Socialist Resistance

Stuart Richardson

The one day strike called by the National Union of Teachers (NUT)joined by the Further Education section of University and College Union (UCU) was the first national strike by the NUT since 1985, the year of the great miners’ strike. The intervening period was an era of retreat and defeat for many sections of the trade union movement. The strike, of course, had immediate causes, rising inflation and wage settlements for the previous two years below the rate of inflation. Also the increasingly heavy management pressure on teachers derived from the endless targets imposed on school staff. However the strike would never have been called without a long fight by the NUT left, the Socialist Teachers Alliance (STA) and the smaller Campaign for a Fighting and Democratic Union (CDFU) for more militant policies. For many years the annual NUT Conference held at Easter had passed often with very large majorities resolutions committing the union to industrial action on pay, conditions and performance management but these were regularly ignored by the NUT Executive. The Broad Left (now called Broadly Speaking!!), historically an alliance of Labour Left and Communist teachers, has dominated the NUT Executive for the last two or three decades regularly stifling calls for action.

Three or four years ago the Broadly Speaking divided over issues connected with the views of the ex-General Secretary Doug McEvoy and the balance of power on the NUT Executive became more fluid. The success of the strikes around the London teacher’s allowance indicated a growing militancy in the ranks of the NUT and a new generation of STA supporters were elected onto the Executive. This shift in the balance of power on the NUT Executive meant that in 2007/8 the right wing were not able to block industrial action.

Despite this shift the overwhelming vote of the 2007 NUT Conference for strike action to resist the below inflation pay deal (2.45% 2007/8, 2.3% for the next two years) the manoeuvres on the Executive delayed the strike to the following year.

The 24^th April was a great success but only partial in some areas, over half the schools closed in Birmingham, 90% NUT members on strike in Liverpool and a very solid strike in London and many other areas. But a fair proportion of NUT members did not strike especially in certain rural areas. Despite the partial nature of the strike many impressive rallies were held usually in cooperation with others unions such as UCU, PCS, and the CWU. In Birmingham a particularly impressive rally of 3,000 was held jointly with council unions, UNISON, GMB, UNITE and others who were on strike on the Single Status issue.

At a well attended STA National Coordinating meeting on the 26^th April (two days after the strike) it was agreed unanimously to push for a one day strike in the Summer term although there was vacillation on the part of some in the meeting. The view was that it was essential to maintain the momentum of the pay campaign but there were obviously difficulties given the Summer term is dominated by exams and the prospect of the summer holidays. It would have been ideal if the NUT had joined the local council workers strike on the 16^th/17^th July. A series of NUT Executive meetings in May and June ducked the chance of a summer strike with only a small minority supporting this action.

The Executive was however united on continuing the industrial in the Autumn term balloting for discontinuous action will be starting on Monday 6^th October. The prospects for the national ballot seem good given the accelerating inflation figures, RPI 5% and CPI 4.4% July 2008. Also the ballot is for discontinuous action unlike the previous ballot which was for a one day strike only. So a series of actions can be organised by the NUT without reference to further ballots.

Finally an indication of the hard line the employers will take is the reply form the School Teachers’ Review Body to a claim by the NUT for a reconsideration of the 2.3- 2.45% pay award. In the imposed deal if the inflation is above 3.25% then the award can be re-considered but despite inflation being way above this level the Review Body replied that because the vacancy rate for teachers was low the market (the god for New Labour) does not justify a higher award!!

Alan Thornett is a member of Southwark Respect and sits on the National Council. This is his reply to Andy Newman’s article on building Respect. Both pieces will be published in the next issue of Socialist Resistance as part of the debate around how to take the organisation forward.

The common ground in Andy Newman’s article is the need to build Respect, the significance of the electoral successes it has achieved, and its relevance as the most important left alternative new Labour moves ever more to the right. And it is clear what the response of the new Labour leadership will be to electoral defeat, particularly at a time of severe economic problems. It will be that they had not gone far enough to the right and they had not adopted enough of the neo-liberal agenda.

He seems to want to build it, however, on rather doubtful terrain in which John Cruddas and Compass are the centre of gravity in moving towards some kind of rainbow coalition. This is when it should be looking towards the trade union left, class struggle unions like the RMT, the campaigning activists –– environmental and otherwise –– and others on the left like the CPB who clearly should be in Respect but are still outside. It should also be looking crucially towards those sections of the working class hardest hit by the current economic situation and who urgently need a voice.

The deputy Governor of the Bank of England is one among many to point to the severity of the economic crisis and its consequences.  And the poorest sections of the working class are being hit the hardest by this situation. Unemployment is rising fast and Energywatch has predicted that this coming winter a staggering 5 million household will be in fuel poverty. The average UK household gas bill has risen by 31% this year and electricity bills by 22%.  Food prices have gone up by 25% –– list goes on.  All this is likely to lead to more trade union action on wages and in defence of jobs.

Respect will lose out big time if it has nothing to say about this situation. Those hit by it and those fighting back against it are its natural constituency both in terms of electoral support and for building itself as a party. Some of Respect’s biggest bases of support in inner city areas are amongst the hardest hit in this situation.

From this point of view the strategy presented in Andy Newman’s article –– for building Respect (or not building it as it could be reasonably described) –– points in the wrong direction. Respect should certainly work with organisations like Compass where that is possible as it can with many others but it has to get its principal constituency right.

Andy argues that instead of turning outwards in this way, winning new support, building new branches and strengthening the existing ones, it should concentrate its resources almost exclusively on its voter bases in East London and South Birmingham. Building outwards into other areas or into other sections of the working class is presented as more or less irrelevant.

He sees building a branch in Manchester or Bristol as just about useful whilst elsewhere there is little point. He puts it this way: “Between now and the next election, we should tilt everything towards Tower Hamlets and Birmingham, and the rest of Respect should see our task as mainly supporting them, and being led by their agenda, though we obviously need to continue to develop the small but important roots we have in places like Manchester and Bristol.”

It is an idea which has been advanced with some vigour by Andy and others inside Respect since the formation of Respect Renewal and it makes no sense –– even from a purely electoralist point of view, which is essentially what he puts forward.

The importance of building Respect in East London and South Birmingham and of winning seats there in the general election is absolutely common ground. These bases are essential to the relevance of Respect as an organisation and key to its future success. They represent a breakthrough into important minority working class inner city communities, which no other section of the left has been able to make.

It does not follow, however, that the best way to support and strengthen these bases is by counterposing them to building in other areas of the country and in other sections of the working class – for example the white working class with all its problems. Nor does it follow that the best way to build Respect there is by ignoring what is probably the biggest single problem they face. In any case the idea that Respect can build an organisation in the long-term which is overwhelmingly confined to two parts of two important cities and several minority communities is seriously flawed.

The real way to support these bases and maximise their electoral success is to build Respect outwards. To build viable branches in other towns and cities where it does not yet exist. It is a two-way process. Respect needs to use its success in these bases to extend its reach geographically and socially and then use an expanded organisation to give them the support they need for further and future success.

Of course Respect has to maximise support for Birmingham and East London in a general election campaign. It goes without saying. But what does this mean in practice? There are practical limitations. Respect’s electoral success is in advance of its membership and activist base. In Birmingham it is probably possible for all Respect supporters to pile in and support the target constituency. The same to some extent in London. But what do Respect members in Bristol, Manchester, Oxford, Brighton, Milton Keynes, Southend, Swindon, Dorset or other places where Respect has members or groups of members do? They could make several useful weekend trips to Birmingham or East London during the campaign, which would be very useful support of course, but probably not much more. They need to be building a branch locally at the same time.

In fact the key to winning elections in East London or Birmingham is to build strong branches in those places which can regenerate a strong voice to represent the interests of the area. If a branch is not built locally it hard to substitute from the outside. This is why electoral success has to be used to build active branches of the organisation.

Nor is it obvious that Respect branches in other places should not stand candidates –– in South London for example. It is difficult to build a branch locally, and put down the roots in the local community which are necessary to build something serious, on the basis that the only thing it can do at the time of an election is to go and campaign in East London or Birmingham.

Defending Respect’s existing Westminster seat is very important. But is it the totally make or break issue in the way in which it is being presented? It is always a big issue once you have elected representatives. You have to defend the seats you hold or you have an electoral setback. An electoral intervention is certainly essential, but no left party can guarantee to win seats. It cannot therefore be the only measure of success. In the last general election Salma Yaqoob failed to win her seat but she demonstrated very clearly that she had a major base in South Birmingham, which was then reflected in local government success.

But Andy Newman’s aversion to building Respect branches is not just about electoral strategy, it is about the character of Respect as an organisation. He argues that the ‘traditional left models of branches, resolutions and publications’ are outdated methods and a waste of space. He and other have repeatedly argued that Respect has to get away from these outmoded methods and adopt new methods and new ideas –– though not surprisingly there has been little detail as to what this means.

Everyone is in favour of new ideas of course. Though very few ideas in political organisation are actually very new. In Southwark Respect we not only have regular quite well-attended branch meetings (the August meeting was on Palestine) but a few ‘new ideas’ as well. We have just had a successful gig with Mark Steel and a very good intervention into the Carnival del Pueblo with a leaflet in English and Spanish followed by a successful Spanish language public meeting which established some contacts in the local Latin American community. Earlier in the year we had public meeting with George Galloway on rising fuel and food prices. It was not very ‘new’ but it was very successful. It found a resonance in the local community.

Andy Newman argues that Respect cannot be an ‘off the shelf’ alternative to new Labour, whatever that means. But it does have to present an alternative set of politics to new Labour if it is going to reclaim the ground they have abandoned. This cannot be done on a minimal platform of anti-war and ant-neo-liberalism. Andy ridicules the idea of having policies by saying it is not matter of having ‘correct’ positions. It is not a matter of having abstractly ‘correct’ policies. But it is a matter of having something useful to say about the problems people face and of having a vision of an alternative form of society around which to campaign –– and that means having some collectively agreed polices with which to do it.

No one thinks that Respect is preparing to form a government, or that it can have a policy on everything -–– that’s just another form of ridicule. But how can you present an alternative if you have nothing to say on most of the issues which come up in an election? Sorry - we have nothing to say on the unions, nothing to say on the environment, nothing to say on women’s right, nothing to say on civil and human rights, nothing to say on health or education, we are not that kind of party! To ask the question is to answer it. It would be absolutely bonkers.

Andy argues for Respect to have a vision for Tower Hamlets, and it certainly should. But how can it do this without developing policies on a range of issues on which to base such a vision? The alternative is for the ‘vision’ to be developed in some way other than collectively. Respect should indeed aim to win to take control of Tower Hamlets council but to do it without a developing organisation elsewhere in order to give the backup which would be necessary would be a hostage to fortune. Yes Respect should respond to the South Birmingham and East London agenda, but that means building an organisation which can do so effectively.

Socialist Resistance’s editorial board published this statement on August 26th:

Truth they say is the first casualty of war. Only a few years ago the world was subjected to the lies about Iraq’s so called weapons of mass destruction used to justify the invasion of the country in 2003. The events giving rise to the military conflict between Russia and Georgia are no different. Already a political myth has been constructed about the plucky Georgians fighting for their national rights against the bullying power of Russia.

The truth is somewhat different. The Caucasus has become strategically important to US imperialism both because of its oil reserves and also its geopolitical location, with Russia to the north and Iran to the south. Since President Saakashvili came to power in 2003 Georgia has increasingly become the key ally for the US in the region. The US and Israel have made substantial arms sales to Georgia and have trained Georgian troops in order to build up its armed forces. The payback from this in part at least has come in Iraq. After the US and Britain, Georgia has more troops in Iraq than any other country, even though it has a population of only five million! Not surprisingly the US has been keen to propose Georgian alongside Ukrainian membership of NATO as part of a strategy to militarily surround Russia on its western flank. The anti ballistics missile agreements of the US with the Czech Republic and more recently Poland are an integral part of this strategy.

In all probability Georgia attacked South Ossetia in early August with the prior knowledge and consent of the US. In any event speeches by George W. Bush as well as our own David Milliband in support of the “territorial integrity of Georgia” have made clear that the US and Britain at least are 100% behind Georgia. The Ossetes though formed a distinct national minority within the former Soviet Republic of Georgia and though not internationally recognised South Ossetia had functioned as a de facto independent state for the last sixteen years. Georgia started its invasion of South Ossetia by bombing its capital city Tskhinvali. Given that Tskhinvali has no military installations the deliberate bombing by Georgia of a civilian centre was both an act of state terrorism and a war crime. As a terrorist act it was in part successful as many Ossetes fled over the border into Russia. We can only speculate but Georgia might well have been using state terror as a tool to ethnically cleanse South Ossetia of its native population. All this forms the background to Russia’s decision to send its troops into Georgia, it was a response to the Georgian bombardment and subsequent invasion of South Ossetia.

At the time of writing the Russian Parliament has called on President Medvedev to recognise the independence of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the other disputed region in Georgia. Whether such recognition will be given or whether the threat of recognition will be used as a bargaining chip by Russia is unclear. Although we support self determination for South Ossetia and Abkhazia and therefore their recognition as independent states we give absolutely no support to Russia against Georgia in this conflict. One that clearly forms part of an inter imperialist struggle between Russian and US imperialism where Georgia functions as the proxy of the US.

Russia’s ostensible championing of the rights of national minorities within Georgia is merely a cynical and opportunist attempt to extend its power and influence in the Caucasus. In much the same way as the US and Western European imperialists used the national oppression of Kosova by Serbia as a means to extend their power and influence in the Balkans. Furthermore by its past actions Russia has shown itself to be no respecter of the rights of national minorities within its own borders as shown by the near genocidal war against the Chechen people. Our position is clear. We are both for Georgia out of South Ossetia and for Russia out of Georgia. The total rejection of external imperialist interference by the peoples of the Caucasus is a precondition for any democratic and socialist resolution to the national conflicts and the social and economic problems of the region.

Andy Higginbottom *

The struggle between the old and the new, between a reversion to extractive capitalism versus socialism of the twenty first century is felt at every level and in every country of the Andean region. Socialists have been rightly drawn to the inspiring developments in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, but recent months have revealed the extent to which these popular gains are threatened by the reactionary government in Colombia. After the military raided Ecuador, Hugo Chávez warned of the emergence of a Latin American Israel. Analysts refer to Uribe’s Colombia as the Trojan Horse for US imperialism on the continent.

Yet, notwithstanding the wide condemnation of assassinations of trade unionists (28 killed so far this year), less is known about the situation inside Colombia itself.

There are two ‘Colombia’s, the official and the real. The government and corporate media define the problem as a war between democracy and terrorism, linked to the fight against narcotics, this is the class perspective of ‘official’ society, i.e. the bourgeois strata. When we look from the experience of ‘real’ Colombia, the people without property, we discover a broad, complex, multi-faceted living class struggle. We see that Colombia is torn between neo-conservative reaction and social resistance to the new wave of imperialism.

Imperialist Strategy Coheres

The imperialist offensive into Colombia is full spectrum, led by military and economic dimensions it now includes social control. In the last decade the policy has evolved from crisis management to a coherent strategy, the lynchpin of which is to consolidate a populist neo-conservative regime.

1998 was the anno horribilis for the US. From the mid 1990s the Colombian state had sanctioned the rearming and semi-legalisation of the paramilitary death squads as a national force. Building on their successful collaboration with the army in an elimination campaign in Urabá, where their activities were directly funded and armed by Chiquita banana corporation, the paramilitary AUC began launching massacres against civilian populations countrywide. The plan was to empty the sea in which the guerrilla fish swam, so the assaults were on rural civilians rather than the guerrilla forces. Despite the terrible human costs, by 1998 it was clear that the fighting capacity of the FARC guerrillas especially had not been dented by the paramilitaries.

Colombia was seen as being on the brink of becoming a ‘failed state’. To restore the moral and capacity of the military Clinton worked actively with then president Pastrana in a twofold operation: negotiations with the FARC to play for time, and in the meantime the launching of ‘Plan Colombia’ which provided the army with 90 helicopters and established three new battalions. To pay for this and the complementary Andean Regional Initiative, for the last decade the US has been pumping in nearly a billion dollars annually, making Colombia the third biggest recipient of military aid after Israel and Egypt.

Plan Colombia is well publicised, what is less known is that towards the end of 1998 and then in 1999 the Colombian economy went fully into crisis, the worst in the country’s history. Over 5 million people were thrown into poverty, reformers began to worry about a possible social explosion. Expectancies had been raised by the 1991 Constitution, which promised a ‘state of social right’, accepting the need for social inclusion. Contradicting this promise was the 1990 apertura , a package of economic policies which brought in the neoliberal model, freeing all obstacles to multinational corporations. Controls over imports, capital flows and labour protections were all lifted, and there was an investment boom through the course of the 1990s, especially in the oil sector where the two main fields were run by BP from Britain, and the US corporation Occidental. The country’s mineral resources were privatised, and governments sought to privatise telecommunications, water and electricity too, but here they were met with prolonged social resistance, enough to pose them a real problem.

The Colombian ruling class hesitated, should it press ahead with the neoliberal programme dismantling what few social protections remained, or should it relax the pressure for fear of the consequences? With 70% of the population now in the cities, the prospect of urban uprisings was of particular concern.

The attitude of the US came into play. In June 2001 the Rand Corporation think tank published a report The Colombian Labyrinth commissioned by the US armed forces. This shows that three months even before 9/11 US policy makers were already actively considering an all-out offensive. Rand argued that Plan Colombia’s declared emphasis on counter-narcotics missed the point, although the FARC derived income from drugs, its extensive territorial control presented a more significant challenge. The report cited the wars in Central America and Peru as appropriate models, and advised setting up vigilante forces, making human rights violations were inevitable. The report warned that the consequence of all-out counter-insurgency meant risking political isolation.

As it turned out the US ‘war on terror’ after 9/11 shifted the international context decisively, Washington began urging the Colombian government “to wage all-out war against the guerrillas” as the condition for more aid. The ‘Bush Doctrine’ of preemptive strike was re-applied to become the governing principal of Colombian political life, making neutrality unacceptable. Anyone not supporting the government was suspect of being an insurgent. Whereas under Clinton the counter-insurgency dynamic of US intervention merged confusingly with the anti-drugs rhetoric, post 9/11 this was no longer necessary. A coherent ideological envelope had been found, what was needed was implementation.

Uribe Implements Neo-Conservative Regime

Uribe is backed by the US, the multinationals and Colombia’s own economic conglomerates. Drawing support from sections of the middle class wanting a leader to end the war, he was elected president in May 2002 in a ‘landslide victory’ with over half the votes (although barely 21% of the adult population).

Uribe has implemented a pre-planned strategy on both the economic and military fronts. The doctrine of ‘democratic security’ has an underlying economic imperative - to defeat the guerrillas to make the country safe for foreign investment. Uribe had moreover to defeat the working class and rural groups to ensure the profitability of these investments.

The ‘communitarian state’ distinguishes itself from classical liberalism’s concern with individual rights. It calls for social solidarity with a strong state in the war against terrorism. Security concerns take precedence over social development. The communitarian state is not simply laissez-faire, it embodies a neo-conservative social view, it is a replacement for the state of social right.

Despite over 60 of his supporters in Congress and many of his direct appointees under investigation for links with the paramilitaries, and evidence that the constitutional change allowing his re-election was facilitated by a bribe, Uribe retains the full support of official Colombia. His ascendancy has been consolidated by the infamous Operation Checkmate in which the armed forces tricked the FARC into releasing Ingrid Betancourt and 14 other hostages on 2 July 2008 was immediately declared a great success that has not lost its shine, despite the mounting evidence of a fraudulent simulation of an International Red Cross humanitarian mission. Presidential adviser José Obdulio Gaviria defends the fraud, “deceit is a virtue” - suggesting it is not at all ‘despite’ but because of his proximity to the paramilitaries, corruption and the criminal dirty war that Uribe is in power.

20 July is Colombia’s independence day. This year massive crowds gathered calling for Libertad! Libertad! The idea is to link freeing the hostages with freedom from Spanish rule, recasting the army as the nation’s heroes. We saw this for ourselves in a remote village, where soldiers were paraded on a platform for the applause of the gathered school children. It was on this trip that we encountered the other, unofficial Colombia that continues to resist.

Territorial Control

Over the last three years, under the auspices of the Permanent Peoples Tribunal (PPT), social movements have convened a series of public hearings concerning multinationals, environmental destruction and human rights. The process has been organised by sector covering food and agriculture, public utilities, mining, biodiversity, oil and gas and indigenous peoples. The programme is a serious attempt to investigate, document and socialise knowledge of what is really happening, to challenge the impunity of the multinational corporations backed by the state.

A common theme is the violent dispossession of rural communities. There are over 4 million internally displaced people, and a strong correlation between the patterns of paramilitary violence and zones of interest for resource extraction. This violence is a lever for ‘primitive’ capital accumulation.

Our most recent delegation witnessed the PPT public hearing on multinationals and the genocide of indigenous peoples. Some 500 people gathered in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, home of the kankuamos, to share experiences. Over 200 kankuamos have been assassinated, mostly by paramilitaries. Two thousand people have been assassinated in Nariño in the last year. It became dreadfully clear that no less than 18 of the 93 indigenous groups face extinction.

We visited La Guajira region, site of El Cerrejon, the biggest open cast coalmine in Latin America. El Cerrejon is owned by a consortium of the UK/South African Anglo-American corporation, the UK/Australian group BHP-Billiton and the Swiss corporation Xstrata. We visited Tamaquito, a settlement of Wayuu indigenous surrounded by the mine, near to the African descendant Tabaco that was bulldozed in 2001; and Chancleta a village overseen by the mine’s waste dump. Cerrejon corporation pumps out propaganda declaring its environmental stewardship and social responsibility, yet these communities are destitute. The economic imperative towards externalising the full costs is key to the mine’s stupendous profitability. Costs of production are less than $25 a tonne of coal, against a sale price of around $100 a tonne. The coal is for export, using a dedicated 150km railway and port. Plans to increase production from 31 to over 40 million tonnes this year mean an expansion that will eat up more communities. El Cerrejon is an extreme case of the enclave, a special zone of natural resource exploitation that is dominated by corporate interests rather than social needs.

There are conflicts over territory in all corners of this diverse country. Arauca in the plains to the east of the Andes has a history of strong social organisation, agricultural cooperatives and alternative education projects - it used to be known as Colombia’s Cuba. In the 1980s US corporation Occidental moved in to extract the oil. Arauca was put under martial law by Uribe in 2002, and today it is an armed encampment, including US marines. Under the nose of the army, paramilitaries operations have increased. The town of Saravena has for 6 years lived under military siege. This August the paramilitaries resurfaced, painting graffiti in the town, and assassinated seven residents in one week. The demands of the social movement in Saravena include the right not to be removed: “For the Defence of Life, Human Rights and Staying in this Territory”.

Valle and Cauca in the south west is another region of intense social conflict. We interviewed corteros, the sugar cane cutters, part of the invisible African descendants struggling for social recognition. They are fighting the prospect of mechanisation that will leave them jobless. The Ardila Lulle economic group and other capitalists are driving to turn vast tracts of land over to cropping for agrifuels.

War has been declared on the indigenous groups in this region. We interviewed indigenous leader José Goyes, who showed us a bullet wound from the assassination attempt he escaped in June. The Nasa and other groups in Cauca are determined to reclaim Madre Tierra, the Mother Earth robbed from them. Tricked and disappointed by successive governments failing to implement commitments, the indigenous peoples have turned to the direct action tactic of land occupations. Armed police have attacked them, and now they have been declared targets for assassination by the paramilitaries.

We interviewed union organised workers from Michelin and Unilever who are appealing for international solidarity. There is not space here to describe the urban class conflict, it is important to note that far from being progressive, the takeover of local businesses by multinational corporations has led to sackings, wage cuts, and the removal of employment rights: in short, intensified exploitation.

Conclusions

Official Colombia is dependent on its alliance with imperialism to maintain its rule. Real Colombia is dominated by imperialism. The imperialist offensive which now grips the internal class conflict is meeting social resistance, but in fragmented and extremely difficult conditions.

José Obdulio argues that Colombia is in a post-conflict situation. This is not true, the persecution of social resistance continues with official sanction and through the systematic use of unofficial, deniable methods.

We appeal to readers to join us in building an anti-imperialist solidarity movement in Britain. We have a common cause. The outcome of this struggle is important not only for one country, and for the environment, but for the prospects of socialism in Latin America.

• Secretary of the Colombia Solidarity Campaign (personal capacity).
• For more information and how to join the Campaign see www.colombiasolidarity.org.uk or email info@colombiasolidarity.org.uk

Roy Wilkes reports from this year’s climate camp.

Over 1500 people attended this year’s climate camp on the Medway peninsula. The camp focused on resisting government plans to allow E.ON to build at Kingsnorth the first coal fired power station in over thirty years, a proposal which makes a mockery of Brown’s professed concern about climate change. Government assurances that the new station will be carbon capture and storage (CCS) ready were exposed as utter drivel. ‘CCS ready’ means not that there will be a functioning CCS plant in place, but merely that there is space in a field somewhere nearby in which such a plant could be built at some stage in the future (if, that is, it ever becomes technically and economically feasible.)

Arthur Scargill visited the camp on the Monday to promote ‘clean’ coal. Despite making some good points about the horrific conditions under which much imported coal is mined, he failed to make a convincing case for going ahead with new coal fired power. And as George Monbiot pointed out, why would trade unionists want to condemn workers to the horrendous health and safety hazards of deep coal mining when many more hazard free jobs could be created in building and installing wind turbines. But the most important thing is that Arthur came to the camp, engaged in a dialogue, and defended the protesters in their confrontations with the police. This dialogue, on the future of coal and of coal miners, and on the need for a just transition to a low carbon economy, needs to be continued and deepened.

Monbiot for his part enraged many campers by apparently vacillating on the nuclear question. Although he was keen to emphasise the stringent safety conditions that he would apply to any future nuclear plants, Monbiot’s approach appeared to offer a green cover to the nuclear lobby, in what seemed like an unnecessary and indeed a panicked response to the impending threat from new coal.

The camp provided many opportunities for participants to debate not only climate change but also radical politics in general. Workshops were held throughout the week on a wide range of topics, including vegan cake baking, neo-liberalism in the education system, the role of trade unions in fighting climate change, developing sustainable transport policies and why men should oppose the oppression of women. Several workshops and training sessions were also held on the methodology and techniques of non violent direct action.

The mass actions took place on the Saturday, with the campers divided into 4 groups: green, silver, blue and red. Several hundred direct actionists of the ‘green group’ – which was sub-divided further into small ‘affinity groups’ - converged on different sections of the Kingsnorth perimeter. Some dismantled police fencing and used it to build ladders with which to breach the inner fences of the power station. Others climbed a nearby pylon to hang a banner reading ‘Shut Down Kingsnorth’. Those that made it into the grounds were all arrested, but to get that far in the face of such a huge police presence was an impressive achievement in itself. The fence was also breached by a flying pink pig (labeled “CCS”) which had been launched by members of the ‘silver group.’

The Rebel Raft Regatta of the ‘blue group’ took to the river in a range of boats and makeshift rafts (many of which had been built and hidden weeks before the event). One of these crews managed to hang a banner reading “COAL: Starter Gun For Climate Chaos” from an island fort opposite the station, while the crew members of another craft were subsequently arrested and charged with aggravated trespass. According to their charge sheets, “they did an act, namely disrupting the running of the power station by causing the water inlet cooling system to be shut down.” So much for E.ON’s claim that they had kept the power station running normally all weekend!

The largest and most visible protest was that carried out by the ‘orange group’. Around 1000 protesters marched from the camp to the front gate of the power station in a colourful, loud and joyous demonstration, which included all the children of the camp, plus a carnival dragon, several cyclists, a jazz band and a samba band. On two occasions sections of the march were attacked by police snatch squads, backed up by riot police and horses. The first attack happened when one of the jazz drummers was mistakenly identified as someone who had broken bail conditions by attending the camp, and in the second case as a response to the heinous crime of breaking a length of police tape. On both occasions protesters dived in to protect the police targets and then loudly remonstrated against police brutality.

The march culminated in a rally at the power station gate. Speakers included Liberal MEP Chris Davies, who claimed that CCS was both possible and necessary, and Dr Derek Wall (Principal Male Speaker of the Green Party), who lambasted establishment politicians of all parties for cowtowing to the anti-ecological imperatives of neo-liberalism. Derek urged the protesters to look to Venezuela for inspiration. A low flying police helicopter disrupted the rally for a short while, but only until protesters drowned out its buzzing with unified chants of “go away,” after which the helicopter did indeed go away, to much applause. Banners were hung from the gate and from all adjacent fencing.

The climate camp was not only an expression of radical education and mass protest, but also a practical example of non-hierarchical and sustainable living. Power for the p.a. systems, and for the music, cinemas and computers, was generated by wind turbines, photovoltaic cells and even cycle power. Composting toilets were provided throughout the camp - and they are incidentally far cleaner and less smelly than the chemical toilets and plastic portaloos used at rock festivals – with the waste donated to an organic farmer after the event. All the work - including cooking the vegan food, washing up, composting the waste and defending the gates - was organized collectively, with decisions taken in participatory ‘neighborhood’ meetings.

The methodology of consensus meetings, with all its associated hand signals, seems strange at first to those of us from a labour movement tradition. But it is well established among the radical greens, and seems to provide a useful addition to the arsenal of resistance. And as a means of reasserting the principals of participatory democracy, it could well prove invaluable.

Many campers who had come simply to protest new coal were visibly shaken (and indeed radicalized) by the massive police presence. 1500 cops from 26 police forces descended on the camp during the week. Anyone approaching or leaving was thoroughly searched under Section 60 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. An early raid on the camp resulted in truck loads of stuff being confiscated – the booty included such offensive objects as bike locks, crayons and oranges. A cock and bull story was released to the media about a cache of weapons found in a nearby wood, probably in order to justify these excesses. We were videoed and photographed repeatedly. Riot police were massed at the gates at 5am every morning, resulting in campers being woken up early in order to defend the gates. And a police helicopter flew low overhead at all hours of the night, in a blatant attempt at sleep deprivation, and also at key times during the day, in order to disrupt meetings. By Friday, food for the camp was held up at a roundabout half a mile away so that we had to carry it on foot (with searches in both directions.) Over 100 people were arrested during the week, usually for ‘obstruction’.

But the protesters held firm in resisting police efforts to invade and occupy the camp. An early attempt at police occupation was repulsed when around 50 cops were overwhelmed by campers and pushed back through the gate. The gates were barricaded and rapid responses to every attempt at massing riot police outside the gates ensured that they never gained access. Every morning the police would issue a printed sheet requesting the right to patrol the camp and even to set up an on-site police station. And every day, following discussion in the neighborhood meetings, their request was denied, so that throughout the week the site was maintained as a cop-free zone. This in itself boosted the confidence and determination of the campers.

One of the most striking features of the climate camp movement is the predominance of young people. This is certainly a cause for optimism. There is already a strong anti-capitalist consciousness among these youngsters, and this is starting to engender an understanding that the working class is the key agency of change. The camp has embraced the notion of ‘just transition’, and actively seeks out links with the unions. Despite many of its participants expressing sympathy with ‘anarchism’, this growing movement should nevertheless provide fertile soil for the ideas of eco-socialism.

It has been suggested that Kingsnorth might be the last climate camp. This is partly to avoid the camp becoming routinised as an annual jamboree, and partly in order to concentrate resources on the rolling blockade of Kingsnorth (which will begin as soon as a decision to build the new power station is announced.) The message from Kingsnorth is clear. This movement is not going away, and any attempt to go ahead with the plans for a new coal fired power station will be firmly resisted. And with the confidence of these young protesters running as high as it is, this is definitely a battle we can win.

The next meeting of the Camp for Climate Action will be in Manchester on the weekend of 26^th to 28^th September.

See website for details of the climate action group in your area: http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/

Take Action Now to Stop War on Iran
U.S. Naval Armada heading towards Iran

Growing threat - Join us in mobilizing to Stop War on Iran! - Appeal from StopWarOnIran.org

As we write, the arrival of new U.S. warships will mark the largest build-up of Naval forces in the Gulf since the 1991 Gulf War.

The aircraft carriers USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Ronald Reagan, along with the USS Iwo Jima, an Amphibious Assault Ship are sailing toward the Persian Gulf to reinforce the US strike forces in the region, along with a British Royal Navy carrier battle group and a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine.

This move follows the ominous Operation Brimstone, a massive military exercise involving more than a dozen warships from the US, England, and France in the Atlantic Ocean in preparation for a possible confrontation with Iran.

The USS Roosevelt, which participated in the just-concluded exercise, and the USS Ronald Reagan will join two US naval battle groups in the area: the USS Abraham Lincoln with its Carrier Strike Group Nine ; and the USS Peleliu, and Amphibious Assault Ship with its expeditionary strike group.

Sign the Petition at http://stopwaroniran.org/petition.shtml

Workers and Peasants the main victims

Phil Hearse

So the Beijing games are nearly upon us. There is no public event, other than perhaps the soccer World Cup, that is so universally approved of as the Olympic Games. An orgy of TV time and newspaper columns will whip up passions about what are, after all, minority sports. How many of the two billion or so people who will watch on TV could – before the event – name the world pole vault champion, the world archery champion or the Tai Kondo champion? About 0.0001 per cent.

But never mind the sheer dreary boredom of it all, it’s really all about promoting the ‘spirit of the Games’, isn’t it? The international harmony so evident in the opening and closing ceremonies which seamlessly blends national pride with internationalism, the once-in-a lifetime meeting of thousands of young athletes from around the world and thousands of (mainly well-heeled) spectators from many lands. Who could disapprove of an event that so evidently promotes international unity and understanding?

Contrary to this fairy story, the truth about every Olympics is that behind the fake internationalism the Games are a vehicle for mobilising officially approved national chauvinism on a mass scale, asserting ‘national pride’ and above all a mammoth publicity opportunity for transnational corporations, especially ‘official partners’ of the games (like McDonalds, Omega and Coca Cola - click here to see the full list) - but also those who are sponsors of national teams.

Part of the cost of the Olympics is paid by the huge fees put up by television companies for the rights and from the sponsorship of the transnational corporations. But a large part is also paid from the local or national taxes of the host country, as Londoners will increasingly experience as we move towards 2012.

In the case of Beijing the whole operation is being conducted in a way that directly victimises and impoverishes large sections of the poor of Beijing and workers from all over China; and is leading to the construction of hyper-expensive facilities that will after the games be mainly privatised and only ever used by the wealthy elite.

Building the Olympics sports facilities and transport facilities has cost a huge sum. The main stadium, the ‘birds nest’ designed by Swiss architects Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron, cost about half a billion dollars. The National Theatre cost $350 million; the National Swim Centre $100m and the Beijing Wukeson Cultural and Sport Centre, incorporating a hotel and shopping mall, another $543million.

Associated with the holding of the Olympics is the Beijing airport third terminal designed by British architect Norman Foster, coming in at a cool $1.9bn and the new headquarters for China’s central television network, CCTV, that cost another $600 million. And these are just some of the major projects. (1)

The private sector is involved in the building of these facilities, and despite their public funding, the private builders will become the operators of these new facilities for a 30-year period. In other words, huge amounts of Chinese state funding is being used to guarantee the profits of Chinese companies for years to come.

In order to clear the way for these new prestige projects, that will project Chinese power and influence on a world scale, 300,000 people have had their neighbourhoods and homes demolished or their land confiscated. The many people who have complained or organised protests about this have been silenced by jail sentences or violence – not surprising in a country that has one of the most corrupt, violent and repressive state apparatuses in the world.

A famous case is that of Ye Guogiang, who on China’s National Day in October 2003 tried to kill himself by throwing himself off a bridge in the Forbidden City in front of hundreds of onlookers, in protest at the forced demolition of his family’s home and restaurant. But he survived and was sentenced to two years in jail for ‘disturbing social order’. His family continued to protest and were continually harassed by the Chinese authorities. There are many similar cases.

While the cost of the Olympic-related construction projects is enormous, outside China it would have been vastly more. What China had at its disposal was huge amounts of cheap labour. Construction workers, typically migrant workers unable to find work on the land, were usually housed in barracks on the construction site, paid an average of $4.7 a day and forced to work seven days a week. Many of these workers are employed by subcontractors and late payment or no payment of wages is common. The Chinese government itself estimated unpaid migrant workers’ wages in 2003 at more than $12bn.

This is then the main pattern of the Beijing games. Endemic features of Chinese state capitalism – land evictions with little or no compensation, ruthless exploitation of migrant workers, and mega corruption by party officials to promote their own companies, families or cronies – have been used to create a spectacle of wealth and power that is designed to impress people across the globe.

This plan of course has had some little local difficulties, not least the pro-Tibet demonstrators’ attempts to disrupt the carrying of the Olympic torch in London, Paris and San Francisco. But then came the Szechuan earthquake which mobilised international sympathy for the Chinese government, as it appeared to carry out a speedy and efficient response to the earthquake catastrophe – something that obscured the fact that many of the dead perished under poorly constructed buildings, a direct result of the corruption that has allowed cheapskate jerry-building on a mass scale, in return for appropriately large bribes to local officials from the building companies.

According to Amnesty International human rights in China have got worse because of the Olympics. According to Roseann Rifea (2) deputy programme director for Amnesty International: “We’ve seen a deterioration in human rights because of the Olympics. Specifically we’ve seen crackdowns on domestic human rights activists, media censorship and increased use of re-education through labour as a means to clean up Beijing and surrounding areas”.

The Olympic Games celebrates not the ascent of a classless abstraction called ‘China’, but the rise of a vicious and corrupt ruling class that maintains its power by the ruthless use of violence and censorship – and where the state intrudes directly into people’s work and family lives on an Orwellian scale.

I won’t be watching, I refuse to go to any pub that has it on a TV screen, I don’t care how many (actually how few) medals Britain wins and I’ve never been for a moment glad that the Olympics are coming to London in 2012. Perhaps more than at any time since the 1936 Berlin Olympics, these games are designed to promote the image of a truly despicable regime. The left and the social justice movement shouldn’t fall for it for a single moment.

End Note
1. See Delirious Beijing in Evil Paradises, edited by Mike Davis and Daniel Bertrand Monk, Verso, 2006
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7529453.stm

Reviewed by Roy Wilkes

Two years ago George Monbiot published Heat, a ground-breaking book which armed a generation of activists with the technical and scientific know how to fight climate change. Jonathan Neale’s new book starts in a similar vein, by explaining the science of climate change and by showing that the technology already exists to prevent it (or at least to prevent catastrophic abrupt climate change. Climate change as such is already with us, and hitting the world’s poor first and hardest.)

But whereas Monbiot concluded that the battle against climate change is ‘a campaign against ourselves’, Neale takes the opposite tack. Ordinary people should not be prevailed upon to make sacrifices, an approach which tries to tackle the problem ‘at the wrong end of the pipe.’ Instead we must build a global mass movement to force through the changes that are needed, particularly in energy production, transport, housing and industry. And whereas Monbiot tried to develop a utopian scheme of tradable individual carbon rations, Neale explains why such market mechanisms (and others such as green taxation and carbon trading) are incapable of solving the problem.

To fight climate change effectively will necessitate rational planning and extensive government intervention. However, the rich and powerful will fight tooth and nail to prevent this happening, since they will perceive any retreat from neoliberalism, which has brought pain, hardship and fear to so many people, as a threat to their wealth and power.

Neale suggests demands that are eminently achievable and realistic, yet sufficiently inspiring to motivate people to act. These include 5 million solar roofs in 5 years; a 20 fold increase in wind power in 5 years (Germany already has ten times the wind power of Britain); 10 million fully insulated homes in 10 years; car free cities; free public transport; public ownership of the railways; an end to airport expansion; union environment reps in every workplace; and policies to guarantee alternative work (with no loss of pay) for all those currently employed in unsustainable industries. If every union fights hard for these demands, we would not only have a real chance of preventing climate chaos, we would also ensure a better quality of life for all.

Among the most illuminating chapters are those dealing with the history of climate politics. The scientists and environmental NGOs performed an invaluable service to the world by warning us about global warming. Now everyone knows. But their political strategy, which is based entirely on trying to persuade the rich and powerful to act, was fatally flawed. What is needed now is for the social movements, and in particular the unions, to pick up the baton and run with it.

Neale imagines four possible outcomes to this crisis. The first is that abrupt climate change will overwhelm us. This is all too possible. The second, and least likely outcome, is that the ruling class will see sense and do what needs to be done. The third possible outcome is that a huge mass movement will force the rulers to act, and that the rulers will make a compromise. And the fourth is global social revolution. We don’t yet know which outcome will prevail.

I would take issue with Neale’s analysis of the former Soviet Union, which in my opinion leads him to grossly underestimate the global impact of its collapse. And some economists might argue that Neale underestimates the extent to which the rate of profit has been restored under neoliberalism. These are issues for ongoing debate within the movement, as are the precise details of the demands we should be raising. But overall this is a wonderful book, a positive and optimistic addition to the armoury of socialists and climate activists alike. It is written with genuine warmth and humour, and filled with boundless faith in the humanity and decency of ordinary people.

Everyone should read this book and read it soon. Order a copy now from your local bookshop as a way of encouraging them to put it on their shelves: ISBN 9781905192373. And when you have read it, pass it on to your friends, family and workmates, and get them involved in the movement. We have a planet to save, and in the process of saving it, we have a world to win.

Richard Hatcher sets out some ideas for how Respect could start to develop policy on the local government level. A version of this article will appear in the September edition of Socialist Resistance.

People see their city, their town, their borough, as a significant context for their lives – it shapes their lives in important ways, and they in turn try to influence and shape it, in the limited ways they can, to meet their needs. At the centre is the municipality, the council, as provider of public services, as employer, and as site of local democracy.

The implication for Respect is that wherever it is trying to build branches it has to have a political project for the city as a whole. (I’m thinking of Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol etc. London is a more complex case but the same principles apply.) In other words, it is more than taking up national issues locally, and more than doing local politics at the level of the ward or constituency, and it is more than taking up specific city-wide issues – a public sector strike, a campaign around a hospital or an Academy – as and when they occur, though of course we should do all of these. It is recognising that all of them need to be integrated into a full spectrum systematic and long-term city-wide strategy.

There are implications for Respect’s electoral work. When we stand in local elections, and where we get elected, we do not do so solely as representatives of and accountable to the voters in a particular ward or constituency. We stand for and are elected to the city council, which means we are involved in taking decisions, or taking positions on decisions, on city-wide policies, and are therefore politically (if not electorally) accountable to the whole city. Though the basic unit of building Respect might be ward or constituency branches, it has to be more than the sum of its parts at the city level. This is not a debate about where we build Respect – i.e. the extent to which we focus on the few areas where we have a chance of getting elected in 2010 - it is a debate about the politics we build it on. A political project at the level of the city is a key element in getting Respect elected, for two reasons. One, because it shows us as serious local politicians and Respect as a serious city-wide party in its political scope and ambition. Two, because many of the issues facing people in the wards and constituencies we stand in can only be addressed adequately at the city level.

That means we have to develop a programme at the level of the city which engages with the various concerns of social groups across the city. In part the programme will necessarily be defensive – against cuts, privatisation etc. But it also has to offer a different and inspiring vision of how the city could and should be. Without succumbing to illusions in ‘municipal socialism’, It has to put forward concrete demands and policies about what should be done now by the city council about such burning issues as transport, crime, youth provision, housing, childcare, urban planning, etc. Take transport as an example: the proposal in Manchester for a congestion charge. This is an opportunity not just to argue for our position (whatever it is!) on congestion charges but to put it forward as one element in a radical vision which might include free public transport in the city and free home-to-work travel paid for by employers. (These are two demands which LCR councillors raise in France – the former is actual policy in a number of cities.)

However, having the right policies is only half the answer. The other half concerns how we think policy should be made. Are we saying ‘just put us in the driving seat and we’ll steer the vehicle in a better direction’, or are we saying that we have an entirely different conception of how local politics should be done, one where the councillors’ role is to work towards empowering citizens through promoting deliberative democracy, collective action and popular self-management?

This aspect of our politics is very undeveloped, but it is crucial at a time when there is profound public cynicism about all political parties and about local government as a whole. This is a problem which Labour itself recognises, in particular because of low turn-outs in local elections and widespread voter cynicism. It is the theme of a number of recent government policy documents, most recently the ludicrously mis-titled White Paper Communities in control: real people, real power (DCLG, July 2008), which ‘aims to pass power into the hands of local communities, to encourage vibrant local democracy in every part of the country, and to give real control over local decisions and services to a wider pool of citizens’. All this is largely empty rhetoric and tokenism, but it is a debate which we need to have alternative answers to. (Academies are a case in point: no mention of them in the White Paper, but Sheffield City Council – Lib Dem – has at least gone as far as announcing that there will be a ballot of parents on any Academy proposal.).

The key principle of ‘doing politics differently’ is of creating spaces in each local authority area in which deliberative democracy can take place about policy issues. The exact relationship of this process of deliberative democracy to the forms of local representative democracy – in particular the city council – is a matter for discussion, and the balance of forces. It needs to be stressed that proposals for democratic participation should not be confused with notions of ‘social partnership’. They are ways of strengthening popular activity and providing a more favourable context for gaining support for radical policies. Their impact would depend not just on the power of argument and popular pressure but on their ability to count on popular mobilisation when necessary.

To give an example, in each local school system we should advocate what we might call an Education Forum. It would be open to all with an interest in education – parents, teachers, other school staff, school students, governors and citizens – though its decisions might be taken only by elected representatives of its constituents. Its purpose would be to discuss and take positions on key policy issues and develop an Education Plan for the local system of schools and colleges. In that context it would discuss and vet significant distinctive policies which a school or college decided it wanted to pursue, in order to decide if they posed problems for social equality and justice in terms of their impact on other schools, thus democratically ensuring local diversity within a common general interest.

One well-known form of local popular participation is ‘participatory budgeting’ (PB). Radical in Porto Alegre, it has now been coopted in a de-radicalised form by Labour in its document Participatory Budgeting: A Draft National Strategy - Giving more people a say in local spending (DCLG March 2008) and in the White Paper Communities in control: real people, real power. Every council has to delegate some funding powers to local neighbourhoods. But radical PB is very different. Its defining feature is that it enables the construction of a collective city-wide general interest out of particular local community interests through a process of deliberative democracy. This is a practical demand here today. There is an interesting example from the LCR in Paris, where tenants on a number of council housing estates held meetings on each estate to draw up priorities for the housing department to implement. They then elected a delegate for each 10 tenants present who met, looked at evidence, and worked out a list of agreed priorities across the estates, which the housing department then drew up a budget for, got it ratified by the tenants, and implemented (see article by Picheral in Critique Communiste 185, December 2007).

What does all this mean for Respect? It needs to do 4 things:

1. Recognise the need for a city-wide political project, including implications for the role of councillors and local elections.

2. Develop in each area a vision for the city, comprising critique of the capitalist city, defence of what is worth defending, and radical alternatives concretised in credible demands for today.

3. Couple that with a vision of doing politics differently, based on deliberative democracy, popular mobilisation and self-management, and again concretised in specific credible demands and alternatives for today.

4. Set itself the medium-term task of gearing itself up to work in this way by developing its own expertise, trying things out, and systematically sharing experiences and ideas across the country.

Richard Hatcher

July 2008

Frances Curran, the socialist candidate in Glasgow East, has vowed to launch a crusade against greedy politicians who plunder the public purse to make themselves rich.

“Winning a seat in parliament these days is like winning the lottery,” says Frances.
“MPs have a pay package worth quarter of a million pounds. On top of that, they can rake in a fortune from second homes and first class travel expenses.
“Many put their relatives on the payroll to send their household income soaring into the stratosphere.”
According to press reports, the last Labour MP for Glasgow East paid his wife and daughter half a million pounds to work from home.

A workers’ MP on a workers’ wage

As an MSP in the last Scottish Parliament, Frances spurned the lavish Holyrood lifestyle to stay in touch with ordinary people.
She donated tens of thousands of pounds -half her total salary -to the socialist movement. She published every penny of her expenses.
“I lived as a workers MSP on a workers’ wage, like my other Scottish Socialist Party colleagues,” says Frances.
“If elected as the MP for Glasgow East I’ll do exactly the same again. I believe in improving life for the whole of the East End -and not just for the chosen few who get themselves elected,” says Frances.
After 30 years in socialist politics Frances Curran has no expensive possessions.
She doesn’t own a house, but lives in a top-floor rented housing association tenement.
She has no car, no expensive furniture, no loot stashed away in a personal bank account.
You may not agree with everything Frances Curran says. But even her opponents admit she’s one of that rare breed of politicians who has never been seduced by glitz, wealth and celebrity.

For more details about the campaign visit the Scottish Socialist Party’s site.