CABINET MINISTER Peter Hain's very modest proposal - to increase the tax rate paid by the rich - caused a political storm.
Taxpayers now start paying the 40% top rate at £35,115 a year. Many better-paid workers are sucked in, especially in high-priced London. Millionaires and fat cats pay no higher rate than some nursing staff. Hain said a 50% rate for earnings over £50,000 and a 60% rate over £100,000 would mean that taxpayers earning under £50,000 a year could just pay the basic rate (22%).
The public sector think-tank, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, say this would cut the number of people paying higher rate tax to 1.7 million, but would bring the government in £5 billion more each year. Only those who earned over £76,000 a year would pay more.
This (very small) 'redistribution' drove Tory Blair to denounce Hain. New Labour's leaders promised the super-rich that they wouldn't pay higher rates of taxation. Blair's broken pledges to the working class by the barrel-load (see article below) but when it comes to the rich, his word's his bond!
After Blair's slap-down, Hain retracted his speech, saying he was just trying to open a debate on taxation.
Well, he's certainly done that. Many people, especially low-paid workers such as health workers in east London, Bolton and Lincolnshire fighting for a decent wage (see page 3), would back his plans - and more.
Unfortunately, the rich will still try a million ways to stop paying any taxes, such as putting their income or investments in low-tax or no-tax havens. Despite New Labour bringing down big business's taxes, many rich individuals and companies still pay little or no tax.
Nonetheless, we would back Hain's proposals. We also support imposing higher corporation tax on big business as well as putting up personal tax rates for the rich. We'd fight for a wealth tax. But if you seriously want to fight inequality, the best way is to join our fight to ditch capitalism and build a socialist society.
ANOTHER FORM of tax - tuition fees - was debated in Parliament this week. Over 100 New Labour MPs either abstained or voted for a motion to abandon proposals for top-up fees.
Even they have to sometimes reflect the anger that exists outside Parliament. After all, they want to hold on to their seats. New Labour's 2001 manifesto said: "We will not introduce top-up fees and have legislated to prevent them".
If New Labour get their way, universities will be able to increase tuition fees to £3,000 from 2006. And where will it end? In an interview with the Financial Times, the outgoing vice-chancellor of Cambridge University said that fees should be raised to £6,000 to cope with the financial problems that UK universities have at the moment.
Antonio Valiente, a student at the University of Glamorgan, told the socialist: "Why should we, the students have to pay for it? A lot of students have problems paying their fees. The student loans aren't working and a lot of young people decide not to go to university to avoid the debts students accumulate.
"The vice-chancellor referred to universities as a business and said that charging £6,000 a year was the only way to make the business work. In my opinion, quality higher education should not be a business for rich people but a public service that everyone, no matter what their financial situation, should be able to enjoy."
WHEN MY daughter took her Key Stage One tests, SATs, she cried because the teacher could not help her. Now 16, she has experienced the full force of the government's testing regime. By the time she reached secondary school she had lost interest in achieving in exams.
I don't want my six-year-old son to have to suffer as well, which is why I have a personal interest in making sure that we get rid of these destructive tests for all children. Already his education has suffered because the Year 1 curriculum is heavily focussed on the needs of the tests, not the needs of the pupils.
At six years old, he needs a more play-based curriculum, not a diet of structured literacy and numeracy activities. When I look at the education in other European countries, children don't even start school until they are seven.
Recent polls show that parents are becoming more concerned about the damage these tests are doing, especially when they read that Wales has already abandoned tests for seven-year-olds and are likely to end the tests for eleven and 14-year-olds. Parents everywhere should be demanding that SATs stop now. Give children back their rightful education.
As a Year 6 teacher, I see the wider effects of these tests on pupils and teachers. I feel guilty having to enforce a narrow curriculum on my pupils. Music, PE and the arts are squeezed out.
The pressure on teachers and consequently on pupils is unrelenting, more children are suffering mental health problems and behaviour problems are increasing as a direct result of these damaging tests. And the tests don't tell you anything that you don't already know as a teacher.
I am delighted that at last my union, the National Union of Teachers, has voted to ballot to boycott the SATs. But if this campaign is to be really successful it will need the support of parents and governors, as well as teachers.
I am convinced that teachers will get that support. The Conference on 28 June is just the start of this campaign. Up and down the country, local campaigns against SATs will be set up. I urge all parents to get involved and make sure that 2003 is the last year these tests are inflicted on our children.
Stop SATS meeting. 28 June, 11am-3.30pm. South Camden School, Charrington Street, London WC1. (Ten minutes from Euston, Kings Cross, and Socialism 2003.) Teachers, support workers, parents school students and governors particularly welcome.
IN RECENT weeks, low-paid hospital workers at Whipps Cross hospital, east London, at the Royal Bolton Hospital in Lancashire and at Northern Lincolnshire and Goole hospitals trust, have been striking for NHS pay and conditions for staff employed by privatised companies.
Whipps Cross workers were on strike from 18-20 June. The porters, domestics and cleaning staff, who work for ISS Mediclean, were striking for a living wage and for NHS conditions.
Socialist Party members Jane James, Kevin Parslow and Linda Taaffe spoke at the picket line rally, bringing solidarity greetings from the Socialist Party and local TGWU and NUT branches.
"When we started this campaign a year ago we had 62 people in UNISON out of 360. Today, through this campaign we've now got 264 members. When we started you couldn't get a representative of the Trust to accept any responsibility for the disgraceful pay rates operating in this hospital. Now they've accepted that low pay is a problem.
"The Health Authority would say: 'There's no more money and it's down to the private contractors anyway.' As a result of our campaign we have a commitment in writing that they'll harmonise pay with NHS workers by April 2006.
"That's far too far away but they're only saying that because of the pressure we've exerted. So whatever happens, the campaign is already vindicated. We work alongside their doctors and their nurses in their hospital and they cannot walk away from their responsibility towards us."
The employers have offered £5 an hour but the NHS has evaluated all the jobs recently and concluded the rate should be £5.35 an hour, plus London Weighting. If that's good enough for NHS workers then that's good enough for ISS workers.
Even if ISS paid the same percentage rise as they recently gave to workers at nearby Homerton hospital, Whipps Cross workers would be on about £5.22 an hour.
The UNISON branch has a mass meeting on 26 June, to consider further action, if the employers do not respond.
STAFF AT the Royal Bolton Hospital were on strike for three days this week, again over low pay.
These workers, also employed by ISS Mediclean, are demanding £5 an hour for cleaners and £5.60 for porters, from £4.47 and £4.61 respectively.
Another three days of strike action is planned from 30 June-2 July.
Messages of support to: Mike Phillips (UNISON) The Royal Bolton Hospital, Farnworth, Bolton. BL4 0JR.
AROUND 100,000 people demonstrated in Thessaloniki, Greece, on 21 June to show their opposition to the European Union summit.
The march was delayed after fierce battles between several hundred anarchists and riot police. The news coverage concentrated on pictures of wrecked shops and police making arrests instead of showing tens of thousands of organised workers and youth on the march.
The demo itself went ahead peacefully - one of the liveliest, youngest contingents was from Xekinima, the Socialist Party's sister organisation in Greece. Chants, songs, drums and whistles continued all the way to the end of the march.
The Xekinima contingent swelled to well over 500 by the end. Other marchers were attracted to join us by the banners - including one showing Donald Duck and 'South Park' waging war on capitalism!
Xekinima was even more impressive on the anti-racist demo on 19 June. Around 700, including a large group of black and Asian immigrants organised by Xekinima, marched under that banner.
Joe Higgins, Socialist Party TD (MP) in the Irish Parliament, was a platform speaker at one of the main debates organised by the Greek Social Forum, who co-hosted the summit protests.
To applause, Joe said that when he speaks in the Dail (Ireland's parliament) to establishment Irish politicians, they're meant to be speaking the same language. However, he added, his condemnations of war and poverty might as well be in Greek to them, so little do they care or understand about the real problems facing working people!
Joe's speech shone a light through the fog of confused ideas from most other anti-globalisation speakers. His words could be summed up by one chant of the Xekinima contingent: "Yes, another world is possible but what kind of world should we fight for? Socialism!"
International Socialist Resistance (ISR) is campaigning in support of the international boycott of Coca-Cola products. This is because of the company's activities against workers in Colombia and in many other countries.
In Colombia, Coca-Cola workers fighting for decent wages and conditions have been murdered. Their union, Sinaltrainal (the National Union of Workers in the Colombian Food Industry), has appealed for support from workers around the world and called for a boycott of Coke from 22 July.
Sinaltrainal union President Javier Correa describes conditions in Coca-Cola's Colombian bottling plants:
"The paramilitaries have graffitied threats and accusations against us on the walls of the bottling plants. These plants have become like concentration camps. The army patrols the buildings. There is so much repression that union workers are even followed into the toilet. One worker killed himself - in his suicide note, he blamed Coca-Cola."
Correa explains the corporation's attitude:
"Coca-Cola has turned from a time of exploitation to a time of slavery. Because the workers continue to resist this oppression, the paramilitaries now try to kidnap family members. They've burnt union headquarters and destroyed whatever evidence they can so we are unable to bring a case against them."
The paramilitaries have so far assassinated eight workers who were local union leaders, three union members have been forced into exile, over 60 live under the shadow of death threats and 48 others have been displaced. Union leader, Carlos Jul'a:
"When you drink Coca-Cola remember that you are contributing to a process which sows unemployment, hunger and pain..."
While the US government proclaims it is conducting a "war against terror", it actively promotes terror groups in Colombia on behalf of US corporations. Under 'Plan Colombia' the US military has assisted the Colombian army - officially to fight guerrillas and drug cartels - mainly to arm paramilitary death squads to fight ordinary workers who are peacefully fighting poverty wages and for union rights. So far, these private armies have murdered over 3,000 workers. One of the US companies to benefit from this practice is Drummond, part owned by... the Bush family.
Join the international day of action on 22 July, join your local protest or action. If you would like help or information to organise your own protest, please contact us.
If you are a member of a trade union, ask your local branch to sponsor the campaign in solidarity with Sinaltrainal and other Colombian unions attacked by the paramilitaries (contact us for model letters or resolutions to take to trade unions).
Whether you are in a workplace, school or college, ask your friends, people at work etc to sign the petition in support of the Colombian Coca-Cola workers. When you have some petitions filled out, send copies to us and we will send all the signatures collected with a letter of support to the Sinaltrainal Coca-Cola workers.
Organise a meeting at your union/college/school in support of Colombian workers with an ISR speaker or contact the Colombian Solidarity Campaign PO Box 8446, London N17 6NZ
ISR is an international anti-capitalist organisation run by and for young people.
As well as in England, Wales and Scotland, ISR has groups in many countries: such as Sweden, Germany, Austria, Belgium, France, Northern and Southern Ireland, Nigeria, South Africa, Australia, Brazil, USA and more.
By building an international organisation, we aim to help link up the many struggles young people are involved in across the globe, against the policies of big business and governments.
Above all, we aim to build international opposition to capitalism itself.
ISR, PO BOX 858, London, E11 1YG
Telephone 020 8558 7947
ACCORDING TO a report by the Commons Health Committee, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) amongst young people are rife, creating a major health crisis. Since 1996 rates of syphilis have increased by 486%, chlamydia by 108% (one in ten young people are estimated to have it) and gonorrhoea by 87%.
These are disturbing figures. Many conservative critics will say this is the result of young people having more sex at a younger age. However, even if this is true, the answer does not lie in moralising about this change in teenagers' sexual behaviour.
What is key, is that young people are increasingly not using condoms - the only contraceptive method that prevents the transmission of STDs.
This is a big change from the 1980s, when, following massive publicity about the Aids scare, many started to practise 'safe sex'. However, when the Aids epidemic failed to materialise in Britain, many became complacent. Yet 6,500 new cases of HIV were diagnosed last year.
The fact is that sexual health centres are under-resourced, under-funded and overcrowded, patient waiting lists for specialists can be up to six weeks and diagnostic equipment is out of date. This is consistent with the crisis in the NHS as a whole, the result of years of underfunding and backdoor privatisation, first by the Tories and now continued by New Labour.
The second key question is the inadequate and ineffective provision of sex education in schools and the lack of readily available contraceptives, particularly for those under 16.
With the notorious and reactionary Section 28 prohibiting the 'promotion' of homosexuality, many students feel they can't be open about their sexuality. Meanwhile faith-based schools can opt out of providing sex education and parents can withdraw their children from such classes.
The only concrete proposal MPs on the health committee have put forward is a recommendation that an immediate nation-wide screening programme for chlamydia is implemented and that health workers should visit youth clubs and bars. At present, only a limited provision of such screening is available.
However, a nation-wide screening would cost about £96 million a year, which is currently twice the amount the government is setting aside for its entire sexual health strategy! It remains to be seen whether 'prudent' Brown will find this money.
The irony is that British society is on one level becoming increasingly sexualised - more and more explicit and sometimes pornographic images (usually of women) are used to sell everything from shampoo, cars, and life insurance - but in fact the powers that be are unable or unwilling to confront and tackle the modern realities of sex in an open and upfront way.
Capitalism is happy to exploit and degrade human sexuality for a quick profit but is incapable of providing a decent sexual health and education service.
THE FORTHCOMING annual general meeting (AGM) of the rail union RMT has the opportunity to make a clear call for a new party that will give working-class people a political voice.
Not only have Labour failed to renationalise the railways but they have also forced through the lunatic PPP scheme on London Underground. The wholesale privatisation of the NHS and our public services is now threatened.
To cap it all, Blair has lied and covered up in order to support Bush and the US oil companies in their invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Those claiming to fight for socialism and workers' rights in the Labour Party are now isolated and without effective influence. But the elections of Bob Crow as RMT general secretary and the other members of the so-called awkward squad show that trade union members are more determined not to support leaders who are tainted by close association with New Labour.
Those unions, RMT, PCS, CWU, TGWU and others should call for a trade union, workplace and community-based conference to discuss how a new party might be built as a first step to rebuilding a new mass party of the working class in Britain.
Rule changes proposed to the RMT conference from Manchester South Branch (Rule 23 Clause 13) and Stratford No1 Branch (Rule 23 Clause 25), would remove the rules forcing branches and regions to affiliate to the Labour Party and remove the requirement for any candidate the union supports from being a Labour Party member.
The Socialist Party fully supports these changes, which would allow RMT to support candidates from socialist parties and other organisations. More importantly it would open the way to establishing a new mass working-class party.
If any branch wanted to support other campaigns and/or candidates, in line with union policy, then this could be decided without us being hamstrung by rules tying us to New Labour.
We appeal to all delegates to reject the rule change from the Council of Executives (New Clause 26) that would force the union to institutionalise our affiliation to New Labour at a national level.
This proposal is a backward step that would make it impossible to reverse our affiliation, irrespective of New Labour's attacks, for another three years (the next rule change conference) at least.
This is clearly contrary to last year's AGM resolution to distance ourselves from New Labour if it continues to impose anti-trade union polices.
This is an extract from The Red Line, produced by Socialist Party and RMT members working on London Underground. Copies are available from PO Box 24697, London E11 1YD. Tel: 02 8988 8764.
THE TRANSPORT and General Workers' Union (TGWU) Biennial Delegate Conference (BDC) 2003 will be marked by the election of Tony Woodley as general secretary. As Tony bows in, Bill Morris bows out with his knighthood - the first TGWU general secretary to accept one!
The conference itself is unlikely to be too controversial, the general executive council (GEC) appear to be supporting the majority of the motions. Key debates will revolve around pension funds, the public sector, transport, employment and the economy, including the euro.
Motion 230 on trade unions and the Labour Party from the RAAW [agricultural and rural workers] National Trade Group, calls for more accountability of TGWU representatives on the Labour Party NEC and to look into the funding to see if we get value for money. A sub committee must report back within six months.
It does not call for breaking the link with Labour, as such motions can only be taken at a Rules Conference. The GEC want a composite (to merge this with other resolutions) but the trade group will reject this.
Several motions call for a national minimum wage of £6 per hour, though the GEC motion calls for £5.11! The latter must obviously be rejected in favour of at least £6.
Most delegates will be looking to the BDC as the starting point for the more open and inclusive TGWU as promised by Tony Woodley in his election.
Before we can have any real change attention has to be focussed on the GEC elections, which will take place at the end of the year.
At the last GEC meeting, a small majority appointed a new regional secretary and regional organiser for Region 3 (Ireland) to replace Mick O'Reilly and Eugene McGlone, who have been disciplined by the union's right-wing officials.
This is in spite of the fact that none of them had seen the full judgement of the appeals committee, nor had any evidence been presented to show that Mick and Eugene had done anything to warrant a disciplinary hearing let alone demotion.
They have been re-instated on their full salaries but not to their posts. So in spite of the fact there had been no debate on the issue, the GEC carried out the wishes of the out-going general secretary.
Tony Woodley called for Mick and Eugene's re-instatement but this was lost by the same slim majority.
This is not only a disgrace to the TGWU but also to the trade union movement and these people need to be exposed and replaced in the next elections.
A Broad Left fringe meeting has been organised on Wednesday 2 July, 6pm at the Queen's Hotel, with Graham Stevenson, Broad Left candidate for deputy general secretary, as well as a Columbian trade union leader.
HALF WAY through his opening contribution to the debate on the political fund, general secretary Dave Prentis attacked the motives of those who want to end the link between the union and New Labour. Asking the question who would gain from weakening the link, he declared that it would be the Socialist Party, big business, the CBI, Murdoch and the BNP.
This was a small taste of what became a feature of the conference. He and his supporters could not resist attacking the Socialist Party. In a later debate on the economy, they resorted to personal attacks on Glenn Kelly, delegate from the Bromley branch and a Socialist Party member
Many delegates were sickened by this, voicing their disgust from the rostrum. These attacks contributed to the best ever Socialist Party fringe meeting for a number of years, where delegates complimented the Socialist Party as being "the real opposition" to the right-wing in the union.
An amendment from the Glasgow city branch proposed that if the union leadership was certain of support for the Labour link, then it should be put to a ballot of the whole membership. If that ballot said 'no' then the national executive (NEC) should bring forward proposals to the 2004 conference to set up a third political fund that could support parties and candidates other than the Labour Party.
UNISON is unique in that it has two political funds, one for general campaigning and the other for the Labour Party. Individuals can pay into both or one or neither.
All attempts to debate any of the other resolutions on the agenda, which proposed variations on the theme that there be one fund and it be used to support other political parties as well as Labour, were ruled out of order.
Unfortunately, much of the rest of the organised Left, including the Socialist Workers Party, called for opposition to the Glasgow amendment and instead supported an amendment from Leicester health branch.
Even the mover of the Leicester amendment admitted in her reply that it was: "Not a very hard-hitting amendment and doesn't ask UNISON to do very much".
This was borne out by Prentis' remarks that the Leicester amendment should be opposed because it only "notes" the report from the leadership which says the Labour link should be kept intact.
He reserved his venom for the Glasgow amendment because he saw the hand of the Socialist Party behind it.
He was forced to promise the conference that he intended to give the Labour Party a "kicking" and even he had been "angered" by failure up to now to make the link work for the union. "Two years ago we gave the Labour Party a warning but now it's time to take hard decisions on the future of our union".
He didn't say what these hard decisions were, other than the conference should oppose the Glasgow amendment.
Glenn Kelly said that despite the tide of hostility to New Labour, the NEC had only proposed a name change for the Labour/UNISON link. "Your proposals amount to nothing more than a choice between being hung or shot, it's time to let the members decide."
Other Socialist Party members who spoke included Suzanne Muna, who likened keeping the link to an abusive relationship where the woman was told to "try harder" Nancy Taaffe added: "It's time for a divorce".
Unsurprisingly, given the short sightedness of the rest of the Left, the amendment was defeated. Nevertheless a sizeable proportion of the conference saw through the false arguments of the leadership and voted for the Glasgow amendment.
ROGER BANNISTER (right), Socialist Party member and recently re-elected to the national executive committee of UNISON told the socialist what he thought about the debate.
"UNISON debated their links with Labour for the third year in succession. We can't disguise that the defeat of the Glasgow amendment was a setback. It was a missed opportunity to break the mould of politics in Britain.
UNISON Socialist Party members have consistently called for the breaking of the link with New Labour in order to defend the interests of the working class. The negative side-affects of the disenchantment with New Labour is the turning to the false policies of the BNP.
The decision to maintain the link does not reflect the UNISON members' deep hostility to New Labour. Most activists know this and say so. It is hard to get anybody to pay money into the Affiliated Political Fund (APF), the fund that finances New Labour to the tune of £1.5 million a year.
The recent NEC elections show this shift to the Left by the membership. But there are a number of reasons why the conference vote went the way it did.
First, it was a rigged debate with most resolutions being ruled out of order. One political fund, which was the preferred option of most on the Left, to allow the support for other political parties not just New Labour was not under discussion.
Second, the Left was split because it includes a large number who do not really want to split from New Labour and saw the debate as a means of 'reclaiming the Labour Party'.
Two years ago many supported the idea of a review but it was 'make your mind up time' and they drew back, hoping that something would come up. For once the mass of the rank and file were well to the Left of the activist layer.
Socialist Party members saw the Glasgow amendment as an opportunity to take the issue forward. It would have meant a ballot of members and we could have campaigned against maintaining the link in this process. We were the only major group on the Left at the conference to see this.
Unfortunately the tactics required passed others on the Left by. We were the only ones a year ago to see that the only likely option at this conference would be a third fund. If a third fund is set up, then we would campaign to collapse the Labour link fund and stop members paying into it altogether.
Events have shown we were correct. Although the amendment was lost it was clear to the media and others that this was the issue. And they, like the leadership, highlighted the Socialist Party's role in this threat to the status quo.
We now have to decide where to go from here. The issue won't go away, New Labour's attacks on our members will continue. The leadership's promise to use their influence in the Labour Party will come to nothing and the gulf between UNISON members and the Labour Party will widen further.
The Socialist Party will initiate discussion amongst the Left and the rank and file about the best tactics and the way forward.
We have four Socialist Party councillors - they are more effective in defending the interests of UNISON members than 4,000 Labour councillors will ever be."
"We cannot tolerate a situation where we are handing them our union dues on Friday, only to be handed redundancy and privatisation on Monday."
"We're told to stay and change the actions of the abuser. But we can't. If you stay you'll be worse off."
ARIEL SHARON appears to be biting the hand that feeds him. The assassination of another leading Hamas activist by an Israeli hit squad has further undermined George Bush's efforts to put a lid on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict through its 'road map' peace initiative.
This apparent wrecking strategy of Sharon comes only weeks after the US Congress approved a massive $9 billion loans package to bolster Israel's faltering economy.
US secretary of state Colin Powell, attending the World Economic Summit in neighbouring Jordan, barely concealed his anger at the Israeli government's action. He said the murder of Abdullah Qawasmeh in Hebron was a "matter of concern" that "could be an impediment to progress". However, Sharon had no regrets, saying the assassination was "a vital action designed to provide security for Israel's citizens".
In fact, such actions will guarantee a retaliatory strike against Israeli citizens by Hamas, which has spurned attempts by Egypt and the US-approved Palestinian prime minister Mohammed Abbas to secure a ceasefire from the various Palestinian militias.
Another indication of Sharon's insincerity is his attitude to the 'illegal' Jewish settlements in the West Bank. These settlements on Palestinian territory have flourished since Sharon became PM in 2001, despite some token dismantling in recent days of some 'hilltop settlements'. Sharon reportedly said last week that the settlers should continue to build, albeit more discreetly.
So it's hardly surprising that most Palestinians are rightly cynical of the road map achieving anything positive, let alone a "viable Palestinian state". What they see is only a continuation of the occupation, oppression and impoverishment as the Israeli government's response to the Intifada.
Many Israelis also remain sceptical of peace under Sharon's leadership. An Israeli newspaper opinion poll found that 40% of Israelis believe that the recent assassination attempt of Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi was a deliberate act to wreck the road map - 67% want these assassinations to stop to enable peace talks.
Not that the road map, with its lack of concrete measures to resolve such issues as the right of return of Palestinian refugees, the status of Jerusalem, the financing of a 'viable Palestinian state' etc. offers a way forward for the working classes of the region.
George Bush's plan is designed to bolster pro-US Arab regimes whose populations are incandescent at the US invasion of Iraq and the continuing national oppression of the Palestinians.
The only viable solution to the wars, national conflicts, grinding poverty and extremes of inequality of the Middle East is the transformation of the region through the building of mass revolutionary socialist movements.
TWELVE MEMBERS of the exiled Iranian People's Mojahedin (MKO) have set themselves alight in a number of European capitals, including London, in protest at the arrest and detention of 160 MKO members in France.
The French authorities are to investigate 17 MKO members for "conspiring with a terrorist organisation". Eleven are being held in custody including MKO leader Maryam Rajavi.
The MKO is the political wing of the Mojahedin Khalq guerrillas who oppose the Iranian regime. The People's Mojahedin, a curious blend of Islam and 'Marxism', was a prominent force on the left during the early days of the 1978-79 Iranian revolution before being banished under Ayatollah Khomeini's regime (see the socialist 14 June).
Its 10,000-strong militia has military bases inside Iraq and had enjoyed the patronage of Saddam Hussein. These bases were bombed by US forces during operation 'shock and awe'. The guerrillas have subsequently agreed to disarm since the US occupation of Iraq.
The MKO has found itself the victim of inter-imperialist rivalry between the EU, principally the French government and the US. The US has targeted Iran as part of an "axis of evil" that aids and abets terrorism and that is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. It has opportunistically encouraged regime change during the recent student-led protests against Iran's clerical leaders.
However, the French government is pursuing its own imperialist policy to cultivate its capitalist interests in the Arab and Muslim countries of the Middle East. This includes maintaining friendly trade and diplomatic relations with Tehran, hence the arrests of the MKO members at its Paris compound.
REBEL ANTI-war Labour MP George Galloway has demanded a government inquiry after documents alleging that he took more than $10 million from Saddam Hussein were shown up as forgeries. Galloway calls for Tony Blair, "as head of the co-occupying power in Iraq, to investigate how this conspiracy came about."
One of the papers that repeated the allegations, the Christian Science Monitor, has apologised but George Galloway may take action against other papers such as the Sun as well as against the Daily Telegraph which printed other accusations.
Galloway was one of the most prominent Labour MPs who opposed the war in Iraq and was suspended from the Labour Party for his pains. The press and New Labour are conducting a political witch-hunt saying that Galloway was in Saddam's pay.
New Labour is now an openly capitalist party. Blair and his rapidly shrinking entourage cling to the coat-tails of George W Bush through whatever spectacular lies and excuses on the war he comes up with.
Blairites hope that this witch-hunt stops Galloway winning the nomination for the seat at Glasgow Central, which comes up this autumn.
GM: I was 29 years old when I went into prison, I'm 44 now. We were determined to come out mentally stronger. I'm more tolerant of people now.
TP: I'm a lot more aware of how the system works and the world for that matter.
GM: There isn't one area of our case that the police, Crown Prosecution Service, the courts and eminent doctors haven't changed or tried to change. They changed the cause of death, the medical evidence, the physical evidence, the times of events - the witnesses have changed their stories countless times.
The Court of Appeal, to cover up for police officers, said there was no systemic corruption, even though they said all the evidence is false. Now they are pretending our release is based on new evidence. It's the same evidence which convicted us.
TP: The main point of corruption is police murder. But they don't treat it as a murder when it's a death in custody. They don't forensically analyse any of the police officers' clothing and question them.
Then we go on to perjury, perverting the course of justice, officers hiding documentation and the jury never got to hear that evidence. I don't think there's ever been an officer held accountable in any way.
GM: Some of those officers in that cell with Hensley, were the same officers who investigated us for murder. One of the main corrupt officers has just retired, so has the superintendent in charge of the case. It's the same throughout these cases. People are in prison until the main officers retire or they die.
GM: For the first few years you're not progressing through the system, (you only progress if you admit your guilt) really you're in a no man's land. For the first year of my sentence I was moved about 14 times and I was getting into disruptions with officers because I wasn't prepared to kowtow down to people who I thought had no right to speak to me the way they did.
In other ways it makes you stronger, because you know in your own mind and heart that you're right. For the last seven or eight years of our sentence it was common knowledge even among staff that we were innocent.
TP: They try and wear you down to give up. But I thought the anger's got to be channelled into trying to get out. I felt I was more like a hostage.
GM: If we hadn't won that appeal we'd have been in prison for the rest of our lives (because refusal of admission of guilt means you're ineligible for release).
GM: In general I've got no doubt in my mind the judicial system is about keeping the status quo, it's about keeping the rich where they are and about keeping poor working class people in their place.
GM: Police officers should not be immune to prosecution. Gloucester police murdered somebody in the police cells, and should be accountable for it. They should be accountable for their perjury, the perversion of the course of justice. And it's not just our case, this is endemic throughout the whole system.
People don't fall into prison accidentally, they go because police officers, crown prosecutors, judges and others falsify evidence and put people they knew were innocent into prison. There must be some sort of accountability.
GM: Yes it made a massive difference, because before they were in power we had dozens of Labour MPs who supported our case. But once they got in power, suddenly they forgot who we were. Their stance on law and order is more right wing than the Tories'. The division line between Labour and Conservative has gone completely now.
TP: I'm still looking to see if anyone from Labour will stand up, it's all about pleasing the public and leading them on.
GM: First, without the case being highlighted by groups like the socialist we'd be talking about 24 years not 14, because we'd have never given up our fight. When you get the socialist and see an article about yourself and a few people write to you, it makes a big difference. They lift your spirits and you think I'm not on my own here. We owe a big thank you to the socialist as well.
TP: My hat goes off to those who took to the streets and campaigned, I hope more people do it.
Other cases Gary and Tony would like to highlight include Winston Silcott, Ishtaq Ahmed, Jimmy Ingram, Kenny Carter, Mark Brown and Danny Johnson (now released)
ERIC ARTHUR Blair, better known under his pseudonym George Orwell, was born in Motihari, India 100 years ago this month, his father being a lower-ranking colonial administrator in the days of the British Raj.
The young Orwell soon returned to England where he would eventually win a scholarship to Eton, before serving for nearly five years in the Indian Imperial Police, where he was mostly stationed in Burma. He became acutely aware of, and dissatisfied with, what he called his "lower-upper-middle class" origins which were so closely tied to a vision of British imperial supremacy.
This class, in recognition of their own relative subservience to the bourgeoisie proper (for whom they performed the mundane task of functionaries, or "shock-absorbers" as Orwell put it), tried to compensate for their dependency through a virulently reactionary nationalism, which allowed them to claim both class and racial superiority.
However, Orwell claims, members of this class are secretly all too well aware of the injustice and flagrant oppression which sustains their position, but are forced to cling onto such precarious privilege with only barely concealed resentment:
"I was serving with a bitterness which I probably cannot make clear... In order to hate imperialism you have to be a part of it." This experience is dramatised in Burmese Days, which is the first in a series of novels (The Clergyman's Daughter, Keep the Aspidistra Flying, and Coming Up for Air) which are all structured around a similar class predicament, in which the hero is forced to confront his helpless complicity in a system which he deeply resents.
Thus, even when Orwell deserted his post in Burma, he still did not feel that he had 'escaped' from a mentality which had shaped his whole class identity.
Exasperated, he pursued a romantic identification with the down-trodden: "I wanted to submerge myself, to get right down amongst the oppressed, to become one of them and on their side against the tyrants."
He does not mean (at this stage) to offer political solidarity with the working class, but rather attempts to disappear amongst the most de-classed and alienated elements of society (tramps, homeless, petty criminals etc.), as documented in Down and Out in Paris and London.
By contrast, the organised working-class were still a completely unknown quantity for Orwell. Tellingly, given Orwell's background, familiarity with far-flung parts of the globe masks a deep-seated fear and ignorance of the lives of workers in England itself.
ORWELL, (UNLIKE many of the left's new-found supporters amongst writers and intellectuals in the 1930's), at least recognises how politically disabling this situation is for any socialist politics worthy of the name.
Therefore, he honestly confronts the visceral class-prejudice and disgust with which he had been instilled, prejudices which other middle-class 'lefts' may have had but refused to face.
His description of a visit to stay with workers in Northern industrial towns in Lancashire and Yorkshire, The Road to Wigan Pier, is like an adventure into a strange and exotic world of the unknown where the intrepid Orwell braves his fears of the horrors contained within "labyrin-thine slums and dark back kitchens with sickly, ageing people creeping round them like black beetles".
The masochistic attempt to familiarise himself with a world that obviously felt so alien, at least allows Orwell to express his more extreme sense of discomfort, but he is forced to admit that though he can be admitted "in to" such communities, he will never be "of" them.
Perhaps it is this frustration which he vents, with much justification, at the Fabians and other fellow-travelling middle classes: bearded sandal-wearers, for whom Socialism is an edifying pursuit like yoga or health food.
Similarly, he is sharply critical of sectarian professors who apply 'Marxist' theory in a way that is so abstract as to bear no relation to the lives of workers. But, perhaps as a consequence of his isolated position as a professional writer, Orwell could not yet go beyond attacking such glaring hypocrisy, and directly identify with the struggles of the class.
This impasse would only be broken by tumultuous historical events: the defence of the Spanish Revolution from the fascist forces amassing under Franco was a task so urgent as to require immediate assistance from lefts across Europe.
This was a time for action, and Orwell was willing to throw himself into fighting in defence of the Spanish workers. As part of the Independent Labour Party delegation, Orwell did not join the International Brigade (under Communist leadership), but instead fought alongside the POUM militia.
In Homage to Catalonia, probably his greatest achievement, he gives a vivid depiction of meeting a fellow recruit, an Italian, and how, despite the fact that they did not share a language, they could still feel a tremendous bond of solidarity and comradeship.
He conveys, too, the sense of excitement of seeing Barcelona under de facto workers control, and the intensity of the revolutionary spirit which coursed through the city's streets. Crucially, however, what Orwell goes on to show is the sense of utter betrayal felt at the hands of Stalin.
The Communists, instead of extending the gains of the workers and building the foundations of a socialist society, deliberately set out to sabotage the revolutionary movement by forcing the workers into a Popular Front with their mortal enemy, the capitalist class, in the name of the fight against fascism.
But far from repelling Franco, the Communists help to liquidate the most militant elements of the working class, and thus helped prepare the ground for the counter-revolution.
What is most important about Homage to Catalonia is not that it analyses events with theoretical clarity (as, for example, does Felix Morrow's Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain) or even in literary quality, but in the integrity of Orwell's testimony, which gives the lie to all the Stalinist falsifiers who would re-write the history of the tremendous workers' struggle and its outright betrayal.
THIS DOES not mean, though, that we can go as far as some commentators and call Orwell "a literary Trotskyist". Even his mature politics were never based upon a Marxist understanding of society, but rather on an appeal to an 'ordinary' English sense of decency and common sense.
Ultimately, this empiricism is based upon a rejection of dialectics: for Orwell the working class is a historical constant, a reservoir of practical know-how and 'down-to-earth' honesty, not a complex, layered phenomenon subject to uneven historical development. This empiricism led him to tread an uneven political path: at best, trying to find an impossible Centrist "third way" between revolutionary socialism and timid reformism.
After returning from Spain Orwell, now no longer in the midst of concrete political struggles, was cut adrift in the pages of Tribune and Partisan Review. Here, like others, he gave rein to wild speculation about the emergence of some kind of bureaucratic, administered society which was neither capitalist nor socialist.
If this gloomy mood of disillusionment and conjecture produced some memorable literature (Animal Farm and 1984) it also opened the door to the posthumous construction of Orwell as a Cold War anti-communist: the straight-talking 'honest Joe' who showed that capitalist liberal democracies, though flawed, were better than dangerous socialist pipe-dreams.
This interpretation is a travesty of a writer who once noted: "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
That is to say, Orwell was responding to debates within the left, about how to keep the idea of a genuine socialist transformation alive. To keep Orwell's work alive for that project, we ought not to idealise him as a spokesman for "our" side, but to face up to the contradictions in the man, the work, and the history through which he lived.
Books that inspired me
I READ Homage To Catalonia when I was 20. I had grown up watching John Wayne films where war was portrayed as heroic or glamorous. Even films like Catch 22 and M.A.S.H didn't totally dispel this image.
George Orwell was the first writer I had come across that talked about the horrific conditions and boredom of war. He graphically described the sights, sounds and smells of conflict.
Orwell travelled to Spain in 1936 to report on the Spanish Revolution. An army mutiny led by the fascist General Franco against a reformist government resulted in a revolt of the Spanish workers and peasants. In Catalonia, the revolutionary movement saw workers taking control of the factories and peasants taking over the land.
Orwell wrote: "When I first reached Barcelona I had thought it a town where class distinctions and great differences of wealth hardly existed." This made such an impression he joined the struggle against fascism.
In Catalonia the revolutionary army was organised by the trade unions, political parties and anarchist federations. For the next three months Orwell served, alongside the POUM, on the front line just outside Zaragoza. The militias were poorly armed and ill equipped. There was no battle plan and weeks were spent in dirty conditions.
Initially George Orwell couldn't understand why an offensive wasn't launched in Catalonia to help relieve the fascist siege of Madrid. Eventually he worked it out.
Stalin and his supporters in Spain did not supply arms to the revolutionary masses because they wanted to crush (or at least contain) this movement, to do a deal with Britain and France over the threat posed to the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany. Stalin's support for Spain's capitalists gave confidence to anti-working class forces.
The Barcelona Orwell returned to in May 1937 was transformed. The rich and middle classes felt safe to be seen. Class distinctions had reappeared together with beggars on the streets.
In May 1937 the Civil Guard tried to take the telephone exchange from the anarchists as a first step to destroy workers' control in Barcelona. There was intermittent fighting to defend the revolutionary gains of the workers. Orwell describes the lack of leadership offered by the anarchists and the POUM, which resulted in their defeat.
By the end of 1937 Orwell had returned to the front, been wounded and escaped to France. The POUM and the anarchists had been outlawed and the republican government was headed for defeat at the hands of the fascists.
Leon Trotsky explained that the workers and peasants of Spain could have achieved one hundred revolutions, the only thing lacking was a revolutionary party. Orwell's description of the chaos and lack of leadership during the May days in Barcelona reinforces Trotsky's conclusion.
However, despite the defeat, Orwell had seen what a future workers' state would look like. "One had been in a community where hope was more normal than apathy or cynicism, where the word 'comrade' stood for comradeship and not, as in most countries, for humbug. One had breathed the air of equality."
By reading Homage To Catalonia workers can get a glimpse of what a socialist society will look like, the feeling of common struggle to create a better society, a society that abolishes poverty, exploitation and wars.
MARSEILLE WAS at the height of the recent strike wave in France. Its militant traditions were reflected in the numbers on the streets.
On the first national strike day, Tuesday 13 May, 200,000 demonstrated. On 27 May, 230,000 took to the streets, with similar numbers the following week. A 200,000-strong demo on 10 June was followed on Thursday 12 June with a quarter of a million strikers descending on the football ground of Olympique de Marseille - the Vélodrome. With a population around a million, this is a phenomenal level of participation.
The movement, spearheaded by workers in education - over pensions, but also over privatisation - quickly spread to others in the public sector. Significant numbers of private-sector workers also participated. In Marseille, chemical and oil refinery workers were prominent and dockers were also out in force. On 27 May shop workers shut down six Casino supermarkets.
On 10 June, unions and independent strikers divided up the city: six assembly points and short, separate demos with crossover points. Nothing moved except demonstrators, a few mopeds and cycles, and some people walking their dogs. Traffic into Marseille tailed back for miles.
The public sector was shut down: rubbish collectors, workers in education, tax, post, telecoms, job centres, hospitals, customs, banks, electricity and gas, rail, bus, tram and underground, school and university students. There were even off-duty police on the march, members of the Unsa union.
Two-thirds of Marseille's workforce are employed in the public sector, or are dependent on it - more than any other French city. It has suffered 20 years of de-industrialisation. Gone are the shipbuilding, mines, and iron and steel. It is a working-class city with 15% official unemployment - 5% higher than the national average. Amongst its large immigrant (especially North African) population the percentage is far higher.
THE 12 June demo was the biggest, as 250,000 assembled around the old port and one of the main thoroughfares - Canebière. The CGT and Force Ouvrière (FO) union federations vied to be the most impressive. The CGT in orange armbands linked arms, sound systems blaring. FO stewards in red bandanas and t-shirts did likewise. Rail workers ignited flares. Fire-crackers exploded all around. There were contingents from surrounding, sprawling suburbs - Port de Bouc, Martigues, Fos and further afield, like Aix-en-Provence.
The strikers made their way down the Prado boulevard, to a stage in front of the Vélodrome. (The mayor had denied permission for a rally inside.) Four union leaders - Bernard Thibault (CGT), Marc Blondel (FO), Gérard Aschieri (FSU), and Alain Olive (Unsa) - addressed the crowd.
The fact that they had come to Marseille was a testament to the city's militancy. It was a very demanding audience. Thibault was greeted with applause and shouts for a general strike. He praised the movement in Marseille and attacked the mayor. But his flattery did not deceive. As soon as Thibault mentioned pensions tens of thousands called out for a general strike. He denounced the government's stance as "intolerable", and heard the immediate response: "General strike!" The demand was raised at every opportunity. Thibault's speech faded to polite applause and loud calls for a general strike.
Blondel was drowned out by the general strike roar: "OK, OK, at least give me a chance to speak..." The crowd relaxed its grip, and he repeated Thibault's praise of their militancy, and anti-mayor spiel. He assured them he "heard the voice from the streets". Sustained shouts for a general strike left him in no doubt what it said! Blondel said that FO "recommends a general strike". The street cheered. But, he added, "we need to maintain a united front" (as an excuse for inaction). And the street jeered.
To hear an audio version of this document click here.
What the Socialist Party stands for
The Socialist Party fights for socialism – a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few. We also oppose every cut, fighting in our day-to-day campaigning for every possible improvement for working class people.
The organised working class has the potential power to stop the cuts and transform society.
As capitalism dominates the globe, the struggle for genuine socialism must be international.
The Socialist Party is part of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI), a socialist international that organises in many countries.
To hear an audio version of this document click here.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/12675