Time To Fight Back :: The Socialist, 10 January 2003

IF TONY Blair has been studying the opinion polls, then he won't be expecting a happy New Year. Whether it's on the state of the economy, public services or war against Iraq - opposition to New Labour's policies is growing.

Christine Thomas

With the world economy in crisis, an expected budget deficit of £20 billion and a forecasted slowdown in house prices and consumer spending, it's not surprising that gloom about the economy is the worst it's been since September 11 2001. 44% think that New Labour's policies won't improve the economy compared to 38% who think that they will.

Nine out of ten people expect a war in Iraq in the next 12 months but the biggest group - 44% - are opposed to war. Hundreds of thousands will be taking that opposition onto the streets for the 15 February anti-war demo.

There is mounting anger that New Labour can find money for a war for oil while refusing to pay the firefighters and privatising public services.

52% disagree that New Labour's policies will improve public services. Seven out of ten think hospitals and schools will stay the same or get worse and three out of four expect no improvement in public transport.

Discontent amongst public sector workers is set to increase in 2003. One-fifth of GPs want to quit the health service and one-third of teachers expect to leave in the next five years. The firefighters' tremendous struggle (which is not yet over) against low pay and to defend the fire service is an anticipation of the struggles to come, especially in the public sector.

Working-class and young people need a political voice and a political alternative to the pro-big business policies of the establishment parties. That's why the campaign for a new workers' party will intensify in the coming year.

The Socialist Party will be at the forefront of that campaign, as well as opposing war with Iraq and fighting to defend public services.

No to war with Iraq

Build The Anti-War Protests

The US is set to increase the number of its troops in the Middle East to 150,000, stepping up preparations for a war against Iraq while, as yet, the UN inspectors have uncovered no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Ken Douglas

Bush's hypocrisy can be seen in the US government's treatment of North Korea - another member of his 'axis of evil'. Here is a state, which probably has nuclear weapons, is exporting Scud missiles and has expelled UN inspectors yet the US proposes 'tailored containment' rather than invasion.

Iraq is being targeted for its vast oil reserves. The US has a military presence in almost every country that either has oil or borders a country that has oil.

Meanwhile more information about the likely cost on war with Iraq is emerging. It is estimated that UK spending could exceed £5 billion. The cost of war in Afghanistan is set to spiral to £618 million which only involved about 1,500 combat troops, since reduced to 300.

This compares to 10-15,000 British troops that are likely to be used for a full scale invasion of Iraq, quite apart from any peace-keeping role afterwards. Blair says there's no money for the firefighters who perform an essential, life saving service but at the same time he's prepared to squander billions on war with Iraq.

Opposition against this war is growing. On 15 February there will be a worldwide day of protest - hundreds of thousands of workers and young people will demonstrate their opposition to an invasion of Iraq.

The national demonstration in London could surpass the magnificent 400,000 that attended the protest on 28 September last year. We need to do all we can to ensure that the anti-war voice is heard loud and clear by Bush and Blair.

We need to build an organised campaign with groups in every workplace, school and college and prepare for a mass walkout if war starts, followed by a campaign of civil disobedience.

Whether there is war in Iraq or not, US and British capitalism will continue to inflict misery on the world. Every year the US spends £237 billion on the military - a fraction of this amount, just £15 billion, would ensure that everyone had access to a clean water supply.

A socialist world would ensure that the working class and poor could democratically own and control the vast resources currently controlled by the multi-national corporations.

National demo

1 pm, 15 February

Central London

(Further details to follow)

Stop The War Campaign National Conference

Saturday 11 January, 10 am to 5 pm, The Camden Centre, Judd Street, London WC1H 9JE

Contact 020 8988 8767 for details.

Support the firefighters

New Labour Hide The Facts

MOST PEOPLE sympathise with the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) strike but it's ordinary taxpayers and service users who are paying for resisting their justified action.

So far the strike has cost the government some £80 million. The annual cost of meeting the full claim would be about £450 million so opposing the demand is at least as expensive as paying it.

Local government minister John Prescott has pledged that his department's budget will meet the cost of scabbing ie training troops to use Green Goddesses, housing soldiers on fire duty and paying police overtime.

Big business wants to get public services on the cheap and New Labour's 'modernisation' proposals - the Bain report - call for huge cuts which could cost tens of thousands of jobs.

However the FBU says the government is still suppressing a report that says fire cover needs to be doubled in parts of Britain.

The Fire Cover Review was an investigation, commissioned by the Audit Commission and lasting three years. But the government has sat on the Review's findings which say that the fire service budget should rise from £1.6 billion to £3.8 billion. This flies in the face of their cost-cutting obsessions.

The Review was based on the new "risk-based approach" to fire cover which Prescott champions. It calculates how much fire cover is needed based on the degree of risk to people rather than how much danger there is to property.

The government has swept these findings under the carpet. As an FBU official commented, this is "typical of New Labour's manipulation of the facts". Firefighters will bear this shabby treatment in mind when the next round of strike action is due to start later this month.

Rank and file get organised

A NATIONAL rank and file firefighters' meeting, sponsored by the Socialist Party, has been organised in London on 17 January.

The FBU strike was called because of poverty pay but now the dispute is a battle to defend conditions won in the fire stations over 25 years or more. Many firefighters are angry that their FBU union leadership suspended their planned action before Christmas for the fifth time.

The government and media claim that this shows the FBU's weakness, Certainly it encourages the Blair government to attack the firefighters' conditions at work and to try to push through all the worst aspects of the Bain report.

In our opinion the FBU leadership has badly misread the firefighters' mood and is seeking to find a 'compromise' agreement with the employers which could leave firefighters worse off then when the dispute started.

The union's rank and file have to make it clear to the union leaders that they won't accept the cancellation of any more planned action without very good reason.

(Note: The rank and file meeting planned has been cancelled due to a clash with an official meeting)

Venezuela: Why The Oil Bosses Are ‘Striking’

THE CORRUPT reactionary nature of the leadership of the anti-Chavez protests in Venezuela is shown by information recently sent to us by the CWI’s correspondent in Trinidad.

THE 22 "strike leaders", all of whom are directors of the oil company PDVSA, each have an annual salary which averages out at US $643,000! The lowest-paid is Luis Ramirez who makes US $238,000 and the highest paid is Karl Mazeika who nets US $761,000 per annum.

This makes their average income 100 times greater than the income of the average Venezuelan – who earns US $4,760.

In 1976 PDVSA received US $9 billion for its operations and handed over US $7 billion to the Treasury. By 1995 its income had reached US $27.261 billion but the Treasury only received US $4.9 billion. In other words only 20% of income reached the government.

Could it be an accident that government proposals to reclaim this lost 80% of revenue – which are due to become law this month – have anything to do with the current attempt by the reactionary opposition to bring down the government?

Oil crisis

ONE OF the side effects of the crisis in Venezuela is a rise in global oil prices as output is affected in an important oil-producing area.

A war in Iraq would have even bigger consequences for the fragile economies of the Middle East and would also hit those of the USA and the rest of the Western economies.

The Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies calculates that oil prices could soar up to $40 a barrel if the war in Iraq took up to four months.

TONY BLAIR'S gloomy New Year forecast of 'war, terrorism and a faltering world economy' is a ringing indictment of the capitalist system he supports. He concedes that resolving this "insecurity" depends on his government's policies.

But as HANNAH SELL, BILL MULLINS, JANE JAMES and DAVE CARR show in the following articles, Blair and the ruling classes of the major powers are instead driving the world to disaster.

Only a socialist alternative can avert Blair's doom laden scenario.

World Economy: The Crisis Deepens

IN THE 1990s the capitalists believed they'd reached nirvana. Rolling in unimaginable amounts of wealth, they thought it would carry on for ever. Now reality has shattered their illusions. Capitalism remains a blind, crisis-ridden system.

Britain won't escape unscathed. New Labour claimed they'd eliminated 'the boom and bust' cycle of capitalism. Now Brown has had to eat his words, admitting that the world is suffering the worst downturn since 1974 and that workers in Britain are going to suffer the consequences.

The economist John Gray wrote recently: "The bone-shaking volatility of market capitalism - has not changed. On the contrary, it has returned with a vengeance. Global capitalism is probably as fragile today as it has been since the 1930s." As a result Bill Gates alone has lost $42 billion over the last three years. Nonetheless, with $43 billion left, Bill is still the richest person in the US!

It's a very different story for 1.4 million US workers who've lost their jobs since March 2001. Or for the Argentinian masses who have seen their economy contract by over 15% during the last two years in a catastrophic economic collapse.

In a previously relatively wealthy country half of its 36 million population can no longer afford basic food and household supplies. And Argentina's crisis may not be exceptional. Other countries facing the possibility of a virtual meltdown include Brazil, Latin America's largest economy. On average, Latin American countries' economies contracted by an estimated 1.1% in 2002.

This economic crisis in the major imperialist powers is far from over, but as the last two years have shown, the heaviest price of all will be paid by the oppressed of the neo-colonial world.

Multinationals are never motivated by philanthropy when they invest in the world's oppressed countries. In the last decade the major powers, in particular US imperialism and its tools - the World Bank and IMF - brutally tightened their screws on the neo-colonial world.

However, there has been some investment in a few neo-colonial countries, although largely of a speculative character. In the last two years even this is drying up. In 2001 there was a 40% collapse of capital flows from the advanced capitalist countries to the so-called 'emerging markets'.

Stagnation

THREE MAJOR world players - the US, the European Union and Japan - are responsible for 72% of world output. They are all in a sorry state.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that total domestic demand will grow next year by only 2.8 % in the US. This compares favourably, however, with the Eurozone's 0.4% growth and with Japan's 1.4% contraction of demand.

Martin Wolf in the Financial Times, commenting on prospects for a world recovery, said: "Nothing can be expected from Japan, even in the medium term." Japan has suffered a decade of stagnation interspersed with recession.

In recent weeks commentators had begun speculating listlessly that maybe Japan was crawling back from recession to stagnation. Those hopes are now dashed. Peter Morgan, economist for HSBC in Tokyo explained: "We believe the latest recovery has already ended, making it the shortest on record."

Nor could the Eurozone kick-start the world economy. Germany, responsible for 35% of economic activity in the zone, contracted by 0.8% last year and is expected by the OECD to contract by a further 1.1% this year. The recession in Germany and weak growth in the other Eurozone countries will inevitably put the Euro currency under pressure.

For the second half of the 1990s the US, an economic giant responsible for over a third of world production, was a massive prop for the world economy. Early in 2002 it seemed that the US economy was recovering from recession and might once again prop up the world.

However, The Socialist argued that this was likely to be a 'dead-cat bounce' and that the economy would lapse back into recession. Economic commentators are now forced to the same conclusions. As Larry Elliot explained in The Guardian:

"The US - linchpin of the world economy - had a storming start to 2002, but gradually the impetus has petered out as the legacy of the bubble economy of the late 1990s - over-investment, weak profitability and an overhang of debt - has put the brake on growth. Unemployment is rising, the manufacturing sector is contracting and, despite its recent strong rally, the stock market has taken a fearful hammering."

Intractable problems

GEORGE W Bush, desperate to prevent the economic situation getting worse, has fired the Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, vainly hoping that a new face would find a new solution to his problems.

The memory of Bush's father, who won the last Gulf War only to lose the presidential election, largely because of the state of the economy, is burned on his brain. However, Bush's room to manoeuvre is limited. The economic problems today are far more intractable than those of the 1990-92 recession, which his father failed to prevent.

The US economy has only been rescued by continued consumer spending. This has been based on debt and is unsustainable. Personal debt is now at a record level of 131% of disposal income. There now seem to be signs that consumer spending is slowing down.

The US preaches neo-liberal orthodoxy to the rest of the world but shamelessly ignore it themselves. The Bush government's response to the crisis has been to pump liquidity into the economy by cutting taxes, lowering interest rates, increasing military spending etc.

However, as Japan so graphically shows, these measures are not guaranteed to succeed. Japan has been pump-priming its economy for a decade without success.

It's not possible to say how deep or long-lasting this recession will be. Events such as war in Iraq resulting in an oil-price spike and huge political instability; further dramatic declines on the world stock markets; or the dollar going into freefall could precipitate a devastating crisis.

The best that capitalism can hope for in the foreseeable period is one of stagnation, rising unemployment, and worsening living standards for much of the world's population.

But the attempt of the capitalist class to off-load the burden of their failed system onto the backs of the working class will provoke a mighty fightback. The recent industrial struggles and general strikes in Europe, Latin America etc, are a foretaste of things to come.

Mass Opposition To War On Iraq

WE ARE faced this year with the likelihood of a war against Iraq. Thousands of US troops already stationed in the area are soon to be joined by British forces. Meanwhile, the bombing of Iraqi air defence systems is increasing.

The consequences of such a war would be horrendous with thousands of Iraqis being killed and injured, the surrounding Middle East states in turmoil, resulting in more terrorist attacks and growing support for right-wing Islamist groups.

Tony Blair is proud to be seen as George Bush's closest ally in the United States so-called 'war against terrorism' even though the US calls all the shots. Since 11 September 2001 the US has gone on the offensive in proving its military, economic and political power in the world.

Nevertheless, both Bush and Blair have faced difficulties in pursuing their aims not least from the huge anti-war protests worldwide.

Intent

THE US ruling class will attempt to dominate any state that won't comply with its imperialist agenda. Iraq as a 'rogue state' is therefore likely to face a terrible onslaught.

A 'regime change' would also allow the giant US energy corporations that bankrolled Bush's presidential campaign to exploit Iraq's vast oil reserves.

However, lesser rivals to the US 'mega-power' such as France, Russia and China - who have already agreed oil and trade deals with Iraq - are opposed to US unilateral military action against Saddam. They fear the loss of important economic interests and political influence in the region.

So, while the more hawkish wing of the US administration wants immediate unilateral action against Iraq, Bush appears to have accepted the advice of Colin Powell (secretary of state) to 'legitimise' a war through the United Nations (UN). However, the agreed UN security council resolution 1441 (which allows weapons inspectors back into Iraq) contains so many 'trip-wires' to trigger a "material breach of Iraq's obligations" that an eventual US-led war seems extremely likely.

But the capitalist classes face huge risks in attacking Iraq. Not least, the repercussions on US and Western interests throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world.

The poor masses of the region, already seething over US backing of Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's repression of the Palestinians, could easily rise up and overthrow the weak and rotten pro-Western Arab regimes. However, in the absence of a mass workers' alternative fighting for socialism, such uprisings could easily result in even more reactionary, clerical regimes.

The world economy, already fragile, could be thrown into recession with oil prices initially soaring. In addition, there is the huge costs of the war and keeping up to 300,000 US and allied troops in Iraq for many years - given the warring factions that comprise the Iraqi opposition to Saddam and the country's ethnic and religious divisions.

System change

(It was the Western powers and the former Soviet Union that armed and financed Saddam's regime during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war when he gassed Iraqi Kurds.) However, it is the task of the Iraqi people themselves to overthrow Saddam.

Instead of a 'regime change' to oust Saddam Hussein and replace him with a US-stooge, we call for a 'system' change; to rid Iraq and the region of capitalism and its dictatorships.

Only a democratic workers' and peasants' government which nationalises the oil industry could alleviate poverty and rebuild the country's shattered infrastructure.

That requires overthrowing capitalism and landlordism and implementing a socialist transformation of society. It also requires an internationalist programme to unite the poor and oppressed of the region to similarly transform their countries and to prevent imperialist retaliation by appealing to workers worldwide.

Opposition

THERE IS a growing mass anti-war movement across the world before war has even started. The warmongering of Blair - Bush's most ardent supporter - undoubtedly led to the 400,000-strong anti-war demo in London on 28 September last year.

Following the London demo, 200,000 marched in Washington and 100,000 in San Francisco on 26 September along with tens of thousands across Europe. Up to one million protested in Florence, Italy, on 9 November and on 30 November 15,000 marched in Sydney, Australia. These numbers could be surpassed if military action against Iraq begins.

Like Bush, Blair has had to soften his approach to war because of both domestic and international opposition. The TUC has condemned a US-led unilateral war and some opposition was even expressed at last year's Labour Party conference.

However, on 25 November only 32 Labour MPs voted with Lib Dem MPs calling for the UN to pass a second resolution before going to war with Iraq. (We oppose all military action by imperialist powers against Iraq whether carried out in the name of the UN or the US.) If Blair goes to war the decline in Labour Party membership will rapidly accelerate and the party could fracture.

Even if this war doesn't take place, the aggressive role of US imperialism will continue to be a threat to the working class and oppressed on this planet. This perspective reaffirms our commitment to struggle for a socialist society without war, terror, poverty and oppression.

A Rising Tide Of Workplace Militancy

2002 ended as 2003 is beginning, with the firefighters' dispute unresolved and likely to blow up again. The intransigence and arrogance of New Labour is pitted against the firefighters' determination.

The firefighters' struggle has marked an important turning point in the life of Blair's government. Whatever happens, the firefighters' strike is not the end of increased militancy amongst the working class but a beginning.

The public sector has been the centre of strikes and trade union struggle for the last year or more. Blair promised the capitalist class to 'reform' the public sector. What he meant was to reduce the state's role in providing services and open them up to the private sector profiteers.

Teachers, council workers, tube workers, rail workers and many others have taken strike action in the last year. Workers are regaining their confidence to take collective action.

There were 525,000 days lost in strike action last year, the highest since 1996. Many other disputes have taken place but are not recorded. Strike ballots have often had a majority for action, which often forces more concessions, even without a strike.

The threat of action by firefighters and other workers at major airports gained concessions, though much more could have been won. But Bill Morris, the transport union leader, intervened on the eve of the planned strikes and called them off to save New Labour's embarrassment.

Overtime bans, work-to-rule and other forms of industrial action often take place without entering official government statistics. The Department of Employment only count days lost in strike action if they last for one day or more and involve not less than 25 workers.

The brutal neo-liberal policies of Blair have led to a nightmare for millions of workers. The weakening of trade unions in the workplace has also played a large part in the continual pressure to work harder and longer.

Days lost due to workplace stress have nearly doubled from 18 million in 1995 to 33 million in 2001. Now, after a decade or more, workers are regaining confidence and have started to fight back.

Those union leaders who have not woken up to this new mood are being booted out and replaced by a new generation of left-leaning leaders.

Bob Crow and Mick Rix in the rail unions RMT and ASLEF, Billy Hayes in the postal union CWU and Andy Gilchrist in the Fire Brigades Union are seen by many union members as a refreshing change to the right-wing, old guard leaders. The new period opening up will test this new generation again and again. And the task for the rank and file will be to build broad Left organisations in the trade unions to organise support for fighting Left policies.

The recent strike wave raised a new layer of class fighters to the fore. They were often not involved before in the union branches and therefore not considered part of the 'activist' layer that has held the unions together over the last decade.

But this new layer is often well to the Left of the old activists. Members of the Socialist Party visiting the firefighters' and council workers' picket lines report the same thing - the absolute hatred for Blair and New Labour.

Many of these workers are outraged that their union subs are still financing the Labour Party. Firefighters do not accept the FBU leadership's argument that the union needs 'friends' in the party, they are well past that stage. Firefighters were not only ripping up their Labour Party cards but also demanding forms to opt out of the political fund.

It is time for bold action, to break with Labour and for the unions to launch a new mass workers' party. The role of conscious Marxists in the unions will be crucial. The need to build a strong base for Marxism in the unions has never been more urgent.

USDAW executive elections

SOCIALIST PARTY member Robbie SegaL is standing for re-election to the shopworkers' union USDAW executive council. Robbie has been a shop steward at Tesco stores, Folkestone, for 16 years and held senior positions at the branch, regional and national level of the union.

Robbie told The Socialist: "Four years ago USDAW members were sold the 'partnership' deal by the USDAW leadership and Tesco management. We were told that partnership was a way for management and union members to work together in a new way based upon "trust and mutual respect".

"But representatives repeatedly contact me to complain that management force through policy changes without consultation. They complain that members are afraid to be off sick and are bullied by management. Hours are changed with no consultation resulting in less family-friendly hours. The policy of partnership results in a massive turnover of staff and union members.

"I have come to the conclusion that 'partnership' does not exist in workplaces where there are partnership agreements. I believe that new partnership agreements will further weaken our union.

"Bill Connors, general secretary of our union who was awarded a knighthood in the new years honours list for "services to industrial relations", has presided over the implementation of partnership in the retail industry.

"I say that 'partnership deals' herald the end of national free collective bargaining and an end to the democratic control of USDAW by its members."

New Labour Claims We Live Too Long

'WORK UNTIL you are 70 or older if you can't afford to retire.' That's New Labour's grim message in its recent Green (consultative) Paper on pensions.

It seems we're living too long. A 65-year old in 2002 could expect to live four years more than a 65-year old in 1960. Government and employers say they can't afford state and occupational pensions to pay for this.

Pension experts estimate a 30 year-old needs to save over £200 per month. 13 million workers are not saving enough, according to the Department of Work and Pensions (hardly a surprise!).

Taking out a personal pension scheme is no guarantee of security in old age. One of the largest sellers, Equitable Life, has just cut payments to existing pensioners by 20-30%.

So New Labour's big idea is to keep people at work. Compulsory retirement at 65 will go. Teachers, civil servants and NHS workers, who can now retire at 60, will have to soldier on until 65.

Allowing workers to work past 65 is one thing. Making employers keep them on is another, as they are often on higher pay than new starters.

Older people develop more health problems, work slower and tire more easily. Learning new skills and adapting to change takes longer.

Employers often use early retirement rather than redundancies to cut jobs and wages.

Older workers have valuable experience and may want to keep social contact through work.

But why should anyone have to flog themselves to death continuing at the intensity bosses demand?

A socialist pensions policy would allow workers to start drawing a decent pension at 55. Those who want to continue work could do so. Part-time work with part pension could bridge the gap between work and retirement (one good idea in the Green Paper).

Bosses want workers to be responsible for our own pensions. But the wealth now pocketed by big business has been made by working people.

WORKERS IN large companies often belong to occupational pension schemes. They pay about 5% of their wages into the fund while the employer pays 10-12%. Benefits are based on final salary and the years workers have paid in.

During the 1990s Stock Market boom these schemes built a surplus of £19 billion. 94% of this went to employers as a "holiday" - they stopped paying in for a few years.

Now the Stock Market has fallen the bosses want to stay on holiday. One in three large schemes have closed to new members (mostly younger workers). Employers want to cut their payments to an average 6% of wages by shifting workers into 'defined contribution schemes'. These pay lower benefits. The worker takes all the risk, with no guarantee about the size of pension.

Employers may wind up 'final salary' schemes altogether. Shipping giant, Maersk, recently did this. Benefits were cut by up to 60%, despite the scheme being in surplus and the company profitable. The government talks of legislating against this, but it could take four years. How many more Maersks by then?

New Labour is looking at making us save more for retirement. They have appointed the former head of the employers' organisation, the CBI, to examine this. He's unlikely to recommend that bosses should pay!

But workers in some industries have already shown their determination to fight this daylight robbery and strike to defend their pension rights.

Time To Fight Back

Economic crisis, war, attacks on public services