry city council exposed the hypocrisy of Bush and Blair's war plans. "They just want another Saddam in Iraq - but one who'll do as he's told this time. They've nothing against dictatorships."

Peter Taaffe, general secretary of the Socialist Party brought the rally to an inspiring conclusion by explaining how this was a defining moment for the trade unions and the Labour Party. "All Blair needs now is a blond wig and a handbag to be Thatcher." With a £20 billion budget deficit New Labour are faced with tax increases or more attacks on public expenditure. The vilification of the FBU is part of an attempt to break the power of the public sector workers.

The trade unions are paying to a party which is savaging the working class, in a way which Thatcher only dreamed about, so the creation of a new mass workers' party is an essential part of the forthcoming battles to defend and improve workers' living standards

"THIS IS the first major national event I've been to and I've really enjoyed it. It's really good to meet up with other active socialists and hear about the campaigns they've been running in their areas - as well as getting a better grasp of the Marxist theories. The hardest thing is trying to decide which of the meetings to go to.

But we've got 25 people here from Bristol so everyone can report back to our branches later on, so its really productive in loads of ways.

It's also good coming here because you meet other young socialists. It's really inspirational it makes you want to go back to your own area and build the movement yourself. "

Tom Baldwin, Bristol

 

"I'VE ENJOYED the school a lot. People are very friendly and its good to be around people who share the same ideas as me. Its been very good in consolidating my own opinions and ideas. I particularly enjoyed the Marxism versus anarchism debate - that was very interesting - looking at the differences and similarities.

I'd definitely come again - we're setting up an ISR group in Bristol so I'll be coming along to the ISR national conference as well in November."

Ellie, Bristol

 

"This weekend has confirmed my belief in socialism.

It's given me ideas and shown me more that I don't know and given me something to build on. I've only been a member for a few weeks and now I'm organising Socialist Students at Sheffield Hallam University!

I enjoyed the opening rally very much, I thought that Billy Hayes, Steve Godward and Janice Godrich spoke very well. The session on socialism vs. anarchism was good, Hannah Sell's introduction was clear and her arguments were very convincing."

Bob Severn, Sheffield

Home  |  The Socialist 1 November 2002  |  Subscribe  |  News 

Join the Socialist Party  |  Donate  |  Bookshop

The power of protest

How The Anti-Vietnam War Movement Grew

THIRTY YEARS ago in Vietnam, the US government was defeated for the first time in a major war. With the revival of the anti-war movement, and a possible new US war on Iraq, what can we learn from the anti-Vietnam War movement?

In August 1964, President Lyndon Johnson manufactured a fake attack on US forces, known as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in order to create political support for a massive US assault on Vietnam.

The US intervened in Vietnam to prevent a corrupt capitalist government in South Vietnam from being overthrown by the popular National Liberation Front (NLF) guerrillas. The NLF was linked to North Vietnam, where capitalism had been overthrown and replaced by a Stalinist system which was politically ruled by a privileged bureaucracy.

Although the NLF had a Stalinist leadership and did not base itself on a genuine Marxist policy of workers' democracy and international socialism, they did challenge capitalism and landlords. The US feared that the victory of "communism" in Vietnam would spur socialist revolutions throughout Asia.

By 1965, 200,000 US troops were stationed in Vietnam, growing to 500,000 in 1968. During this war the US dropped eight million tons of bombs, more than twice the total dropped during World War Two. 20 million gallons of the toxic defoliant Agent Orange were sprayed, destroying vegetation and spreading dioxin throughout Vietnam's food chain, leading to a massive rise in birth defects.

Altogether, the US government used $150 billion and 2.8 million troops fighting in Vietnam, 57,000 of whom died there.

On the other side was a desperately poor country with a guerrilla army that used weapons from a previous era. Its only supply line through North Vietnam to the Soviet Union was bombed every day by the US and rebuilt every night. The massive bombing destroyed 70% of North Vietnam's villages, leaving huge areas barren and the capital, Hanoi, completely destroyed.

The US was defeated largely by the Vietnamese people's heroic determination and fighting spirit. At least two million Vietnamese died in wars against Japanese, French and US imperialism between 1945 and 1975.

The NLF's programme of national liberation from imperialist domination, land to the peasants, and a decent life for workers inspired the most astonishing support, self-sacrifice, and willingness to fight to the death. This determination could not be defeated by all the military hardware the US could rain down on Vietnam. The result was that the US found itself bogged down in a costly, drawn-out war.

Movement emerges

THE EARLIEST protesters against the war came out of the civil rights movement. Malcolm X and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, for example, came out against the war in 1965.

The anti-war movement started as a small minority, with student sit-ins and demonstrations. But as the war dragged on, its social and economic consequences triggered a much larger, more effective opposition.

When the bombings began, a Boston Commons protest attracted 100 people. This grew to a massive 100,000 by 15 October 1969, with two million in total protesting across the country.

By 1969, there were 500 underground newspapers in high schools, and protests had been held on 232 college campuses across the country with 3,652 people arrested and 956 suspended or expelled. The existence of the draft, where all young people could be randomly selected to serve in the army, led to mass draft-dodging.

Many middle-class students were able to dodge the draft, leaving working-class and African American youth to be the majority of those forced to fight. By early 1968, 40,000 soldiers were dead and 250,000 were wounded, with the numbers growing daily.

The media has attempted to portray the anti-war movement as being mainly made up of well-off students. However, with working-class youth on the front lines in Vietnam, opposition to the war was actually strongest in working-class communities.

A University of Michigan poll in June 1966 showed that 27% of people with a college education favoured immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, compared to 41% of those with only a grade D, school education.

Revolt in the Army

EVENTUALLY, MASS opposition developed within the US armed forces themselves. With no confidence in the goals of an unwinnable war, rank-and-file soldiers revolted.

With African Americans disproportionately represented in the army, the effects of the civil rights movement was a key factor. Black soldiers saw little reason to risk their lives fighting a racist war, in a racist army, for a racist government.

In 1970, there were over 50 underground newspapers on military bases. By 1971, 17.7% of US soldiers were listed as AWOL. In 1972, a quarter of US soldiers had mutinied or defied military orders.

Units refused combat, fragging (soldiers killing their officers) was widespread, and almost a quarter of US troops had become heroin addicts. Over 700,000 soldiers received less than honourable discharges.

The anti-war movement was strengthened by the thousands of veterans who returned home radicalised by their experience in the war. Driven by anger at the US government's lies and the atrocities they witnessed, they moved to the forefront of the anti-war movement - in their uniforms, many on crutches or in wheelchairs.

This process was summed up by Col. Robert D. Heinl Jr. when he wrote: "The morale, discipline and battle worthiness of the US Armed Forces are, with a few salient exceptions, lower and worse than at any time in this century and possibly in the history of the United States.

"By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and non-commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous." (The Collapse of the Armed Forces. Armed Forces Journal, 6/7/71)

The most powerful army in the world disintegrated. This is an important lesson for activists today, as the ruling class attempts to make its massive firepower appear unstoppable. In reality, the US military is not immune to wider social and political processes.

Any major wave of radicalisation and revolt in US society will inevitably find an expression within the rank-and-file of the US armed forces, who are mostly working class, thus tending to undermine the military's effectiveness as a tool for repression by the ruling class.

Mass involvement

THE WAR also hit people in the pocket book. At first, increased war spending boosted the economy, but the cost of the war and increased social programmes at home (to stem an uprising of African Americans) forced the government to print excess dollars to pay for it.

This led to a spiral of price increases, inflation, a ballooning budget deficit and the erosion of the purchasing power of workers' wages - which triggered an increase in strikes and opposition to union leaders who refused to fight the bosses in order to win decent contracts.

At this point, the anti-war movement developed into a truly mass movement, cleaving society in two. After national guardsmen, recently coming off policing a Teamster picket line, shot dead four students at a Kent State University protest, mass occupations of colleges erupted.

By 1972, one million blacks considered themselves revolutionary. Millions began to see clearly through the rhetoric of a "war against communism", and saw the naked aggression of the US ruling class in its pursuit of profits and imperialist domination.

By this point, important sections of big business concluded that it was better to end the war rather than suffer further social explosions at home. They feared the civil rights movement, the growing threat of ordinary workers going out on wildcat strikes, and the youth movement all coalescing into one giant movement against the government and the capitalist system.

Lessons for today

IN 1973, Nixon was finally forced to withdraw all US troops. Two years later saw the complete victory of the NLF. Suffering such an embarrassing defeat, and terrified of provoking new social upheaval at home, US imperialism held back from major military interventions abroad for almost 20 years.

Only in the last decade have they been confident enough to contemplate starting wars that risk a serious loss of US lives.

Since then, the spokesmen and politicians of big business have been trying to rewrite history.

The right wing argues that the US never really lost the war, but just failed to conduct it energetically enough. These same elements believe that their quick victory in Afghanistan has shown that determined military action can overcome all obstacles.

This is a completely wrong conclusion. As New York Times correspondent CL Sulzberger wrote: "The US emerges as the big loser and the history books must reflect this... We lost the war in the Mississippi valley, not the Mekong valley. Successive American governments were never able to muster the necessary support at home."

The distinguishing mark of the Vietnam War was that the US waged a war against a social revolution. The majority of peasants and workers in Vietnam were fighting for their national and social liberation and were therefore prepared to make great sacrifices.

There is no comparison between the war in Vietnam and the war in Afghanistan, where the reactionary Taliban was hated by the majority of the population. As soon as the ground war began, the Taliban was isolated with no social base and quickly collapsed.

It became a conventional war of armies in which the US had a huge advantage. This was the key factor that led to the swift US victory. The terrorist outrage of 9/11 and the reactionary nature of the Taliban also meant that there was no social support for the Taliban in the US, making it much easier for Bush to win public support for his war.

The enormous worsening of social conditions in the semi-colonial countries, due to neo-liberal globalisation, will force the workers and peasants in the "third world" into struggle in the coming years. As the main global policeman of corporate interests, the US will attempt to throttle these movements.

But any military intervention in a revolutionary situation, like in Vietnam, would force the US once again to put hundreds of thousands of ground troops into the field of battle, risking significant US casualties. The US would be forced to restore the draft, opening up the potential for revolt among the armed forces.

11 September 2001 represented a turning point in history, ushering in a new period marked by great instability, crises. and wars. The tremendous anti-Vietnam War movement is rich in valuable lessons.

In the more turbulent and violent period we have entered, these lessons can be of great use in building a powerful, effective anti-war movement, which contains the seeds of a new world.

Home  |  The Socialist 1 November 2002  |  Subscribe  |  News 

Join the Socialist Party  |  Donate  |  Bookshop

The Theatre Of War

Over one hundred dead in Moscow hostage crisis

PUTIN'S 'WAR against terror' has brought terror to Moscow itself. A group of 50 heavily armed Chechens drove through Moscow in two minibuses and seized a theatre full of people in the middle of a popular musical show.

Rob Jones, Moscow

In the early hours of Saturday 26 October, Russian special forces stormed the theatre after pumping in a "special substance" - a gas which not only killed a number of the terrorists but, at the time of writing, has also claimed the lives of 120 of the hostages.

Hundreds of others are still in hospital suffering from breathing problems, loss of memory and of course psychological shock. Now it has been admitted that the Chechens had not been shooting hostages.

Russian president Putin was quick to claim this as another attack by the "international terror network". His actions have been endorsed by George Bush and Tony Blair.

The hostage takers from Chechnya had close links to the Wahhabiite Islamist sect. Many of them were young women, including several widows of Chechens who had been killed by Russian troops in the two recent wars. But their 'fundamentalism' had a particular Russian tinge - hostages reported seeing the Chechens drinking.

The demands of the Chechens were blunt - end the war in Chechnya. Those world leaders who rushed to support Putin forget that it is the war in Chechnya that has caused the death of tens of thousands of Chechens and Russian soldiers.

The world has turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the Russian troops in Chechnya, which include the shooting without trial of any males in the fighting age group and the rape and murder of women. It is the very brutality of Putin's war that has caused the desperation of the Chechens to carry out terrorist acts.

What is significant however is that the crisis has brought Chechnya back onto the political agenda. For the first time for a long while, there have been burning political discussions about the question with many saying it was time to stop the war.

Despite Putin's almost tearful broadcast apologising to the relatives of those that died, his representatives on the scene were widely viewed as inflexible and insensitive. Members of his administration were noticeable by their absence from the scene, leaving the negotiations in the hands of opposition politicians and actors from the theatre.

Worse was the behaviour of the authorities after the storming. All the hostages were whisked off to hospital while the authorities refused point blank to admit that gas had been used. Doctors were left to treat the patients not knowing what chemical agent they were dealing with and relatives were in many cases refused permission to visit.

Officials underestimated the number of casualties only to be contradicted by the health authorities, who by Sunday afternoon had upped the number of dead to 118 hostages and 50 Chechens, with at least 50 still in intensive care.

Distressed relatives were left outside the hospitals in pouring rain for two days trying to seek information about missing people.

The real number of deaths caused by the use of this "special substance" will probably never be known. Now criticism is growing that such a gas could have been used.

End the war

COULD THIS siege have been ended peacefully? In 1995 the first Chechen war was eventually brought to an end after Chechens seized a hospital in Budyenovsk, in Southern Russia. The then Prime Minister, Viktor Cher-nomyrdin, negotiated on live television with the hostage takers, agreeing to call a ceasefire and the withdrawal of troops.

The only hope for bringing this siege to a peaceful end would have been for the government to once again announce withdrawal of troops. But this would have been too big a blow to the prestige of Putin.

After the first war (1994-96), capitalism in Russia and of course in Chechnya was unable to solve any of the root causes of this conflict. Money earmarked for reconstruction by the government was robbed by government officials. Chechens who had fought in the first war were left jobless and turned to banditry and kidnapping. Russian leaders again turned to military means to try and subdue the small mountain republic.

Clearly, alongside struggling to end this war, it is necessary to create a genuine political alternative capable of opposing Putin and capitalism itself, i.e. a workers' party with a socialist programme capable of fighting for workers' rights throughout Russia and guaranteeing self-determination to Chechnya and any other republic that wishes it.

Only then will it be possible to begin healing the wounds caused by the wars launched by the new capitalist Russia.

Gang of four

GEORGE BUSH, Tony Blair, Jaques Chirac and many other capitalist world leaders have all congratulated Putin for his resolution of the hostage crisis. They have justified the carnage caused by the Russian special forces using deadly gas as part of Russia's 'war against terrorism'.

After the 11 September al-Qa'ida attacks on the US, Western imperialism has given carte blanche to the ongoing Russian state terror in Chechnya, with barely a word of criticism.

"Non-lethal"deadly nerve gas

ACCORDING TO media reports, the gas used in the Moscow theatre siege is similar to a nerve agent (called BZ) developed by the US military in the 1970s. The agent affects the brain, paralysing its functions - hence the victims' memory loss. Those people in poor health, the elderly and very young would suffer the most from inhaling the gas. Clearly its concentration was enough to kill over one hundred people.

Apparently this deadly gas has never been used before outside of the defence laboratories in Russia and the US. Yet both powers are developing such agents because - due to a loophole in the international chemical weapons convention - such gases are classified as "non-lethal".

A secret state

THE RUSSIAN authorities use of lethal gas and their subsequent refusal to tell doctors treating the victims the chemical composition of it is an outrage. It underlines that the Federal Security Service (FSB), following the restoration of capitalism, has changed little of its secretive and sinister character from the dark days of its Stalinist predecessor, the KGB.

Putin, a former head of the KGB, is now introducing even more draconian police powers against 'terrorism'.

Chechnya: A History Of Oppression

THE LONG suffering Chechens have seen thousands killed and wounded and hundreds of thousands made refugees in two bloody wars with Russia in the last decade.

Like Stalin, who deported the whole Chechen nation to Kazakhstan in 1941, Russia's new rulers in their 'war on terrorism' are punishing all Chechens by turning their former republic into a prison camp.

Terrorist acts although associated with 'Islamic fundamentalism' are primarily the consequence of the restoration of capitalism in general and the Russian government's violent repression of Chechnya's rights in particular.

As capitalism began to be restored in Russia, Chechnya was granted tax-free status so that Russia's politicians and businessmen could launder the money they were robbing from the state.

Not prepared to lose control of this goldmine, or the oil pipelines through the republic, president Boris Yeltsin sent troops to put down demonstrations demanding independence in 1991. They were unsuccessful but Russia refused to grant Chechnya independence and in 1994 invaded the tiny republic.

The 1994-96 war resulted in a humiliating defeat for the Russian army which was forced to withdraw. This first war left over 40,000 people dead and the country devastated.

In October 1999 Yeltsin and his premier Vladimir Putin, in response to alleged Chechen bomb attacks in Moscow and other cities, sent Russian tanks back in to Chechnya. As president, Putin formally annexed Chechnya in May 2000.

However, Russia's demoralised conscript army, run by a corrupt military elite, has failed to pacify Chechnya, instead suffering military setbacks.

The conflict has also spilled over into neighbouring countries such as Dagestan, where Chechen guerrillas have been aiding armed Islamist groups and in Ingushetia and Georgia, the latter country coming under Russian air attacks last August.

Home  |  The Socialist 1 November 2002  |  Subscribe  |  News 

Join the Socialist Party  |  Donate  |  Bookshop

Socialist Party Leaves Welsh Alliance

AT A special all-Wales meeting on Sunday 20 October, Socialist Party Wales members unanimously agreed to withdraw from the Welsh Socialist Alliance (WSA). Below are extracts from the Open Letter which Socialist Party Wales sent to the WSA National Council. (Full version of this letter)

The Welsh Socialist Alliance was founded nearly five years ago by the Socialist Party, Cymru Goch (left republicans) and other socialists to provide an organisation in which socialists in Wales could work together in an electoral front ensuring that all trends of socialist opinion could stand candidates under one umbrella and could play a role in other campaigning issues.

All socialist organisations were invited into the WSA. The Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) declined because of its principled opposition to standing in elections. When the SWP changed its position and decided to stand in the 1999 Assembly elections, but still refused to join the WSA, the Socialist Party and the majority of other members in the WSA entered a pact to stand in the elections with the SWP under the banner of the United Socialists.

Since the belated entry of the SWP into the WSA we have attempted to work with them in the WSA, but this has increasingly become difficult as the SWP struggled to gain control of the organisation.

An attempt to remove the rule ensuring that no party can gain more than 40% of the leading positions of the WSA at the 2002 conference was thwarted by the wide opposition of WSA members.

But other conference decisions have been undermined or distorted by the SWP members in leading positions to ensure that the SWP retains a disproportionate influence over the WSA.

The Socialist Party has the greatest weight on the left amongst the Swansea working class and youth and a long and distinguished history in the Swansea labour movement. In previous elections in Swansea, we have achieved some of the best electoral votes of any socialists in Wales.

Nevertheless, we still bent over backwards to work together with other members of the WSA in Swansea for the Assembly elections. We stood down from our original choice of Swansea West where we stood in the general election in favour of another candidate and proposed instead standing in Swansea East.

The use of dishonest tactics to prevent a Socialist Party candidate from standing under the banner of the WSA, by packing the meeting to 'win' the vote and announcing an SWP candidate for Swansea East at the last minute, has given the Socialist Party little choice but to stand independently.

When the sudden appearance of a third candidate for the two Swansea seats was announced we suggested delaying the decision to allow a discussion between all interested parties to reach an amicable resolution of the problem which was immediately rejected by the SWP.

Such tactics are incompatible with the idea of a socialist alliance in which a spirit of co-operation and compromise should exist.

With the exit of the Socialist Party, following the disaffiliation of Cymru Goch, both the founding organisations of the WSA have felt compelled to leave. To lose one founding organisation could be unfortunate; to lose both can only mark the decline of the WSA as a genuine alliance.

We will support co-operation by the left and new alliances in fighting for socialist policies in the trade unions, community campaigns and in elections.

But this co-operation can only succeed if the left has an open, flexible and democratic approach, where we work together on the issues that unite us whilst respecting the right of all trends to put an independent position.

"The decision to leave the WSA was taken with regret because, as a founding party of the WSA we have consistently striven to achieve the maximum unity on the left in Wales.

However, since the entry of the Socialist Workers Party into the WSA two years ago, it has become increasingly difficult to work as a genuine alliance with the trust and co-operation that needs to exist if such an organisation is to succeed and grow.

The dishonest and underhand methods of the SWP over this period, culminating in their crude attempt to stop Socialist Party Wales candidates standing under the WSA banner at next year's Assembly election has resulted in the further decline of the WSA as a genuine alliance."

Alec Thraves, Socialist Party Wales Secretary

Crisis In The Socialist Alliance

THE SOCIALIST Party took the decision to leave the Socialist Alliance (SA), England in December last year after its conference voted for a constitution which completely changed the nature of the Alliance.

The Alliance was initially formed as an open, inclusive organisation uniting socialist groups and individuals. We explained that the new constitution would destroy what remained of this concept of a genuine Alliance. Instead it would be dominated by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and become little more than an electoral front for their organisation.

Now Liz Davies, one of the most prominent members of the SA has resigned from its executive and from her position as national chair, appearing to confirm our perspectives for the Alliance.

Below we print a copy of Liz Davies' resignation letter.

As members of the Socialist Alliance executive are aware, I have resigned as national chair of the Socialist Alliance and from the executive. I have done so with deep sadness.

I feel strongly that minimum standards of accountability and probity have not been upheld by some leading officers and members of the executive. Under the circumstances, it is clear to me that I will not be able to discharge effectively my duties to the members.

The premise of the Socialist Alliance was that individuals and groups from differing political backgrounds and perspectives could work together on a common political project. It was always clear that trust among the elements of the Socialist Alliance, and in particular trust among members of the executive and national officers, was essential to this endeavour. As a result of recent events, I feel that trust no longer exists.

I remain committed to contributing towards the development of a viable socialist alternative to New Labour.

Liz Davies

Home  |  The Socialist 1 November 2002  |  Subscribe  |  News 

Join the Socialist Party  |  Donate  |  Bookshop