The Socialist Issue 240

BOTH TONY Blair and transport secretary Stephen Byers have had the nerve to attack trade unionists and socialists who oppose privatisation as 'wreckers'. What hypocrisy!

Who has wrecked jobs?

In 1979 over seven million people worked in manufacturing industry; now there are only half that number.

The present recession could destroy many more jobs. Meanwhile employers are enforcing low pay and long hours for those at work. Almost four million people in Britain work at least 48 hours a week, that's 350,000 more than ten years ago.

Who's wrecking the railways?

The Tories sold off the rail system, paid the bosses huge salaries, sacked thousands of workers and ruined wages, work conditions and passenger safety.

After the rail crashes at Southall, Paddington and Hatfield, Labour said it would install the automatic train protection warning system throughout the industry by the year 2010. Now Byers has backtracked on these promises which he says are too expensive!

Why don't New Labour call the penny-pinching safety-jeopardising privatisers "wreckers"? And why, after the disaster of rail privatisation, are they forging ahead with the "private-public partnership" ie privatisation, in London's Underground. And why do they still want to privatise the Post Office?

Our health and our education aren't for sale!

Private companies aim to get an even bigger share of both the £50 billion national health budget and the £20 billion schools budget.

Services provided by private finance initiative (PFI) end up costing more, so hospitals cut beds and jobs to pay for them. This reduces standards of care and makes the NHS more unequal.

We're fighting for the NHS once more to be wholly publicly funded, wholly publicly owned and run under the democratic control of working-class people. Opinion polls say only 11% of the population support privatisation. Perhaps Blair and Byers think the other 89% are wreckers!

Trade union members should organise now for action to stop privatisation. Rather than subsidising New Labour, which is run in the interests of the Enrons, the fat cats and the privatisers, we should fight for a new party that represents working-class people and will campaign for socialist policies.

Letter Delivery Gifted To Privatisers

Hands Off The Post Office

THE ANNOUNCEMENT of the end of Royal Mail's monopoly by the regulator Postcomm was greeted with anger and disbelief by postal workers. The announcement was deliberately timed in the middle of a strike ballot.

By a London postal worker

Though it came from the regulator, it was the government that appointed Corbett and the other members and set the regulator's terms of reference. Companies will be able to cherry-pick profitable areas, threatening the service in rural areas. They will also be able to dump less profitable operations onto Royal Mail, forcing Royal Mail to deliver the competitors' mail to less accessible areas, for example.

In the first phase, bulk mail totalling 30% of Royal Mail's business, will be affected but Postcomm say the whole of the monopoly will go by 2006.

Through Postcomm, the government is murdering Royal Mail. The announcement gives fresh impetus to the campaign to free the political fund from supporting New Labour, and to the need to create a party of the working class to end this Thatcherite madness.

Postcomm's proposals

From 2002 to 2004 bulk mailings above 4,000 items and some 'niche' services will be up for grabs. This is 30% of the value of Consignia's market.

From 2004 to 2006, the bulk mail threshold will be lowered to 500 items. This is a further 30% of Consignia's market.

Postcomm claim that nearly nine out of ten letters are sent by companies or government agencies, so that is what is being opened up to privatisation first. Consignia is losing £1.5 million per day.

The National Audit Office has already warned that Consignia could turn the post office into 'another Railtrack', particularly if it loses the business that Postcomm is proposing to hive off.

Gloves Off Over Privatisation

NEW LABOUR'S privatisation juggernaut is ploughing forward, attempting to destroy everything in its path.

Speaking in Newcastle at the end of January, Blair tried to portray himself as the 'friend' of public service workers. But just over a week later, at Labour's local government conference, the gloves came off; anyone prepared to stand up against privatisation was denounced as a "wrecker".

The message is clear; the only public-sector workers Blair will be 'friendly' to are those who let private companies come in and cream off profits from public services, give up hard-earned rights on pay and conditions and accept thousands of job cuts.

Some people hoped that when the government took back Railtrack, it was retreating from privatisation and returning to 'Old Labour' values. This was wishful thinking. Faced with the complete failure of Railtrack, New Labour felt compelled to take some action.

They might even have to do the same in the future, with Nats for example, the air traffic control system which, according to Nats itself, is facing financial collapse.

However, New Labour are still ideologically committed to pursuing privatisation both to directly enrich their real friends in big business and to reduce the share of profits that the capitalists pay in taxes towards state spending. In a situation of economic crisis they could be pushed even further in this direction.

So they are going ahead with part privatisation of the Tube, even though it could create an 'underground Railtrack'. And Royal Mail is to be opened up to private competition despite the National Audit Office saying that it would undermine the universal postal service.

Stephen Byers stated that the government should be thrown out if the rail service doesn't improve, while Blair said that he will suffer the consequences if the NHS is not fixed. They will come to regret those words.

Although public spending has increased in the latest spending round, it has barely made up for New Labour sticking to Tory spending plans during its first two years in office. People's perception is that things are not getting better. Two-thirds believe that the NHS is in a poor shape.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies calculates that to maintain current levels of spending and bring NHS spending to European levels would lead to a shortfall of £17 billion. And that's assuming that the economy grows at 2.5% a year which, given the international economic situation, is extremely unlikely. Brown is already hinting at tax rises, but of course they refuse to raise income tax for the rich.

An economic recession will mean lower tax receipts and increased spending on benefits. In that situation New Labour will want to further step up their privatisation plans and private companies will be looking to make cuts and attack pay and conditions to boost profits.

That's why the strategy that some union leaders are pursuing, of trying to negotiate partial concessions for 'privatised' workers in the NHS for example, is completely inadequate.

National action is the only real strategy to defeat privatisation. And public ownership under the democratic control and management of workers and service users is the only way to guarantee quality public services for all.

Rail Unions Plan More Strikes

A SENIOR rail union RMT rep spoke to The Socialist about their pay battle with Arriva Trains Northern. They were on strike on 5 and 6 February.

A STRIKING Arriva guard told The Socialist on 5 February: "I'm married with three kids. I don't work my rest days and I'm on Working Families Tax Credit, so the government are admitting we are on a low wage."

Militant Tendency Shows The Way

IN HIS speech to New Labour's local government conference, Tony Blair attacked as "wreckers" anyone who opposes his privatisation plans and compared them to the Militant Tendency (forerunner of the Socialist Party). PETER TAAFFE, Socialist Party general secretary, sent the following reply to the press:

IT IS ironic that Tony Blair (or Tory Blair as he is widely known for his campaign to privatise all that remains of the public sector) has accused the trade union leaders of being the same as the Militant Tendency (now the Socialist Party).

At the time of our expulsion from the Labour Party, we predicted that the campaign against the Militant Tendency would be the thin end of the wedge. Militant ferociously defended public services against Tory cuts.

We played a leading role in Liverpool City Council, and because it was prepared to defy the Tory government, it was able to improve and increase public services - for example the 5,400 council houses the council built. It was for this, the crime of defending public services, and for leading the mass campaign against the poll tax, that we were expelled from the Labour Party.

We warned that the right wing's attacks on the left would not end with the expulsion of the Militant Tendency, but that socialist policies and even the defence of the living standards of the working class would be next in the Blairites' sights.

Unfortunately, at the time the right-wing trade union leaders did not heed our warnings; on the contrary they backed our expulsion.

Today, we have been proved correct. Clause IV, the socialist clause in Labour's constitution, was abandoned in 1995. Now New Labour is pursuing privatisation with a vengeance.

John Edmonds has correctly compared New Labour's privatisation programme to Thatcher's poll tax. However, the poll tax was not defeated simply because it was unpopular.

It was defeated because our party took the initiative to launch what became an 18 million strong, organised campaign of non-payment.

Incidentally more people took part in the campaign against the poll tax than voted Labour in 1992. If Labour had fought the poll tax instead of expelling those that did, the Tories could have been kicked out five years earlier.

If the trade union leaders are prepared to do more than verbally condemn privatisation, if they follow through their words with determined organisation action against the privatisation of our public services, New Labour could be forced to retreat as Thatcher was on the poll tax.

New Labour is now an undiluted party of big business. For Tony Blair socialist policies are like holy water to the devil.

We appeal to trade unionists to fight for a new party, a party that represents the working class instead of the fat cats, a mass workers' party that campaigns for socialist policies.

Murdered For Being A Woman

FADIME IS dead. She was murdered for being a woman and fighting for an independent life. This tragic event has touched everybody and is another reminder of why the struggle against women's oppression is so important.

Elin Gauffin, CWI Sweden

On 21 January Fadime Sahindal's own father shot her in cold blood in front of her family who she was secretly visiting.

Many of us remember Fadime. Since 1998 she has appeared in the media and given lectures about 'honour killings' - when women are murdered for supposedly bringing dishonour to their families.

Fadime was living with a Swedish man, which her family didn't approve of. Her father and brother were convicted for threatening her. When her boyfriend died in a car crash she was beaten by her brother who was sentenced to five months in prison. "I don't care about that fucking whore" he declared.

Fadime was a strong woman. She refused to hide and continued with her education in order to help other refugees. But she was constantly afraid of the revenge that she knew would come.

Politicians and organisations discussed honour killings after women from a Kurdish background, like Fadime, have been murdered. But reporting in the media has sometimes had racist overtones.

Domestic violence

Fadime's is not an isolated case. Domestic violence is a common social problem which needs to be fought politically.

Why aren't there enough resources to protect women and children from violence in the home? Why aren't there treatment programmes for abusive men?

How can women manage alone economically without support from their family? And why does the government send refugee women back even though they are threatened with being stoned to death in their home country?

Demonstrations have taken place in Fadime's memory and against honour killings and violence against women. 5,000 demonstrated in her home town and two demonstrations of 700 each took place in Stockholm.

Rattvisepartiet Socialisterna - the Swedish section of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI) (which the Socialist Party is affiliated to) - took part in these demonstrations.

We took the initiative four years ago in launching a campaign called "refuse to be called a whore", which campaigns against sexual harassment in schools. Since Fadime's death this campaign has been gathering thousands of signatures on petitions from schools and in the streets. We are calling for more resources to fight violence and harassment.

On 5 February our campaign will be meeting Mona Sahlin, minister for integration, and handing over the petitions to her. We will also be linking up with Kurdish groups and organising a demonstration for international women's day (8 March).

World Economic Forum

"Money For Jobs - Not War"

THE WORLD Economic Forum (WEF) participants claimed that they came to New York to show "solidarity with the people of New York". In truth, they came to show solidarity with George Bush's campaign to protect the interests of the multinationals, big banks and Wall Street.

Alan Jones, Socialist Alternative (CWI), New York city

Their hypocrisy didn't go unnoticed. Several demonstrations and rallies took place during the Forum at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel, protesting at the policies of world capitalism.

On Saturday, 10,000 demonstrators marched across midtown Manhattan near to the posh hotel where the WEF met with slogans like: "Money for jobs - Not war!".

Heavily armed police were everywhere and by Sunday over 100 people had been arrested for 'disorderly conduct' at isolated actions that took place around the city. But overwhelmingly the protests on Thursday, Friday and Saturday were peaceful.

An important rally organised by the textile workers union UNITE! took place in front of the Gap chain-store in midtown with over 1,000 workers attending. There were several speakers from different union and anti-sweatshop campaigns in the US and internationally.

Over 100,000 jobs have been lost in New York alone and two million nationally since the start of the deepening economic recession in the US. Trade union leaders in New York, even though they would not organise directly against the WEF, had to do something to show that they are opposed to sweatshop conditions and the persecution of workers.

There were serious concerns about the effects of the rallies that were organised on Saturday because of the mood that exists in New York after 11 September. The police had advertised that they were planning to use heavy-handed methods against protesters in an effort to keep people away.

However, there was no hostility towards the demonstrators from the ordinary people of New York on the streets. It indicates the mood among the mass of the population is beginning to shift to economic concerns about job losses and cuts in services, as well as the Enron scandal.

The Bush administration pushes lavish amounts of cash for 'security', tax breaks for the rich and bailouts of big business while millions are facing a future without jobs, without healthcare and renewed attacks on civil liberties.

Socialist Alternative

There were people from all across the country, especially students and young people at the main rallies on Saturday who came to protest the WEF.

Members of Socialist Alternative participated at all the main rallies and demonstrations and distributed 2,000 fliers and sold 250 copies of Justice (the Socialist Alternative newspaper) and other literature.

We exposed the corporate agenda of the WEF and explained the need to organise against global capitalism by linking demands against sweatshops and exploitation to a socialist programme for jobs, public services and to tackle the power of Wall Street.

We also called for an end to scapegoating Arab-Americans, Muslims and immigrants and the organising of broad left coalitions involving unions, community and student organisations, etc, to fight the corporations and defend workers internationally.

Socialist Alternative members explained the need for mass, peaceful, stewarded protests which give the police no excuse to stage provocations. Significantly, a section of young people at the rally wanted a serious discussion about the best way to build the anti-capitalist movement with democratic structures and a programme that can attract the millions of ordinary workers hit by the economic crisis.

The anti-capitalist protests organised against the WEF in New York, although smaller than the G8 summit Genoa protests, were significant because they took place in the city attacked by terrorists on 11 September and therefore a serious test about what is going to happen to the anti-globalisation movement.

The protests, despite their limitations, showed the extreme anxiety and even vulnerability of the US rulers about the situation and their deeper fear about the potential for the radicalisation of millions against the corporate ownership of politics and the layoffs and budget cuts they are implementing in the US.

World Social Forum

Another World Is Possible - Socialism

AS THE world's rich and powerful gathered in New York to discuss their plans for the capitalist new order (see above), 100,000 anti-capitalists, trade unionists, socialists and environmentalists met at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil.

CWI members in Brazil and from around the world, including Irish Socialist Party TD (MP) Joe Higgins, participated in the many discussions and events as the following report explains.

THERE ARE literally dozens of meetings every day and demonstrations organised by various political groups.

At the official meetings the predominant idea from representatives of Non-Governmental Organisations, trade union and political leaders is one which downplays the role of the organised working class in affecting fundamental social change.

A COSATU (South African trade union federation) representative, for example, argued that workers need to forge alliances with other social classes because they are too weak to struggle against globalisation on their own.

In contrast, the CWI argues workers should link up, in struggle, with the rural poor and the middle classes (who are protesting on the streets of Argentina), providing this alliance is based on a movement and programme for socialism led by the working class because of their central role in capitalist economic production.

With many social democrat politicians present, including former Portuguese prime minister Mario Soares, the Belgian Prime Minister and even representatives of French president Jacques Chirac's office, the idea of 'capitalism with a human face' was given an airing.

Ideas about reforming the multinationals to make them accountable and to separate corporations from governments were put forward but without explaining how it is possible to break the power of capitalism without changing the system.

The 'S' word (socialism) was barely spoken. One US intellectual who replied (in writing) to our question on socialism and socialist planning said: "You cannot expect people suffering from capitalist propaganda to go straight from step one to step ten in one go".

Clearly, the idea of building a socialist alternative to the chaos of the capitalist profit system is relegated to the dim and distant future.

In contrast, Joe Higgins got a fantastic response when he explained the socialist and internationalist programme of the CWI and also the issues in Northern Ireland. He pointed to the recent trade union strikes against sectarian killings as evidence of the potential power of the workers to change society.

Unlike many 'left-wing leaders' Joe shunned the plush hotels for a mattress in a student block.

The WSF appears to be two worlds - one of the official line up and opinion makers and another of thousands of young people, mainly from Brazil but also including many from Argentina.

GEORGE W. BUSH'S warmongering state of the union address appeared to mark a new stage in the 'war against terrorism'. Per Olsson of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI) - which the Socialist Party is affiliated to - spoke to The Socialist about some of the international repercussions of the war in Afghanistan and how events might develop in future.

New World Disorder

Q. Has the US's rapid military victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan enabled it to assert its interests more forcefully around the world?

A. The crushing defeat of the Taliban regime is undoubtedly a victory for Western imperialism and particularly the US.

This war has, for the time being, restored US imperialism's power and prestige. It has given it an opportunity to expand its influence in Central Asia and exploit the region's oil and mineral resources.

Moreover, US imperialism has delivered a warning to the oppressed masses across the world, particularly in the ex-colonial countries: "Either you are with us or you are against us", declared President George W. Bush after the 11 September terror attacks last year.

The war against Afghanistan confirmed the US's overwhelming military power and its ability to intervene decisively when its prestige and power is at stake. Although fought in the name of a broad "coalition", this was a military operation under the supreme command of the US government and the Pentagon.

The way the war was conducted, mainly from the air with Northern Alliance and other forces as a proxy army on the ground, has reinforced the modern myth that wars can be won by air attacks alone.

As it did against Iraq in 1991 and Serbia in 1999, the US has scored a military victory without being dragged into a ground war and the ultimate losses of American soldier's lives. But that does not mean that the US is strong enough to maintain international stability and determine the course of world events.

Anti-imperialism

Bush's state of the union address showed that US imperialism is prepared to assert its interests more forcefully around the world. The victory in Afghanistan has increased the US ruling class's confidence and strengthened the trend towards unilateralism.

This was illustrated when the US announced in December last year, that it was withdrawing from the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty of 1972 and push ahead with its plans to militarise space.

But 'going it alone' and attempting to implement an agenda set by US imperialism will fuel an anti-imperialist mood and runs the risk of aggravating all the contradictions that already exist between the main imperialist powers.

Not even the military operation against Afghanistan ended in a total victory. The Taliban has been smashed, but bin Laden and other leaders of the Al-Qa'ida network are still on the run. As socialists, we oppose the methods and actions of individual terrorism. But the idea that imperialism could eradicate terrorism through military action and repression is utopian.

Imperialism laid the basis for terrorism through its economic exploitation and oppression of national rights especially in the neo-colonial world.

Inside Afghanistan, as the US Wall Street Journal pointed out [16 January] "warlords whose armies acted as proxy U.S. forces, are now refusing to disarm or accept the writ of the country's fledging interim government. They are even defying the Americans... And as warlordism takes root again, Afghanistan's neighbours, [plus the US] are doing what they always have done: pursuing their own vested interests by supporting one faction or another, in turn undermining Afghan unity".

'The Great Game' of the 21st century involves many powers and the US has already fallen out with Iran, which is accused, by the US, of trying to strengthen its influence amongst the country's Shia Muslims in Western Afghanistan.

Q. Does this mean that the US will be more likely to resort to military action to defend its interests?

A. Bush's first state of the union address promised the biggest increase in military spending for 20 years. It made it clear that the "war against terrorism" will continue, with or without a coalition.

The US has already drawn up plans for further military actions against several countries: "A confident America is choosing its next target," remarked The Independent [10 December 2001].

Hundreds of US troops are on their way (450 have already arrived) to be involved in "shoulder to shoulder" exercises with the Philippines military against Muslim guerrillas in the south. There have also been reports about raids into Somalia by special forces.

However, Bush singled out Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "axis of evil" in his speech. To some extent he echoed Ronald Reagan who referred to the USSR as the "Evil Empire" in order to justify his arms race in the 1980s. And he has created an atmosphere of the enemy 'within' as well as without to justify attacks on civil liberties.

'Rogue states'

There were two main reasons why Bush spent so much time in his address on "the unprecedented danger the civilised world [the US]" is facing. He wanted to deliver a warning and prepare the ground for military attacks against the states named and justify the mad $100 billion "son of Star Wars" project (the national missile defence system which is supposed to protect the US against nuclear attacks by so-called "rogue states").

Many hawks in the Republican party and the US administration are demanding that Bush Jr. finishes off the job in Iraq that his father failed, i.e. topple Saddam Hussein's regime.

However, the administration is split on the question. The less hawkish wing around Colin Powell has pointed to the realities which existed in 1991 and the dangers involved if Iraq disintegrates and the already fragile balance of forces alters.

Even the conservative magazine, The Economist, has warned that: "Iraq does not fit so easily into the Afghan template. Its battered army is still a considerable force. Mr Hussein's Republican guard alone numbers almost 100,000 well-armed men. Vulnerable from the air, the Iraqis would not last long against an invading American army, in the unlikely event of a big one being sent to do serious battle against them.

"But there is no equivalent in Iraq of an Northern Alliance with the numbers, weapons or motivations to do the work for America on the ground... in 1999 Anthony Zinni [then in charge of US forces in the Middle East, now the US special envoy in the region] warned Congress that a fragmented and disintegrated Iraq could pose a greater danger to the region than a Saddam-ruled Iraq". [8 December]

The next phase in "the war against terrorism" could include military operations in countries like Somalia, the Philippines, Sudan and Yemen as a prelude to attacks against the states singled out by Bush. But the world situation today is unstable and many areas have become a flashpoint.

The escalation of the already tense situation in Kashmir and the Middle East for example, or US forces experiencing a similar humiliation to Somalia 1993, could cut across all plans for attacks against Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

Q. Does this mean that the US will be able to use its enhanced power to prevent wars breaking out in the world's 'hot spots'?

A. George W Bush will soon see that there is not much order in the New World Order proclaimed in 1991 by his father. George Bush Sr. promised a world in peace. Yet, in the 11-year post-cold war period 1990-2000 there were at least 56 major armed conflicts.

The crisis of global capitalism, the increasing rivalries between the main capitalist blocs, the power vacuum opened up after the collapse of Stalinism and growing mass anger against imperialism are insurmountable barriers in creating a 'Pax America'. "The rich shouldn't expect the poor to stay away... True peace and security will be impossible while 960 million people are illiterate and while 1.3 billion people live on an income of less one dollar per day", commented the US International Herald Tribune, [22 June 2000].

The US is not only the world's major spender, with 38% of total military expenditure in 2000 but also the largest supplier of arms to the rest of the world (the US accounts for 47% of the global arms trade).

On many occasions, such as in the war against Iraq in 1991 and Afghanistan 2001, the US has waged war against the very same dictators or 'monsters' they created and armed. The US turned Somalia into an arms bazaar in the 1980s and the very same weapons were then used against the US's disastrous military intervention, 'Operation Restore Hope', in 1993.

Western imperialism today is paying the terrible price of its "divide and rule" policy in Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Its policy of exploiting right-wing Islamic fundamentalism as a weapon against socialism and the movement of the masses has also been disastrous.

Conflict and war

The national borders and social structures established after World War Two have begun to disintegrate and this has given way to a vicious circle of bloody conflicts to which there is no lasting solution on the basis of capitalism.

Kashmir is, according to Bush's predecessor Bill Clinton, "the most dangerous area in the world". US imperialism was not able to stop India and Pakistan from becoming nuclear powers in the 1990s.

Recently India tested a ballistic missile designed to carry a nuclear warhead and capable of hitting Pakistan's major cities. This happened at the same time as the US was trying to "defuse" the situation. As long as the Kashmir question is unsolved there is danger of a new war.

Neither governments are prepared to make any real concessions towards an independent Kashmir and withdraw their troops, a vital condition in order to give the Kashmiris a real chance to exercise their national and democratic rights.

It is extremely difficult for even a super power like the US to militarily intervene in a conflict involving two of the world's most populated states. The US cannot for very long satisfy both India and Pakistan.

The present crisis in Israel/ Palestine shows the difficulties facing US imperialism today.

US imperialism raised the idea of a future Palestinian state during the war against Afghanistan, but is now turning against Arafat. "Bush also appears to put on hold the US mission to broker peace between Israel and Palestine", remarked the Financial Times [28 January].

The US is lacking a coherent policy on which even a new round of peace negotiations could start, let alone a lasting solution to the conflict.

Q. Could the struggle against capitalist 'neo-liberal' policies be thrown back because of the US victory?

A. The upheavals in Argentina and the collapse of Enron, the seventh largest company in the US, delivered a blow to the Bush administration.

Argentina, the "darling of Wall Street" - was for many years upheld as an example of what can be achieved on the basis of neo-liberalism.

The mass struggle in Argentina, including eight general strikes in 18 months, has set an example, which will be followed in other parts of the world. A succession of presidents and governments were forced out by the masses. In the end the ruling class had to give up the peso's peg to the US dollar and default on the country's foreign debt (the biggest default in history).

However, the measures taken by the present government are doomed to end in a failure. Argentina's economy is expected to shrink by 5% this year and the proposed draconian cuts in social and provincial spending could spark off a new mass movement.

One political outcome of the crisis in Argentina could be the return of populist regimes in Latin America. Such regimes, under the blow of a deep social and economic crisis, could be compelled to take such actions as expropriation of foreign assets, capital controls, refusing to pay off the debt, etc. in order to protect their slumping economies.

The Enron scandal exposed the speculative character of the boom and that crony capitalism is endemic in "corporate America".

The bankruptcy of Enron, one of the largest energy traders, meant that workers lost their jobs as well as their pension savings, while Enron executives made millions of dollars by cashing share options before the company collapsed.

Crazy capitalism

"Enron's spectacular collapse has now begun to shake the very foundations of American politics", wrote the Independent [25 January]. Hundreds of congressmen on both side have been taking Enron money. President Bush has received more than $500,000 since he first ran as governor in Texas in 1994.

Enron was paid back when Bush took office and the company was involved in working out his energy policy.

Vice President Dick Cheney, in particular, had close links with Enron and a new scandal involving him is in the pipeline. The impact of the Enron scandal should not be underestimated. Bush may be forced to sacrifice his Vice President.

The exposure of crony capitalism in the US at the same time as the global recession is starting to hit ordinary American's jobs and income will undoubtedly undermine the current popularity and confidence of the Bush administration.

Despite the rosy economic picture painted over the last weeks, the US economy is heading for a deep recession or maybe even a slump. The huge debt overhang, the low level of profitability and capacity utilisation, and ultimately a steep fall in investment points to a long period of stagnation in the US.

Q. It was a spontaneous movement that took place in Argentina. Doesn't the weakness of the former workers' parties and their support for the war against Afghanistan mean that we still have a long way to go in building a mass alternative to capitalism?

A. The historic events in Argentina, the 100,000 strong demonstration in Brussels in December last year, recent strikes in France, the Spanish school students and student strikes all indicate the mass anger that exists against neo-liberalism.

The anti-capitalist movement and mood that exist today will reach a new level as a result of the military actions waged by imperialism, the arms race and an increasing gap between rich and poor.

Furthermore, the political establishment and capitalist institutions are in crisis. The present distrust and contempt for the establishment, including the trade union leaders, and widespread alienation are a time bomb waiting to explode.

Spontaneous revolts or mass actions such as in Argentina, which by-pass the traditional parties, could erupt in other countries as well, including Europe. If today's workers and young people do not trust the existing parties and the people at the top they will try to take matters in their own hand.

However, all the struggles taking place today have shown, in one way or another, the need for new mass workers' parties armed with a programme that could provide lasting changes in the interest of working people.

Events and the experience of struggle will change people's outlook and lay the conditions for the formation of new mass workers' parties. No one could predict the speed and the timing of that process, but the question of forming parties representing working people will increasingly be posed by the political and social impact of the global recession.

The task of re-building the international workers' movement on socialist lines is more crucial than ever. This is the task that the Committee for a Workers' International and all its sections have taken on.

Explosion Exposes Nigeria's Rotten Regime

THE NIGERIAN city of Lagos was devastated by the explosion of an ammunition dump at the Ikeja military barracks on 27 January. More than 1,000 people were killed and the Nigerian Red Cross is still trying to find over 500 missing persons. Most of the missing are children. Thousands more have been made homeless.

The Obasanjo government's response to this disaster has been contemptuous. On visiting the scene of the explosion the President enraged survivors by telling them to "shut up" and stop complaining! He later apologised and promised an inquiry and compensation.

Such is the anger however, that when the Vice-President visited the devastated area he was pelted with bottles from civilians and hundreds of homeless soldiers. And to compound the government's problems the police struck for two days over unpaid allowances and other grievances.

The explosion has brought to the fore a new, dangerous dimension to the political situation. Disturbingly, the aftermath has renewed ethnic tensions leading to fighting and deaths.

Before last weekend's ethnic violence SEGUN SANGO general secretary of the Democratic Socialist Movement (DSM - the Socialist Party's counterpart in Nigeria) spoke to The Socialist:

"Initially many people in Lagos assumed that a coup had started and significantly many said that the 'military would be better' than the civilian government. The local TV showed scenes of people celebrating in areas away from the explosions before they got the news of what was actually taking place!

"This is extremely significant. After 32 months of civilian rule we are in a similar situation to that of 1983 when Buhari's military coup was welcomed.

"This is also a comment on the failure of the NLC [Nigerian Labour Congress] leaders. The failure of the general strike [organised by the NLC three weeks' ago - see The Socialist, issue 238] to offer an alternative, worsens the situation. Such is the despair that many see that even if the NLC had forced back the fuel price rise this would not have solved the country's fundamental problems. The key issue is, who can offer an alternative way out of the crisis?

"Up to now the 'national question' [i.e., whether Nigeria will split along ethnic/religious lines] has been a major factor holding back the ethnically northern military leaders from carrying out a coup. But now, if there is potential support for a coup in the south, that fundamentally changes the situation."

DSM MEMBER and student activist Alex Amujar, (a student at the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta (UNAAB), Ogun State, Nigeria), has been expelled by the college authorities.

Alex, who is the Public Relations Officer for the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) Zone D, in south west Nigeria, has been falsely accused of assaulting a lecturer. The DSM maintains that Alex is being victimised for leading a student protest on 7 January against the government’s massive price hike in fuel.

Stop Blair And His Wreckers