Issue 1 Cover

Comments are open, so feel free to discuss the articles.

• Why Emancipation And Liberation?, RCN
• We are fighting a duel war, Shoaib Bhatti
• Afghanistan Solidarity Appeal, SSP
• War Against Terrorism?, Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women
• An eye for an eye?: justice USA style, Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women
• War against terrorism and the threat to freedom of expression, Steve Kaczynski
• Lords of the Rings, Nick Clarke
• Dedicated to Gung-ho George…(The Texaco Kid), Charlie Rees
• International Working Women’s Day – Some thoughts, Linda Gibson
• Red Republicans or just Red Reformers?, Mary Ward
• James Connolly’s appeal on the occassion of Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee In 1897, ames Connolly
• For A Republican Socialist Party, Revolutionary Democratic Group
• Working class opposition to UDA murder, John McAnulty
• National Workers’ Assembly meeting – a big step forward, Jordi Martorell
• Boycott Any Euro Referendum, Matthew Jones

Neither the European ruling classes, which have created the Euro nor the British capitalist supporters of the pound sterling are friends of the working class. Both are our sworn enemies. The choice being offered to us in this referendum is – a yes vote in support of the Euro or a no vote in support of the pound – not as some would put it Yes in support of Blair and New Labour or No against them.

The nature of money

To understand the class forces at work and where the working class should stand on the Euro it is first necessary to look at the nature of money. Originally precious metals – particularly gold – served as money. Karl Marx pointed out that the high value of gold relative to other commodities was due to the large quantity of labour time taken to produce gold. Historically the value of gold in the modern world market has changed slowly, falling only with the development of new extraction techniques or the discovery of major new deposits with easier workings.

For a time capitalism was able to sustain gold-based currencies as a world currency, a universal equivalent. At this time the gold backed pound sterling and the actual gold sovereign, the currency of Britain, the dominant capitalist power was the international currency. Other, poorer countries such as the various German states had to make do with a paper currency and the demand to import stronger currencies similar to the use of the dollar in Russia today.

Surplus value

However, the basis of all paper currencies is the surplus value extracted from the working class. Surplus value being Marx’s term for the tribute taken from the working class by the capitalist class and bearing a number of labels including profit, interest, rent etc. History shows that the value of each currency depends on the success of each capitalist class in exploiting workers. Where workers are successful in winning concessions then the degree or even the absolut eamount of surplus value extracted by the capitalists will fall, as will the value of the currency. This is called inflation.

The rise of the workers’ movement internationally was heralded by the Paris Commune in 1871 and declared as a fully fledged alternative to capitalist rule by the Russian Revolution of 1917. It forced the gradual abandonment of the link between paper currency and gold – the gold standard- the last vestiges of which were swept away when the Bretton Woods currency system collapsed in 1971.

No accountability

Because money is so central to the operation of capitalism itself there is no way that the capitalist classes can or will concede any democratic control or accountability over their currencies. Only their trusted servants will be allowed anywhere near the system. Thus the notion that the operation of the European Central Bank controlling the Euro is somehow less accountable than the Bank of England controlling the pound is just untrue. Similarly the notion that controls over public spending currently being used in Euroland are significantly worse than the attacks perpetrated by Blair and Brown in the service of British capital is likewise false.

Exploitation of workers

Massive concessions to the working class were institutionalised after 1945 and produced a currency system where for the first time inflation was a permanent feature, for the ruling class and its assorted political servants the war against inflation became code for attacking the working class both nationally and internationally.

In class terms, the conflict between the supporters of the new Euro and those attempting to preserve the pound is a dispute between different factions of the ruling class on how best to maintain the exploitation of the workers. The Euro is a creation of the European Union which at its heart is a deal between the German and French capitalist classes. It is both a pact against the working class in Europe and an attempt to challenge the economic and political dominance of the US capitalist class.

In Britain, those forces supporting the Euro are led by those major manufacturers which remain in Britain plus that section of finance capital, which is either European owned or aligned to interests in the European Union. In some industries, such as cars and chemicals, there is a real fight over whether the Euro or the dollar will be the most significant currency. On the other side, the pound is supported by a large section of finance capital which is seeking to maintain the alliance between the British and US ruling classes plus a majority of small business. The advent of the Euro would undoubtedly mark another attack on sections of small business by large capital.

Anti working class

Both sides of this argument are united in one thing: their absolute determination to maintain the oppression of the working class and to press home further attacks upon it where possible. On one side we have the Tories with their base in small business and the more extreme elements of finance capital supporting the pound and on the other we have Blair with another throughly antiworking class programme.

It is difficult to see how the working class can fight for its own interests other than by calling for a boycott. Both sides of this argument represent the interests of different factions of the British ruling class.

Overthrow of capitalism

The success of the working class in winning concessions from the capitalist class, whether in the form of wage rises and better conditions or better services from the state, undermines money itself by reducing its value through inflation. Whenever the working class comes close to overthrowing capitalism, money automatically becomes worthless because the capitalist class(es) concerned are unable to exploit workers and extract surplus value.

This is not to say that we should not demand more money as part of demanding concessions from capital or the state. But in a future Euro referendum the question will be posed Are you in favour of this money or that money? In other words are you in favour of this set of capitalist interests or the other bunch of bloodsuckers? Our answer must be no – we will fight for a greater share for the working class and for the overthrow of capitalism and it is not in our interests to choose the kind of chains the capitalists want to put on us.

Boycott the Referendum! Fight for Workers’ Interests not those of Capitalists!

On Saturday, February 16, thousands of workers, unemployed and members of the popular assemblies, met in the Plaza de Mayo square in the Argentinean capital Buenos Aires. This was the beginning of the National Assembly of Workers (employed and unemployed). The day after, two thousand elected delegates met at the Avellaneda Colonial Theatre, representing unemployed workers’ organisations from all over the country, but also local trade union branches, groups of workers’ in struggle, neighbourhood popular assemblies, etc.

This meeting is the highest point so far of the movement towards the creation of an alternative power of the workers and the masses in Argentina. The movement, which started with the revolutionary events of December 19 and 20, has advanced very rapidly not only in its organisational forms but also in the political conclusions that it has drawn.

The popular assemblies, which meet weekly in every neighbourhood, now cover most areas in Buenos Aires and its periphery and are also spreading to other provinces. Starting on January 12, the popular assemblies in Buenos Aires have started weekly meetings every Sunday to co-ordinate their actions and discussions in common. These meetings of delegates from different neighbourhood assemblies (interbarrial) have grown in size and now are gatherings of 3 to 4,000 people. There are reports of similar meetings taking place in the provinces. For instance in Rosario delegates representing 24 popular assemblies meet regularly.

Democratic assemblies

These meetings discuss both the programme of the assemblies and the actions to be taken and are run on extremely democratic lines. Everyone is allowed only three minutes to speak and at the interbarrial meetings only elected delegates from neighbourhood assemblies or groups of workers in struggle are allowed to speak. At the end of the meeting all proposals are put to the vote.

The assemblies which at the beginning were mainly concentrated on the struggle against the corralito (government imposed freeze on bank account withdrawals) have now adopted a very advanced programme of demands which challenges every aspect of capitalist rule. These include the repudiation of the foreign debt, the nationalisation of the banks, the renationalisation of all privatised utilities, popular election of Supreme Court judges, the taking into state control of pension funds (AFJP), etc.

The popular assemblies and the workers’ movement

Most important of all, the movement of the popular assemblies has taken important steps towards linking up with the workers and the movement of the unemployed. For a few years now Argentina has witnessed a movement of very militant actions on the part of unemployed workers, which take direct action and organise road blocks demanding jobs and subsidies. These piqueteros organised two national meetings to co-ordinate the movement in July and September last year.

The interbarrial in Buenos Aires decided to join the two piquetero marches called on January 28 and February 5, and various popular assemblies greeted the piqueteros in their neighbourhoods. A new slogan was coined which expressed the unity between the assemblies and the piqueteros: Piquete y cacerola, la lucha es una sola (pickets and pans, same struggle – this refers to the pickets organised by unemployed workers and the pots and pans protests organised by the assemblies). Furthermore the assemblies established links with groups of workers in struggle in their neighbourhoods. This was the case with the workers of the Brukman textile company who have now occupied the factory to oppose anylay-offs and demand that the company be nationalised under workers’ control.

The workers’ movement has so far not participated in these protests as an independent force. This does not at all mean that workers are passive. In the last three years there have been 8 very militant general strikes. Workers also participate in the popular assemblies in their neighbourhoods. One of the reasons why there has been no mass strike movement so far is the fear of unemployment, which has now reached an official level of more than 20%. Another important factor is the stranglehold of the trade union bureaucracy of the main CGT federation.

This is why the calling of the National Workers Assembly is such an important step forward. The September National Piquetero Meeting of unemployed workers’ organisations agreed to call a new national meeting which would be composed of elected delegates, one for every 20 organised unemployed workers. This meeting never took place since the two organisations with the greatest influence in the unemployed workers movement consistently refused to call it. These organisations are the CCC led by Alderete and the FTV(linked to the CTA union federation) led by D’Elia. The leaders of both these organisations are now involved in talks with the government about the management of unemployment subsidies, which is basically a manoeuvre to pacify the unemployed workers’ movement.

Calling the National Workers’ Assembly

But in a period of radicalisation of the class struggle, the more militant sections of the piquetero movement decided to go ahead with the calling of a Third National Workers’ Assembly on their own. These included unemployed workers’ organisations from all over the country, many of them linked to left wing parties like the Communist Party, the PO, the MST, the PTS, etc. They issued an appeal to employed workers, militant trade union branches and the popular assemblies calling on them to send delegates to this meeting.

The calling of this meeting provoked a split in the CCC. One of their leaders, Raúl Castells of the MIJDP, who is now under house arrest, came out publicly in favour of the National Assembly, and was expelled from the CCC for that reason.

The Buenos Aires popular assemblies had decided to remain in the Plaza de Mayo square overnight after their weekly cacerolazo (pots and pans protest) on Friday 15, in order to greet the delegates to the National Workers Assembly arriving from all over the country from early Saturday morning. Thousands of people were already crowding the Plaza de Mayo when the delegations of the different unemployed workers’ organisations started to march in amid cheering and the chanting of slogans.

Two of the most significant delegations were those of the workers from the Brukman textile factory in Buenos Aires and the Zanón Ceramic workers from Neuquén. With a banner reading Zanón and Brukman: under workers’ control they marched into the Plaza de Mayo, to the roar of the crowd, beating their drums. According to all reports the mood was electric. Delegations came from all over the country, from the provinces of Santa Fé, Neuquén, Chaco, Tucumán, Río Negro, Córdoba, La Rioja, Salta, Jujuy, etc. At one end of the square there was a podium with a big banner reading National Assembly of Workers (Employed and Unemployed). At the front there was a space reserved for accredited delegates which was guarded by a line of workers with batons and metal pipes.

The mass meeting only got started in the afternoon, after having waited for all the delegations from the provinces to arrive. Dozens of speakers from different organisations from all over the country took to the stage, each one having ten minutes to address the crowd.

Only a working class solution

On Sunday, a delegates only meeting continued the debate at the Avellaneda Colonial Theatre. Two thousand delegates were present, all of them representing at least twenty people. These were not only unemployed workers, but also popular assembly delegates and, most importantly, trade union delegates as well. One of the main focal points of the debate was the question of how the workers could solve the crisis facing the country. A resolution sent by the SOECN (which is occupying the Zanón factory) and the MTD, made it clear that the effective unity between employed and unemployed workers. is the first condition for the workers to be able to head the necessary alliance with the ruined middle classes and the only way we can impose a workers and popular solution to the national crisis. They further added that:

Only the working class, employed and unemployed, state and private sector workers, can solve the national crisis. The employed working class produces all the wealth of the nation. It runs transport, pulls all the levers of the economy: from energy (gas, oil, electricity) to the financial and banking system. Together with the militancy of the unemployed (who we consider to be part of the working class) with their blockades of the country’s principal roads and highways, and of course with the salaried state and municipal workers who are already in struggle and have made themselves part of the movement, this is the fundamental social force that can give rise to a progressive outcome to the capitalist crisis.

Correctly, the Zanón workers also made an appeal to work amongst the rank and file of the trade unions to win organised workers away from the trade union bureaucracy. Workers’ power.

The meeting finally voted a resolution which stressed the idea that the Duhalde government is an enemy of the working class and that a popular solution to the crisis means expelling Duhalde and the class of looters which put him in government. The Assembly rejected all attempts of social contract (concertación), i.e. theprocess started by the government to co-opt the unemployed workers’ organizations.

Fight, win, workers to power

Point 4 of the resolution states:

We must take into our own hands the solving of the most pressing problems of the masses: jobs, health, education, housing, which means spreading and promoting these organisations [popular assemblies, piquetero organisations and workers’ assemblies], up and down the country as an alternative which belongs to the workers. We define the strategy of the piqueteros and the more militant trade union sections organised in this National Assembly as one of incorporating the industrial workers’ movement and that of the privatised utilities to the struggle of the piqueteros. Any serious attempt to defeat the current government and the ruling regime cannot avoid the fundamental role of the working class which today makes the main production centres and services work, such as electricity, gas, telephone and transport

This is basically a recognition of the potential power of the working class to paralyse society. In this regard the Assembly heard a proposal of the railway workers (who are now threatened with thousands of lay-offs) to paralyse rail transport in the country and spread the piquetero road blockades to the railways. One of the slogans on Saturday’s open rally was precisely Luchar, vencer, obreros al poder (Fight, win, workers to power).

The resolution also calls upon the leaders of the CCC and the FTVCTA, who refused to call for this National Assembly, to break any negotiations with the government taking place behind the backs of the movement and to join the plan of struggle which had been approved. The meeting rejected any attempt to foster illusions in governments which basically represent the interests of the exploiters, native and foreign. The programme approved was the following:

• Freedom for Raúl Castells, Emilio Alí, Peralta and all the other imprisoned comrades.
• Withdrawal of charges against the fighters.
• The organisers and perpetrators of the murders on December 19/20 must be put on trial and punished.
• The murderers of the comrades in Salta (Justiniano, Gómez, Verón, Barrios and Santillán) and Corrientes must be put on trial and punished.
• Repudiation of the foreign debt.
• Nationalisation of the banks and main companies.
• Statisation of the AFJP (pension funds). Outlawing of lay-offs and suspensions.
• Statisation under workers’ control of all companies that close or sacks workers, and reopening of all closed companies under the same conditions.
• Immediate return of bank deposits to small savers.
• Struggle for genuine and permanent jobs, through the sharing out of working hours without reduction of pay.
• Minimum wage and unemployment benefits to be linked to the cost of living.
• Out with Duhalde and the IMF. For a workers’ government.

Programme of socialist revolution

This programme, which is basically a programme of socialist revolution, was passed by these workers’ delegates together with a plan of struggle. This states that the process of struggle of the last few years in Argentina opens up the possibility of solving the crisis of power which affects the system of exploitation in our country in favour of the workers and that we must act, because the tenacious action of the people has not yet resulted in a victory, but rather in the usurpation by an illegitimate government which is the puppet of the looters.

The plan of action includes the reinforcement of the road blockades, a national mobilisation of pickets and cacerolazos for February 20 on the second anniversary of the popular uprising. A national day of action against the privatised oil companies. These were singled out since they have been the most profitable privatised companies in the last few years. The demand is that these profits should be used to create jobs and that the companies be renationalised. A march demanding the freedom of class fighters for March 2, a national workers’ march on the capital on March 4 to 8. And finally a new date was set for the next National Workers’ Assembly which will take place on April 2.

On Sunday evening, representatives from the National Workers Assemblies attended the 6th meeting of the Buenos Aires interbarrial to explain their decisions and get support for their plan of struggle. The interbarrial decided to support the plan of action and also passed a number of other programmatic demands. The most significant of them are:

e) The calling of a National Popular Assembly with representatives from the popular assemblies, the interbarrial and assemblies from the provinces for March 16 and 17.

k) Duhalde and its economic plan must go. For a government of the popular assemblies, the interbarrial, the workers and the piqueteros.

The resolutions of the National Workers’ Assembly and the interbarrial are basically a programme of workers’ and people’s power. Interestingly the slogan of a Constituent Assembly (which we have polemicised against) does not figure amongst the resolutions of the Workers’ Assembly or the interbarrial.

Ruling class terrified

The key question is that this is not just a programme which has been passed, but that sections of the organised workers are being won over to this programme. The deepening economic crisis will force more and more sections of active workers to join the struggle to defend their jobs, and it will become clearer that this can only be done effectively by replacing the capitalist system with a system of nationalisation and workers control.

As the leader of the CGT, San Lorenzo put it at the Saturday rally, the working class, and specifically the industrial proletariat must regain the centre stage in the Argentinean political scene. The leader of the SOECN insisted that the key was winning over the organised workers to the struggle, having a picket outside the Repsol-YPF refinery is very good, but it would be better if we can get the oil workers to come out, if we can get the electricity workers [also present at the Workers’ Assembly] to switch off the power. Having a protest outside a bank is good, but it would be much better if we can get the bank workers out on strike. The car industry workers have already announced strike action against threatened redundancies. Civil servants in the provincial governments up and down the country have been taking strike action demanding the payment of their wages. The government has also just intervened to stop the threatened oil workers’ strike. The privatised oil companies had announced thousands of lay-offs as a response to an increase in the government tax on petrol. This had forced the bureaucratised oil workers’ union leaders to announce an all-out-strike to start on Monday 18. The terrified government imposed compulsory arbitration, which for the moment means the suspension of lay-offs and strike action. In this example we see the contradiction in which the Argentinean ruling class is trapped. On the one hand they can only maintain the system of capitalist exploitation by launching ruthless attacks on the living conditions of the workers and the middle class. But at the same time, in doing so this threatens to provoke a revolutionary movement in which they could lose everything.

In the meantime the economic crisis continues to deepen, with the peso falling to 2.10 to the dollar, its lowest level since the beginning of flotation just a few weeks ago. Industrial production collapsed by 18% in January, a record fall after an already steep fall in December. All sectors of the economy were affected, but amongst the worst hit were the textile industry (-56,1%), car production (-65%) and engineering (-54,1%). And this is despite the fact that in theory devaluation should have boosted exports.

Revolutionary mood

The Argentinean bourgeois can also see the dangers involved in this whole process. In the last few days they have published two hysterical editorials in La Nación, denouncing the movement of the assemblies. On February 14 they declared that although the rise of these assemblies appears as a consequence of the public being sick and tired of the untrustworthy conduct of the political class, we must also take into account that such mechanisms of popular deliberation present a danger, since because of their very nature they can develop into something like that sinister model of power, the soviets. And the article continues: Experience shows that these assemblies are sometimes taken over by agents of extreme ideologies, which take advantage of the legitimate indignation of the majority for their own purposes, trying to achieve in this way what they could never achieve through the ballot box. It is not a bad thing that people want to express themselves… But it is important to point out that it is one thing is to engage in noisy protest and it is something completely different to take government decisions that touch on public interest and the common good. What they are basically saying is that the people have the right to say what they want… as long as they do not threaten the rule of the capitalists and the bankers!! As in every revolution the bourgeois media raises the spectre of extremist agitators as the cause for the revolutionary mood amongst the masses. In reality it is the complete bankruptcy of their own system which has created a fertile ground for revolutionary ideas to be adopted by the masses, as we see in Argentina in these days.

Harping on the same theme, La Nación of February 17, accuses the movement of assemblies of organising an undercover coup d’etat. The editorial insists that it is necessary for Argentineans to calm down and recognise that a country cannot work in a state of permanent popular deliberation. (Why not?) It is not reasonable that [a neighbourhood assembly] meets to declare the illegitimacy of the president of the Nation, to declare null and void the mandates of all members of parliament without exception and to demand the resignation of all members of the [Supreme] Court. Once again this exposes the real character of what bourgeois democracy means. The people can participate, as long as this participation is limited to voting every few years. But once the people start to actually take affairs into their own hands, then that is a coup!

Enough is enough

The problem is that the majority of the people in Argentina have voted for every available political option over the last 20 years and none of them has been able to solve the problems facing the majority. Now the masses of workers, unemployed and middle layers have said enough is enough and have started to take matters into their own hands through democratically elected and accountable committees. The editorials of the bourgeois papers are calling on the government not to make any concessions, since, they argue, this would only further encourage the movement. After violent protests of small savers, who attacked a number of banks in the financial district of Buenos Aires, the government warned that if such actions continued they would use repressive measures. The police has already been used in a number of clashes with the piqueteros. It is clear that this time the ruling class is more prepared than it was in December. This is why it will take a more organised movement to take the revolutionary process forward. The main tasks are those voted at the National Workers’ Assembly: the strengthening and spreading of the assemblies and above all the organising of the industrial working class into workers’ committees capable of organising a general strike.

On the rare occasions that the Irish trade union leadership organise a demonstration against sectarianism in the North the standard left-wing leaflet calls for it to be the beginning of a new movement. Yet the lessons of the last thirty years is that the role of the trade union leadership is to make sure that such demonstrations bring closure to any nascent movement that might give an independent voice to the working class.

Working class opposition to UDA murder

So it proved following the murder of postal worker, Danny McColgan. A movement that began with strike action to proclaim working class opposition to sectarian murder by the UDA, ended with a series of rallies that no longer involved strike action and, indeed, were no longer in the hands of the working class. By working flat-out in a whole series of secret meetings the trade union bureaucracy had managed to construct a unity with the British government and the local employers.

There was of course a price to be paid for such unity – a price most clearly seen at the Belfast demonstration.

The demonstration was to be non-political – that is, only politics that maintained the status quo would be presented. There was no longer any room for workers on the platform. Postal workers, teachers, representatives of the nationalist community in North Belfast – all under threats of death from the UDA – they were to be represented by the bureaucracy. The new unity had to respect the sensitivities of the unionist employers – so it became impossible to mention the Red Hand Defenders, the Ulster Freedom Fighters or even the Ulster Defence Association itself – the source of the murder campaign and the fake organisations supposed to disguise its involvement.

Not only could the platform not mention the UDA – it had to balance the silent, implied criticism with a trawl through history to condemn sectarian murders by the IRA. In doing so it changed the presentation of Danny McColgan’s murder from a purely sectarian killing to a ‘titfor- tat’ killing. This tendency to condemn sectarianism in general rather than the carefully planned and orchestrated campaign in front of them was, unfortunately, a tendency shared by some of the left organisations at the rally. Even though the bureaucracy’s attempt to present the killing as ‘tit-for-tat’ in practice offered a partial condoning of the murder, it was necessary because it led to the required solution – support for the British state and for the RUC/PSNI.

There are all sorts of difficulty with this position but the bureaucracy was able to resolve them – it thanked the workers forcoming and sent them home. If the workers had remained they may have asked some awkward questions.

Tit-for-tat

What does tit-for-tat mean after years of IRA ceasefire? Aren’t the bureaucracy providing cover for the loyalist killers? Should the trade unions support the RUC/PSNI? Their clear-up rate for sectarian killings since the IRA ceasefire began is 2%. In case after case they are charged with collusion.

Should the trade unions support the British state? Secretary of State, John Reid, has spent two years covering for the UDA and claiming the loyalist ceasefire held as they waged systematic sectarian war. No arrests were made despite the British having heavily penetrated the UDA – in fact they initially set it up and their agents ran major sections of the death squads. The day before the Trade Union rally Reid again claimed that a ‘minority’ of the UDA were involved in the attacks. His response to the intimidation of schoolchildren at Holy Cross Primary School was to announce that the government would listen to loyalist pain.

In fact a lot of these questions were answered by Peter Bunting of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in an interview following the rally. The bureaucracy, he said, were actively involved with social partners in the government and employers’ bodies in a strategy to resolve the issue. They were involved in negotiations and what the trade unions had to offer was training in negotiation skills and conflict resolution processes. So the trade unions are to support the British and employers in a strategy, not to face down and defeat sectarian hatred and bigotry, but help to incorporate it into state structures and to give the UDA a stronger voice! It is hardly accidental that the UDA shortly afterwards announced they were forming a new political research body to smash the Good Friday Agreement from the right. At the same time a new group emerged in North Belfast with renewed death threats against Catholic teachers. The Loyalist Reaction Force is yet another cover for the UDA and yet another sign that placating reaction will not end sectarian killings.

Social partnership equals social servitude

Perhaps the strangest thing that Peter Bunting said was his reference to social partners. The bureaucracy can at least claim to have social partners in the 26 county state where they have a written agreement with employers and the government. No such agreement exists in the North. Social Partnership,where the employers and government agree to nothing and the trade unions agree to everything could more simply be called social servitude.

The sectarian murder of Danny McColgan led to working class mobilisation. That mobilisation was shortlived.

It was defeated by the social servitude of the trade union bureaucracy. All the same, the bureaucracy should beware of having to tell workers too often that supporting British appeasement of Loyalist sectarianism is a proper role for the movement founded by Connolly and Larkin.

The Socialist Alliance conference on December 1st 2001 was an important moment to gauge the development of the new left emerging in England and throughout Britain. The SA movement has provided the greatest advance for left unity for many years. In Scotland it led to the SSP. In England and Wales it has not gone as far but much has been achieved.

This rapprochement on the left was reflected at the SA (England) conference in the six stem constitutions put forward by the SWP, Socialist Party, CPGB, Workers Power, the RDG and Pete McLaren. In addition to these options, the AWL and the ISG and many Indies (independent socialists) were also fully involved in the process.

The submission of the RDG, one of the smaller groups on the UK left, may be of particular interest to SSP comrades. The Group submitted the SSP constitution as one of the six stem constitutions on offer. At first site this might seem like an odd thing to do. But the RDG wanted to take the opportunity to point out that the SSP provided very important lessons for the left in England not just to follow, but hopefully improve upon.

The RDG argued that the SA must make the move to a broad based republican socialist party. This was a party that could unite comrades from both a socialist Labour and revolutionary communist tradition. It was a party that made democratic political change and in particular republicanism the cutting edge of its politics. The SSP is a concrete example of this type of party emerging during the final epoch of the British constitutional monarchy, even if it has so far given more emphasis to nationalism than republicanism.

Emphasis on real democracy & popular sovereignty

The RDG put forward an amended version of the SSP Constitution. We kept the amendments to a minimum, in order to keep within the general approach of the SSP. We obviously had to change the name. We could simply have changed the name of the SSP to the ESP. But we wanted to put the emphasis squarely on real democracy and popular sovereignty, and not nationality. We therefore changed the name to the Republican Socialist Party.

We dropped the call for Scottish independence. It makes no sense for England and in any case we don’t agree with it in current circumstances. So we amended the SSP constitution aims and objectives clause 5 to say as follows

The [SSP] RSP will campaign for [delete an independent socialist Scotland] a voluntary federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales and a united Ireland, with the aim of establishing a [delete Scottish] socialist republic in a broader alliance of democratic socialist states. Recognising that [delete in Scotland] sovereignty resides, and ought to reside in the people, the republic will fully recognise the right of the people of Ireland, Scotland, Wales to self determination and always seek the people’s prior consent to any transfer of powers outwith [delete Scotland.] the republic.

[our amendment to the SSP constitution are in bold and deletions in italics] Apart from a few other minor amendments such as changing the regions from Scottish to English we stuck faithfully to the SSP constitution. We put forward four concrete steps to move us towards a republican socialist party on the SSP model. First conference must include in its constitution the aim of becoming a party. Second it must decide to publish a regular SA newspaper. Third it must adopt a democratic federal constitution. Finally conference must recognise the importance of the experience of the Scottish Socialist Alliance and the success of its transformation into the Scottish Socialist Party.

Our comrades were able to make some important political points from the platform, not least of which was that we should follow the Scottish road. We called on conference to recognise the experience of the SSP and learn from it, rather than simply copy it. We are not, for example, in favour of encouraging English nationalism in order to copy the Scottish nationalism of the SSP. Our aims are internationalist. We want to win the class to the democratic, republican politics which can unite the English, Scottish and Welsh workers.

Three distinct blocs

For these proposals we secured twenty one first preference votes. Not many. So it is more useful to see where the SSP position fitted into the overall alignment at the conference. What was to emerge was three distinct positions. The first was the Democratic and Effective bloc, which stood for greater centralism. The second was the Democratic Federal Unity bloc which wanted the unity of the Alliance and believed that a democratic federal constitution was the only way to maintain unity. Thirdly was the Socialist Party which had a distinct position of its own.

The D&E bloc comprised of the SWP, ISG, CPGB and various independents most notably Mike Marqusee, John Nicholson, Declan O’Neill and Nick Wrack. After conference Socialist Worker (8 December 2001) claimed that the new constitution gives the SA a far more effective national organisation. The key feature of this bloc was that they voted for the SWP constitution, as either first or second preference. Estimates by Martin Thomas (Action for Solidarity 14 December) indicate this bloc had approximately 280 SWP, 50 pro-SWP independents, 35 CPGB and 15 ISG.

The DFU bloc comprised of AWL, Workers Power, RDG, and various independents, most notably Pete McLaren and Dave Church. This bloc supported a federal constitution with democratic majority decision making. A central concern was to maintain SA unity with a constitution that was democratic, but could keep everybody on board the project. The votes going to DFU were estimated to be about 60 AWL, 30 Independents, 29 Workers Power and 21 RDG.

The third position was a federal constitution based on consensus, with a right for a minority to veto decisions it did not agree with. This was proposed by the Socialist Party. Clause 1.4 of the SP’s draft constitution includes provision for a consensus vote to be taken when required. Here is the essential difference between democratic federalism based on majority decisions and consensus federalism which gives a veto to any minority.

This overview does not show up the contradictions within each of the three blocs. This requires further analysis. But if each bloc had voted in a consistent way, we would have had the following result

What was the politics of the D&E bloc? With 280 votes the SWP gave the bloc its overall political character. It was overwhelmingly opposed to adopting the aim of a party or an SA paper. It was opposed to a democratic federal constitution. It was opposed to following the SSP model.

The D&E bloc failed, whether by accident, negligence or design, to seek out a principled compromise with the Socialist Party and thus avoid a split. Consequently the official regrets emanating from the SA leadership were crocodile tears. Whilst some in the Socialist Party appeared ready to leave, the majority of the D&E bloc were happy to say goodbye. The conclusion is that the D&E bloc was overwhelmingly anti-party and pro-split. Of course the D&E bloc was not homogenous. It contained its own contradictions. Not least of these was the CPGB which found itself at odds with its D&E allies when promoting pro-party positions such as an SA paper.

Democratic Federal Unity was pro-unity. It was within this bloc that there was the greatest sympathy to the SSP model. If the key issue had become what type of party did we want instead of how to maintain unity it seems most likely that this bloc would have become clearly identified with the SSP model. Had this bloc taken a consistent position it would have produced 147 first preference for McLaren and 147 second preferences for the SSP. Quite clearly this is not what happened. The majority of the DFU bloc were in favour of making concessions to secure the unity of the SA. Whether it can be called a pro- party bloc is more contentious. There were clearly fifty pro-party votes.(WP 29 and RDG 21). The RDG also had 20 second preference votes for the SSP. Had we switched to second preferences we should have had at least 41 second preferences. Had the AWL given its sixty second preferences to the SSP, then 70% of the DFU bloc would have voted for an SSP type party. Although we did not achieve that we were not very far away. We did enough to suggest that the SSP model will become a major way forward in the future.

So what advances did conference make? First there is the creation of a unified national membership. Integrating the local membership into a single national membership is an obvious and relatively simple way of doing this. But it is not without its problems. Local members joined a local organisation. It is not necessarily the case that they want to join a national organisation, especially one that has just split. So we have a job to do to create a genuine national organisation.

Second the SA has adopted the principle of majority decision making. This was already in operation in many parts of the Alliance. We now have a more uniform system. Both constitutional reforms could have been achieved without the SWP constitution. They are both quite compatible with democratic federalism. So what did the SWP constitution actually achieve in addition to the above two points? Unfortunately it achieved the departure of the SP. There is some debate as to whether the SP jumped overboard or were pushed. Although they were ready to leave, the Democratic and Effective majority bloc was not looking for a compromise. Their attitude to the SP was take it or leave it. Unity cannot be imposed. It has to be won with steadfastness, patience and some concessions. The prize of left unity is worth persevering with because the unity of the class is at stake. The left is full of sectarian attitudes and traditions, in which splits and expulsions are easier than facing the difficulties of struggling for unity.

The departure of the SP was a set back. Perhaps the single greatest political asset of the Alliance was its capacity to overcome some of the historic divisions on the left. Advanced workers were attracted by an organisation that seemed capable of putting divisions into context, and able to unite in successful electoral and campaigning activity. An active minority of working class militants looking for a new political organisation found hope in the unity of the Alliance.

If we were to sum up the conference on balance we describe it in Lenin’s famous phrase, as one step forward and two steps back, a view not dissimilar to the AWL’s two steps back and one forward! (Action for Solidarity 14 December). What we hope we have achieved is to put down a marker for a Scottish republican road and a republican socialist party.

The great appear great to us, only because we are on our knees: let us rise.

Fellow Workers,

The loyal subjects of Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, etc., celebrate this year the longest reign on record. Already the air is laden with rumours of preparations for a wholesale manufacture of sham popular rejoicings at this glorious commemoration.

Home-Rule orators and nationalist lord mayors, Whig politicians and Parnellite pressmen, have ere now lent their prestige and influence to the attempt to arouse public interest in the sickening details of this feast of flunkeyism.

It is time then that some organised party in Ireland – other than those in whose mouths patriotism means compromise, and freedom, high dividends – should speak out bravely and honestly the sentiments awakened in the heart of every lover of freedom by this ghastly farce now being played out before our eyes. Hence the Irish Socialist Republican Party – which from its inception, has never hesitated to proclaim its hostility to the British Crown, and to the political and social order of which in these islands the Crown is but the symbol – takes the opportunity of hurling at the heads of all the courtly mummers who grovel at the shrine of royalty the contempt and hatred of the Irish revolutionary democracy. We, at least, are not loyal men; we confess to having more respect and honour for the raggedest child of the poorest labourer in Ireland today than for any, even the most virtuous, descendent of the long array of murderers, adulterers and madmen who have sat upon the throne of England.

During this glorious reign Ireland has seen 1,225,000 of her children die of famine, starved to death whilst the produce of her soil and their labour was eaten up by a vulture aristocracy, enforcing their rents by the bayonets of a hired assassin army in the pay of the best of the English Queens; the eviction of 3,668,000, a multitude greater than the entire population of Switzerland; and the reluctant emigration of 4,186,000 of our kindred, a greater host than the entire people of Greece.

At the present moment 78% of our wage-earners receive less than £1 per week, our streets are thronged by starving crowds of unemployed, cattle graze on our tenantless farms and around the ruins of our battered homesteads, our ports are crowded with departing emigrants, and our poorhouses are full of paupers. Such are the constituent elements of which we are bade to construct a national festival of rejoicing!

Working class of Ireland: We appeal to you not to allow your opinions to be misrepresented on this occasion. Join your voice with ours in protesting against the base assumption that we owe to this empire any debt than that of real hatred of all its plundering institutions.

Let this year be a memorable one as marking the date when Irish workers at last flung off their slavish dependence on the lead of the gentry which has paralysed the arm of every soldier of freedom in the past.

The Irish landlords, now as ever the enemy’s garrison, instinctively support every institution which, like monarchy, degrades the manhood of the people and weakens the moral fibre of the oppressed; the middle class, absorbed in the pursuit of gold, have pawned their souls for the prostitute glories of commercialism and remain openly or secretly hostile to every movement which would imperil the sanctity of their dividends.

The working class alone have nothing to hope for save in a revolutionary reconstruction of society; they, and they alone, are capable of revolutionary initiative which, with all the political and economic development of the time to aid it, can carry us forward into the promised land of perfect freedom, the reward for the age-long travail of the people. To you, workers of Ireland, we address ourselves.

Agitate in the workshop, in the field, in the factory, until you arouse your brothers to hatred of the slavery of which we are all victims.

Educate, that the people may no longer be deluded by illusory hopes of prosperity under any system of society of which monarchs or noblemen, capitalists or landlords form an integral part.

Organise, that as a solid, compact and intelligent force, conscious of your historic mission as a class, you may seize the reins of political power whenever possible and, by intelligent application of the working class ballot, clear the field of action for the revolutionary forces of the future. Let the canting, fed classes bow the knee as they may, be you true to your manhood, and to the cause of freedom, whose hope is you, and, pressing unweariedly onward in pursuit of the high destiny to which the Socialist Republic invites you, let the words which the poet puts into the mouth of Mazeppa console you amid the orgies of the tyrants of today:

But time at last makes all things even. And if we do but watch the hour, There never yet was human power That could evade, if unforgiven, The patient hate and vigil long. Of those who treasure up a wrong

If, like me, you view the events of the coming Jubilee with a mixture of revulsion and anger, then you may well be assuming that the republican left has gone to sleep or all been deported such has been the lack of activity from our side. The palace spin-doctors have done what they always do and couched the event in such reasonable and philanthropic terms that only mad extremists could possibly have room for complaint.

The Labour Party left (what remains of it) has been warned to be at best mildly supportive at worst silent. The media looks forward to a photo bonanza while we in the SSP can look forward to a conference battle on whether or not we, as an anti monarchy party, should just close our eyes and hope the Jubilee goes away or whether we actually organise democratic events in opposition to the parasitic rule of the unelected monarch and her family.

Anachronistic pulling power

The appeal of the monarchy and its continued support from members of the working class can appear on the surface to be one of life’s great conundrums. Why does this anachronism have the pulling power it does and why do we as republicans need to redouble our efforts to smash it out of existence. Surely we would be better off ignoring it and allow people to enjoy the romance and soap opera that the royal family acts out on a daily basis?

The House of Windsor has done what successive successful dynasties have done before it. In the face of democratic demands or republican revulsion, it has adapted to survive.

This is not a new phenomenon, since the time of George III and his fears of a republican uprising in the wake of the American and French revolutions, our royal millstones have to one degree or another been successful in staving off republican revolt by conceding reforms and by matching the popular mood.

Charitable donations and royal patronage although no more than insulting crumbs, have meant that our royals have become associated with good causes. The deification of the Queen Mother and the perceived wisdom of the Queen are illusions that are hard to shatter. These women appear part of a bygone age, which conveys, in the establishment’s eyes, all that was and is great about Britain. They have endured and that in itself is a powerful symbol. Revolutionary ideas are seen as mere flights of fancy in the face of this perpetual symbol of capitalism’s legitimacy and stability. Royal scandals involving sex and or drugs have been portrayed as endearing showing how in touch our royals are with the problems of modern society – just an ordinary family with extra-ordinary wealth and unelected power!

The question of the power of the constitutional monarchy is often subject of debate. Does the royal prerogative and the other vestiges of feudalism have any real bearing on the lives of the majority of people in the so-called United Kingdom?

Monarchy bolsters modern capitalism

Sadly the answer is yes. The monarchy, the House of Lords and the hereditary landlords who control much of the Scottish countryside are living examples of the structures, which bolster modern capitalism. They are more than icons; they are an integral part of the system, which perpetuates the drive for profit over the provision of human need. They are part of the trappings designed to keep us in our place and to prevent us challenging the status quo. They provide us with a voyeuristic escape into a world where pomp and ceremony is combined with dirty deeds between the sheets. Charles choosing to shag Camilla over Diana provided as much speculation as who shot Phil Mitchell – only with posh accents.

Thus we have ready-made diversions from the crucial question; how can we be a democracy and yet continue with a monarchy, an unelected second chamber and a plethora of lairds who demand the doffing of the cap.

While on the one hand the monarchy is there to perpetuate the current system, it also highlights this fundamental contradiction. It cannot nor must not be ignored; it must be abolished through a popular movement from below.

This Jubilee provides communists with the opportunity to expose the contradictions within the state in which we live. It provides the left generally with the possibility of raising democratic and republican demands within a context that people will understand and relate to.

When the government demands street parties to show our thanks and appreciation of 50 years of Elizabethan rule, we must respond with street carnivals of republicanism demanding the abolition of the crown and all its paraphernalia in favour of democracy. The bourgeoisie have no response to the democratic question; it is unanswerable. They fall back on tradition, myth and ultimately on the class system they represent.

Fight for democratic rights

We republicans have a tradition which is rich and worth celebrating. Those brave comrades who fought resolutely for democratic rights have had a resonance, which has caused monarchs to tremble. So much so that republicans from Thomas Paine to George Harney to James Connolly are still condemned by the establishment.

There is also a powerful weapon in MP’s or MSP’s refusing to take the oath of allegiance. This is a debate within the SSP, which must continue. There is a real danger that the SSP is prepared to sacrifice much in pursuit of parliamentary numbers. Next it will be parliamentary respectability and the idea of a combat party will be diluted beyond recognition. The SSP could take the lead as a republican party in more than just name. We are not suggesting that we use the refusal to take the oath in any way as a gesture but as part of a republican campaign, which would ultimately demand our comrades, take their seats without taking the oath. This requires a long-term republican strategy, which the SSP does not have. It is too immersed in reformism.

The best republican propaganda we can use in the coming year is in organising working class people around the political demand to abolish all hereditary privilege. We must be imaginative in this. We should ask for this year’s James Connolly march in Edinburgh to highlight this democratic struggle. We must work with other republicans to organise a people’s festival in Glasgow Green and we must meet the Royal Tour with inventive forms of protest. We undoubtedly have right on our side. The leaders of the left in Scotland must show what
colours they are attached to; no red white and blue but red all the way through.

As International Women’s Day comes around articles will again be written about how women are still not achieving parity with men. And of course that’s true but I want to look at things from a slightly different angle. I don’t want to be equal with men if that means having the right [and being expected] to work full time; if that means developing a male emotional psyche – or even if it means fighting to have a female emotional psyche validated in the workplace. The fight to be equally exploited and dehumanised by the needs of modern capitalist society is the wrong fight. [And, increasingly, we are facing a capitalism that has to squeeze more and more out of us to maintain itself.] Of course we, as communists, should be fighting to abolish all wage slavery; but even within the present system we can and should challenge the notion that what women need is to be equal with men, as men currently are. Because men aren’t brought up to be fully human – neither are women. We are socialised into our respective gender roles, each of which prepares us to operate in our given sphere. Of course this is a massive simplification and generalisation; people are much more complex than that. I also acknowledge the complications and contradictions of the class versus gender debate. However there is still enough of a socialised and internalised division between men and women to be able to use that as a starting point to look at what kind of change we really want to fight for.

Emotional development reflects the needs of capitalism

It might be argued that throughout time men and women have always been allocated different tasks and roles and have had different and differing status based on this. [For example, I quite liked the notion that in the beginning women were revered as goddesses and worshipped because they produced live mini-humans! Then men figured out that they had something to do with it and things haven’t been the same since!!] However, in the last couple of hundred years task or work related divisions have been intricately linked to the emotional. The emotional development of men and of women was to reflect the needs of capitalism. Women were to be at home with the children, being caring and nurturing and men were to be out in the world of work, being strong and rational. Even when contradictions became obvious, such as the need for working class women to ‘work’so that middle class women could be leisured, the middle class bourgeois ideal was upheld as something to aspire to.

Man for the field and woman for the hearth; Man for the sword and for the needle she; Man with the head and woman with the heart; Man to command and woman to obey; All else confusion.

Extract from The Princess by Alfred Lord Tennyson [1847] and 100 years later:

There is no doubt in the minds of the General Council that home is one of the most important spheres for a woman worker and it would be doing a grave injury to the life of the nation if women were persuaded or forced to neglect their domestic duties in order to enter industry, particularly where there are young children to cater for.

Trades Union Council [1947] These two extracts highlight the conditioning of women into separate spheres, even in the working class movement.

More recently bourgeois liberals have been challenging some of these divisions. We’ve seen the rise of the new man more in touch with his emotions and more involved in bringing up his children. Women have the right to a full-time job or career. However, for most women in this position the result has been even more exploitation in the form of double-work. This means being home maker as well as career woman, struggling with the guilt of neglecting their nurturing responsibilities at home and of allowing home life to intrude upon the world of work. Of course a lot of these bourgeois developments don’t touch our class. Many working class women have been doubleworking all along, their income essential to the family’s survival. And millions of working class men have lived with long term unemployment and the devastating effects that has had on a male psyche that has identity and purpose so tied up with work, job or career.

So men and women need to join together to fight for the right not to have to work full time and to fight for the right to develop and express the full range of our emotional being. Just as we work to challenge and change the relations of production, we must challenge the divisions and separations that stunt our emotional development. That isn’t to demand that men are more in touch with their feminine side – we must challenge the separation of certain emotions into masculine and feminine constructs. The left in particular needs to look at emotional development and how much that hinders our class. Of the many obstacles we need to overcome in order to overthrow capitalism the most unacknowledged are our psychological and emotional barriers. Our emotional development is where we internalise our own oppression and yet it’s accepted by many on the left that the emotional isn’t important – that it’s not real politics. For example for women to be real proper politicos they have to subsume the emotional to the rational and purely political [if there ever can be such a thing]. But this is to internalise middle class capitalistic values. For the rise of capitalism it became necessary to suppress and devalue the emotional. In order to exploit and compete in huge scale capitalism owners of production and wealth had to overcome and suppress their capacity to feel for others, to empathise. Hence the rise of the notion of the angel in the house, home as a haven from the harsh outside world of business, commerce and public office. The caring, nurturing, emotional side of humanity was deposited in women – men were to be the aggressive, competitive, unemotional ones. This was necessary for the maintenance and development of the mass exploitation of the working class [even paternalistic landowners were allowed to care about their workers and were seen to have obligations towards them].

Meaningful way of contributing to society’s needs

However, I’m also challenging the notion of what work is and why women are demanding the same as men in this sense – we should be arguing alongside men for a more meaningful way of contributing to what our community and society needs and wants. Even under the present system we can demand that parttime well-paid work becomes the norm for men and for women. This would allow for a more equitable distribution of the pleasures and responsibilities of life. Then the construction of genderroles with its artificial divisions in emotional development would become unnecessary. Men and women have an equal right to experience and express the full range of human emotions – and to express them openly.

Thus I would argue that to challenge capitalism, and within that to fight for gender equality, we need to look at our own emotional conditioning. The women’s movement talked of the personal being political, I’m arguing that the emotional is political, and that to challenge our internalised views of the importance of the emotional is a truly revolutionary thing to do. Emotionally, equality isn’t about men being seen to be crying on the football pitch, or about young women becoming laddettes. It’s about what’s usually dubbed the emotional being given equal consideration with the rational. We need both.

Wars about wars
Wars about hate
Talk peace & listen
Before it’s too late

But peace is so boring
Let’s go have some fun
Nuke a few gooks
And let the blood run

Saw a swallow nesting today

Wars of attrition,
Some won & some lost
Why try it again?
Think of the cost

Order, fight to the last
There will be no surrender
Then send off the body bags
Return to sender.

Turned on a tap and the water of life flowed out

Wars about oil
In a desert that’s sunny
No, this one’s for real
It’s all about money

So the common man dies
In pursuit of a dream
While the fat cats stay home
And skim off the cream

The coriander bush is flourishing

Wars about space
Where satellites fly
Maybe the birds know
Who owns the sky

Pontificate honour
Our cause is right
So unfurl the flag
To the death we will fight

Rain’s stopped & the sun’s coming out

Wars between classes
To eat cake or bread,
Wars about colour,
White against Red

In the spaces between
Do we find common ground?
Or just take a breather
Before the next round

Built a gate today to keep the dogs in, not people out.
Wars about ownership,
Fight for our land,
Saving our country
Or acres of sand.

Was it all worth it?
What did we gain?
Lives lost for what?
We must be insane

Had a brain once, where the hell have I put it?

Wars of religion
Believe it or not
God’s on your side
Not mine, I’m a Trot.

Christian or Muslim
We say we believe
So why create havoc?
Why make the world grieve?

I thought the code said No women or children?

Wars for the Fatherland
Or is it our Mother?
Sister gainst sister
Brother kills brother

Are we cursed by Cain?
Or are we more Abel?
Put down the gun
Get round the table

When I talk in my sleep, does it make more sense?

Wars of the Mighty
Build more & more galleons
The Lord’s on the side
Of the biggest battalions

Cemeteries full of them
Heroes, but why?
And what of the innocent
Were they ready to die?

Thou shalt not kill. I’m sure I read that somewhere?

Wars of expediency
A pundit will claim
And the shadowy, They
Are the ones you should blame.

It was all done for us
A freedom libretto
So why am I back
In this working class ghetto?

Should I do this in longhand? To remind me I can.

A land fit for heroes
A war to end war
But who really won?
And who was it for?

A war about us?
We’ve fought colour, race, creed
A bloodless good war
Is just what we need

A Fatwa on hunger
A blackout of greed
Not napalm, but aid
To all those in need

Let’s annihilate poverty
Rescue poor from their ditch
Put disease to the sword
And sequester the rich

Nationalism has always been a central and integral part of the Olympics – both winter and summer varieties. However, it seems as if the recent events in Salt Lake City have seen jingoism hit new heights. So much so that it has upset the guardians of the rings – the International Olympic Committee.

Pawn in the Crusade against terrorism

The explicit American patriotism and chauvinism that has enveloped most events at the Winter Olympics has the official blessing of George W. Bush and his White House lieutenants. These games are another pawn in his crusade against terrorism. Their overt use as propaganda in support of the USA’s war has even embarrassed some of the IOC’s senior officials. This is a show designed to send a message to Osama bin Laden, said one IOC member. President Bush is saying: Look at us: you bombed us but you can’t stop us going about our normal lives. But that is not what the Olympic Games are supposed to be about. In opening the Games, Bush broke with protocol by ad-libbing the Olympic Charter. Instead of declaring them open with the line I declare open the Games of Salt Lake City he preceded them with On behalf of a proud, determined and grateful nation. The IOC is concerned that this has set a precedent that could be followed by other heads of state, including the Chinese President at the start of the Beijing Games in 2008. How will the Americans react to that?

The heavy, high-profile security presence was also an embarrassment to the IOC. There were 15,000 security personnel in Salt Lake City, more than the USA had in Afghanistan. The continual harassment and searching of the competitors was so overbearing that, not surprisingly, many international teams complained. Athletes had to hang around in queues in sub-zero temperatures waiting to be searched. One Russian competitor was told she had to drink from her water bottle to prove it contained water!

Propaganda onslaught

The propaganda onslaught was reinforced by TV broadcaster NBC. During their coverage of the opening ceremony one of their commentators referred to the Iranian competitors as part of Bush’s axis of evil. A fine way to treat your guests!

It should not be forgotten that the way in which Salt Lake City was awarded these Games oozed with the stench of sleaze and corruption. Salt Lake’s bid for the 2002 Winter Games was led by David Johnson and Tom Welch. To achieve their goal and win votes for their bid they offered inducements in the form of cash, scholarships and gifts. IOC members accepted these bribes to the value of $1 million from the Salt Lake City team. Eventually 10 IOC members were forced to resign or were expelled from the committee. Due to this catalogue of misdemeanours some believe that the IOC will try to make the USA pay for tarnishing the Olympic franchise, having repercussions for New York’s proposed bid for the Summer Games in 2012.

Don’t hold your breath! Bush and the American ruling class have further exposed the reality behind the Olympic ideals. The veil of neutrality, sportsmanship and fair play has been lifted further from the sacred rings, revealing once again that what they are really about is chauvinism, nationalism and big business.

Since September 11, 2001, the bourgeois democratic mask of respecting rights has been slipping. In December, a car bringing the left-wing Turkish language weekly magazine Yasadigimiz Vatan (The homeland we live in) was stopped by British police at Dover, and two issues of the magazine impounded under the Terrorism Act.

The magazine has been transported into Britain regularly in this way for some time. The British, and sometimes the French police or customs, frequently stopped the car bringing the magazines in, holding it up for varying lengths of time and questioning the driver before allowing him and the vehicle to proceed.

Further attack on civil liberties

However, this is the first time that the magazine has actually been impounded. The driver was questioned about his involvement with the radical left from Turkey, the British left, Irish republicanism and his attitude to the Provos’ cease-fire, and his reaction to September 11. Eventually he was allowed to go but his cargo was impounded.

To date there is no indication of exactly why the magazine was impounded – apparently the police do not feel obliged to supply such reasons. Yasadigimiz Vatan has supported the prisoners in the ongoing Death Fast in Turkey, and it is possible that the British police regard the magazine as a legal organ of the DHKP-C, now officially banned in Britain as well as Turkey. Yet the magazine itself is not banned in Turkey, though there it is subject to police raids and various other forms of pressure. Subsequent issues of the same magazine have been brought into Britain in the same way and have not been stopped. The police confiscation therefore appears to be an arbitrary act. Of course, in the nature of arbitrary acts, the police might well repeat it on a future occasion.

Legal means are being pursued to get the impounded magazines back, and attempts are being made to raise awareness of such events in the post-September 11 climate. The incident described above is not unique.

Though I have no other details, I understand that a Sikh publication was also confiscated by British police recently, apparently on the grounds that that it was supposedly connected to the Sikh militant group Baba Khalsa, also banned in Britain under the Terrorism Act.

But it is not just publications that are being detained. Fahim Ahmed, who was a parliamentary candidate of the Socialist Labour Party in Oxford in last year’s election, described in the SLP publication Spark how he was detained by police while returning from Belgium and forcibly fingerprinted, again under the Terrorism Act.

Under capitalism, civil liberties are not automatic but are always under threat and must be maintained through struggle. In the post-September 11 climate, the state is taking steps it might have shied away from before, and the left must respond.

Although I attended neither meeting, in London there were separate meetings on February 10 and 12 concerned with the threat posed by the Terrorism Act. Such activity must be continued and stepped up. After all, it is the state which decides who is a terrorist.

Some analysts say more than 60 Afghan civilians are being killed daily on average since the bombing began on October 7. A European de-mining expert in Kabul who works closely with the Pentagon reckons that up to 8,000 civilians have been killed. Professor Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire puts the number of civilian casualties at least 4,000. Prof Herold, a left-wing anti-war activist, is one of the few seeking to establish the death toll, tabulating it daily from media reports. It’s a good first go, says Sam Zarifi of Human Rights Watch in New York, which had two researchers on the Pakistani-Afghan border for 11 weeks trying to get a picture of the toll. It has a database of 300 strikes it wants to investigate for civilian casualties.

Carl Conetta of the Commonwealth Institute calculates that the so-called smart bombs and high precision strikes have been a lot less accurate in Afghanistan than they were two years ago in Yugoslavia.

Despite the adulation of Operation Enduring Freedom as a finely tuned or bulls-eye war, the campaign failed to set a new standard for precision in one important respect: the rate of civilians killed per bomb dropped,

he says. In fact, this rate was far higher in the Afghanistan conflict – perhaps four times higher – than in the 1999 Balkans war.

There is little doubt the war in Afghanistan has been a triumph of American might. But out of sight and out of mind, day after day, in dribs and drabs, a lot of ordinary people are dying in a war that sees the most advanced fighting machine ever assembled doing its killing in one of the most backward societies on earth. The results: just two Americans killed by hostile fire to set against thousands of dead Afghan non-combatants.

From Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women website – based on article in The Guardian, 12 February 2002

It is, of course, richly ironic that the first achievement of the war on terrorism has been to install in Kabul the Northern Alliance, for whom terrorism has been the entire line of business and way of life for more than 20 years.

But it remains a fact that from 1992 to 1996, the Northern Alliance was a symbol of massacre, systematic rape and pillage. Which is why we – and I include the US State Department – welcomed the Taliban when they arrived in Kabul. The Northern Alliance left the city in 1996 with 50,000 dead behind it. Now its members are our foot soldiers. Better than Mr Bin Laden, to be sure. But what – in God’s name- are they going to do in our name?

Why, I wonder, do we always have this ambiguous, dangerous relationship with our allies? For decades, we accepted the received wisdom that the B specials were a vital security arm of the Northern Ireland authorities on the grounds that they knew the territory just as, I fear, we rely upon the Northern Alliance because it knows the land.

Taken from the website of the Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women based on reports for The Guardian and The Independent, 14 November 2001

The activists I met live in grinding poverty, often eating nothing but potatoes for days at a time. They have no money for leaflets and newspapers. Even if they had they could not distribute them, because they live under a permanent death sentence.

The SSP has decided to actively support this campaign. The LPP and the ALRO are appealing to all the international left organisations and trade union movements to support this campaign.

The main aim of this campaign is to help Afghan workers in their struggle to survive. It will bring material help for the Afghan workers, which will be distributed inside Afghanistan and also in the refugee camps in Pakistan. It will help to strengthen the progressive organisations of the Afghan workers. It will collect and bring the necessities of everyday life to the Afghan workers on an emergency basis.

The suppression by the religious fundamentalists of all democratic and human rights in Afghanistan over the years has left the organisation of the left forces in an absolutely weak position. Many had lost their lives for the cause of socialism in Afghanistan. The rest of them are spending their lives underground, even in exile. Their families have been tortured and sentenced to death by the religious fundamentalists. But the so-called victory of the imperialist forces leaves no better situation for the Afghan left forces. They still have a very difficult life to spread the ideas of socialism.

Active international support is needed to help the Afghan left forces in their struggle to survive and promote their organisations. The LPP has been active in promoting the Afghan left for some years. It now has a plan to produce a monthly paper in the Pushtu language to help the Afghan left in the promotion of their ideas and strategy.

The LPP has already started collecting clothes, medicine, blankets, shoes and other everyday food items to be distributed among Afghan refugees in the camps through ALRO and other Afghan left groups.

Please make cheques and PO’s payable to
Afghanistan Solidarity.
Send your cash donations to

• Afghanistan Solidarity Appeal,
• c/o SSV,
• Suites 308/310,
• 4th Floor,
• Central Chambers,
• Glasgow,
• G2 6LD.

[appeal no longer known to be active at time of publication on blog]

Why were Osama and the Taliban held responsible immediately after the 11th terrorist attacks?

Osama bin Laden was wanted by America for his involvement in the Tanzanian killings [the bombing of the US embassy – editor]. While he was already considered responsible for terrorist attacks in America. Under the same allegations America and the UN had imposed economic sanctions to pressurise the Taliban to arrest Osama. And to put pressure on Pakistan’s government economic aid was linked with the arrest of Osama and creation of a broad based government in Afghanistan. Because of this economic sanction and with the efforts of the Pakistani government there were three distinct groups among the Taliban. But due to the superiority in numbers of armed men belonging to Al-Qaida and Al-Qaida economic support for the Taliban, they were reluctant to kick Osama out of Afghanistan. The killing of Ahmad Shah Masood on September 9th by two Arab militants was also linked to Al-Qaida. Ahmad Shah Masood was the only war lord who could have helped the Americans very effectively in their attack on the Taliban after the September 11th attacks.

Is it possible to arrest Osama and the main leaders of the Taliban?

Look, it is not difficult to arrest a man like Osama who weighs only 55 kilograms. It’s also not difficult to capture Kabul and Mazar Sharif. America has a long planning in the area. America also wants to teach a lesson to the Northern Alliance that without American support the Northern Alliance can neither conquer Afghanistan nor maintain it. America also wants a strong base in Afghanistan to keep a check on China and Russia. The differences can also be seen among the Taliban. A moderate group under the leadership of the Foreign Minister Wakeel Ahmad Mutwaki also exists. He was not seen publicly for some time. Because of bombing and the fear of killing, the people are asking Al-Qaida to leave the area or migrating themselves. It shows the reservation among the masses and there are differences among the Taliban. Because of losing mass support the retreat of the Taliban is a real possibility.

Would the new set up after a Taliban defeat be a strong one?

Even if the Taliban are not fully defeated, a faction of them under foreign pressure can join the new set up. While another faction with the support of Al-Qaida can join the guerilla war. In future, a broad base government comprising moderate Taliban and Pashtuns is quite possible. In the next few days the meeting is going to be held in Turkey to settle the features and representations of the next government. A large number of tribal elders are participating in this meeting. Ex governor Jalal Abad is also participating in this meeting. However there is no question of stable and long lasting government. The enforced set-up with or without Zahir Shah will look after the interests of America not the interests of Afghan people. This proposed set-up is also not acceptable to the countries of the area.

Pakistan has its own interests and wants to defend them. However we are of the view that Pakistan’s rulers and intelligence agencies will not be able to provide the same monetary or military aid for Taliban guerrilla war as provided in the past. However Pakistan will make sure that its interests are secured. In Iran, the supporters of Raza Shah (pretender to the Iranian throne – ed) are considering the return of Zahir Shah as the return of the monarchy and due to this reason the Iranian government consider the new threat for it and are supporting the Taliban setting aside past differences.

So the future government will not be able to solve any single problem of the Afghan masses nor will it be a representative government. It will generate contradictions inside and outside. This will be a dependent government, which will not be strong or able to maintain peace. This government will only defend the American interest and these interests are profit from the export of oil. The oil pipeline will not pass through Iran because this route is very expensive, the biggest possibility is that this will pass through Pakistan but the profit will go in the pockets of the Americans. There will be very little benefit to Pakistan and Afghanistan. So Pakistan wants to become a gateway to central Asia and this objective will not be fulfilled. Pakistan can change its current strategy.

Similarly in Afghanistan if the expectations of the tribes are not fulfilled they can opt for civil war. Poppy production can also become a focal point of contradiction between America and local tribal leaders.

It is also clear that America does not trust Pakistan. The Pakistan intelligence agencies are also not able to provide concrete information, which could lead tomassive successes in short span of time. After the fall of the Najib-Ullah government in 1992 America gave Pakistan a free hand. In return Pakistan promoted terrorism. This time America will not give Pakistan a free hand. On this point there could be tension between America and Pakistan.

What is your party’s point of view in the new set up?

Our party does not support any imposed set up in Afghanistan. This new set up will defend American interests. The problem of the Afghan people will not be solved by them neither, it is their agenda. Former King Zahir Shah’s talk of elections and transitional government is a deception. Because of ignorance and mass murder, the Afghan people may consider Zahir Shah as an alternative but they will come out of this deception very soon. The grand son of Zahir Shah, Mustafa Zahir and granddaughter Humera Wali are active for the restoration of kingdom. It is possible that Zahir Shah and the new set up with so-called election process are elected. But this will be a sheer deception. Through these elections it will not be the genuine people’s representatives but the American stooges who will be elected. America will not tolerate an opposition to come into power.

Since 1964, our party is opposing Zahir Shah. His and other governments have killed hundreds of our party comrades. We cannot set aside or forget our party martyrs. We will do our best to expose this fraud and we will strengthen the class movement to establish a genuine government of the Afghan masses. Although, several groups are supporting Zahir Shah, considering him the lesser evil. This will be a big mistake. Our party cannot afford that. We are fighting a dual war and we are hopeful that the victory will be of the poor Afghan masses.

(Translation from Workers Struggle Weekly, Lahore, Pakistan, by Tariq Iqbal Bhutta.)

The left is best known for being anti – anti-cuts, anti-poll tax, anti-Nazi, anti-fascist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-globalisation or anti-capitalist. Some will argue that as long as we stand as socialists or communists then it will be clear that we also offer a positive alternative. Unfortunately both words have become tarnished. Socialism has been used to describe a variety of states from National Socialist Germany to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; a whole host of authoritarian populist regimes in Africa, Asia and Latin America; and the now much diminished and compromised forces of social democracy. Communism became synonymous in many people’s minds with such brutal tyrannies as those led by Stalin, Hoxha, Kim Il-Sung and Pol Pot or the dull grey bureaucracies led by Honecker in East Germany and Husak in Czechoslovakia.

Since September 11th, Bush and Blair have raised the political stakes considerably by invoking the defence of civilisation and enduring freedom. Without offering this positive vision, these politicians would find it far harder to legitimise their new-found crusade – the Coalition Against Terror. If they confined themselves to being merely against terrorism, it certainly wouldn’t take long to expose their hypocrisy. It is indeed a strange Coalition Against Terror which includes the USA, Russia, China, Israel, Turkey, Pakistan and the Northern Alliance!

Triumphalism offers no positive vision

During the Cold War, US and British imperialist propagandists knew how important it was to oppose the socialist or communist challenge with a positive alternative – the defence of the free world. When USSR style communism/socialism imploded after 1989, George Bush senior coined the phrase the New World Order, whilst Francis Fukuyama hailed the end of history. But these phrases reeked merely of triumphalism and offered no positive vision.

This triumphalism became less certain as murderous civil wars maintained their momentum in Afghanistan, Somalia and Angola, even though their previous Great Power sponsors withdrew or lost interest. With the end of the bi-polar world dominated by the USA and USSR it became more difficult for the imperialist powers to calculate their immediate interests and intervene effectively. This situation allowed the embers of old civil wars to flare up or provided kindling for new ones. Hence the re/emergence of troubled hotspots from Algeria to Rwanda and Zaire; Palestine, Iraq Kashmir; and the Balkans, with its succession of wars.

Yet none of these conflicts presented a fundamental problem for the spin-doctors of the New World Order precisely because they offered no real threat to the imperialist heartlands. But a serious challenge did occur with the emergence of the Zapatistas. Just as the USA government launched the North American Free Trade Alliance, the prototype for US transnational corporation global domination of the world, a consciously internationalist anti globalist movement emerged in Mexico. This has acted as a beacon to all those challenging the New World Order. This has inspired an increasingly coordinated and international opposition.

The World Trade Organisation was forced to cancel some of its meetings in the face of massive opposition at Seattle, in the very heart of the beast – headquarters to Microsoft and Boeing. It became clear that the Capitalist Offensive, which took off after 1975, had finally produced the possible seeds of its own destruction. And up until September 11th, this anti globalisation/anti-capitalist movement continued to gain strength. The political high points last year were the meeting of the World Social Forum at Porte Alegre in Brazil in January and the fierce contest on the streets of Genoa in July, involving tens of thousands of Italian workers, along with trade unionists from elsewhere in Europe and the international left.

September 11th came as a shock not only to Bush but to the left as well. After Seattle it was possible to conceive of a massive anti globalism/anti-capitalism protest, which either blockaded or occupied the Twin Towers in New York, the Pentagon or the White House in Washington. The notion that a direct attack on the commercial and political capitals could be initiated in one of the most undeveloped countries on this planet, with such devastating impact, was beyond most people’s comprehension. Islamic supremacist organisations had caused problems for US imperialism in places such as Beirut, Aden and Dar-es-Salaam, but these were far away from the imperial metropoles. An earlier attack on the Twin Towers had been relatively ineffective, especially when compared with the terror launched in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh, one of the USA’s own domestic terrorists.

New challenge

Yet, clearly the emergence of al-Qaeda represented a new challenge. One of the reasons why Islamic supremacist organisations have been able to establish networks within the USA and UK, is that key personnel were initially invited into both these countries by their respective state security agencies. Such people were seen as key to organising opposition to the USSR and the secular, left nationalist PDPA in Afghanistan. Their terrorist capabilities were looked on most favourably then. For similar domestic political reasons, a whole host of terrorist and criminal organisations opposed to Cuba and to the left nationalist forces in Latin America have been able to operate freely from the USA; whilst the UK has been a haven for Italian fascists responsible for the Bologna bombings. These far right wing emigres were just not subjected to the same surveillance as those who were thought to have any sympathy (real or imagined) with the USSR. Fascism develops its initial strength by doing the dirty jobs that employers or governments cannot do or don’t want to be seen doing themselves.

In Afghanistan the CIA gave the most favoured treatment to the most reactionary and brutal forces, including those led by bin-Laden. Many fascist organisations never get beyond such a servicing role. Some though, such as those led by Mussolini and Hitler, utilise this training and official licence to attempt a later direct challenge to their previous masters. Bin-Laden’s Islamic supremacism had originally been sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabian and Pakistani states for purely local use. However, he gained in confidence, especially since he had been massively aided in the crushing of all progressive forces in both Afghanistan and north west Pakistan which could act as a restraint on his activities.

Islamic supremicism

After the defeat of the Taliban, al-Qaeda’s pan-Islamic world pretensions might now have been decisively punctured and no longer represent a fundamental threat to the Great Satan. However, clerical fascism still represents a double threat to the left. Many members of al-Qaeda and Taliban have quietly gone native. In their new role, many will attempt once more to revert to the servicing role they once performed for US and British imperialism (and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia), particularly if the left and other revolutionary forces (e.g. the Labour Party Pakistan, Afghan Revolutionary Labour Organisation or the Revolutionary Alliance of Afghan Women) increase their influence. Islamic supremacists continue to murder socialists, trade unionists and women in the refugee camps, cities towns and villages of Pakistan.

The other threat lies in Bush and Blairs’ attempt to link the atrocities of September 11th with the left and the anti-globalisation/anti capitalist movement. Much of their drummed-up moral outrage is designed to disguise the fact that it had been US and UK imperialism, which had done so much to create the monsters which bit the hand that once had fed them. Indeed, so close were Bush’s personal connections with the Bin-Laden family, that those members still resident in the USA had to be quietly spirited out of the country immediately after September 11th to save him embarrassment!

USA: world’s number one rogue state

Furthermore, as leading American dissident, Noam Chomsky, has well demonstrated, the world’s number one rogue state is the USA itself. It has a record of mass killings stretching from Horishima and Nagasaki to Korea, Indo-China and Iraq. Yet, it is only the steady decline of British imperialism from its glory days in the nineteenth century, which has allowed the USA to usurp this particular title. The recent televised showings of Bloody Sunday and Sunday, along with the assasinations in Northern Ireland of Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson, Martin O’Hagan and William Stobie, also highlight the fact that state terror is not confined to nasty rogue states in the Third World.

You can see why Bush and Blair are so desperate to deny responsibility for the murderous beasts they have created. If they can link the challenge of al-Qaeda to the challenge of the anti globalist/anti-capitalist left, they will have effectively offloaded their responsibility for the creation of the former, whilst better positioning themselves for the marginalisation of the latter.

Their task has become even more essential, now that easy military victories in Afghanistan threaten to be overshadowed by very obvious economic failures in Argentina. Argentina was meant to be the flagship economy which relaunched NAFTA to cover the whole of the Americas. The catastrophic collapse of the Argentinian economy and its abandonment of dollar parity represents a considerable blow both for the global corporations and the New World Order. However, things are unravelling even closer to home, with the spectacular bankruptcy of Enron and the illegal dealings of Arthur Andersen, both US companies with far-reaching tentacles. These reach close to Bush (and Blair) and won’t necessarily be as easy to spirit away as the Bin Laden family!

Bush and Blair know that an ideological battle confined to the terrain of the struggle of the antis – anti-terrorism versus anti-war or anti-left versus anti-capitalism, could get tricky for them. One decade after the demise of the Evil Empire, Bush and Blair have once more been able to launch a new crusade against a more defined enemy. In the War on Terrorism they have repackaged the older positive alternative – defence of the free world, or as it is now called civilisation. The freedoms they offer today, in a world increasingly dominated by the transnational corporations, are consumer choice and electoral choice. Whether it be commodities or parties, the offers are the same – brightly packaged but very similar products and the best that money can buy.

Beyond the anti campaigns

Therefore, it is absolutely essential that we also move beyond our anti campaigns – anti-war, anti globalisation and anti-capitalism to our own positive agenda. When the New World Order apologists focus on consumer choice andelectoral choice, they highlight the division lying at the heart of capitalism. The economic and political spheres are separated, although both need to be linked and carefully coordinated behind the scenes for capitalism to continue. Similarly, we need to overcome this division in our own political activity.

Underlying the capitalist promise of consumer choice through the free market (however illusory even that may prove for countless millions in the world) is the stark reality of wage slavery. Therefore, it is not economic freedom but continued exploitation which forms the economic basis of capitalism. Yet today, most of the left cannot see further than higher wages – house slavery rather than field slavery. To counter wage slavery we need once more to raise the banner of Emancipation. Furthermore, contemporary capitalism is not at all averse to absorbing, perpetuating and even extending earlier slaveries to meet its greed for profit – the chattel, debt, domestic, child and bonded labour slaveries. A truly global challenge to the global corporations means linking all those resisting every form of exploitation.

Raise the banner of liberation

Behind the capitalist promise of electoral choice in parliamentary elections lies the reality of national states which ensure that their key repressive institutions lie beyond popular control. Whilst imperialist globalisation spreads, its key decision making centres lie beyond even any formal democratic accountability – G7/G8, WTO, IMF and NATO. Furthermore, as the politicians representing this new global power concentrate ever more power in their own hands, they exploit real differences or manufacture artificial identities, the better to divide-and-rule us. Therefore, it is not political freedom but continued oppression (and where opposition becomes serious, violent repression) which forms the political basis for capitalism. To counter this we need to once more raise the banner of Liberation. Liberation means the thoroughgoing democratisation of society. In the past socialists and communists have divided on Economist and Politicist lines – one claiming the primacy of economic struggle, the other the primacy of political struggle. However, a genuine new human society can only emerge by overcoming the profound division between the economic and the political found in capitalism. Real political democracy can not be sustained on the basis of wage labour. True economic freedom can not be sustained on the limited democracy found in parliamentary government.

Now that we have the beginnings of a new internationalism in the growing anti-globalisation/anti capitalist movement, we need to ensure that we rise to the challenge of Bush and Blairs’ New World Order and its military wing, the Coalition Against Terror. Emancipation from wage and other slaveries and liberation from all forms of oppression must be our clear aims.

Struggling for what we wish to be

Our relaunched magazine intends to further these aims. We will chronicle the resistance to exploitation, including those workplace struggles upholding the sovereignty of the workplace against the sovereignty of the trade union Headquarters. We will chronicle resistance to oppression. As well as covering key international issues we will place special emphasis on the republican struggle for democracy, upholding popular sovereignty against the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. We intend to highlight cultural challenges to oppression and alienation, especially where these have contributed to communities of resistance. Or, hopefully in the near future, contribute to communities of liberation, where we get our fulfilment not only from what we have but in struggling for what we wish to be.

And of course, we will be contributing to the debates on the necessary forms of organisation, including the various Alliances, both in these islands and on a European basis, as well as such global developments as the World Social Forum. We need not only to make the growing protest and resistance effective politically, but to create the basis for a truly human global society, based on the principle of from each according to their ability – to each according to their needs and where the freedom of each is the condition for the freedom of all – a true emancipation and liberation – the genuine communism Marx originally outlined.