Vol. 16, No. 1
VOICE OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST PARTY OF THE USA
25ยข January 1, 1986
[Front page:
Reagan and the Democrats agree on the anti-worker deficit bill--Fight the new cutbacks!;
New Year's Editorial--Let All Workers Unite!;
Reagan beats the war drums against Nicaragua--Goliath complains how strong David is]
IN THIS ISSUE
| Down with Reagan, frontman of capitalist reaction! 'Punishing' defense contractors; Opposing pregnancy benefits; Throwing the disabled to the wolves; More covert operations............................................................. | 2 |
|
|
|
| Terror on U.S. Arabs; 'Right to life' bombers................ | 3 |
|
|
|
| Strikes and work place news |
|
| New Bedford fishermen; Meatpackers; Cannery workers; Capitol Hill cafeteria workers; Teamsters split supermarket strike........................................................... | 4 |
| Jefferson Assembly; St. Louis Chrysler workers win partial victory; Fight Montgomery Ward layoffs; Aircraft workers fight for jobs........................................ | 5 |
|
|
|
| AFL-CIO Convention: Madison Avenue hype.............. | 6 |
| A network of local union bureaucrats............................ | 7 |
|
|
|
| Police killers of Michael Stewart go free....................... | 8 |
| Dearborn parks and the black bourgeoisie..................... | 8 |
| Justice Dept, lobbies Court for segregation................... | 9 |
| Defend the immigrant workers...................................... | 9 |
| Government wolves set upon sanctuary movement....... | 9 |
|
|
|
| Death to apartheid! |
|
| Liberation struggle; New union declaration; Stand of the white liberals in South Africa................................... | 10 |
|
|
|
| U.S. imperialism, get out of Central America! |
|
| Strike wave in El Salvador; No investigation of death squads; Contras run drugs............................................... | 11 |
|
|
|
| The world in struggle |
|
| Bhopal victims protest; Thatcher out to bar demonstrations; Student protests in China..................... | 12 |
| Heroic toilers of Haiti.................................................... | 13 |
| The reality in 'democratic Brazil'................................... | 14 |
| Castro on debt crisis: refusal to pay is wrong................ | 15 |
| Marcos and the liberals; General Ver scot-free.............. | 16 |
| Iranian workers in struggle against regime.................... | 17 |
| The May 1st general strike of 1886 and the strike movement in 1986................................... | 20 |
Reagan and the Democrats agree on the anti-worker deficit bill
New Year's Editorial
Reagan beats the war drums against Nicaragua
Goliath complains how strong David is
Down with Reagan, frontman for capitalist reaction!
U.S. imperialism and its racist gangs are the real terrorists
Down with the attacks on Arabs in the U.S.!
Strikes and workplace news
AFL-CIO convention:
Class collaboration decked out in Madison Avenue hype
"National Rank and File Against Concessions" formed
A network of local union bureaucrats
Police killers of Michael Stewart go free
No justice for the people in the courts of the rich
The black bourgeoisie and park segregation in Dearborn, Mich:
Auctioning off the struggle against racism
Despite the betrayal
The masses protest segregation
Government wolves set upon the sanctuary movement in Arizona
Defend the immigrant workers! Down with anti-immigrant legislation!
Justice Dept. lobbies Supreme Court for segregation
Death to Apartheid!
U.S. Imperialism, Get Out of Central America!
The World in Struggle
The iron fist and the velvet glove in Latin America -- Part 2
The reality in 'democratic Brazil'
Behind his militant rhetoric on the Latin American debt
Castro says refusal to pay is wrong
Support the Nicaraguan workers' press!
On the Filipino elections
Marcos and the liberals seek to avert revolution
The trial of General Ver
'Not guilty' -- just as Marcos ordered
Iranian workers in struggle against the regime
The May 1st general strike of 1886 and the strike movement in 1986
Before leaving for their long Christmas vacation, the elves on Capitol Hill worked long and hard this year to prepare gifts for Ronnie at the White House. And while they did not finish all they wanted to do -- alas, so much to do and so little time in the Christmas season -- they did succeed in wrapping up one hefty package. This was the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction bill. And Ronnie, who had wanted this gift so ardently, was pleased as punch.
Reagan promptly signed it into law. The politicians in Congress, Republican and Democrat alike, slapped themselves on their backs and crowed about a job well done. They declared victory over the national deficit.
So what's this year's Christmas gift Congress gave Reagan?
Beware when the capitalist politicians speak of taming the deficit. Those who have created the gargantuan deficits by pumping up the bloated military and awarding handouts to the rich are not about to turn into friends of the working people.
No, when they speak of reducing the deficit, they mean putting the axe on programs that concern the needs of the workers and poor. And,that's what the Gramm-Rudman bill is all about. Cutbacks, cutbacks and more cutbacks... for the next five years.
A Five-Year Plan of Hunger and Poverty
What the Gramm-Rudman bill calls for is automatic cutbacks in the federal budget if Congress and the White House fail to cut enough spending each year for the next five years. And it sets targets on how much is to be cut each year.
These automatic cutbacks will come in housing programs, medical research, Head Start, education and student loans, farm and rural aid, environmental protection, and urban grants. As well, within certain limits -- put into the law oh so kindly by the Democrats -- there would also be automatic cuts in Medicare, veterans' health benefit programs, community and migrant health programs and Indian health services.
The first to feel the impact of the new law will be 4.5 million railroad and federal retirees who will lose a scheduled 3.1% cost-of-living increase due January 1.
There will ostensibly also be cuts in the military budget. But don't bet on it. Senator Gramm (R-Tex.), the chief author of the bill, himself pointed out that in practice there would be nothing automatic about military cuts; if the Pentagon "made its case'' for a bigger budget, Congress would go along. And no one can doubt the ability of the Pentagon to make such a case, nor of Congress' willingness to comply. The last five years of the Reaganite trillion dollar war buildup have amply proven that much.
The law is being challenged in court from several quarters.. There is some doubt in Washington about whether the courts will uphold the constitutionality of this law. But it doesn't really matter even if it's struck down. What's significant about this bill is not so much the law, but the essence of what it declares: a plan for cutbacks year after year into the 90's.
Already, under the pretext of "avoiding automatic cuts" due to the Gramm-Rudman bill, the Reagan administration is proposing huge slashes in social programs while calling for the military budget to steadily climb upwards. At least $50 billion in cuts are proposed for the 1987 budget, including massive cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs.
The Gramm-Rudman bill makes a pretense of barring automatic cuts in such programs as Social Security, AFDC and food stamps. But nothing prevents Congress and the White House from cutting into these programs as well, in the name of "avoiding automatic cuts" in this or that budget area.
The Sky-High Deficits Have Been a Bonanza for the Rich
The politicians say that the new law will eliminate the national deficit. Don't hold your breath for that either. For all the while they talk of reducing the deficit, not a word is uttered about how the recent deficit explosion really came to be.
A long favored response of the capitalists to economic crises has been to expand deficit spending to keep profits up and to artificially stimulate the economy. Reaganomics has pushed this policy to the hilt. It has opened up a river of fat profits for the arms manufacturers, the bankers and other exploiters at the cost of huge deficits.
Reaganomics has meant handing over billions to the capitalists directly through tax cuts and other handouts from the treasury. And more of the same is promised as Washington talks of "tax reform."
Reaganomics has led to the trillion dollar military buildup, with the generals and admirals getting whatever they put on their wish lists. This too has meant big bucks for the corporate merchants of death.
And then there have been the interest payments to the bankers. The interest payments on the 1986 budget alone amount to $146 billion, higher than the military budget of 1980. When the capitalist politicians talk of bringing the deficit under control, you will never find them saying one word about the sacrosanct tribute that must be ensured for the banks.
A Thoroughly Bipartisan Effort
From the outset of Reagan's presidency, the assault on the working people has had the blessing of both the capitalist parties. Year after year, the Democrats in Congress have joined with Reagan. And the Gramm-Rudman bill is yet another fruit of this bipartisan cooperation.
The bill was cosponsored by the Republicans Gramm (a former Democrat himself) and Rudman and the Democrat Hollings. In the Senate, the prince of liberals himself, Mr. Ted Kennedy, came forward to embrace the Gramm-Rudman bill. And among Democrats who didn't vote for the bill, there was less concern about the plight of the masses and more the worry that somehow the bill might automatically cut the sacred cow of Pentagon spending. Well-known liberals like Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.) out-Reaganed Reagan himself with enthusiasm for the cause of the Pentagon buildup.
Fight to Defend the Interests of the Working People!
The Gramm-Rudman bill is yet another declaration of war on the working people from the powerful men of Washington. This declaration must be met head on.
Year in and year out, the monopolies and the politicians in their pay have been imposing one assault after another on the livelihood of the working and poor people. While the capitalists crow about recovery, i.e., of their profits, the ranks of the working poor, the., unemployed, the ruined, and the homeless steadily climb higher.
It is time to mount a serious fight. We must fight against the cutbacks. But we cannot just limit ourselves to a fight simply to restore the already heavily slashed, meager social programs that the capitalists call the so-called "safety net." No, we must fight for the full needs of the masses to live decently.
In this struggle, we must stand firm against the blackmail of the capitalists who demand that the economic crisis be solved upon the shoulders of the working people. The rich created the deficit -- let them cancel it at their own expense. The needs of the masses must be met, not through heavier taxes on the working people, but by cutting into the profits of capital.
This is not a fight that can be left to the courts, trusting the goodwill of capitalist judges. And as is so obvious, neither can it be waged by relying on the lying Democrats in Congress.
No, defending the needs of the masses requires struggle. It calls for strikes, protests and other actions. It requires bringing the working masses out in struggle against every front of the capitalist offensive.
This struggle is essential. And victories in this struggle can bring some relief from the ravages of life under capitalism for the working class and poor. But they cannot meet the full needs of the working people for a better life. For that, the economic system based on profit-making must itself be wiped out. The capitalists must be overthrown. And power must be seized by the working class. In short, it requires socialist revolution.
January 1st brings a new year and the sixth anniversary of the founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party. It is time to review some of the pressing questions facing the workers and oppressed in the year ahead.
The Hundredth Anniversary of May First
1986 carries a special significance for the workers' movement. It marks the hundredth anniversary of one of the most brilliant chapters of the working class movement in this country -- the mighty general strike of May 1, 1886 for the eight-hour day. It also marks the centennial of a capitalist infamy -- the Hay market Affair in Chicago, which led to the legal lynching of four working class leaders of the eight-hour day movement. The strike wave of 1886 shook the society from top to bottom. It put the whole country on notice that the American working class, when it combines its ranks in mass action, is an enormous force. And it revealed what had been hidden up to that point, that the American workers make up an independent class, with its own class aims that stand against the interests of the capitalist exploiters.
The events of 1886 in the U.S. gave birth to the fighting legacy of May First as international working class day. This year, the revolutionary workers and activists will continue to carry forward this militant tradition, raising red banners in the annual May First demonstrations and rallies. As well, the interest provoked by the centennial of the Haymarket Affair will be a good opportunity to popularize among the working people the rich lessons of the class struggle from the events of the original May First.
The Reaganite Offensive of Monopoly Capital
The modern-day slick corporations exploit and oppress the working people no less ruthlessly than the crude robber barons the workers confronted a century ago. For more than six years now, the capitalists have been unfolding a systematic assault on the working masses. 1986 holds in store more of the same.
Corporate profits are up. The stock market is up. War industries are up. But the livelihood of the workers is still under siege. The jobless are still out of work. The hungry are still unfed. And the homeless are still freezing.
Reagan and all the bourgeois are downright smug about their "success." By squeezing tens of millions of working people, they have revived Wall Street's profitability, at least partially, at least for the moment, until the next downward lurch in the economic crisis. But this doesn't mean the capitalists have had their fill. It has only whetted their appetite for more.
More takebacks and job eliminating concessions are on top of the corporate agenda for '86. And the Reagan White House and the Democratic-controlled House have just signed a mutual pact, known as the Gramm-Rudman Deficit Reduction Bill, to make sure that for the rest of the decade there are more deep slashes in social services needed by the masses, the poor and the infirm.
The capitalist government, meanwhile, is out for more reactionary steps against the working people. It is out for more spying and police-state measures against the mass movements. Such events as the criminal bombing of the MOVE house in Philadelphia, and the ruthless cloak-and-dagger methods against religious activists who give sanctuary to Central American refugees, are seen as practice for dealing with more threatening opponents in the future.
The monopoly capitalist rulers are also strengthening racism and national oppression, the centuries-old pillar of reaction in this country. In 1986, Reagan will again dispatch all the legal resources of the Justice Department to undo the few remaining barriers to job discrimination and school segregation, halfhearted barriers that the capitalists had grudgingly put in place to cool off the powerful anti-racist upsurge of the 60's and early 70's. And Congress is still chomping at the bit to pass draconic new laws for persecuting immigrant workers.
The Resistance of the Working People
To a large degree, the responsibility for the "successes" of Reaganism must be laid at the door of the "official opposition" -- the liberal and social-democratic politicians, the trade union chieftains, the bourgeois misleaders of the black people, and other reformist elements hitched to the left wing of the Democratic Party. At every turn, these forces have scabbed on the masses in the struggle against the capitalist offensive.
But neither Reaganite reaction nor the reformist misleaders have been able to put out the smoldering fires of resistance, which frequently break out into bitter struggles. And the sporadic and often isolated struggles of the present are preparing the ground for the resurgence of the mass movements.
In the strike movement, for example, there are new signs that the workers have had enough. 1985 witnessed a series of important strikes: Chrysler, Wheeling-Pittsburg, Bath Iron, General Dynamics, longshoremen, cannery workers and meatpackers, among others. The appeals of the union chiefs that there is no alternative to concessions and that strikes are impossible are more and more falling on deaf ears.
In the coming year, the revolutionary workers and activists must continue to play an active role in pushing forward the fight against concessions, the anti-racist struggles, and the struggles against every step of the capitalist offensive against the working people. Relentless exposure of the lies and demagogy of the Reaganites is an important part of this work. But no less important is the systematic work to free the struggles from the grip of the Democratic Party and social-democratic politicians, the trade union bureaucrats, and other reformist misleaders.
We must work for and encourage every real step towards the independent mobilization and organization of the masses. On this road the working class will find its way to the class-wide struggle to beat back the capitalist offensive. And no less than the class struggle of the 1880's, the coming class struggles will shake the country and trample the present political realities into the dust.
International Solidarity
The class warfare that gripped Chicago, St. Louis, New York and other American cities in 1886 was part of the struggle of the international working class for the eight-hour day. Demonstrating the international character of the workers' cause, May First became a day of solidarity among the workers of all countries. It became a day of worldwide struggle for emancipation from all forms of oppression, warmongering, and exploitation of man by man.
The cause of the American working people remains tightly bound up with that of the working masses of other lands. The big upheavals in various corners of the globe, combined with the fanatical drive of the Reagan government to put down these revolts and preserve the U.S. imperialist empire, have sharply posed the international tasks of our struggle.
South Africa
One of the most important tasks is the fight against apartheid.
For more than a year now, the oppressed masses of South Africa have persisted in a heroic revolt against white supremacist slavery. In response, an anti-apartheid movement has spread across the U.S. Support for the black people of South Africa runs deep, and the struggle of our South African brothers and sisters is helping to rekindle ideas of anti-racist struggle in the U.S. too.
The Reagan policy of "constructive engagement" and kindly understanding of this bestial system has fueled the struggle and helped make it a sharp political issue. This issue is going to get even hotter, fanned by the growing intensity of the struggle in South Africa.
The struggle between trends within the anti-apartheid movement is also going to sharpen. The liberal politicians, the bourgeois black misleaders, and the university administrations are stepping up their efforts to co-opt this movement. They want the movement to give up support for revolution in South Africa. They want the movement to replace condemnation of U.S. imperialism with working hand in hand with the Democratic Party. They want to turn the movement into something harmless to the racists and reactionaries in this country, and into something useful for stemming the tide of revolution and preserving imperialist profits in South Africa.
At the same time, the militant workers and progressive activists have a different idea of what fighting apartheid is all about. It means building support for the oppressed workers and toilers of South Africa, and lending support to their drive for revolution over the apartheid tyrants. And it means taking militant mass action against the imperialist patrons of apartheid in this country.
Central America
Solidarity with the Central American workers and peasants is another sharp focus of the struggle.
Reagan and Shultz will stop at nothing to back up the death-squad regime in El Salvador and crush the workers and peasants of that country. And every week they pledge their commitment to escalating the CIA war against the revolution in Nicaragua.
Unfortunately, the social-democratic and reformist forces that dominate much of the anti-intervention movement have not shown the same commitment to fighting this aggression. Instead they have disorganized the movement with their demoralized begging before the Democratic politicians.
As Reagan escalates the war, we must escalate our work to channel the strong opposition to this war among the working people onto the path of militant struggle against imperialism, and solidarity with the Central American workers and peasants.
Support for the Nicaraguan Marxist-Leninists
Part of this is working hard to strengthen the political and material support for the Nicaraguan working class and toilers and their Marxist- Leninist Party of Nicaragua (formerly the MAP/ML). The recent tour of Comrade Isidro Tellez, general secretary of the MLPN, was a big success for this work.
In the coming year, our Party will continue to mobilize workers and anti-imperialist activists to take part in the Nicaraguan Workers Press Campaign. This campaign is supplying material aid to the revolutionary working class press in Nicaragua in defiance of the Reagan blockade.
July 19 will be the seventh anniversary of the victory of the Nicaraguan people's revolution over the U.S.- backed Somoza dictatorship. We plan to launch another intense campaign of protest against the CIA's dirty war, and of solidarity with the Nicaraguan working masses and their MLPN, to be capped off with actions and meetings on July 19.
The 9th International Youth Camp In Nicaragua
As part of this campaign of solidarity, the MLP,USA will organize the U.S. delegation for the 9th international youth camp that is planned to be held in Nicaragua from July 21 to 31, a camp that is being organized by Marxist-Leninists from a number of countries. We will work towards making this camp a successful international demonstration of support for the struggle of the Nicaraguan Marxist-Leninist Party to lead the workers and poor peasants in struggle against the imperialist-capitalist counterrevolution, and against the compromising policy of petty-bourgeois Sandinism.
Strengthen the International Marxist-Leninist Movement
The Marxists have always been the standard-bearers of worldwide working class solidarity, and the firmest champions of the ideals of May First. This is why the capitalists of all countries rage against May First as "communist May Day."
World communism, however, is presently not the solid world force that it was in the years after the socialist revolution in Russia. Communism became corroded from within by the influence of the bourgeoisie. There is no longer anything Marxist-Leninist about the communist parties in the Soviet Union, China and many other countries. These parties have been taken over by capitalist elements who have revised Marxism into an ordinary bourgeois-reformist theory. They wallow in bourgeois nationalism, and trample on everything May Day stands for.
Against this revisionist betrayal, revolutionaries in many countries have stood up to rebuild working class parties on Marxist-Leninist lines, and to reconsolidate the international communist movement. The MLP,USA has always taken an active and militant attitude towards strengthening international communism.
In 1986, we plan to continue to contribute what we are able on this front. We will continue to strive for every step to strengthen mutual cooperation among the Marxist-Leninist parties in the revolutionary struggle against our common enemies, emphasizing joint international work on critical fronts of struggle, such as to support the proletarian revolutionaries in Nicaragua who are on the front lines of struggle against imperialism and the bourgeoisie.
At the same time, we will continue to address the burning questions facing the movement. We will continue to speak up boldly against the dangers to the movement posed by petty-bourgeois nationalism and liquidationism, and to analyze the historical roots of these dangers. We will do so convinced that petty diplomacy, standing on ceremony, or speaking while saying nothing, are useless or even harmful. Unity of thought and action demands an open and militant struggle to defend the Marxist- Leninist principles, and to clarify the vexed questions confronting the world revolutionary movement.
This concludes our review of some of the tasks we face in 1986, the year of the May First centennial. Let all conscious workers and revolutionary activists greet this historic anniversary by working to build up the organization and consciousness of the masses in the spirit of the Hay market martyrs:
The spirit of the class struggle and worker solidarity.
Hatred for all exploitation and oppression.
And unbending confidence in the international cause of the working men and women of the world.
[Photo.]
This December the air has once again been thick with the Reagan administration's curses against Nicaragua. Reagan, Shultz, and Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams have been grabbing every microphone available for a turn at calling Nicaragua "terrorist," "totalitarian," "aggressive" or a "Cuban plot."
Why this deafening clatter? After all, there is nothing really that new happening in Nicaragua this December.
What is going on is that Reagan is escalating the dirty war against Nicaragua. He is sending more and more cash to the contras, more and more missiles, more and more CIA support. The Reagan administration is filling Nicaragua's skies with supersonic missiles and targeting its harbors with attack boats.
The Reagan administration hopes that with enough screaming, by raising one accusation after another, each more absurd than the last, no one will pay attention to the CIA's bloodletting. "Denounce them for threatening us to hide the fact that we are threatening them." This is the tactic that Reagan has hit upon in the vain hope of justifying the escalation of the dirty war against Nicaragua.
High-Tech Escalation
So Reagan is resorting to his standard, thread worn tirade against Nicaragua: that Managua is allegedly amassing high-tech weaponry to threaten its neighbors, and ultimately the U.S. At least once a year Reagan starts "seeing" MIGs and throwing a fit over Nicaragua's alleged acquisition of these advanced jet fighter planes. This year Secretary of State Elliott has also been raking Nicaragua over the coals for, horror of all horrors, introducing helicopters into its arsenal.
But who is it who is really putting all their faith in high-tech weapons and introducing them wholesale into Central America? It is none other than the CIA and the Pentagon. The entire U.S. intervention in El Salvador has been revamped to rely on helicopter raids, sophisticated electronic spying gear, and drone spy planes. Meanwhile, in order to direct the dirty war against Nicaragua, the U.S. overflies Nicaragua every day with sophisticated jet fighters, and it has turned Honduras into one big base for advanced U.S. weapons systems. Whether or not Nicaragua ever gets some MIGs or not (and they have more right to advanced warplanes than the Pentagon, since they need them for defense), it is the U.S. which has been escalating the war.
Indeed, the Reagan administration began its new campaign at the exact moment that it became known that it had escalated the war once again by providing ground-to-air missiles to the contras. On December 2, the contras downed a Nicaraguan helicopter over Nicaragua, after months of training in their use by the CIA.
Who Is the "Center for Foreign Terrorism"?
Reagan also accused Nicaragua of being a "breeding ground for subversion" and a haven for "foreign terrorists." According to Reagan, little Nicaragua calls the tune in Iran, Libya, for the PLO, and so forth. The Reaganites began a new pastime, Nicaraguan-counting, as they recited tales of Nicaraguans being spotted in this or that country (horrors!) or of other peoples visiting Nicaragua. For the U.S. to call Nicaragua a center for "foreign" influence in the region is an extreme case of the thief crying "stop thief." It is hard for anyone who has not been drugged with Reaganite doublethink or Moral Majority other-worldliness to miss the fact that the U.S. itself is far and away the biggest "foreigner" in Central America, has the most firepower trained on the region, has invaded it more often than every other major power combined, and has propped up every two-bit dictator who was willing to kill his own people for the greater glory of God and United Fruit.
As to worldwide subversion, the U.S. spends more money on fostering overseas terrorism than the entire national budget of Nicaragua. The CIA alone does that. The sun never sets on the U.S. military empire and its network of spies, listening posts, and mercenary armies.
"Cuban Troops on the Mainland of North America"
The Reaganites cry in mock terror about "Cuban troops on the North American mainland." This is almost comical if one recalls that the reactionaries used to cry out about Cuba itself being only "90 miles from the U.S.," which is a lot closer than Nicaragua. Either the Reaganites should openly proclaim Central America the 51st state, or they should admit that it is the U.S. which invades its neighbors, not the other way around.
As a matter of fact, the Cuban advisers are only a minor factor in Nicaragua. Only the Reaganites, who believe that discontent with the American way of life can only come about because of "outside agitators," can believe otherwise. If anything, the Cubans weaken the Sandinistas by preaching the gospel of coming to agreement with Reagan and by introducing bureaucratic practices.
And as for the use of foreign mercenaries, this is a specialty of the Pentagon. Wasn't it the U.S. which in 1962 tried to invade Cuba with a CIA-trained force made up of Cuban reactionaries? (CIA-organized Cuban troops are apparently acceptable in the Caribbean, on the North American mainland or anywhere else.) As well, in its current assaults on Nicaragua, the U.S. uses troops of many different nationalities. In particular, the White House deploys what it calls its UCLA -- "unilaterally-controlled Latin assets." These are CIA- organized mercenaries of various nationalities which make up a Latino-looking force for secret acts of war inside Nicaragua. If one is speaking of "foreign terrorists," the UCLA certainly have all the credentials.
Cuba Is Not the Reason for Reagan's Dirty War
Despite Reagan's constant prattle about Cuba's relations with Nicaragua, Cuba is not the real reason behind the U.S.-backed war. The U.S. first invaded and occupied Nicaragua over 50 years ago and proceeded to install the pro-U.S. Somoza family in power. This was done because it was profitable. This military intervention was already completed while Fidel Castro was still a small child and decades before the armed struggle began against Cuba's pro-U.S. tyrant, Batista, who ruled with the "benevolent" help of the U.S. State Department and the Mafia.
No, the real reason Reagan is directing the dirty war of blockade, lies and murder against Nicaragua is to punish the Nicaraguan people for overthrowing the U.S. puppet, Somoza, in 1979. Reagan wants to smash the revolution and restore the "good old days" when the U.S. corporations could walk over the Nicaraguan people at will.
The Democrats March in Step With Reagan's War Drums
And Reagan's ever loyal echo, the Congressional Democrats, have marched to the tune of the war drums. It is the House Democrats who have voted more and more money for the secret war against Nicaragua, while providing Reagan dozens of loopholes for "covert" financing of the war. Is there a Reaganite lie about Nicaragua too low for the Democrats to accept? It is hard to find one. Indeed, the Democrats have written down these lies and specified which ones can be used to justify an invasion. The appearance of MIGs in Nicaragua, for example, appeared on the list of acceptable (in their eyes) reasons for invading Nicaragua overwhelmingly passed by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives last June 27. Indeed, Reagan had barely to start the war drums in December before it became known that a number of House liberals had broken ranks with the other Democrats in order to give up even the appearance of hesitation in advocating more funds to strangle the Nicaraguan people.
Against the War Drums! For the Defense of the Nicaraguan Workers and Peasants!
Clearly the White House is beating the war drums in order to justify the escalation of aggression that is being carried out against the Nicaraguan workers and peasants. Working people of the U.S., it is our job to deflate this ugly campaign against our fellow toilers in Nicaragua! Let us build up our struggle here at home against our "own" government's war preparations and aggression in Central America! Counter Reagan's chauvinist lies about Nicaragua with defense of the struggle of the Nicaraguan workers and peasants! Counter Reagan's dirty war by stepping up the fight against U.S. imperialism!
Reagan's Justice Department has found a new recipient of unjust privilege: pregnant women workers. On November 27, Reagan's minions filed suit in the U.S. Supreme Court demanding that pregnancy benefits for women workers be found to be an unjust discrimination against other workers.
At stake are four state laws, from California, Montana, Connecticut and Massachusetts, that require very moderate benefits for pregnant workers. For example, the California law requires that workers disabled by pregnancy get four months leave and be reinstated to their previous job when they return to work, but it goes on to leave a loophole in the case of "business necessity.'' The Montana law forbids firing pregnant workers and only specifies "a reasonable leave of absence.'' Only anti-people monsters like the rich capitalists represented by Reagan could take offense at such laws.
In the past, the capitalists refused to grant pregnant workers even the benefits given to other sick or disabled workers, and this was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976. Now the capitalists are contesting laws specifically mandating benefits to pregnant workers on the grounds that this is discrimination against other sick or disabled workers.
The basis for the Justice Department claim is a federal law from 1978 that extended to pregnant women the benefits given to sick or disabled workers. Now the Reaganites are trying to use this law to wipe out pregnancy benefits. This shows that the workers can rely on nothing but their own struggle. Even laws written supposedly in their benefit will be honored only so long as the capitalists fear the mass struggle of the working class.
The Reagan administration tries to present its attempt to rule the world as a crusade for democracy. Why, it even set up the "National Endowment for Democracy.'' And the NED pledged, hand on heart, to carry on in the bright glare of full public disclosure its sacred work for spreading democracy and the American way of life around the world.
However, it has once again been revealed that the NED is simply another tool of CIA-style intervention around the world. The most recent scandal concerns the efforts of the NED to secretly finance ultra-rightist groups in France. For example, NED funds were given to the public front of the outlawed, right-wing paramilitary group, "the Service d'Action Civique.''
Similarly, last year it was discovered that the National Endowment for Democracy had channeled funds into a Panamanian election to support the candidate of the military. Undoubtedly, an example of disciplined democracy.
In both cases, the AFL-CIO apparatus was involved in carrying out these covert actions. The top bureaucracy of the AFL-CIO is nothing but a bunch of hardcore imperialist elements who work hand in hand with the Reaganites in carrying out subversion against other peoples.
Also notable is that the "Subcommittee on International Operations of the House Foreign Affairs Committee,'' which is supposed to oversee the National Endowment for Democracy, helped the NED cover its tracks. So much for the glories of congressional oversight.
Who knows how many of these secret operations will be revealed when the socialist revolution of the American working class will open the archives on the NED and the other agencies of international subversion? What can be seen today is that in the name of "democracy" the Reaganites are funding anti-people dictators and right-wing paramilitary groups around the world.
How the Pentagon 'punishes' defense contractors
The Reaganite defense buildup is not only to attack other countries, but to give billions upon billions of dollars in super-profits to the defense companies. In order to defend the unprecedented defense buildup in the face of public outrage over being taxed to feed the defense billionaires, the Reaganites have taken to periodically slapping the wrists of the defense companies.
The latest case began on December 2 when General Dynamics, the third largest defense company, was charged once again with fraud by a federal grand jury. General Dynamics, three top GD executives, and James Beggs, the chief of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and a former GD executive, were charged with defrauding the government of $7.5 million on a single Army contract.
The Pentagon made a show of great displeasure. Why, rich and poor are alike to the Pentagon. It will show these scoundrels. So on December 3 it barred the government from doing any business with GD. Well, not quite. It barred any new business. All current contracts continued without interruption.
Sure enough, in a few days a lucrative contract for attack submarines came up. Wow, wouldn't GD be punished by missing this one.
So what did the Navy do. On December 11 it announced that it was suspending the submission of bids for this contract in order to allow time for GD to be readmitted to government business. After all, Secretary of Defense Weinberger sputtered, there is only one other source for these submarines other than GD. Without GD bidding on the contract the Pentagon might have to pay more for these submarines.
With staunch disciplinarians like the Pentagon overseeing GD and the other defense companies, they are sure to toe the line out of fear for their lives. They will be quaking -- all the way to the bank.
And GD is no isolated example. There is hardly a major defense firm that has not been hit by scandals. After all, the whole point of capitalist government is to tax the working people to pay for the cushy contracts for big business. And there is no business bigger than the war business.
In public the Reagan administration postures that its foreign policy is cleaner than clean. Why, Reagan even signed an executive order banning government assassinations.
But in practice, the Reagan administration is stepping up the use of sabotage, terror, and murder in secret. On December 10, during his tour of Europe, Secretary of State Shultz gave a call to U.S. imperialism's European allies to step up the use of covert aid. As everyone knows, covert aid goes to finance murder and sabotage: one of the prime examples is the aid to the contras in Nicaragua.
Naturally, Shultz didn't draw out what this aid was for, but instead concentrated on the usefulness of acting in secret. He stated, in his talk to the British-American "Pilgrims Society," that "Sometimes help may be better given without open acknowledgment; covert action has been part of the arsenal of states since time immemorial, providing a means of influence short of outright confrontation." (New York Times, Dec. 11,1985)
As is known, Washington's allies do indeed engage in covert action. A recent example that came to light was the French government's sinking of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in a New Zealand port. But Shultz, on the same trip where he went red in the face and pounded the table in denunciation of "terrorism," calmly advocated that the CIA and its European allies undertake more terrorist activities in secret.
Thus here is the commandment of the Reagan administration: kill, but keep it quiet. Assassinate, but blame it on someone else. Sin, but raise your hands in prayer before the cameras. Wage war, but avoid "outright confrontation" by doing it "covertly" with the CIA. In World War II, the fascists neglected to declare war in advance but instead engaged in sneak attacks, such as Pearl Harbor. George Shultz and his master Reagan want to go one better by waging the whole war behind the scenes. Far from being "great communicators,'' Reagan and his staff are nothing but the great stonewallers of the bourgeoisie.
While the Reagan administration forgives the defense contractors their billion dollar little frauds, it jumps up and down to shake down the workers for their last dollar. And the more disadvantaged the workers, the less able he or she is to defend themselves, the more voracious is the Reaganite attack.
Thus the Reaganites have thrown themselves with hostility upon the disabled workers. On Thursday, December 5, the Reagan administration announced that it would make yet another attempt to throw hundreds of thousands of workers off the Social Security disability rolls. One might imagine that, at a time when millions are unemployed and looking for work, it would not be a high priority to force disabled workers back to the production lines. But the Reaganites want the maximum desperation in the working class in order to force the wages down as far as possible.
Originally, the Reaganites began a review of the Social Security disability rolls in March 1981, barely over a year after Reagan took office. The Social Security Administration reviewed 1.2 million cases and slashed over 40% of them, 491,000, off the rolls. This was so ruthless that even the other capitalist authorities then proceeded to restore 60% of these disabled workers, a full 291,000, to benefits upon appeal. For example, the Reaganites removed from the rolls workers who had had no medical improvement, on the basis that the Reaganites were able to invent in their heads some kind of suitable work for them.
Now the Social Security Administration is going back to the task, restrained a bit by a 1984 law passed to quiet the public outrage. The first 50,000 cases will be reviewed this January.
The December 1, 1985 issue of The Workers' Advocate left out a passage from the article "Election Ploy in the Philippines." This omission occurred between the first part of the article on page 18 and its continuation on page 19.
The section of the article in question should read:
A number of Reagan's aides have shuttled to Manila this year. Earlier they included Jeane Kirkpatrick and CIA boss William Casey. In October, Reagan sent his friend Sen. Paul Laxalt (R-Nev.) to deliver "the bluntest presidential message ever sent to a friend." In the meantime, October also saw a flurry of activity on Capitol Hill. A number of hearings were held in which U.S. State and Defense Department officials spelled out their fears about the crisis in the Philippines. A common theme was spelled out: U.S. security interests are paramount; civil war is threatening in the Philippines; the status quo under Marcos is not effective enough in crushing the revolution; thus Marcos must reform his regime. On November 1, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released an hysterical 41-page report, and its chairman, Dave Durenberger (R-Minn.), said that Marcos should step down.
Despite Durenberger's opinion, Washington does not yet believe that Marcos has to go....
Also note that the article says "Continued on next page. See MOSCOW" when it should have said "...See ELECTION PLOY."
In recent' months there has been a new round of terroristic attacks and racist hysteria directed against people of Arab nationality in this country. This comes in the wake of the hijacking of the Achille Lauro luxury liner, and the Reagan administration's growing cries for blood against the Arab peoples in the name of striking back at "international terrorism.''
Assassination of Alex Odeh in Los Angeles
On October 11, a bomb exploded at the offices of the the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee office in Santa Ana, California. Mr. Odeh, a professor, writer, and Regional Director of the ADC, was killed. Seven others were injured.
Then, on November 30, the ADC's national headquarters in Washington, D.C. was gutted by arson in a fire which took 80 firefighters to bring under control. Two days before that a bomb was found on the steps of an Arab mosque in Los Angeles.
The ADC is a model of a respectable, liberal organization. It was founded by the Democratic ex-U.S. senator from South Dakota James Abourezk in 1980, with the stated purpose of eliminating racist stereotyping of Arabs in books, newspapers, TV and movies.
No one has claimed responsibility for the assassination of Mr. Odeh. But Irv Rubin, chairman of the Jewish Defense League, a right-wing gang known for its racist violence against the Arab people, lauded the murderous attacks. Rubin crowed: "No Jews or Americans should shed one tear for the destruction of a PLO front in Santa Ana or anywhere else in the world.'' (New York Times, October 12, 1985) In the logic of the JDL, or similar Zionist thugs who may have bombed the ADC office, to be of Arab descent means you front for the PLO, which means that you are also a "terrorist,'' and therefore you deserve to be assassinated.
Anti-Arab Hysteria
It has also been reported that a right- wing foundation called Americans for a Sound Foreign Policy is circulating a newsletter full of wild lies about an alleged band of 1,500 Shiite Muslim terrorists in Detroit. It spins a fantastic tale about' this band stealing military guns and building bunkers, and it calls for disarming the alleged terrorists and throwing them out of the country. (Remember the "guns and bunkers'' hysteria used to justify the bombing of the MOVE house in Philadelphia?)
The TV networks are also taking their anti-Arab crusade to new heights of drama. A television movie called "Under Siege,'' to be shown on NBC in February, portrays Shiite terrorists holing up in a safe house in Dearborn, Michigan.
Reagan and the Capitalist Press Are Silent About Terrorism Against Arabs
At the time of the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, the bloodthirsty cries of the Reagan administration about "terrorism'' against Americans were plastered across every big capitalist newspaper in the country and jammed the TV and radio airwaves.
But what of the brutal terror that killed an American of Palestinian descent just days later? Where was the condemnation of the murder of Alex Odeh from the "anti-terrorist" crusaders in Washington? Where were the screaming headlines about the terrorist danger posed by the right-wing zionist bands? The bombing which killed Odeh was only a footnote in the press, squeezed for space by the rantings against "international terrorism."
By their silence, the Reagan government and the capitalist press give a nod of agreement with the terror campaign against the Arabs in this country.
The U.S. Imperialists Are the Biggest Terrorists of Them All
The "anti-terrorism" hysteria of Reagan and the servile media is simply public relations. And this hysteria grows louder and louder as the Reagan government escalates its own terrorist aggression against the peoples of other countries. Under the deafening racket against "terrorism," no one is supposed to hear the march of CIA-mercenaries and death squads in Central America and around the world. No one is supposed to give a second thought to the bombing of Tunis, or to the White House directives to topple Arab governments.
As well, the U.S. imperialists are whipping up anti-Arab hysteria, and winking at bombings against Arabs in Los Angeles and New York, as part of their efforts to bring their "anti-terrorist" crusade home. They want to line up support for their crimes around the world. And they want to justify building up the machinery of terror and repression against the American working people of all nationalities.
The reply of the workers and progressive masses must be to combat the anti- Arab attacks, and to build the mass struggle against the real terrorists, U.S. imperialism and its racist gangs.
[Photo: Protests denounced the arch-racist Meir Kahane in Los Angeles, October 29. Kahane heads the ultra-rightist Kach Party, which calls for the expulsion of Arabs from Israel, and he founded the racist Jewish Defense League in the U.S. The anti-Kahane demonstrators called for justice for the murdered Alex Odeh, victim of anti-Arab terror.]
Not satisfied with simply bombing abortion clinics after working hours, so- called "pro-life" fanatics recently turned to a new tactic. Last month there was a rash of attempts to outright murder patients and clinic workers by bombing health centers while they were open. Such is the hypocrisy of these self-proclaimed moralists.
On December 2, a letter bomb package arrived at the Feminist Women's Health Center in Portland, Oregon. An alert receptionist became suspicious of the package and called the police, who defused the bomb inside.
Postal inspectors subsequently found three more shoebox-sized bomb packages in the mail. One was addressed to a physician, Dr. Peter Bours, who performs abortions. A second was destined for the Lovejoy Surgical Center. The third was meant for a Portland area Planned Parenthood office which does not even perform abortions.
In New York City, a bomb exploded in the bathroom of the Manhattan Women's Medical Center at 3:35 Wednesday afternoon, December 10. A man called a few minutes before to warn of the bomb, then phoned again after the explosion to check if it had gone off.
Both the New York bomb and the ones in Portland, Oregon, were powerful enough to have killed or severely maimed persons who might have been near them when they exploded. Besides the intent to do bodily harm, these bombings are further efforts to terrorize and intimidate the clinics' staffs, as well as the women patients.
The attempted bombings during working hours are an escalation of a long series of attacks on these and other abortion clinics and on physicians. Dr. Bours, for example, has been the target of written death threats and two arson attempts. His clinic has been picketed by anti-abortionists for over two years. A crude firebombing of the Lovejoy Surgical Center was attempted ' in August. The Feminist Women's Health Center has been regularly picketed; its electrical system has been sabotaged; and its telephone lines cut. Stones have been thrown through its windows.
On October 27, a women's clinic in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was destroyed by fire; a second center was badly damaged by fire October 30. In Charlotte, North Carolina, a clinic suffered $75,000 in damage from a blaze on October 25. As well, the National Abortion Federation reports that violence against abortion clinics escalated in late 1985, with more death threats against doctors, considerable vandalism, and gunshots fired through windows. In 1984, 157 violent incidents had been recorded.
Meanwhile, the Reagan administration and the capitalist media, while ranting and raving about "terrorism" in the world, utter not a peep against bombing abortion clinics. No, Reagan supports the anti-abortion movement. He shares their reactionary goals of opposing democratic rights for women. And by Reagan's silence about the bombings, it can be assumed that he has no quarrel with their methods either.
Such is the logic of the right-wing movement that hypocritically calls itself "pro-life."
Seven hundred and fifty fishermen went on strike against the boat owners at the New Bedford port on December 27.
For over a decade the fishermen have earned 58% of the catch on large boats called draggers and 64% of the catch on boats that fish for scallops. Even though the New Bedford catch grew to $109 million last year, the 32 owners in the Seafood Producers Association are demanding a cut in the fishermen's catch-earnings down to only 50%.
The fishermen are determined to resist this cutback and have put up their own demands for a 9% increase in catch share and benefits. They are also demanding that the owners open up new jobs.
The organized fishermen account for about a third of the fishermen at the New Bedford port. They have set up picket lines and expect the full support of the other fishermen.
The opinion that enough is enough and that concessions must stop is held more and more widely among workers in the meatpacking industry. Several thousand meatpackers have struck in the last few months, refusing to take further concessions and some demanding pay increases.
It is reported that striking workers at Hormel's Austin, Minnesota plant are pressing for the top international leaders of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) to allow them to throw up pickets and shut down Hormel's five plants in Iowa and Nebraska. Meanwhile workers in these Iowa and Nebraska plants have reportedly demanded that the UFCW leadership allow them to strike at least one day a week in support of the Austin strikers. Hormel has been forcing workers in these plants onto six and seven-day work weeks in an effort to keep up its volume and defeat the strike. But so far the top union leaders, who have opposed the Austin strike right from the beginning, are withholding authorization of these actions which would surely strengthen the workers' strike.
The 1,500 strikers at Hormel's Austin plant who went out in August were joined in October by 1,000 workers in Vernon, California who make Farmer John meat products and by 150 poultry workers in Butterfield, Minnesota who also went on strike. In November, workers at McCoy Co., which is also in Vernon, California, as well as 40 workers in Louisville, Kentucky who work for the Dawson-Baker meat company, went on strike. In December, 185 workers at the HyGrade plant in Livonia, Michigan, and another 280 workers at a Chicago meatpacking plant also went on strike. Then there are the over 500 mostly women poultry workers in Dayton, Virginia, who've been striking for a year and a half against Marvel Co. and are fighting a union decertification vote which the company won through illegal payments and dirty tricks.
All these strikers belong to the UFCW whose top leadership has been in cahoots with the meatpacking companies' concessions drive. In this voracious drive, each capitalist is claiming that to stay in business he must get lower wages than the next. They've gone round and round like this repeatedly driving wages down.
And the response from the union leaders? The UFCW international leadership adheres to a policy of "retrenchment." That is, they advocate that those meatpackers who make $9 or $10 an hour' should let their wages drop to around $8 an hour in the name of seeking more wage uniformity in the industry!!
But the rank and file have seen that giving concessions only breeds more concessions. They are turning to struggle in spite of their union leadership. And their strikes are creating the possibility of a broader fight throughout the industry which alone can beat back the vicious concessions drive.
Cannery workers say they are striking against Reagan's pal. And indeed they are. The head of Watsonville Canning and Frozen Food was not only seen sitting with Reagan at a Republican fund raising dinner, but in the past he was also given a position on a business advisory committee for the U.S. Senate.
Following Reagan's lead, the Watsonville Cannery and the factory of Richard Shaw Inc. unilaterally cut wages by 40 cents an hour. And now they are demanding further cuts down to about $5 an hour, a two-tier wage system, and some 50 other concessions.
This onslaught against the workers has received the full backing of the government. Courts have not only banned mass picketing, limiting to four the number of pickets at the plant gates, but they've also designated safe areas where the companies are allowed to pick up scabs in buses and where strikers can only have three picketers. Meanwhile agents of the INS have systematically harassed the mostly Latino women who are striking and the police have so far arrested some 100 workers for their attempts to block scabs.
Despite these vicious attacks, the nearly 2,000 strikers have continued to organize mass actions at the plant gates and through the town. In the nearly three month strike, the workers have won very wide support from the other workers of Watsonville and from workers in San Francisco, Berkeley, San Jose, and elsewhere.
The strike has now entered a critical period. The packing season is over and for the moment the strike won't bring great pressure on the canneries. But if the workers can hold their strike together through the winter slack season then they may well be joined by strikers from a series of other canneries which have contracts coming up soon. The Watsonville strikers are not only fighting Reagan's pal, but they have taken on the Reaganite concessions offensive which is confronting workers throughout the country. They need the support of workers from every industry.
[Photo: A recent march by Watsonville cannery workers. Sign reads "Only united will we win."]
In Washington, D.C., the 450 workers in the cafeterias at the House of Representatives and at the Senate are demanding the right to organize. On December 10, they held a picket on the steps of the U.S. Capitol chanting "A Union! Now!" But their appeal has fallen on the deaf ears of the capitalist politicians who run this country.
The cafeteria workers make only $5.22 an hour, even after serving up food for four years at the Capitol. Over 75% of them in both the House and Senate have signed cards for union representation. And their demands have been sent to the Democratic Party Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, as well as to the Senate Majority Leader. But the workers' demand for a union has been rejected out of hand.
The Democratic Party claims to be the party of the workers and oppressed. But they, along with the Republicans, refuse to allow the workers slaving directly under their noses the right to organize. It is little wonder then that strike breaking and union busting is running rampant across the country.
The workers must carry forward their struggle to organize the unorganized in every industry. And they must also build up the independent political movement of the working class to fight against the Democrats, as well as the Republicans, who are both presiding over the capitalist offensive against the workers.
The Food Employers Council, representing eight supermarket chains in the Los Angeles area, played a dirty trick. They offered the striking Teamsters a slightly improved contract in order to split them from the striking meatcutters. And the Teamster bosses agreed to it.
Initial reports indicate that the new contract for the 12,000 truck drivers, warehousemen and office workers who are represented by the Teamsters is still filled with concessions. However, the companies' original demand for a permanent two-tier wage system was altered so that, although new-hires will begin with a lower wage scale, they will join the pay scale of current workers within three to five years. This is only the most minor improvement, but it was enough for the Teamster bosses to shove the contract down the throats of their members and split the strike.
Instead of staying on strike until all the workers have settled, the Teamster heads announced that they will send the workers back to the job at the warehouses and at stores where there is no picketing. At locations where the 10,000 striking meatcutters maintain picket lines, the drivers have been ordered to drive trucks to the gates but not across the picket lines to the loading docks. "The stores will have to figure out how to get the trucks to the loading docks," declared George Chamber, the coordinator of the Joint Council of Teamsters in L. A., as if this mild stand would create great difficulty for the store owners.
What this stand really does is to create difficulty for the striking meatcutters who will be increasingly confronted by company drivers, along with their police protectors and other scabs. The strike, which began November 5, has already been marked by sharp picket line clashes and many arrests. The meatcutters are now forced to better organize militant picket lines if they are to win the strike.
Despite the difficulties, the meatcutters continue to stand firm. They rejected the latest contract offered by the supermarket chains which, among other things, demands the creation of a new, lower-paid job classification starting at $5.53 an hour (less than half the pay of experienced meatcutters) and which cuts the minimum working day to four hours. The meatcutters say that this strike is a matter of life and death for them. In the last six years they have lost some 50,000 jobs to automation and speedup. The new concessions will cut jobs further, and the meatcutters have vowed to fight on against them.
[Photo: Picketing workers outside a grocery warehouse in Southern California. This scene is from before the Teamsters' union leadership broke the united struggle with meatpackers against the grocery chains.]
(The following article is excerpted from a leaflet issued by the Detroit Branch of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA in December 1985.)
On Thursday, December 5, an incident took place on the day shift cushion line at the Jefferson Assembly Plant in Detroit. Chrysler is always trying to speed up the workers and it put a new foreman in the cushion section to crack the whip. He actually threatened one worker, and it is reported that a physical fight almost broke out. Workers on the cushion line were incensed and demanded that this hotdog rookie foreman be thrown out of the plant. They were led to believe that the company agreed to their demand.
But the next day some cushion workers saw this foreman in another section of the plant. Word quickly spread up and down the cushion line that the foreman had not been fired.
To protest this outrage, the workers refused to work for 45 minutes. Three cheers for the cushion workers. Here we have another example of the workers banding together for self-defense. This fighting spirit by the cushion workers is just like that of the workers in Trim who walked out to defend Tom Curry in the fall of 1984.
The three-week strike at Chrysler's Plant #2 in St. Louis ended November 25 with a partial victory.
The 3,000 workers at this plant were fighting to restore job classifications and full seniority rights which had been previously lost to concessions. In 1983, just before the plant was reopened after an almost three-year shutdown, the UAW bureaucrats signed a sweetheart contract which, among other things, cut job classifications from about 90 to 17. But as a result of this year's strike, job classifications were expanded to about 27. The workers also regained the right to use their seniority to gain preferred job assignments as they become open. As well specific language was introduced into the local contract that prohibits the reassignment of workers for the purpose of harassment, and greater flexibility was won in scheduling vacations. These gains are the fruit of the militant strike waged by the workers.
St. Louis Plant #2, along with the Sterling Heights Assembly plant in Michigan, has been promoted as the "model" of job combination and overwork for the entire Chrysler system. And Chrysler was adamant about maintaining this hated slave-driving setup. It first attempted to blackmail the workers into giving up their strike with threats about closing the plant. Then on November 21 it broke off negotiations and announced that it would not pay the $2,100 bonus that was won in the national Chrysler strike until the St. Louis strikers returned to work.
But the workers fought back. On Friday, November 22, they demonstrated at the plant gates, marched inside and demanded their checks. When Chrysler refused to pay them, the workers set up picket lines at Chrysler's Plant #1. Over a third of the workers on second shift at Plant #1 refused to cross the picket lines and the plant was shut down. The Plant #2 workers announced that on Monday they would again set up picket lines at Plant #1. Scared by the spreading strike, Chrysler immediately caved in to a number of the workers' demands.
The workers now face the task of winning back the rest of the job classifications they lost. As well, they must be vigilant to insure that the gains won in this strike are actually implemented. Experience in other factories, such as at GM's Wentzville, Missouri assembly plant, has shown that the auto capitalists try to nullify gains by forcing workers in the restored classifications to continue to work at jobs outside of their classification.
Nevertheless, this strike shows that Chrysler's "model" system is not sacred or untouchable. When the workers stand together in solidarity and use the weapon of mass struggle they can beat back the concessions outrages of the capitalists.
(The following article is reprinted from a leaflet issued by the San Francisco Bay Area Branch of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA on December 12, 1985.)
Montgomery Ward is moving swiftly to implement the vicious cost-cutting plan it announced in August, a plan for eliminating the jobs of nearly 600 workers by shutting down the catalog operation.
Workers were told by Ward's management that they had "between 8 and 14 months" left to work. Now -- not even five months later -- the Ward capitalists are laying off workers daily. Ward has consistently lied to the workers and tried to keep them in the dark about their jobs and futures. Both the management flunkies and the Teamster misleaders have sung their standard melody: "We don't know," "Only Chicago knows!" With such a performance Ward aims to string the workers along in order to sweat every last cent of profit out of them, while the union bureaucrats of Teamsters Local 853 plan to ride things out hoping the workers won't put up a real fight.
At this crucial time when their jobs and futures are at stake the key question facing the workers is: WHAT IS TO BE DONE? Should the workers simply leave their futures in the hands of money-grubbing Ward and Mobil Capitalists? [Mobil Oil owns Montgomery Ward.] Or should the workers take their destinies into their own hands and act NOW in organizing" the fight against layoffs?
The answer is clear. To leave themselves in the capitalist's hands would mean workers herded into the streets penniless after Ward worked the last cent out of them. Why should the workers let the parasites who have made billions off their toil, degrade, humiliate and utterly impoverish them with layoffs? With the $93 million Ward made in the last two years, and the billions they've made in past years, Ward can afford to provide jobs and livelihood for the workers for many years to come. Montgomery Ward workers: Ward and Mobil owe you and now is the time to collect. ORGANIZE AND FIGHT THE LAYOFF!
[Photo: Pratt and Whitney workers shake hands with trucker who refused to drive through their picket line at Middletown, Connecticut.]
A two-week strike by 8,000 workers at three Pratt and Whitney Aircraft plants in Connecticut ended in mid- December. Incomplete reports indicate that the company, which earlier had declared its "last, best; and final offer," gave in to a few of the workers' demands. The workers won the right to preferential hiring for those who have been displaced by automation and the payment of 75% of the tuition and fees for job retraining programs. Still, the fight for job security must continue.
Pratt and Whitney produces jet fighter engines for the Air Force and Navy. Under a plan for "factories of the future", designed by the U.S. Air Force, Pratt and Whitney has eliminated more than 8,500 jobs in the last five years through automation and the contracting out of work. And it has announced that another 1,000 jobs will be eliminated in the coming year.
Despite the severe job loss, the union leadership has decided to not fight for the workers' jobs. Instead they narrowed down the demands to only that of preferential hiring and job retraining for those thrown out of work. Bill Rudis, spokesman for District 91 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), declared, "If the company needs to be competitive, we have no argument with that. But displaced workers should get first consideration for new jobs or retraining." And that's all?
United Technologies, which owns Pratt and Whitney, last year carved earnings of $645 million out of the hides of the workers. These rich parasites should be forced to insure jobs or a livelihood for all the workers they have used up and thrown jobless into the streets. But the IAM bigshots will never think of harming profits of the capitalists. Obviously, if the workers want real job security they will have to organize the fight independently of the IAM bureaucrats.
With a great deal of fanfare about "meeting the challenge of the future'' through "innovative strategies'' and "adaptation to change,'' the AFL-CIO held its convention in Anaheim, California on Oct. 28-31.
Unfortunately, this convention could not even meet the challenge of today much less that of the future. It did not discuss how to develop the class struggle against the concessions offensive of the monopoly capitalists. Nor did it work out a policy to develop the mass struggle of the unemployed. Nor did it sort out a fighting approach to organize the hard-pressed unorganized workers. Nor did it develop a strategy to fight back against the all-sided onslaught of Reaganite reaction against the workers, the oppressed nationalities, women, and youth.
No, instead of the class struggle, the convention decided for the time-worn strategy of cooperation with the capitalist class. If there was anything new here, it was only the decision to hire big-time Madison Avenue public relations firms to sell the workers on the AFL-CIO's policy of class betrayal.
Cooperation With the Capitalists -- Central Theme of the Convention
According to the Nov. 9 issue of the AFL-CIO News the convention "followed through on the recommendations of the landmark report of the Executive Council -- The Changing Situation of Workers and Their Unions.'' And what was the chief recommendation of this report? It declared that the AFL-CIO leaders "understand that confrontation and conflict are wasteful and that a cooperative approach to solving present and future problems is desirable.'' Don't fight the capitalists who are kicking you in the teeth, oh no, cooperate with them -- that's the AFL-CIO honchos' advice.
Indeed, the AFL-CIO convention did not even put the blame for wage.cuts, high unemployment, and other disasters that the workers face on the capitalists. No, instead they laid the blame at the door of foreign workers, of immigrant workers, and of a lack of cooperation between labor and. management. Thus the convention adopted a series of resolutions calling for coordinated action between workers and capitalists.
With the Capitalists Against Foreign Workers
For example, the AFL-CIO bureaucrats claimed that "two million jobs have been lost to foreign competition since Reagan came to office and vital sectors of the economy have been decimated.''
So the problem, according to the union bureaucrats, is not that the capitalists are throwing the workers out of their jobs, but that Reagan is too easy on the "foreign'' workers who are supposedly stealing U.S. workers' jobs. Instead of demanding that the capitalists provide jobs or a livelihood for the displaced workers, the convention passed "a resolution calling for immediate, coordinated action to 'reverse the disastrous decline' in America's trade balance.'' (AFL-CIO News, Nov. 9, 1985. All further quotes in this article are from this source.)
With the Capitalists Against the Immigrant Workers
Similarly, the convention blamed immigrant workers for the loss of jobs and joined the capitalists' campaign against the immigrants. "The AFL-CIO called on Congress to limit the lure of U.S. jobs for undocumented workers by prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens....''
For Job-Eliminating Modernization Against the U.S. Workers
At the same time, instead of defending the workers from the consequences of modernization, the AFL-CIO bigwigs promoted the "modernization'' of U.S. industry as the panacea to cure all of the workers' ills.
One of their main resolutions was a call to "Bring labor, industry, government and public interest groups together in a formal strategy council to map ways to revitalize the industrial sector...establish a national industrial development bank to finance loans and loan guarantees to support agreed-upon industrial investment and modernization programs...encourage productive investment at home rather than abroad....'' Of course the AFL-CIO hacks failed to notice that under today's conditions every effort at modernization of U.S. plants, while increasing the capitalists' profits, has meant an even greater loss of jobs plus mountains of wage and work-rule concessions for the workers.
But no matter, the convention was not really concerned with the fight against concessions or for job security. Rather, the AFL-CIO hacks have opted for a "struggle'' to get themselves on the boards of directors that implement the capitalists' new job-eliminating and slave-driving techniques. Their policy is for collaboration with the capitalists against the workers.
With the Capitalist Parties Against the Independent Action of the Workers
To make matters complete, the convention also decided to go forward with the AFL-CIO's support for the political parties of the capitalist class.
While maintaining a very thin disguise of "trade union neutrality'' whereby the AFL-CIO can back either Democrats or Republicans, the convention endorsed their 1984 decision to support Mondale in the primaries and to get more involved in the Democratic Party machinery.
Of course the AFL-CIO bureaucrats would never think of building up the independent political movement of the working class. For them the only choice is to back the open Reaganism of the Republicans or the slightly disguised Reaganism of the Democrats. As if in answer to the workers' calls for independent political action, the convention resolution stressed that the main thing for the AFL-CIO is to get more involved in the machinery of the capitalist parties, whether Democratic or Republican.
An Executive's Salary for Lane Kirkland
With its thoroughgoing appeals for collaboration with the capitalists it is little wonder then that one of the main decisions of the convention was to raise the salary of the top bureaucrats.
Lane Kirkland, the AFL-CIO president, is now to receive a yearly salary of $150,000 along with the other wealth he accumulates from the benefits of his position. This stupendous salary means that Kirkland may have a good understanding of such problems as deciding which stocks to invest in and where to yacht for summer vacation. But he doesn't have an inkling about the problems faced by the impoverished workers. Still, for the AFL-CIO bureaucrats the question was obvious. Kirkland is a "labor'' executive and he should receive a level of pay equivalent to that of other executives of the capitalist class.
The AFL-CIO Turns to Madison Avenue for Help
Of course there is nothing "new'' or "innovative'' in any of these policies adopted by the convention. So what was all the hype about revitalizing the union movement? Well, the AFL-CIO bureaucrats' conception of "adapting to the changed situation'' is to hire modern public relations firms to paint makeup on their class collaborationist policies and put them on television. One of the highlights of the convention was the viewing of a new TV ad campaign where "mama,'' played by the pro-Reagan actress Vickie Lawrence, tells the workers not to buy foreign imports.
This turn for help from modern PR firms is at the center of all the talk about the AFL-CIO achieving new "growth.'' Instead of building solid organization among the unorganized and waging mass struggle for their demands, the AFL-CIO is opting for "corporate campaigns'' whereby capitalist public relations companies, through the power of advertising, are supposed to bring hard-nosed capitalist union busters to their knees. Fat chance!
At the same time, the AFL-CIO has come up with the innovative tactic of not forming unions at all. The convention decided that one of the AFL-CIO's best chances for growth is to create a new category of membership, called an "associate member,'' for those that the AFL-CIO has failed to organize or defend. "Associate memberships,'' the resolution suggested, could include "persons who leave a job in which they were represented by a union, who are victims of plant closings, or who have supported the union in an unsuccessful organizing drive.'' The very basis of unions, the organization of the workers to use their collective power to defend their interests against the encroachments of the capitalists, would be replaced with "a package of membership benefits--including low-cost insurance and consumer services.'' Now low-cost insurance is nice, but it's hardly a replacement for the organization and action of the masses of workers.
Still, these are the innovations of the AFL-CIO convention: sellout packaged in a Madison Avenue bow, unions without members, and members without unions. The workers would be better off with unions without bureaucrats, but the AFL-CIO hierarchy is not about to decide that, for what would become of their fat salaries.
Obviously the union movement won't be revitalized by these hacks. The rank-and-file workers have to take matters into their own hands, then the initiative of the masses can be released to beat back the capitalists and the union bureaucrats who have become their little helpers.
On December 7 and 8, some 500 trade unionists met in Chicago and founded a new network of local union officials called the "National Rank and File Against Concessions." With many of the participants fresh from the picket lines of some of the most important recent strikes, the conference held out the promise of building up an organization of the masses of workers with the explicit aim of fighting concessions.
Unfortunately the organization that was formed meets neither the hopes or needs of the rank and file. The conference, at times, was filled with militant rhetoric. And the "rank and file" label was put in the new organization's name. But it turns out to be nothing more than a network of local union presidents and other middle level bureaucrats who have, at best, a vacillating, reformist stand. And they may even descend to "opposing" one form of concessions with another form of concessions.
Soft Gloves for the Top Union Bureaucrats
The main work of the December conference was the adoption of bylaws for the new organization. Unfortunately these reveal a particularly soft attitude to the top union bureaucrats.
The bylaws begin with a statement of purpose which, while declaring against concessions, explicitly rules out a fight against the union misleaders. They state that the National Rank and File Against Concessions "has as its sole purpose aiding the struggle of local and international unions to stop the process of concessions bargaining rampant today in the American labor movement. It is not our intention to organize a new union movement, nor to single out particular leaders or international unions."
This statement borders on the ridiculous. How can concessions be fought without singling out and fighting against the union bureaucracy? They can't! The top leaders of the trade unions have acted as the chief salesmen of concessions for the capitalist bosses and have time and again wrecked the attempts of the workers to fight back. Why even the organizers of this conference could not help but detail the outrageous sellouts by the union bigwigs of the Bath Iron strike, the Wheeling-Pittsburgh strike, the General Dynamics strike, the Greyhound strike, the meatpacking strikes, and others.
But despite the fact that the anger of the masses of the workers against the top union bureaucrats got reflected in the rhetorical flourishes of the leadership of this conference, they established a hands-off approach to the union sellouts as a principle of their new organization. With such a stand, the organization can hardly have a consistent, fighting stance against concessions.
They Oppose the Organization of the Workers Independent of the Union Bureaucracy
The bylaws which were adopted also formalized the structure of the new organization to ensure that it remains completely within the framework of the existent union bureaucracy.
The bylaws allow only official local unions to affiliate to the organization and to have representation on its Executive Council. In a floor fight over this rule, the organization's leadership explicitly excluded affiliation by organizing committees for the unorganized, organizations of the unemployed, and rank-and-file organizations within local unions.
This means that the organization is really no more than a network of local union presidents. Of course local bureaucrats coming out against concessions may broaden the anti-concessions sentiment and even draw some of the more backward workers into struggle. But with these rules the leaders set themselves against the motion of the workers towards organization that is independent of the union bureaucracy. And such organization is essential to build up a truly consistent fight against concessions.
A Limited Opposition to Concessions
Besides establishing the bylaws, the conference did little else than talk. In fact, it really took no decisions for building up the fight against concessions.
The only definite decision taken was to organize financial support for the Hormel strikers in Austin, Minnesota.through Local P-9's "adopt a P-9 family" plan. The Hormel workers do need and deserve support and any financial assistance sent their way is important. But it must be kept in mind that the local Hormel leaders, who have been prominent in initiating and leading this new organization, have at best only a limited opposition to concessions.
The leaders of local P-9 have opposed the company's demand for a direct hourly wage cut. But they have offered in its place a profit-sharing plan which would reimburse the company if its profits fell from the current high level. Profit-sharing is another form of the current concessions drive and a particularly harmful form at that. Besides being used as a substitute for increases in base wages, it ties the workers to the profit drive of capitalists. Profit-sharing is designed to build "labor-management cooperation" and to undermine the class struggle. To promote profit- sharing as the way to fight wage-cutting is hardly a militant stand against concessions.
Unfortunately this type of stand is all too typical of many of the local officials who have trooped into the National Rank and File Against Concessions. Although they talk up a militant storm, their "opposition" to concessions can descend to the level of capitalist trickery -- giving with one hand while taking back with the other.
Organize the Masses for the Fight Against Concessions
The recent strikes in a series of industries show that the masses of workers are turning to the path of struggle against concessions. And the pent-up anger against the sellout union bosses has sent the rank and file looking for alternatives. The question coming up is to organize the ferment among the masses into strong fighting organizations that stand independent of the union bureaucracy.
But the National Rank and File Against Concessions is taking steps away from this goal. Based on the local union presidents and restricting the anti-concessions fight to the most narrow reformism at best, it is designed to capture the awakening militance among the workers and to draw them back into trailing after the union bureaucracy.
To the extent this organization actually gives assistance to strikes and other struggles against concessions it should be worked with. But this work must always and everywhere be subordinated to the work of building up real fighting organization which can carry out consistent agitation against the capitalists and the union bureaucracy which is assisting them, a strong organization that can mobilize the masses of workers into the mass struggle against the capitalists' concessions drive.
(The following article is reprinted from The West Indian Voice, December 1985.)
More than two years after a crazed racist mob kicked and clubbed Michael Stewart to death, the courts have finally returned a verdict. Innocent. Innocent on all counts. For Michael Stewart's killers were cops, and because they are cops they will never have to answer for their crimes before capitalist law.
There is no justice to be found for ordinary people in the courtrooms of the rich. Killer cops are rarely tried, rarely convicted, never imprisoned. There is always an out. There is always an out because the courts, just like the police, are instruments for enforcing the rule of the rich over the rest of us, and if that means killing a kid, then so much for justice. The rich, like van Bulow and DeLorean, will always be home free under capitalist law. The cops who killed Michael Stewart and Eleanor Bumpurs will always be home free under capitalist law. And meanwhile, the likes of Willie Smith -- held in jail for six months because he was poor and black and answered to the name Smith -- the likes of Willie Smith will rot in jail for the crime of being black and poor.
There is no justice to be found in the courtrooms of the rich. For those who want justice, there is only one way to fight for it, and that is through mass struggles against discrimination, against police murders, against racism in every form it raises its ugly head and against the capitalist system which breeds it.
Murder and Coverup
Michael Stewart, a 25-year-old black artist, was arrested by transit police for drawing graffiti in a subway station, an offense which ordinarily rates a summons and a fine. In this case the arresting officers decided to dispense a little of their own brand of justice with their nightsticks. Stewart, however, began to scream for help. His assailants called for backup and a uniformed mob assembled. Stewart was kicked and clubbed, but still could not be silenced. He was lifted up and slammed down on the pavement. This beating, which began on the street above the subway stop, was continued outside the police station house, and in the back of a police van. Michael Stewart was carried out of the van in a coma from which he never awoke. He died two weeks later.
An intense coverup followed.
The first line of defense was the police themselves. Sergeants filed false reports. Transit Authority police spokesmen issued public denials. Witnesses were intimidated. And the whole mob took turns perjuring themselves before a grand jury.
Next came the coroner. Chief Medical Examiner Gross conducted the Stewart autopsy himself. According to Gross, Stewart -- a healthy young man in the prime of life -- had died of "cardiac arrest.'' Just how much Gross believed his own words he showed with the incredible act of plucking out Stewart's eyeballs and bleaching them, thus destroying the most important evidence of head injury due to the beating.
Public exposure of Gross' shenanigans put the case into the reluctant hands of the Manhattan District Attorney, and it was belatedly brought before a grand jury. Once in the closed chambers of the grand jury, the DA's Office did everything possible to dump the case. This less-than-heroic effort failed because of the blatant nature of the murder and because of the efforts of one outraged grand juror. Seeing that the DA's Office was attempting to dump the case, he himself visited the scene of the crime, double-checked evidence, and argued successfully for a murder indictment. Far from being congratulated for his efforts, the grand juror was reprimanded by the courts and even threatened with imprisonment, should he ever reveal publicly the treachery of the DA's Office. The indictment >,was promptly dismissed as "tainted." According to the logic of the courts, if the DA chooses to dump a case, a grand juror has no right but to acquiesce.
The Victim on Trial
After another delay, another indictment was returned. This time Stewart's killers were charged with perjury and with failing to protect a prisoner in their custody from their own murderous attack. This is the bizarre logic of capitalist law.
More than two years after Stewart's death the case finally went to court. Scores of witnesses took the stand: workers, students, nurses, even an auxiliary policeman. They told an anguished tale of fists and boots and nightsticks thudding in the night, of Stewart's piteous pleas for help, of his bruised and battered form lying lifeless in the hospital.
But did you see exactly which policeman struck which alleged blow? Can you identify him by name? Whose fist, whose boot, whose nightstick? Are you sure you weren't high on drugs that night, all 23 of you eyewitnesses?
The defendants sat at their table and laughed. And well they might have. They were not on trial. Michael Stewart and the eyewitnesses were on trial.
From the beginning the prosecution announced that Michael Stewart was a crazed drunk in need of forcible restraint, and the issue was whether the cops had botched the job. The defense hastened to agree, adding only that the police had done the best job possible under the circumstances, and could not be held responsible if Stewart chose to die while under arrest.
The judge in turn instructed the jury that they should in effect disregard most of the evidence (for example, proof of the savage beating) and gave them a lengthy list of conditions that must be fulfilled before a single cop could be convicted. So impressive were the judge's instructions that the jury acquitted the police even on the perjury charges.
Struggle -- The Only Way
This verdict is a blatant example of the hypocrisy of capitalist justice. It proved so embarrassing that, to forestall any further mass outcry, Mayor Koch quickly ordered the TA police to conduct their own disciplinary investigations. In other words, now that the courts have freed Michael Stewart's killers, we get to wait and see whether their bosses give them a departmental slap on the wrist.
Meanwhile, the court's verdict is plain to see: murder is no crime when the killers are cops. This is the last word in capitalist justice.
There is an alternative, but it is not to be found in a courtroom. Only struggle offers the hope of justice.
[Photo: News of the acquittal of the racist cops who murdered Michael Stewart is met by angry denunciation.]
The struggle against the segregation of Dearborn, Michigan parks is far from over.
On November 27, an agreement was reached between^ the Dearborn City Council and the coalition of black ministers, Democratic Party politicians, and union bureaucrats which had declared itself the official leadership of the anti-racist struggle. The City Council agreed to not enforce the racist "residents only" law for the Dearborn Parks until a pending lawsuit settled whether or not the law is legal. And the "official" black leaders agreed to call off their yet to be started boycott of Dearborn businesses.
But the Republican Club of Dearborn began to whoop and holler,demanding the enforcement of the segregationist law. The City Council quickly announced that it was putting up $25,000 to defend the law in the courts. And then, as soon as the major Christmas shopping was over, Dearborn's mayor renounced the November 27 compromise and declared that the racist law would be implemented as soon as regulations for its enforcement could be drawn up.
The "official" black leaders moaned in shock that they had been "duped." And after several days of wrangling, they have reluctantly called another boycott of the Dearborn stores.
Selling Out the Anti-Racist Struggle for the Interests of the Black Bourgeoisie
Of course the dirty trick of the Dearborn officials was completely transparent from the beginning. They never renounced their racist intentions. They only agreed to an essentially meaningless compromise in order to sneak through the Christmas shopping season, the time when a boycott of businesses would have been most effective, without damage.
But the question is why did the black leaders fall for such an obvious trick?
In recent weeks the truth has slipped out that these "official" leaders were never really interested in the fight against segregation in Dearborn. Rather, they wanted to use the movement that arose against the segregation of the parks to develop pressure for the building of a Detroit mall and other businesses that would profit the black bourgeoisie.
Rev. Charles Adams, the president of the local NAACP chapter and the head of the coalition of ministers, Democratic Party bigwigs, and union bureaucrats, let the cat out of the bag. The December 7 issue of the Michigan Chronicle quotes Adams saying, "We want to demonstrate that the calling off of the boycott was the best thing that could have happened. If we had gone through with the boycott, we probably would have gotten the overturning of the park ban and nothing else. But now, keeping our hand on the (boycott) axe, we can look at issues such as development of black businesses, management positions and the like" (emphasis added). In other words, to hell with the fight against segregation, there's money to be made by the black bourgeoisie.
At a meeting held on December 9 at the Hartford Memorial Church, Adams and other black misleaders explained their "alternative" to the boycott. They are asking Henry Ford II to invest in a black mall for Detroit.
Ford's role is significant. His family originally set up Dearborn as a racist enclave and they remain a power in the city today. Indeed, the Ford Land Development Company is involved in Dearborn's Fairlane Mall which would have been the biggest loser if the original store boycott had not been called off. Thus the fight against racism in Dearborn means taking on Henry Ford II, and the black misleaders won't think of it.
It is reported that Ford personally took part in the negotiations between the Dearborn City Council and the black coalition leaders. And the outcome of those negotiations was 1) the calling off of the store boycott right at the time it would have been most effective; and 2) a lot of talk that Ford might be convinced to invest in the building of a shopping mall in Detroit. Now a mall in Detroit might be nice, but the price for even talking about this mall is to put aside the fight against racism.
Even now, when another boycott of Dearborn stores has been called, the black misleaders are preaching over and over again that the real fruit of the struggle will be to entice new investments to Detroit and to "re-educate" the black masses to shop at black businesses.
Instead of a fight against the white capitalist billionaires like Ford, who have grown rich off creating and perpetuating the racist oppression of the black working masses, the black misleaders want to reach an accommodation with them. They promise, in essence, that they won't harm the profits of the white capitalist exploiters, that they won't fight against segregation and racial discrimination, if the white exploiters will just give the black businessmen a piece of the action.
Obviously, to build the movement against the dirty racist crusade that Reagan and his rich white cronies have unleashed today, it is essential to expose the representatives of the black capitalists who are sabotaging the movement and trying to use it for their own greedy purposes.
Emboldened by the Dearborn officials' endorsements of racism, on December 2 white thugs beat up a black Detroiter as he walked through the outskirts of Dearborn near his home. The white thugs made it clear that the victim's "crime" was being black and being in Dearborn.
Such outrages have continued to fuel the anti-racist spirit of the working masses. Despite the attempt by the coalition of black ministers, Democratic Party officials, and union bureaucrats to put a stop to the anti-racist struggle, protests have continued.
At the November 27 rally where the black misleaders declared that they were calling off the boycott of Dearborn businesses, they were immediately denounced as sellouts by anti-racist activists. The business boycott was actually begun by Ford Rouge workers vowing to not eat lunch in surrounding restaurants and by other working people refusing to travel to the Dearborn stores.
Even though the boycott was officially called off, Dearborn's Fairlane Mall complained of lost revenues during the Christmas shopping season as compared to last year's figures. Meanwhile students from Mercy High School protested against the racist parks' ordinance by moving the site of their Christmas Ball out of Dearborn. And through the factories, neighborhoods, and schools, working people have continued to express their willingness to demonstrate, picket, and even get arrested if necessary.
Unfortunately, the movement has been seriously disorganized and held back by the black misleaders. For it to advance it is essential to organize independently of the black bigshots in united militant struggle to smash up the racist laws and beat back all of the attacks on the blacks and other minorities.
The Reagan government is trying to slam the door on the refugees fleeing the U.S.-backed repressive regimes in Central America. A major trial against the sanctuary movement is underway in Tucson, Arizona. The sanctuary activists are being charged with 47 criminal counts including smuggling, transporting, harboring and concealing "illegal aliens," and one count against each for conspiracy to smuggle "illegal aliens."
The sanctuary movement involves a network of religious and other activists. It includes some 200 churches and other centers which attempt to aid Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees.
"Operation Sojourner" -- Methods of a Police State
The government's investigation, dubbed "operation Sojourner," included rounding up 60 Central American refugees, some right out of churches and other "safe" houses, and charging them with co-conspiracy with the sanctuary activists. The refugees are being pressured to testify against the activists, threatened with deportation to the bloodthirsty regimes from which they fled.
Two agents of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) and two "coyotes" (parasites who live off the smuggling of undocumented immigrants) infiltrated the movement. They taped phone calls, and church and other meetings. Close to forty churches, sanctuary offices and law offices were broken into, and countless files were stolen by government agents.
These measures show that, despite the religious and humanitarian stand of most of the sanctuary activists, they have been shown no mercy by the government. The Reaganites pursued the investigation like a pack of wolves after their prey.
A Farce of a Trial
The government's witnesses in the trial are high-paid criminal elements. One of the key witnesses was a "coyote" and a pimp, who made the prosecution look so bad that he had to be dropped from the case. The other star witness, also a "coyote," Jesus Cruz, was paid $18,000 for spying on the sanctuary activists and refugees. It came out in the trial that, while working on the investigation, Mr. Cruz continued to work as a "coyote." And, with the approval of his government bosses, he pocketed the money he bled from the desperate refugees.
The presiding judge, U.S. District Court Judge Earl Carroll, is a wealthy bourgeois with vested interests in the oppression of immigrants and the repression in Central America. First of all, the judge has close ties with the Phelps-Dodge corporation, which gained notoriety last year for its brutal strikebreaking against the Arizona copper workers. It so happens that Phelps-Dodge also sucks the blood of the workers in El Salvador, where it also has operations. Carroll owns 100 shares of Phelps-Dodge stock, and for 25 years he worked in the law firm that represented the company.
As well, Judge Carroll owns $10,000 worth of stock in the Valley National Bank, which owns the notorious White-wing Ranch. At this time, undocumented immigrant farmworkers are striking this Arizona ranch to organize and improve their conditions.
But none of this bothers the judge, who has refused to recognize any conflict of interest and to disqualify himself from the case. After all, where is a wealthy Arizona judge to invest his money if not in the exploitation of immigrant field hands and the plunder of the Central American workers?
This Is No Ordinary "Alien Smuggling Ring"
Despite its political nature, the case is being treated as that of a simple "alien smuggling ring." Clearly, these are no ordinary "alien smugglers" or "coyotes" who feed off immigrants like vultures. Indeed, the government usually has little interest in taking such creatures to trial.
Everyone knows that the only reason why the Reagan government is prosecuting the sanctuary activists so forcefully is because they don't go along with U.S. policy in Central America, part of which is the persecution of refugees fleeing the U.S.-sponsored regimes. Yet, by making it out as a simple criminal case, the judge has prohibited any political defense for the activists.
Judge Carroll ruled in pre-trial motions that no testimony which points to unrest or danger to civilians in any other country is allowed. In other words, even though it is the repression of the U.S.-backed armed forces and death squads, with the accompanying economic destitution, which is driving poor and working people to seek refuge in this country, this can't be raised in the trial.
The judge also has forbidden any discussion of the immigration policies of the U.S. government. This is a flagrantly political policy, under which refugees who are politically useful, and who come from "evil" countries like the Soviet Union, are welcomed with open arms, no questions asked. At the same time, the door is slammed on immigrants from Central America and other countries where U.S. imperialism wields the stick. This is despite the wars these governments are waging against their populations.
The government's persecution of refugees and the sanctuary movement is part of its policy against the Central American revolutions. "Stabilizing" the reactionary regimes in Central America, and keeping the region safe for U.S. investments, requires a tight grip on the local populations. And through the INS, the Reagan government is doing its best to assist the death-squad tyrants to keep track of their citizens.
Moreover, these refugees are considered by the government to be "undesirable." They bring with them bitter experiences of living under the jackboot of pro-U.S. imperialist regimes. And they are "suspect" because they are prone to join the revolutionary movement of the American working people here in the imperialist heartland.
Defend the Central American Refugees!
Despite the ferocity of the government repression, sanctuary activities continue to spread. Recently, students from nine campuses in southern California established a "safe house" for Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees. In the face of threats by the INS of up to five years in jail and $2,000 fines for each refugee taken in, the students have vowed to persist in their efforts.
All working and progressive people should lend their voice to the condemnation of the attacks on the sanctuary activists, and organize mass struggle to defend the Central American refugees.
(The following article is reprinted from The West Indian Voice, December 1985.)
Once again the Senate and the House have passed their respective versions of the anti-immigrant Simpson-Mazzoli Bill.
The subject of this bill is how the capitalists can best oppress and exploit immigrants. Different sections of capitalists are quarreling over this, each according to their own interests. Some want to see a crackdown against immigrants; others would welcome a crackdown but also want a guaranteed uninterrupted supply of cheap labor. The only thing they can agree upon is their hatred for immigrants. This has made for some embarrassing congressional debate. It is also the reason why the bill has twice failed to become law.
This year, things were supposed to go differently. In the House, a new version of the bill was sponsored by Roybal, the head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, who just last year was being promoted as the spokesman for opposition to the bill. This should have given the bill a better "reform" face than ever.
In fact, this year the debate was more openly anti-immigrant than ever. It centered on coldblooded calls for putting immigrants in their place, showing that the "amnesty" provision is the merest window dressing. This year's performance was so embarrassing that Kennedy, long a backer of Simpson-Mazzoli, ended up trying to distance himself from this year's version.
Nothing better exemplified the spirit of this year's debate than a last-minute amendment put through by the Senate providing for a greatly expanded "guest worker program" in agriculture. This amendment, put through at the behest of agribusiness and rich capitalist farmers, provides for importing hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers for field labor. These workers would have no rights at all and would work under conditions of semi-slavery. In the debate, Senators were falling over each other proposing new restrictions for their "guests": special ID cards in the style of South Africa; restricting their right to move around within the U.S. even while they're legally here; withholding part of their wages until they leave the U.S., etc.
Meanwhile, the Labor Department has been laying its own plans for agriculture. In September the Secretary of Labor refused once again to set federal standards requiring drinking water, hand-washing water and portable toilets in the fields. Agribusiness interests have fought tooth and nail against even the most elementary such provisions for field labor. This is a good hint of the hospitality they have in store for their "guests": backbreaking work under the most wretched conditions.
The attempts of the capitalists to reduce immigrant workers to a special sub-caste which can be exploited without limit is a threat to the entire working class. We must fight against the anti-immigrant legislation and for the rights of immigrants.
(The following article is reprinted from The West Indian Voice, December 1985.)
The Reagan administration is continuing its campaign to restore segregation. While Attorney General Meese gives speech after speech accusing the courts of inventing their own laws, in the meantime his Justice Department is going to court in case after case in order to use the courts to whittle down existing anti-discrimination measures to nothing. This year, the Supreme Court has reserved a large part of its docket for hearing affirmative action cases. Two such cases, brought by the Justice Department, give clear examples of what the government is up to.
In one case the city of Cleveland, having for years discriminated against black and Hispanic firefighters due for promotion, agreed to institute an accelerated promotion schedule for minority firefighters who had fulfilled all the necessary conditions and passed all the tests. But the Reagan administration opposes this. According to the Justice Department, just because blacks and Hispanics were unjustly discriminated against for years does not mean they should now receive promotions that were due to them years ago. According to the Reaganites, this is "reverse discrimination."
A second case involves a New Jersey local of the Sheet Metal Workers found guilty in 1971 of barring qualified blacks from getting union cards, and therefore jobs. In 1976 the local was found guilty of having refused to carry out a plan for admitting black and Hispanic members. And in the decade since, discrimination has continued, while the courts have heard appeals and counter-appeals. Now, after almost 15 years, the case has reached the Supreme Court. The Justice Department has filed suit in this case -- on the side of the racists.
Here is the logic of the Reaganites: the anti-discrimination measures ordered in 1971 were illegal, they say, because the original suite was a class action suit, a suit filed on behalf of all those who had been discriminated against, and because the case was won by using the actual figures for applications and membership to show that minority applicants were systematically denied cards. This is no good because some individual who had not previously been personally discriminated against might now apply for and get a union card because of the court-ordered anti- discrimination measures. Perish the thought!
Instead, the Reaganites would have it, each individual worker must hire his own lawyer, bring his own suit, and prove that he personally was denied union membership solely on racist grounds. This, of course, is impossible. In the case of any individual, there are always a million excuses that can be used. In almost any anti-discrimination case, the only way to prove discrimination is with the facts and figures proving discrimination against minority workers as a whole. And the only way that workers can afford to bring such a suit is as a class action case on behalf of everyone. If the Reaganites have their way, there will never again be a successful suit against discrimination in the work place. And that, of course, is exactly what they are after -- that, and getting anti-discrimination measures from the past reversed.
The New Jersey case shows the two with the help of pressure from the faces of the courts. Fifteen years of cases, and the discrimination continues. But now that the mass movement has ebbed and the political climate changed, the Reaganites can go back to court, seeking to wipe out in a few years what it took decades of struggle to win.
The great victories against Jim Crow were won through mass struggles, not through the courts. Today, another round of mass battles is needed to fight this fight anew, before the Reaganites succeed in turning the clock back all the way.
[Graphic.]
The liberation struggle in South Africa continues to scorch the feet of the white racist rulers. The December actions of the oppressed testify to the ever more militant mood gripping the masses.
Armed Actions Against Government Troops
Two months ago there were several instances of the black people firing on the government forces who maraud through the segregated black and mixed-race townships. This healthy trend continued this past month. In early December there were two grenade attacks on troops patrolling in Soweto. One black policeman was seriously injured in these actions. Around the same time there were reports of an armed confrontation at the Crossroads squatter camp.
Presently, the armed confrontations are infrequent. But they reflect a widespread desire of the masses to take up arms against the oppressors. It is well known, for instance, that at the mass funerals, thousands of protesters have been raising demands that they be given guns to battle the racists.
Mass Rallies Continue
Mass protests at funerals for victims of the bloodthirsty regime continue to be a major form of mass mobilization. On December 2, there was a giant rally of 30,000 at Mamelodi township near Pretoria. A few days later there was a second funeral protest at Mamelodi. When police tried to end the action, the masses replied militantly, fire-bombing the homes of a black policeman and a police informant. As well, a police vehicle was destroyed by a gas bomb.
Meanwhile in Leandra, 50 miles southeast of Johannesburg, a fierce clash with the racist forces took place. The battle broke out when the fascists tear-gassed a peaceful demonstration of women and clergy which condemned recent police arrests of children in the township.
Another funeral protest occurred on December 7 in the township of Mlungisi in the eastern Cape. Some 20,000 people attended this rally for victims of a police massacre last month in Queenstown. And an intense battle was reported at Rustenburg, near the infamous Sun City resort in the Buphuthatswana bantustan.
The militant gold miners also returned to the fray. On December 9 workers at the Crooke gold mine in the West Rand town of Westonari fought a pitched battle with police. The racist forces killed one miner and wounded eight.
"Black Christmas"
December also saw the development of the "Black Christmas" protest. This protest involved a boycott of white businesses. Due to overwhelming participation in the boycott, it is reported that some establishments lost 90% of their normal income. During "Black Christmas" there was also a conscious movement to forgo the usual celebrations and religious services of the season in order to focus attention on the liberation struggle. The youth were particularly active in organizing this movement.
The black student youth too remained active. High school students boycotted end-of-the-year exams, raising the slogan "Liberation first, education later."
Signs of Discontent Among the Whites
As the struggle in South Africa has sharpened, a section of the white population has begun to voice discontent and is questioning the racist practices of apartheid. White students have clashed with police in recent months. And a campaign against conscription into the racist army has been picking up momentum. A nationwide "troops out of the townships" protest culminated in a rally of 4,000 at the Cape Town city hall this December.
New Repression of the Government
Faced with a deteriorating situation, the Botha government is resorting to one desperate measure after another to put down the freedom struggle. In December the regime announced it would formally extend police-style powers to the army. Now the army can, on its own initiative, legally arrest suspects, man roadblocks, search buildings and disperse meetings.
As well, the racist army has continued its aggression against neighboring states. For example, on December 20, the racists launched a savage, predawn raid into Lesotho, a nominally independent kingdom closely tied to South Africa. The government troops assaulted two homes in the city of Maseru, murdering nine people including several South African political refugees. Only three years ago, the racists invaded this same city, massacring 42 people.
The Fighting Masses Will Win!
Beneath the Botha regime's thin veneer of reform lies a bloodthirsty beast. But with its cruel measures, the regime is just spitting into the wind. For two years the oppressed have risen up as never before in South Africa, fearlessly defying all fascist edicts. There is no doubt a difficult struggle lies ahead. But there is also no doubt that the time is approaching when the revolution of the masses will bring down the apartheid rulers and their hated system.
[Photo: On December 7th, 20,000 people pledge to carry forward the liberation struggle against apartheid. They had gathered for the funeral of 11 blacks shot by the racist police in Queenstown in November.]
On Friday, November 20, a new trade union federation was formed, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). COSATU is the largest labor federation in South African history. It consists of 36 unions containing 500,000 workers, the vast majority of whom are black.
Despite its size, COSATU does not represent the unity of all black trade unionists. Rather, the significance of the founding of COSATU lies in the political declarations which accompanied its birth. For some time, a narrow economic approach has been one of the major shortcomings of the black South African unions. It now appears that the rank-and-file workers are demanding their unions take up political demands and direct struggle against apartheid.
On December 1, COSATU issued its first policy statement. The political nature of COSATU's demands reflected the growing militancy of the black workers. COSATU's statement focused on various political demands. The COSATU leadership demanded an end to the pass law system and the removal of troops from the segregated black and colored (South African apartheid term for people of mixed-race) townships. It called for the resignation of the racist Botha regime in favor of a government including such figures as imprisoned ANC leader Nelson Mandela. And, among other things, it declared itself in favor of divestment.
Elsewhere the COSATU leaders have threatened various actions to back up their demands, such as sickouts, boycotts and mass pass-law defiance. But many COSATU leaders have been known, on a number of occasions, for being big on talk but short on action. For example, the COSATU leadership promises mass defiance of the pass-law campaign, but first there is to be a six- month waiting period for COSATU to see if Botha will abolish the pass laws himself.
A Struggle of Trends Among the Trade Unions
Meanwhile a struggle of trends is going on among the South African unions. The COSATU leadership is close to the United Democratic Front and, apparently, sympathetic to the ANC. But at COSATU's founding meeting itself, delegates raised questions concerning the United Democratic Front's inclusion of the white liberals. And besides COSATU, there are other unions, adhering to black consciousness trends or other trends, which contain 200,000 black workers. For that matter, the largest union in COSATU, the National Union of Mineworkers, representing 150,000 black miners, was previously associated with one of the black consciousness trends while having top officials who favored the UDF trend.
It can be noted that the UDF has been fonder of loud words about struggle than struggle itself. We have dealt previously with the essentially reformist strategy of the ANC leadership (see The Workers' Advocate, Vol. 15, No. 9, September 1, 1985). It is by no means clear how much of the program of struggle proclaimed by the COSATU leadership, which is associated with the UDF, will actually be carried through.
But there is no doubt that the politicization of the union movement is the result of a profound evolution among the rank-and-file black worker. The black miners and other workers have waged determined strikes for higher wages and other economic demands. But the organized workers are also realizing the need to participate in the political struggle, in the liberation against the entire apartheid system. Indeed, under apartheid's racist labor codes, it is impossible to fight for even simple economic demands without calling into question the racist political structure.
The increasing political demands of the black workers in the unions shows that revolutionary convictions are certain to deepen and spread. The increasing militancy and urge for organization of the workers is an important step forward for the struggle to overthrow the apartheid system.
The struggle between the black and other oppressed masses in South Africa and the racist Botha regime is heating up. In this situation various forces in South Africa are claiming to be an alternative to both the revolutionary movement and the racist regime. We have commented previously mainly on the stands of one such force, the black liberals such as Bishop Tutu. Here we will take a brief look at the white liberal trend in South Africa.
The white liberals, such as the Progressive Federal Party and the Black Sash organization, posture against apartheid. But they regard a revolutionary outcome to the struggle as the worst catastrophe, and they direct their attention to finding an alternative to revolution. This leads them again and again to reliance on trying to persuade the Botha regime and the Afrikaner die-hards to moderate their stands.
White liberalism's main source of strength is its support by a section of the ruling white bourgeoisie which believes that it is necessary to replace medieval methods of exploitation with modern methods of racism and exploitation. They want to remove the mandatory, legal racial bars and rely instead on an alliance with a thin upper stratum of blacks against the overwhelming majority of blacks who would be kept in a position of utter exploitation. They hope that this would defuse the revolutionary movement and actually strengthen the foundations of capitalist exploitation. It is notable that some of the worst exploiters, such as the owners of the big mines who are involved in smashing the mine workers agitation, are liberals and even take trips abroad to negotiate with the leaders of the African National Congress.
It can be noted that the liberal section of the white bourgeoisie is based on the non-Afrikaner, English-speaking section of the bourgeoisie. Although there are some notable exceptions (the head of the Progressive Federal Party is an Afrikaner), the bulk of the Afrikaner bourgeoisie supports the diehards of apartheid. It should also be noted that, in reviewing the stands of liberalism, we are not dealing with the wishes and desires of rank-and-file liberals, among whom there may well be a variety of views, but with the strategy of the real leaders of liberalism, the liberal bourgeoisie, and with the actual role that the liberal trend plays in practice in South Africa.
The President of Black Sash Praises Reagan's Phoney Sanctions and Puts Her Hopes in Botha
Some of these features of white liberalism can be seen in recent statements and interviews by the liberal leaders. For example, recently Sheena Duncan, president of Black Sash, spoke at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She denounced the apartheid system, but also expressed her fear of and opposition to the revolutionary violence of the masses. Instead she stood for persuading Botha to change with the help of pressure from the Western capitalist governments. This led her to praise Reagan's phoney sanctions. And she stated that Botha was susceptible to change precisely because he was dedicated to preserving capitalism and white domination and would make concessions to preserve these things. (See The Workers' Advocate Supplement, Vol. 1, No. 10, December 10, 1985.)
In fact, Duncan has gone so far as to call "some of Botha's''phoney reforms "the beginning of the end of apartheid'' (See the Guardian, October 9, 1985, p. 14)
Thus Duncan admits that the liberal policy is aimed at preserving and strengthening capitalist exploitation and at maintaining white domination. In essence, it competes with the Afrikaner diehards in determining the best method of doing so.
The Progressive Federal Party -- Main Liberal Party in South Africa
These stands of Duncan were not a slip of the tongue. They are typical of South African liberalism. Consider the stand of the main liberal party in South Africa, the Progressive Federal Party. This was spelled out recently in an October 10 interview of a PFP parliamentarian, Ken Andrew, by Larry Olmstead, a reporter for the Detroit Free Press. This interview was published on December 16 as part of a week-long series of articles on apartheid.
The PFP is long on phrases against apartheid. And in the interview Andrew claims that "my party believes in one-man one-vote.'' One-man one-vote is a basic demand of the fighting black masses, and Andrew makes sure to appear to be militantly in favor of it. He criticizes the fraud whereby the racists allow the blacks to vote for powerless bantustan governments and says the PFP is for "votes of equal value'' with white votes.
One-Man One-Vote -- Unless 15% of the Population Says Otherwise
But Andrew then goes on to take it all back. He states that "we don't believe that the Westminister system of winner-take-all is a suitable system for South Africa or any plural society or deeply divided society." Andrew advocates instead "the concept of a minority veto, which means that if a certain percentage, like 15 percent of the members of Parliament, believes that the vital interests of people they represent are going to be adversely affected by certain legislation, that they would have the right to veto that."
It can be noted that whites constitute 'about 15% of the South African population (and parties of the ruling white bourgeoisie routinely win all the white seats in parliament). So the blacks can have the vote, one-man one-vote, and even votes of equal value, so long as they do nothing that adversely affects what the white bourgeoisie regards as its "vital interests." (As the liberals are against legal color distinctions, presumably any 15% of the parliament could exercise the veto -- i.e., the blacks can have equal votes in electing a parliament that takes all decisions by unanimous vote -- what a privilege.)
Liberal "Federation" Schemes -- Apartheid Ideology All Over Again
Imposing the will of a small minority on the vast majority -- this is truly democracy South African-style! And why should the minority exercise a veto over the majority? Andrew, South African liberal, says that this is because South Africa is a "deeply divided society." And so he advocates decentralization. Answering the question of what would be preferable to the present system, he states that "A federation would be part of it, but not based on race. Geographic, like they have in the United States."
And what was the rationale for apartheid? That South African society is deeply divided. And what was the apartheid solution? That the blacks should be concentrated in certain geographic areas, where they could exercise mock control, while the whites control the strategic areas.
So what does white liberal parliamentarian Ken Andrew counterpose to this? He repeats that apartheid nonsense about democracy being inapplicable to a "deeply divided society." Clearly this implies that the liberal leaders, while proposing the dropping of compulsory race barriers, believe that whites and blacks will, in the main, remain concentrated in certain geographic areas (for otherwise a geographic federation would not deal with the division between whites and blacks and would not guarantee the whites anything). He may believe in a far, far more livable division of territory than the Bantustan plan, but clearly he still believes that geographic segregation of some sort will take place. And will not such a plan mean that the white bourgeoisie will control the important economic or strategic areas, and will be subject only to a parliament where they have a built-in veto?
So how does white liberalism differ with the apartheid diehards? It is that liberalism believes it is possible to maintain the privileges ("vital interests") of the ruling white bourgeoisie without the artificial apartheid barriers that are now goading the masses to revolution. And Andrew refers to the American model. Whatever he intended by this, one can hardly fail to note that the United States takes the cake in guaranteeing formal equality to the blacks while violating real equality in every possible way under the sun.
Power-Sharing
As well, the American bourgeoisie, faced with the upsurge of the 1960's, took major steps in further refining its tactics of making a deal with the upper strata of the oppressed nationalities at the expense of the masses of those nationalities. The PFP, as followers of modern Western practices, continually calls for "power-sharing" with those black leaders that have some following among the black masses, from sellout Buthelezi to the reformist ANC. Since, as we have seen, the PFP does not want to allow the blacks to decide on matters of "vital interest" to the white bourgeoisie, this "power-sharing" is another name for co-optation.
Andrew lays emphasis on power-sharing. Answering the question "What are the obstacles to a peaceful resolution of South Africa's problems?," Andrew states "Basic preconditions are that the government has to accept that it's going to have to share power.... And once they've [the Botha regime] accepted that concept, you have to have a constitution that is negotiated with the real leaders of all the groupings in South Africa. Preconditions for that would be unbanning the ANC and releasing political prisoners, in particular [imprisoned ANC leader] Nelson Mandela."
The white liberals believe that force is not enough. A deal must be struck with the "real leaders" of the black masses. Like the Botha regime, they are enthusiastic to deal with Chief Buthelezi. But they also insist on the need to deal with the reformists and those would-be revolutionaries with an essentially reformist strategy, the ANC leadership. (Of course, it goes without saying that we too are in favor of freeing South African political prisoners -- in our case, we demand freedom for all of them -- although not for the purpose of liberal "power-sharing.")
Relying on Botha's "Change of Heart"
A typical feature of white liberalism is that it doesn't believe that it will replace the apartheid diehards and carry out the liberal utopia.
So instead it takes the position of advising the Botha regime on how best to put down the current unrest and trying to mediate a deal between the apartheid diehards and the "real leaders" of the black masses. This also reflects the fact that, when push comes to shove, both liberalism and the apartheid diehards both represent bourgeois forces that live off the exploitation of black labor and hence have common interests.
Thus no matter how much the white liberal leaders criticize apartheid, no matter how much they sound the tone of doom and gloom, they constantly fall back into the most incredible illusions about changes of heart by Botha or the Afrikaner bourgeoisie. Thus Andrew cherishes the amazing illusion that Botha is a man gradually committing himself to liberal reforms. Asked whether Botha is "sincerely committed to race reform," Andrew replies "I think initially a lot of it [Botha's show of reforms] is a change of tactics. But I think in the process of a change of tactics you end up having a change of heart as well."
Here we see that Duncan's praise of Botha's reforms was not a slip of the tongue, but is echoed by the PFP.
Along with praise for Botha, Andrew also states "I'm opposed to disinvestment." Instead he favors "critical involvement." If all this sounds familiar to anti-apartheid activists in the U.S., it should. What difference is there between "critical involvement" and Reagan's hated policy of "constructive engagement"?
Revolution -- The Real Alternative to White Minority Rule
Clearly the problems of the black and other oppressed peoples in South Africa will never be solved by the white liberals. The real power behind white liberalism is that section of the ruling bourgeoisie which wishes to preserve and strengthen capitalism and white domination by using modern methods rather than the medieval apartheid barbarism that is driving the masses to revolution. Liberalism is afraid of the revolutionary violence of the oppressed masses, addicted to white domination, and constantly pinning its hopes on Botha, Reagan and the other slave- masters. The only true alternative to the racist regime is the revolutionary overthrow of the apartheid system by the oppressed masses themselves.
[Graphic.]
This fall public sector workers in El Salvador waged a series of strikes against the U.S.-backed death squad government. The workers of the Finance Ministry, post office and telephone system won significant victories in this strike wave involving over 25,000 workers. Following on the heels of last summer's strikes by some 30,000 workers, these strikes show that the Salvadoran labor movement is getting to its feet after being knocked down in the early 80's by the government's repression.
While the summer upsurge was marked by the militant water workers' strike, led by a union with a left reputation, the fall actions have been dominated by previously quiet sections of the work force affiliated to moderate and conservative unions. This indicates that new sections of the Salvadoran masses are opening their eyes to the fraud of President Duarte's much-touted "democratic opening" in which he promised reforms in exchange for acceptance of his "Christian Democratic" war of annihilation against the insurgent workers and peasants; in particular, he promised the unions economic reforms in exchange for labor peace.
More and more workers are seeing that since Duarte took office he has offered their class nothing but arrests, jailings and murder. Their response is to turn to mass struggle. The workers' anger, fueled by Duarte's exposure and by crushing poverty, is forcing even moderate union leaders to call strikes, thus violating their 1984 labor peace pact with the Christian Democratic government.
Growing Solidarity
The September through December strike wave showed much solidarity between different branches of the work force. Another notable feature was that the workers fought not only on economic issues, but also raised political demands against the brutal repression of the labor movement.
--On October 21 the Finance Ministry workers launched a 19-day strike demanding a wage increase. In preparation for this strike a coalition of unions organized a one-day solidarity strike on September 28 with work stoppages in the Education Ministry, post office, telephone service, medical facilities, pension institute, national lottery and several nationalized banks (the teachers and hospital workers having just been on strike last summer). The Finance Ministry strike struggle extracted a public sector wage increase of about 14% from the government as well as a $90 Christmas bonus. (The workers received a $21 per month raise on a $150 per month average wage.)
--In early November the government arrested the head of the postal union, branding him a "subversive." The postal workers went on strike demanding the release of their leader, the firing of certain corrupt postal officials, and the repeal of a new government measure against militant public sector workers (Decree 162 authorizes arbitrary transfers of public workers from one ministry to another). On November 12 the postal workers won their leader's freedom as well as an agreement to fire the corrupt officials.
--On November 7, the Duarte government arrested Humberto Centeno, a leader of the national telephone workers union, and his two sons in connection with the guerrillas' kidnapping of Col. Omar Avalos. (It is not known whether the men were in fact involved in the action against this fascist military official trained in the U.S. Air Force. Col. Avalos is head of the Presidential Guard and of Civil Aeronautics, has bombed civilians as a pilot in the civil war, and is thought to be a CIA agent.) Immediately after the arrests the telephone workers struck nationwide and Centeno was freed. Since his sons were still being held and tortured, the workers remained on strike throughout the month of November demanding the brothers' release. The Duarte government has threatened to militarize the telephone company to force the strikers back to work.
--The end of November also found other sections of workers on strike, including at the Ministries of Agriculture and Public Works (which were on strike last summer), and the Ministry of Tourism. These strikes included some of the most conservative unions, such as the San Salvador municipal workers, who cut off the city's meat supply and stopped burials at the cemetery, which had not been struck for 38 years.
Struggle of the Agricultural Workers
These recent strikes in the cities are accompanied by the continuing struggle of the agricultural laborers in the countryside. The coffee laborers in eastern El Salvador are currently demanding a wage increase from the coffee growers. Recently guerrilla fighters destroyed 50 tons of coffee from a farm near San Miguel that refused to pay the new wage.
Support the Struggle Against Exploitation
The resurgence of the Salvadoran strike movement in general, and the gains won in the individual battles, are important advances for the people's struggle against extreme political repression and economic exploitation. The government typically responds to the workers' economic demands with mass firings, arrests, and the "disappearance" of leaders. (Five thousand union members were murdered between 1979 and 1983.)
This repressive policy is the bludgeon for enforcing the miserable conditions of the working people: a 240% price increase between 1978 and 1984 pushing the workers' living standard down to the 1962 level; unemployment over 40%; and a pitiful workers' wage while the the big capitalists of the oligarchy average an individual income thousands of times as high. Meanwhile the government showers tens of millions of dollars in subsidies on the cotton and coffee owners. As well, at least 45% of the country's resources are spent on the regime's civil war against the liberation movement of the toilers.
These are the conditions of which Salvadoran "democracy" is made. This "democracy" is constantly talked up by the U.S. imperialists, both Republican and Democratic, to legitimize the more than $1 million per day in U.S. aid to the oligarchy and the U.S. direction of the war against the Salvadoran insurgents. The strike movement of the Salvadoran workers is not only important in its own right, but it further exposes the fraud of Salvadoran "democracy," and of the Christian Democratic "reforms," as nothing but hypocritical shields for exploitation and rule by a tiny oligarchy.
[Photo: A Salvadoran guerrilla addresses coffee workers In Usulutan on the struggle against the plantation bosses.]
When Duarte was elected president, he crossed his heart and promised that he would perform a miracle -- stop the death squads by appealing to the "democracy" of the Salvadoran oligarchy and its U.S. imperialist backers. A presidential commission was set up to investigate the right-wing murders by the military officials and the death squads.
But, Duarte said, I still don't have a majority in the National Assembly. My hands are tied, he cried.
Well, in March last year Duarte got his majority in the National Assembly. And guess what. Instead of proceeding against the right-wing murderers, Duarte proceeded at the end of November to dissolve the human rights commission altogether.
Actually, the dissolution changes little. It turns out that the commission had rarely ever met, but just sat on its hands and collected a few meager files. The commission was just window-dressing to give the impression that something was being done.
The human rights commission has now been replaced by a new body, the Commission for Investigation of Special Crimes. And guess what. This Commission has no intention of investigating the military. It has instead been given personnel who have been involved in tracking down guerrillas and anti-government activists. The creation of the new Commission is part of an entire $9.2 million "judicial package" to strengthen the legal apparatus for persecuting strikers, guerrillas, dissidents and all those who would oppose the rich oligarchy and their death squad servants.
The Reagan administration has been trying to glorify the CIA-organized thugs and murderers who are paid by the CIA to attack Nicaragua as "freedom fighters."
But the truth will out. The contras are nothing but a band of mercenaries, instructed in the art of murder and sabotage by the CIA and led by men who long for the old days of the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua. Now, in late December, the Associated Press has admitted that the contras, whom Reagan calls his brothers, are part of the trade in narcotic drugs.
While the State Department persists in lying to the American people, a number of officials from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Customs Service, the FBI and the Costa Rican Public Security Ministry have reveled to the press some of the facts about the contras' involvement with the drug trade. These men can't be accused of prejudice against the contras; the people who have exposed this drug trade include American volunteers in the contra ranks, eager to kill the Nicaraguan revolutionaries for the greater glory of God, the CIA and the corporate way of life. These volunteers are afraid that the contra drug trade will discredit the contras.
The Main Contra Groups Are Deep in the Drug Trade
It seems that the contras have been making money on the side by helping drug dealers transport drugs into the U.S. For example, they have provided secure airfields in Costa Rica to help cocaine dealers refuel on flights from Colombia to the U.S. These activities have involved the main contra groups, from the largest group, the FDN, to ARDE, the group led by Eden Pastora ("Commander Zero"), whom the press in the U.S. loves to paint as a most moral and high-minded seeker of justice.
Meanwhile last year Costa Rica indicted a contra leader, Sebastian Gonzales Mendiola, for cocaine trafficking. But the bourgeois Costa Rican government, deeply involved in protecting the contras and putting pressure on Nicaragua, naturally left the main contra drug traffickers alone, while strangely enough Gonzales Mendiola himself managed to flee to Panama.
The Contra Way of Life -- Cutting Each Other's Throats
The drug dealing has apparently given rise to various murders inside the contra ranks. For example, some time back the American press made a big deal out of the unexplained murder of Dr. Hugo Spadafora, a roving counterrevolutionary mercenary and former Panamanian deputy health minister. The press glorified his life to the skies. Spadafora, a contra, was murdered in Panama, with at least the collusion of Panamanian authorities. The Associated Press now wonders whether his murder might have been related to disagreements about the drug trade. It seems that the contras and their supporters in Panama, Costa Rica and Honduras, those wonder-working partisans of democracy, freedom and private enterprise, those defenders of the rights of the weak and oppressed, routinely solve all differences in their ranks by cutting each other's throats. It is notable that not a single one of the contra volunteers who were concerned about the drug trade was willing to have his or her name used.
The Hypocrisy of Reagan and the Moral Majority
The drug deals of the contras are another exposure of the lying nature of the Reagan regime. In public, Reagan and his cronies present their war on Nicaragua as the most moral of enterprises. They present themselves as reluctant fighters against moral decay and oppression. They pretend that it is their opponents who are responsible for the drug traffic (as if capitalist high society and the Reaganite corporate elite weren't major consumers of cocaine).
But, in fact, the Reagan administration not only recruits thugs, murderers and ex-Somoza men for the war on Nicaragua, but is only too aware of their drug dealings. The CIA itself, the organizer of the contras, admits -- in private, of course -- this drug dealing. In a recent National Intelligence Estimate on narcotics trafficking it gives the example of a single top commander of the contras making $250,000 in cocaine profits.
When everything is said and done, the fact that the contras run drugs is only the smallest part of their evil nature. Their basic crime is that they are hatchetmen to strangle the Nicaraguan revolution and to intimidate the Nicaraguan workers and peasants. It is their everyday activity of shedding the blood of the Nicaraguan toilers at the direction of the CIA that condemns them in front of all honest people around the world. The contra volunteers who think that they can cleanse the contras by restraining their insatiable desire for drug profits are barking up the wrong tree.
But the fact that the contras are deeply involved in the drug trade shows the complete hypocrisy of the Reagan administration, the Moral Majority, and all the sanctimonious reactionaries. They parade before the people by piously declaiming about purity, motherhood and apple pie being besieged by dirty terrorists and criminals. Meanwhile they are demanding tens of millions of dollars in "aid" for the contra drug runners, and they fund the CIA, the biggest terrorist ring in all the Americas, with a budget exceeding the entire national budget of Nicaragua.
[Graphic.]
On December 2 in Bhopal, India, victims of history's worst industrial disaster staged a militant protest against the lack of aid and compensation for them over the past year. On the first anniversary of that tragedy, 3,000 people joined a march against the Union Carbide plant which spewed deadly poisonous gas across Bhopal, killing thousands and injuring many more.
Before the march, protesters painted huge red slogans on the Union Carbide plant reading "Carbide thrives, people die" and "Hang Anderson," referring to Warren Anderson, chairman of the board of Union Carbide. The marchers also burned an effigy of Anderson during the march. Organizers of the demonstration put forward demands calling for aid for the victims, a boycott of products made by U.S. multinationals, and the expulsion of Union Carbide from India.
The anger of the masses at Union Carbide is fully justified. The disaster at Bhopal last year was an example of corporate murder. The capitalists of Union Carbide deliberately sacrificed the health and safety needs of the masses at the altar of the almighty god of profit. As well, they had the collaboration of the Indian government in their crime. And over the last year, instead of helping the victims, the Carbide capitalists have only spent millions to cover up their role and to oppose demands for compensation.
The Indian government again showed which side it is on. The protest march was organized in the teeth of heavy repression. The government of India sent a special task force of police into the city to quell any disturbances on the anniversary of the disaster. In the days before the scheduled demonstration, police arrested 100 activists and erected a cordon of metal barricades around the plant. On the day of the march, they surrounded the plant. Despite the fact that the plant is now closed, the Indian government was so concerned about protecting Union Carbide's property that it provided 1,200 heavily armed police to block the demonstrators.
These police measures against the masses show the true face of the Indian government. Over the past year, the government has postured with threats to file charges against Anderson or other Union Carbide executives. But in fact the government has done nothing to punish or demand compensation from the U.S. multinational. Carbide goes on making super-profits from its other plants in the country while in Bhopal at least ten people die every month from illnesses caused by the poison gas, and other victims try to get along without any aid.
Help for the victims in Bhopal clearly will not come as a gift from the Union Carbide capitalists. Neither can the Indian capitalist government be expected to defend the interests of the masses. No, the struggle of the masses is essential if the exploiters are to be made to pay for their crimes.
[Photo: 3,000 people in Bhopal, India march against Union Carbide. They burned a 13-headed effigy of Warren Anderson, chairman of the U.S. multinational.]
On December 10, the Conservative Party government of "Iron Lady" Thatcher proposed a bill to the British Parliament designed to suppress demonstrations. This is British imperialism's latest effort to crush the mass resistance that has been developing against the capitalist offensive.
This fall, anti-racist rebellions broke out in the ghettos of Birmingham, London and Liverpool. In 1984-85, the coal miners carried out a heroic strike which mobilized large rallies, militant demonstrations and other actions. And an active anti-nuclear movement frequently mobilizes huge protests.
Thatcher's bill would give the police broad powers to limit and control demonstrations. Organizers of any demonstration would have to apply to the police for permission ahead of time. It would then be up to the police to decide what day, what time, and what place the demonstration could be held. What is more, even the size and composition of the demonstration would be subject to police control. Any demonstration taking place outside of police guidelines would be strictly prohibited.
Coming on the heels of the recent ghetto rebellions, Thatcher's proposal is especially aimed at the anti-racist movement. To cover this up, the bill makes a pitiful attempt to look as if it is opposed to racism. The bill claims that it would ban the distribution of racist literature designed to provoke attacks on racial minorities. But nothing can be expected from this. After all, to ban the propagation of racism the government would have to shut down much of the British bourgeois press, it would have to shut up Thatcher's own party which is the home of some of the most rabid racists in the country, it would have to act against the racist police, etc., etc. Clearly the British government will never act against itself -- racism in Britain is a bulwark of capitalist rule.
Thatcher's proposal is being denounced by the workers and activists in Britain. They are not about to let Thatcher succeed in wiping out the mass struggle. They have fought in the face of Thatcher's existing apparatus of repression and they will not let any new law stand in their way.
There are signs that popular unrest is breaking out in China against the policies of the revisionist-capitalist regime of Deng Xiaoping.
A revival of the student movement appears to be taking place, according to reports in the New York Times. A number of demonstrations have taken place in Beijing and at least four other cities. In these actions students have come out denouncing a wide range of policies of the Beijing regime. While the actions are still small, scattered and unclear in their views, it nonetheless represents sections of the masses in China going into motion against the revisionist leaders.
The first major signs of this student ferment appeared in demonstrations by students of Beijing University on September 18 and November 20. In these actions, students marched to Tienanmen Square in the center of Beijing to protest the "open door" policy of the Chinese government towards Japanese imperialism. The students voiced opposition to the way China is being opened up for exploitation to the Japanese multinationals. Following the protest, posters and leaflets appeared on the university campus protesting many of the present regime's policies and denouncing government officials as "vampires who suck the blood of the working class."
The student protests were significant enough to worry Deng Xiaoping. Deng knows very well that ferment among the students in China is a volatile and infectious phenomena. Student movements have often been the harbinger of upsurges among the working people generally.
On one hand, Deng moved to block the student movement with repressive measures. The government banned "unauthorized" marches in Beijing and prohibited posters from campuses.
On the other hand, Deng tried to co-opt the ferment by organizing an official "anti-Japanese imperialist" demonstration. December 10 was the 50th anniversary of an upsurge in the Chinese student movement during the Japanese occupation of the 1930's. On this occasion, Deng organized a rally at Beijing University, which all students were required to attend. This rally featured official youth leaders such as the leader of China's Olympic-champion women's volleyball team. While honoring the "memory" of the movement of 50 years ago, speakers at the rally emphasized that today it is necessary to maintain an open-door policy, to allow foreign imperialists to exploit the Chinese economy.
But the government's efforts to put down the student movement have not succeeded. On December 19th,1500 students at Beijing State College staged a march, this time to protest against the stationing of an army unit on campus. They also raised various demands concerning campus life, such as the quality of food.
Then, on December 22, about 300 national minority students staged a demonstration right through the heart of Beijing. They marched from Tienanmen Square to the Zhongnanhai compound, where government leaders have their homes and offices. They presented their demand for an end to China's atmospheric nuclear tests. These students were from the Central College of Nationalities, a college for national minorities, and are mainly from the Xinjiang Uigur province, where China's nuclear testing grounds are located. This march was reportedly a follow-up to a march of 1,000 held on December 12 in the capital of Xinjiang. Besides their anti-nuclear demand, the protesters also protested against coercive family planning policies and against infringements on the rights of minorities.
These latest actions took place in defiance of the government ban on demonstrations and they show that Deng Xiaoping will not find it an easy matter to suppress the ferment among students.
The New York Times reports from China do not go into any great detail about the emerging student movement. But from what has appeared, it seems that the students are raising serious demands against a variety of the reactionary policies of the Deng Xiaoping regime. Since Deng came to power in the mid-1970's, he has enthusiastically set about reversing many of the historic conquests of the Chinese revolution and he has set about with frenzy to consolidate capitalism in China. This was bound to give rise to popular resistance sooner or later.
However, from the reports so far, it also seems that the student movement does not yet have clear views about how to carry forward the struggle. One of the problems in China is that, since the ruling revisionist Chinese Communist Party is riddled with factions, none of which stand for a Marxist-Leninist line, there is the danger that one or another bourgeois faction may try to use the student ferment for its own squabbles with the Deng clique, rather than to build up the mass movements in a truly revolutionary direction. The student movement faces the task of building itself independent of the ruling factions, linking up with the working masses, supporting the reconstruction of a genuine communist party, and orienting itself in the direction of a socialist revolution.
[Graphic.]
(The following article is reprinted from The West Indian Voice, December, 1985.)
The murderous hand of the criminal U.S.-backed regime of "Baby Doc" Duvalier in Haiti has struck once again.
November 27. "Abas la Misere!'' (Down with misery!) "Abas la Misere!" was the resounding cry of the people of Jeremie, Cayes, Petit Goaves and Gonaives as they took to the streets of their respective towns. Together they were over 10,000 strong -- workers, villagers, students, unemployed.
In Gonaives as the masses shouted "Abas la Misere!" "Abas la Dictature!" Duvalier's private army of Ton- ton Macoutes (Volunteers for National Security), without provocation, opened fire on the demonstration. Four people were killed, another 100 injuries were reported, four of which were serious.
Like a cornered beast the government declared, "The army is ready to destroy and set fire to every single house in these towns in rebellion." Denouncing "criminal agitators," Jean-Marie Chanoine (one of Duvalier's "superministers" responsible for five ministries, who has since resigned) threatened that the government would identify and punish all those involved in the protest actions. The savage and murderous gunning down of demonstrators -- it was declared -- was necessary "to ensure calm and the development of the democratic experience currently underway" in Haiti and "to prove the government's strength to ensure political stability." Wide-scale arrests were begun.
Of the four killed in Gonaives, three were students. The students of Gonaives launched a strike and painted the walls with slogans denouncing the Duvalier dictatorship. The army declared its readiness to force the students to school at gunpoint.
But there is a new spirit in the land, a spirit not to be quieted or deterred by tyranny. The regime swore its determination to slash and burn entire towns. But every day after November 27, the toilers of Gonaives gather in protest. The backbone of the defiance is the poor neighborhood of Raboteau. But the indignation grips all toilers, stiffening their will.
December 2. Chanting "Down with the Constitution!" "Down with Duvalier's regime!" people from Nau Savann county took to the streets in solidarity with the toilers of Gonaives and those felled by the regime's bullets. To signify the conditions of utter poverty to which they are subject they marched with their pockets turned inside-out as their fists punched into the air.
December 4. The town of Petit Goaves was the scene of militant actions. High school students showered the local city offices with rocks and bottles shouting "Down with the Constitution!"
December 5. The masses of Cap Haitien -- a major city which has provided some of Haiti's largest demonstrations and most militant toilers -- demonstrated 20,000 strong and engaged in a fierce battle with an army of Tonton Macoutes. The masses were outraged at the crimes and violence of a regime they so hate. But there were Uzi machine guns -- courtesy of the Israeli government -- in the hands of Duvalier's security forces. The Uzi's went to work. That day the toilers of Cap Haitien sacrificed 15 martyrs for their cause. An expensive sacrifice -- worth a thousand times more than the five soldiers they wiped off the face of the earth with their machetes -- but one they are willing to pay. For a fresh liberating spirit is gripping Haiti today -- a spirit that is summoning and organizing the forces of revolution.
Washington Backs Haiti's "Democratic Experience''
The ruthlessness and utter barbarity of Duvalier's tyranny is the true reality. of the "democratic experience" underway in Haiti. Washington calls this the "liberalization" of Haiti. It is the experience of poverty-stricken millions languishing under a tyranny which compels them to labor for the class of rich oligarchs and the corporations of the U.S., Canada, West Germany, etc. in exchange for dirt and squalor. This is the "democratic experience" lauded and protected by the State Department and the U.S. imperialist exploiters.
The toilers of Cap Hatien, Petit Goaves, Jeremie and the slums of Gonaives -- bold and daring -- are showing the way out. Gonaives and Cap Haitien, it can be recalled, were the scenes of mass upheaval involving tens of thousands not too long ago. The toilers are organizing themselves to settle accounts with the Duvalier dynasty, the rich capitalist oligarchs and their blood-soaked henchmen.
However, Duvalier's tyranny is such that its opponents also include several most conservative and capitalist parasites and even former henchmen of Papa Doc and of Baby Doc who have also come under the regime's repression. Such elements would also like to see Duvalier's downfall, a measure of "reform," but with the preservation of the underlying status quo of the rich oligarchs and of the privileges bred under Duvalier's tyranny. And such elements dream of earning for themselves the support of Washington in their quests.
They utilize schemes for coups and other methods to restrict or avoid altogether the unleashing of the mass movement of the toilers. In the U.S. this role can be seen in their refusal to mount, and even their sabotage of, mass solidarity actions with the Haitian toilers.
But so far, it is only the toilers in Haiti and their powerful mass struggle that have served to shake the ground under the regime. The working class and impoverished masses are the true champions of the fight to overthrow the dictatorship. They must wage this struggle in such a way as to prevent Duvalier's capitalist opponents from stealing the fruits of their blood and sacrifice.
We hear from many quarters that Latin America is entering a new epoch. They say that the time of generals and fascists is past, and democracy is sweeping across the continent. Certain changes of government are indeed taking place, but what is the meaning of these changes? What do they mean for the struggle of the long-suffering workers and peasants? What challenges do they pose to the revolutionary movement of the working class?
In our September 1 issue, we launched a discussion of these questions. This time let us examine the case of Brazil.
This is the largest country in South America, accounting for half the population of the continent. For two decades since 1964, the country was ruled by a fierce military dictatorship. During those years, the Brazilian masses fought hard against military reaction. Thousands gave their lives in struggle.
In the beginning of this year, the military allowed a peaceful transition to a civilian bourgeois regime. Tancredo Neves was elected to the presidency but he died before he fully took office. In April, the presidency went to Neves' vice-president, Jose Sarney. The Neves-Sarney regime has been heralded by many as a new era in Brazil, an epoch of democracy and freedom. But the reality is quite different than what the apologists of the regime portray.
The Class Struggle Rages On
For one thing, the new regime has not meant a letup in the class struggle.
In November, 350,000 metal workers in Sao Paulo's 11,000 factories walked out on strike. In the face of rampant inflation, they were fighting for a real pay increase and wage hikes on a quarterly basis, not half-yearly as it is today. And they raised the demand for a reduction of the working day.
This is the most recent event in the latest strike wave which broke out in September. On September 11-12, seven hundred thousand bank workers struck for two days, defying the law which considers banking as an "essential sector'' where strikes are illegal. In October, 180,000 metal workers in Rio de Janeiro held a work stoppage. The city of Rio was also hit by a two-day strike by bus drivers.
There has been ferment among the workers all through 1984. In fact just as Neves died, despite appeals for national unity from the bourgeois politicians, the workers mounted a powerful strike wave. Hundreds of thousands of workers in industry and transport took part, hitting the industrial regions of Sao Paulo and Rio quite hard.
Meanwhile, in the rural areas of the north of Brazil, there are acute struggles between the peasants and farm workers and the big latifundists. Three hundred people have been killed in land seizures and other agrarian conflicts over the last year. The situation in the northern state of Para is described as close to civil war. The landlords are spending millions of cruzeiros on weapons purchases.
What Is Behind the Sharpness of the Class Struggle?
The acuteness of class conflict in Brazil is due to the crushing weight of capitalism and reaction on the masses of working people.
Brazil is a rich country w which has seen a big expansion of capitalist enterprise over the last several decades. But this has not brought prosperity to the masses. The 80's have seen the country gripped by a severe depression.
Today Brazilian economists describe this country as suffering from the "Bangladesh effect,'' referring to the fact that half the population lives below the official poverty level. The daily calorie intake of 65% of the population is lower than the minimum level set by national and international health organizations. In four years of depression, eight million joined the ranks of the officially poor, bringing the total close to 50 million.
While capitalist development expanded the ranks of the proletariat by millions, the workers are getting more and more impoverished and have to work longer hours to make ends meet. Meanwhile nearly five million are unemployed.
Side by side with modern industry and a huge proletarian work force in the cities, Brazil is also a country where exploitation in parts of the countryside, especially in the north, is marked by semi-feudal features. A small number of rich and powerful latifundists make the law in these parts and run roughshod over the rural toilers.
For twenty years, the military dictatorship tried to ensure class peace for the capitalists and landlords. It set up institutions and laws to crush the class struggle. But despite the military's best efforts, even in the period of the fiercest terror of the military regime, the toilers resisted and organized. And powerful class movements emerged among the workers, peasants and farm workers.
The Record of the Neves-Sarney Government
The Neves-Sarney government came into power speaking in the name of all the people. It made loud promises of democracy and reforms. It promised a new era of respect for the rights of labor. It promised agrarian reform for the toilers of the countryside. It declared in favor of action against poverty and inflation. It said that it would not pay the foreign debt with hunger and recession. And it promised to end the institutions set up by the military regime.
But even in just a few months, all this is showing itself to be nothing but demagogy to fool the working masses. In fact, the fine words of speaking in the name of all the people have given way to satisfying only the entrenched interests of capital, the military and landed reaction. The new regime is showing that it stands for continued squeezing of the workers and peasants.
Let us take a few striking examples:
*On the Workers' Movement: The Sarney government had originally promised action to defend workers against inflation. The workers have demanded quarterly wage increases (trimestralidade). The government had promised to grant this, but since then it has adamantly refused.
The regime promised reforms to enhance the rights for workers to organize. But while there is much talk, action on this remains stalled in Congress. The Brazilian workers had fought hard against the military's practice of setting up numerous sectors of the economy as "essential sectors'' where strikes were banned. While Sarney is willing to loosen things a bit, he still wants to keep strikes illegal in several sectors. And when the bank workers struck in defiance of the law in September, Sarney declared: "We will be inflexible.''
Instead of any serious reforms in favor of the workers, the Sarney government has instead demanded a "social pact'' between labor, capital and the government where the workers are to sacrifice for the good of the "social" and "national" interest, i.e., the interests of the rulers.
*On Agrarian Reform: The government had noisily announced an agrarian reform bill to pacify the acute class conflicts in the countryside. This promised that seven million landless laborers would get plots of land over the next 15 years. The land was to come from the unexploited holdings of latifundists, who were promised compensation from the government treasury. But this was not only a pitiful promise, the land in question was also generally poor and uncultivable land.
But even this measly scheme was protested by the landlords, who raised the specter of "socialism." And this was enough to change the final version of the bill into one that satisfied the landed interests. It was so bad that even the reformist head of the government's Agrarian Reform Institute resigned in disgust. Meanwhile Sarney declared, "We are learning to conciliate boldly," as his regime began to advertise the plan in the media with such slogans as, "The agrarian reform will in no way undermine property." The landlords were delighted.
*On Democratic Reforms: Despite all the noise about how civilians are in charge of Brazil today, the fact remains that the military men retain important positions of power. Every important piece of legislation passes through the hands of the generals and requires their assent. The generals played an important role in crushing the bank strike in September.
Meanwhile, in the constitutional discussions about the legal role of the military, Sarney has already come out in support of the military's stand that the new constitution must explicitly state that the armed forces not only have the role of external defense but also of internal order. Of course, this is what bourgeois armies are for, but in many cases the bourgeoisie makes a pretense of separating the army from internal affairs. But not Sarney.
*Other Economic Promises: Sarney had promised an action program against poverty, hunger and unemployment. But this was one of the first promises to be shelved. The excuse: lack of funds.
Meanwhile, in the face of rising inflation, Sarney's minister proposed price controls on 33 basic goods and a price ceiling on meat. But this was soon abandoned after consultations with the supermarket owners. Instead a "gentleman's agreement" was worked out, which turned out to be just an empty piece of paper.
*The Foreign Debt: One of Brazil's biggest economic problems is the/huge debt to foreign banks, which is now over 100 billion dollars. The international bankers demand that this be paid out of the flesh of the Brazilian toilers. Sarney makes much noise about standing up to this demand, but this too is demagogy. He will not repudiate the debt. He is only interested in working out the proper negotiated agreements with the bankers.
All this is not surprising. The Sarney government is a government of the big capitalists of Brazil. This can even be seen by looking at who Sarney's key ministers and advisers are. His new Finance Minister is well known to be a representative of the industrialists. And Sarney recently appointed Brazil's biggest capitalist, Antonio Ermirio de Moraes, to a presidential commission on the future constituent assembly. This is a man who owns 96 companies with 56,000 employees, a man who was elected by a group of 60,000 businessmen as leader of Brazil's industrial sector.
How Did the Sarney Government Come into Being?
The character of Sarney's regime can also be seen by looking at the way he and his predecessor Neves came to power. This was not a regime that came to power through revolutionary struggle against the military dictatorship and the exploiters who lay behind it. No, the Neves-Sarney regime came to power as the representative of the liberal bourgeoisie which used the anti-dictatorial sentiment of the people as a lever to reach an accommodation with the military men. And since coming to power, it is only bending further backwards to conciliate with all the rest of the arch-reaction of the country.
Over its long reign, the Brazilian military dictatorship came under the blows of the mass struggle of the toilers. But it also came under pressure from sections of the bourgeoisie, particularly the liberal bourgeoisie. The liberals put themselves into service as the voices of powerful capitalist interests that expanded in the years of the military rule. The main political party of the liberals was the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (BDMP).
The masses wanted a thorough uprooting of the dictatorship and all its institutions. A movement began to grow against the military regime.
In the late 70's the military finally opened up a process of gradual liberalization, a "democratic opening," by which they sought to allow a transition to a civilian regime, but one that would keep intact all the powerful reactionary institutions set up by the military over 20 years. They began to allow elections, but with an elaborate system of laws to weaken the opposition parties and help the military's own party, the Social Democratic Party (SDP), stay in power. (Despite its name, this is not a reformist social-democratic party but a party of open reaction.) One of the cornerstones of this system was a plan for the election of a civilian president by 1985, not through direct elections but indirectly through an electoral college of federal and state legislators.
The emergence of liberalism as a major political force in the country that could put pressure on the military regime, as well as the decision of the military itself to allow an evolution in its form of rule, is connected in Brazil with economic and social changes over the last two decades. The liberal bourgeoisie was pushed out of political power by the military coup in 1964. The military government represented a more conservative wing of the bourgeoisie allied with reactionary agrarian interests. But under the military regime, capitalist development expanded. The strength of the agricultural sector in the economy declined, relations on the land took on more capitalist features, and the latifundists' power declined on a national scale. New capitalist interests came into being or grew in strength. Under the military dictatorship, many of these interests did not get a share of power. They therefore pushed for a political role commensurate with their economic strength. They placed their support in liberalism.
Meanwhile, the masses wanted democracy and grew restive. Only channeling this ferment towards revolutionary struggle could have had the possibility of bringing about serious democratic changes. But the liberal bourgeoisie did not want anything of the sort. They channeled the mass ferment into a campaign for direct elections. And they sought to keep this campaign focused merely on putting pressure on a vote on the electoral law in the SDP-dominated National Parliament. The masses swarmed into this campaign which opened up in January 1985, and some of the largest rallies in Brazilian history took place. This reflected the masses' deep-seated opposition to the military, but it also showed the widespread existence of bourgeois-democratic illusions among the masses. The liberal leaders were also successful in keeping this campaign within nonmilitant bounds.
But as things turned out, the liberals even gave up this campaign for direct elections. As they failed to win the vote in Congress, they called off the mass movement and began negotiations with the military and the SDP.
The SDP suffered a major split and a sizable faction came out and formed a new party, the Liberal Front Party. The Liberal Front was led by the large landowner Aureliano Chaves, vice president of the military government, and Jose Sarney, a big land shark in Maranhao and long-time president of the SDP. The Liberal Front was composed of politicians and businessmen, bankers and big landowners, who had a history of supporting the regime over the last 20 years.
This Party and the liberal BDMP teamed up in a bloc called the Democratic Alliance. This bloc had the votes to win a candidacy through the indirect elections route. They put up the joint ticket of Tancredo Neves, a leader of the "moderate" wing of the BDMP, and Jose Sarney.
As the Neves-Sarney candidacy gained ground in the electoral college, the liberal bourgeoisie dropped the campaign for direct elections. There was an attempt by certain reformist forces to revive the campaign, but this did not go anywhere.
The Neves-Sarney ticket received the support of the great bulk of the capitalists and the military men of Brazil. Only a small section of the arch-reactionary landlords, businessmen and generals supported the SDP candidate Paolo Maluf.
With this background, it is not strange that the military, which had held the presidency for 20 years, agreed to vacate the office for the Neves-Sarney team. After all, these were men who they knew and trusted.
Neves promised direct elections after he finished his four-year term and appealed for a "social pact." He also agreed to maintain the National Intelligence Service, the National Security Law, and other repressive institutions. The military was also to continue to have the control it established over the country's military-industrial complex. After Neves' death, Sarney simply renewed his pledge to continue Neves' program.
The Danger of Bourgeois Reformism and Nationalism
The liberal bourgeoisie was successful in getting mass support behind its project because of its heavy nationalist and reformist demagogy. It spoke in the name of the people and their deeply- held desire for democracy. It spoke in the name of all the people against |he international bankers and the IMF.
In this it was helped by the fact that reformism and nationalism have strong influences on the working class and popular movements in Brazil. The liberals were successful in forming a coalition which included a number of political forces among the working masses, forces which are gripped by reformist illusions. This is a story in its own right and we will examine this side of the situation in a future article.
During the last year, the government of Cuba launched a noisy campaign on the Latin American debt crisis. An impression has been created that this is some sort of radical program. The reality is otherwise.
As we showed in an exposure in the September 1 issue of The Workers Advocate, Castro's campaign seeks to avoid revolution. The Cuban revisionist leader expressly spells out that he wants to prevent the debt crisis from resulting in revolutionary explosions. He openly declares that socialism is no longer on the agenda in Latin America. The Cuban proposals are nothing but a scheme for class collaboration aimed at undermining the revolutionary movement in Latin America.
From both Castro's imperialist critics and his reformist supporters, the idea has been spread that the Cuban government stands for the repudiation of the foreign debt by the Latin American countries. In our previous article, we pointed out that this is not what Castro actually stands for.
What we said was again confirmed recently from the horse's mouth. This can be seen in Castro's remarks at a Latin American and Caribbean youth and student conference held in Havana, September 11-14. (These comments are excerpted in Intercontinental Press, November 18, 1985.)
In his statement, Castro clarifies that he has never advocated "nonpayment of debt.'' He describes the suspension of debt payments by governments as "a result of desperation'' -- something the Cuban leaders might commiserate with, but which they definitely do not advocate. And once you strip away all the rhetoric, what they advocate is nothing more than the typical begging and pleading that the bourgeois regimes of Latin America carry out with the imperialist sharks of finance.
What Lesson to Draw from the Bolivian Example?
Castro raises the example of Bolivia, where the previous reformist government of Siles Suazo suspended debt payments after a series of powerful general strikes shook the country in 1984. He says, "Some countries have taken the wrong step, such as Bolivia...." And he goes on to declare, "This is not what we are proposing." But Castro does not look at the Bolivian example to draw lessons for advancing the revolutionary movement of the toilers.
Let us spend a moment on what happened in Bolivia.
It was only the pressure of the class ^struggle of the toilers that forced the government to take a decision to suspend debt payments. But this was only a temporary measure, designed to buy time. The government never dropped out of negotiations with the imperialist bankers. And after the Suazo government lost recent elections, the Bolivian bourgeoisie brought in a new conservative regime which has only escalated the capitalist offensive of austerity measures and heavy repression against the workers' movement.
Unlike Castro, we do not consider the decision to suspend debt payments to have been wrong. No, what was "wrong" was that the Bolivian government was a capitalist government. Such a government could not be in favor of breaking out of the imperialist debt stranglehold.
The Bolivian government's decision did not mark a revolutionary step. It was not a decision taken because the government sought to break from the unjust shackles of the debt trap of imperialism. No, the reformist Suazo government never abandoned the principle of collaborating with the imperialist International Monetary Fund to pay the banks out of the misery of the Bolivian masses.
But the class struggle of the toilers can wrench concessions from such governments. And it testifies to the strength of the Bolivian toilers that they were able to force the regime to suspend debt repayments. This does not however mean that the workers and peasants should therefore come to the defense of such a regime. No, the task faced by the toilers was to use every concession won by the movement to weaken the positions of the class enemy and to strengthen the revolutionary struggle. Unfortunately, those who dominate the leadership of the Bolivian workers' movement, the leaders of the Bolivian trade union center, did not have such an outlook. They had no faith in the revolutionary capacity of the working masses. They never gave up faith in the reformist bourgeois government. And this only blunted the class struggle. The price for this has been high. Finding no more use for the reformist government of Suazo, the ruling class found a new regime to press forward its offensive. And the workers' movement has today suffered a setback.
What Is Castro's Alternative?
But a revolutionary alternative is not what Castro. counterposes to the Bolivian example. He raises the Bolivian case simply as one example of individual countries taking the road of nonpayment of debt. To him, the very idea of any government giving up repaying the debt is anathema. To this stand Castro counterposes mere empty talk of unity between all the debtor countries.
Castro pontificates: "I am not telling others not to renegotiate. We are not referring to an isolated country. We are planning meetings with them [the other debtor countries]. We are negotiating how to erase the debt, which is something else; to sit down and discuss the cancellation of the debt, to erase the debt."
For Castro, the Bolivian workers forcing a government to suspend debt payments is "wrong," but mere sitting together and talking by bourgeois governments, irrespective of taking any sort of action, is great! Castro mentions the possibility of some sort of "common action," perhaps implying some sort of joint holding back on debt payments, but he confesses that such a thing is unreal: "Now, I also think that perhaps it might be too difficult to reach this action, reach this consensus."
Here is the crux of the problem with Castro's plan. His is an appeal for all Latin American governments to unite in the face of the debt crisis. And he paints the vista that out of this unity can come all sorts of good things. But in fact, this is a reformist pipe dream. It is dangerous for it advocates that the workers and peasants put their faith not in class struggle but in the good will of the Latin American bourgeoisie.
The bourgeois governments are not interested in seeking solutions to the debt crisis that will be of help to the workers and peasants of Latin America. They do not question the rules of capitalist finance. They do not question the idea that the masses must be made to bear the burden of the capitalist crisis. No, at most they only seek to tinker around with the international financial system so they can get the best deal and the system of capitalism will be preserved.
In fact, the Latin American countries have been getting together to talk about the debt crisis. There was the Cartagena summit in Colombia in 1984. And just a few days ago, officials from many Latin American governments met in Uruguay. Not much has come from these meetings. Far from taking joint actions, they have only gotten together to beg for a better deal from the banks. And this is all that can be expected.
This in fact is all that Castro's program amounts to, once you take away the bluster and noise. As for us, we consider a powerful upsurge of the working masses, as in Bolivia, always to be worth ten, no, a hundred times more than summits and gatherings of the bourgeois regimes of Latin America. We do not preach faith in the bloodsucking bourgeoisie, but point to the requirements for advancing the revolutionary movement to victory over imperialism and capitalism. Such is the duty of revolutionaries.
[Photo: The working people across Latin America have been fighting against the austerity drive of the bourgeois governments in the face of the debt crisis. Here, thousands of miners protest in Lima, Peru on Tuesday, November 26 in the biggest anti-government action since the social-democratic regime of Alan Garcia took office last summer.]
The Nicaraguan working people need our help against U.S. imperialist aggression. The MLP is organizing material aid through the Campaign for the Nicaraguan Workers' Press. In defiance of Reagan's blockade, the Campaign is sending much needed printing materials and supplies to assist MAP/ML and its Workers Front trade union center to build the workers' press. Send letters of support and contributions to: [Address.]
In the Philippines, the working people are pushing ahead with their mass struggles against the despised U.S.-' backed Marcos dictatorship. On December 10, 25,000 sugar workers and farmers carried out a strike in Bacalod city. The masses put up barricades and the strike paralyzed the city's economy. On the same day in Manila, a demonstration of 15,000 denounced the Marcos tyranny and called for a boycott of the presidential elections set for February 7.
Meanwhile, election fever has engulfed the wealthy upper crust in the country.
In November the Marcos dictatorship took a surprise decision to call the upcoming elections. This is not because the dictator has suddenly become a democrat. Rather, it is a ploy on his part to give himself a new "democratic" coat of paint. Above all, it is designed to appease his backers in Washington who have been pressing him that "democratic reforms" are needed if the growing revolutionary movement is to be thwarted.
No one can seriously expect change to come through these elections. Marcos is a master election rigger who has carried out quite a few such charades. Over the last 20 years, he has built up a corrupt and ruthless regime around himself with the support of the core of the big capitalist and landlord ruling class. This is not about to be easily undone.
The Liberals Join the Election Circus
Besides the revolutionary movement of the masses, there is also a disaffected section of the wealthy who are upset with Marcos. These are the bourgeois liberals. But unlike the militant fighters against Marcos, the liberals do not want any radical change. They merely want a regime that has more democratic trappings and that takes care of the interests of the whole upper strata and not just a few cronies of the Marcos family.
The liberals have joined the election circus and are trying to get the people to throw their hopes and energies into the opposition candidacy. After some squabbling, the heavily factionalized liberal opposition succeeded in putting together a single ticket. They are running Corazon Aquino (Benigno Aquino's widow) for president and Salvador Laurel for vice-president.
This ticket is receiving heavy promotion in the U.S. press. In fact, U.S. imperialism is backing both sides in these elections. It is dissatisfied with Marcos because of his crisis, but it does not want to let go of such a favored tyrant. Meanwhile, it is also dealing with the opposition ticket.
The Deal Between Aquino and Laurel
What does this opposition ticket really amount to?
Aquino and Laurel were at first rivals in the running for the presidency. But the godfathers of the bourgeois opposition worked hard and fast to get them to unite on a single ticket. A prominent role in this was played by Cardinal Jaime Sin, head of the Catholic Church.
What the deal meant was that Aquino, who had been posturing somewhat to the left of Laurel, had to largely cave in to Laurel's more conservative positions.
Laurel is notorious for being a loyal supporter of the U.S. military bases and for being a virulent anti-communist. He regularly shuttles back and forth between Washington and Manila. A year ago, he refused to sign a joint petition with a number of liberal politicians including Aquino which called for removal of the U.S. bases and legalization of the illegal Communist Party of the Philippines.
Of course, Aquino's position didn't amount to much other than militant posturing. But now, Aquino is waffling even on that sort of posturing. On the bases, she emphasizes such things as, "I have not set my mind on the actual date..." and how her husband didn't support immediate withdrawal of the bases. And as for the CPP, she holds out a promise for a six-month truce and negotiations, but only if "they renounce all forms of violence."
It is said that U.S. officials have been busy in talks with the Filipino opposition to get them to distance themselves from the issue of the U.S. bases and from the revolutionary left. In November the Reagan administration dispatched former Jimmy Carter aide Richard Holbrooke to convey this message to opposition politicians in Manila. It would seem that these talks have borne some fruit.
There were also other concessions Aquino made to Laurel. This included the agreement to run on the ticket of Laurel's party, UNIDO, rather than her own organization. This allows UNIDO to be recognized as the legal opposition party, which means certain privileges for it. As well, there were deals made on the division of other spoils of office.
A Ticket of Disaffected Sections of the Oligarchy
All this is run-of-the-mill bourgeois politicking. And this is no surprise, considering that both Aquino and Laurel are members of the small handful of landlord families who have been prominent in the Filipino ruling class.
Corazon Aquino was born into the Cojuangco family, one of the richest landowning families in the country. Her husband was also from the same strata.
Meanwhile Laurel's family has been active in Filipino politics for generations. In fact, Marcos is said to have a soft spot in his heart for Laurel, because Laurel's grandfather was the Supreme Court justice who exonerated Marcos from a murder charge decades ago. During the Japanese occupation, Laurel's father was president of the puppet regime.
Laurel was also a prominent supporter of Marcos until quite recently. He only quit Marcos' New Society Movement in 1982.
This is the ticket that is being hailed as a force for change in the Philippines. What rot! It is merely a ticket of disenchanted sections of the ruling oligarchy.
Even in the distant possibility that somehow it could win despite Marcos' best efforts, this would not amount to much of a change for the masses. The same class that dominates and exploits the workers and peasants would still be very much in power. U.S. imperialism would continue to have its privileges.
Pressure Against the Left
But no matter what its electoral fortunes, the liberal opposition ticket throws up a challenge to the Filipino left. It seeks to promote that the present order can be changed through electoral means rather than through struggle and revolution. And a great deal of pressure is being mounted on the masses to rally behind this effort.
The social-democratic trend in the Filipino movement has already been thrown into confusion. The organization BAYAN (New Nationalist Alliance), which groups together the reformists with mass organizations influenced by the revolutionary left, appears to be divided on what to do. They had originally called for a boycott unless certain conditions were met by Marcos, such as his resignation. But already a number of BAYAN's leading lights have thrown themselves into the Aquino-Laurel campaign. This includes both Lorenzo Taftada and Jose Diokno. Their stand is not too surprising, considering that these politicians have never left the orbit of bourgeois liberal politics.
Meanwhile we do not yet have word on the stand taken by the National Democratic Front forces associated with the Communist Party of the Philippines. There are reports that among them too there is uncertainty about what to do, and some are arguing for supporting Aquino-Laurel. This is of some concern because among the leadership of these forces there is a conciliatory stand towards the liberals. Instead of showing the masses the essential gulf that separates the revolutionary and liberal opposition, these forces unfortunately paint the liberals in near-revolutionary colors. For example, the August 1985 issue of Ang Bayan, organ of the CPP, again promoted Benigno Aquino, patron saint of the liberal bourgeoisie, calling him "a symbol of steadfast and valiant resistance to the regime."
Benigno Aquino did give his life to the Marcos regime, but he did not share the revolutionary aspirations of the toilers who are the main force sacrificing, fighting and dying to overthrow the hated tyranny. And it is that example, the example of the revolutionary movement, and not the wheeling and dealing of the bourgeois politicians, which is the harbinger of a new society in the Philippines.
[Photo: Filipino demonstrators near the presidential palace in Manila in early December. They were protesting the acquittal of General Ver and calling for a boycott of the upcoming elections.]
On December 1 the verdict came in on the trial of General Ver and 25 other military officers charged with conspiracy in the assassination of liberal politician Benigno Aquino. It was no surprise. All the defendants were found innocent. Marcos' Supreme Court followed his wishes to a 'T.' The president immediately put Ver back in charge of the Filipino armed forces.
Marcos would have preferred never to have had this trial. Ver and his associates were indicted only because a huge uproar broke out after the assassination of Aquino on August 21, 1983. The regime was forced to set up a commission of inquiry to look into the killing. At the hearings of this commission, a number of witnesses shot holes in the military's official story that a single "communist fanatic" had somehow managed to penetrate the security lines and shoot the taller Aquino, putting a bullet in Aquino's head -- from above. Also in these hearings, Ver imprudently shot off his mouth about how he and fellow officers had engineered a cover-up of the assassination. As a result, Ver and his co-defendants were indicted for conspiracy and Marcos was forced to temporarily suspend Ver from duty, although the general continued to live on in the presidential palace.
The trial's outcome had never been in doubt. It was made crystal clear after the Supreme Court cleverly ruled that Ver's testimony before the inquiry commission could not be admitted as evidence. Other evidence was treated similarly. For example, the court described the famous "crying lady" who had testified that she saw a soldier shoot Aquino as "unreliable" and simply ignored her testimony.
The verdict was greeted with widespread outrage and disgust among the masses. Protests broke out involving thousands in Manila.
From Washington -- Mock Outrage
The Reagan administration and politicians in Congress had made noises before the recent verdicts that if Ver was acquitted and reinstated, there would be "dire consequences." Washington was nervous that such steps in Manila would only worsen the crisis of the Marcos regime. But now Ver has been reinstated and it continues to be business as usual with U.S. military and political support for the Marcos dictatorship.
Of course, after the verdict was in, Washington did strike an expected critical pose. The Reagan officials came out with some mild criticism. The liberal Democrats in Congress appeared horrified and some made calls for the cutting off of military aid. But there was less concern about the travesty of justice and more about the fear that bringing back Ver would hamper the war against the revolutionary insurgency in the Philippines.
Marcos not only put Ver back at the head of the military, but also ordered a reorganization with top posts going to friends of Ver. U.S. officials and politicians have been insisting that better prosecution of the war requires "military reform," meaning that officers closer to the U.S., such as Lt. General Fidel Ramos, remain in charge. But Marcos has been stressing that the main issue in the Filipino military is "unity," i.e., total allegiance to the tyrant.
In a short time, the mock horror in Washington passed away. Despite the Reagan administration's "criticisms," within a few days U.S. military officers were sitting down with Ver to plan common counterrevolutionary strategy. And the capitalist newspapers which had earlier seemed to endorse threats of cutting aid to Marcos settled down to more realistic stands, saying, "But really, now, be serious...Marcos needs military aid to fight the communists." When all is said and done, the capitalist ruling class knows that the business of fighting revolution must take first place.
[Photo: Marcos' bloody henchman General Ver (second from left) holds friendly consultations with U.S. military brass. Here is the reality behind Washington's mock horror at Ver's acquittal.]
According to the hack journalists of the bourgeoisie, Iran under the Islamic regime is a country without opposition. We are told that the country is either full of raving religious fanatics or mindless sheep who willingly go to the slaughter.
But this is a lie. The Iranian toilers who so heroically overthrew the U.S.- backed Shah in the revolution of '79 have not quietly submitted under the bootheels of the mullahs. True, the revolutionary movement has suffered setbacks under the savage offensive of the Khomeini regime, but the spirit of resistance and revolution is far from extinguished.
In fact, for a while now the workers of Iran have been reviving their strike movement. Mass struggles of different kinds are breaking out. Despite ferocious repression, political organizing continues underground among the masses. And meanwhile a heroic war continues against the Tehran regime by the oppressed Kurdish masses who are fighting for the right of self-determination.
Below we reprint news from the Iranian movement reported on by the Committee Abroad of the Communist Party of Iran, an important revolutionary force among the Iranian toilers. These are excerpts from Report, a bimonthly publication of the CPI-Committee Abroad, Nos.4 and 5, 1-15 and 15-30 December 1985. (Minor grammatical changes are the responsibility of WA.)
On October 26, workers at the Caterpillar factory (a factory connected to the Ministry of Trades which repairs heavy machinery such as loaders, bulldozers, tanks...) in Teheran, refused to go to Kurdistan and repair the military vehicles of the regime. In this struggle, they forced the management to leave the factory.
The Caterpillar factory employs about 1,000 workers. In early October, the new management (Harooni and Hashemi) decided to change the name of the factory and transfer some of the workers to another factory (Komatso). They also planned to send a number of the workers to Kurdistan and the south of Iran to repair military vehicles. The workers protested against these decisions and announced that in case of a change in the factory's name, they would demand payment for the number of years that they had worked there (since as a result of a change in the name of the factory, they would be regarded as new workers), and refused to go to Kurdistan. The management did not accept this and began to pressure the workers.
Thus on October 26, workers called a general assembly and passed a resolution to dismiss the management. The management was forced to leave the factory, and one of the officials from the" Ministry of Trade who was spying on the workers was kept locked in a room for 48 hours by the workers, but was later released. The workers were united in their struggle to stop any action taken against them. Later the Pasdaran (armed Islamic guards) arrived on the scene and surrounded the factory, but being confronted with the united strength of the workers, were forced to leave the area. In solidarity with the workers, the factory-service drivers who had been ordered to leave the factory, also joined the workers and stayed with the workers until the end of the protest.
Workers managed to take over the factory and the production for 10 days. During this period the workers set up a workers' fund and collected 180,000 tomans ($3,600) for this purpose. They took possession of the factory documents, preventing the regime's officials from removing them. The workers agreed among themselves that to maintain unity, none of the workers would take days off during this period, except in cases of emergency.
Further news from the factory is that nine workers have so far been arrested and taken to Evin prison, but have not been released after 48 hours. Despite this, the workers' struggle still continues, and under the determined and united resistance of the workers at the factory, the management has not dared to return to the factory.
Recently, the brick works workers of the town of Malayer (central west of Iran), went on strike in protest against
1) expulsion of two workers on the charge of being Komala Supporters. (The Kurdistan Organization of the Communist party of Iran-Komola);
2) bad working and living conditions.
In this strike, 15 workers were arrested. The workers of the factory continued their strike and forced the regime to free their 15 comrades.
Last August, the workers of these factories found that the management was intending to sack two of their comrades on the grounds of being Komala supporters. Further, the workers' anger was aggravated because of the very low wages they were paid. They are paid on the basis of the number of bricks they make, i.e., 140 tomans ($2.15 unofficial rate; $10 official rate) per 1,000 bricks. In protest against the political suppression and severe exploitation, the workers went on strike.
They attacked the manager's office, smashed all the windows and doors and occupied it. The manager had to run for his life. By this time all the striking workers had assembled in front of the factory, and one of the officials from the" Ministry of Trade who was spying on the workers was kept locked in a room for 48 hours by the workers, but was later released. The workers were united in their struggle to stop any action taken against them. Later the Pasdaran (armed Islamic guards) arrived on the scene and surrounded the factory, but being confronted with the united strength of the workers, were forced to leave the area. In solidarity with the workers, the factory-service drivers who had been ordered to leave the factory, also joined the workers and stayed with the workers until the end of the protest.
Further news from the factory is that nine workers have so far been arrested and taken to Evin prison, but have not been released after 48 hours. Despite this, the workers' struggle still continues, and under the determined and united resistance of the workers at the factory, the management has not dared to return to the factory.
(Nos. 4 and 5 of Report also carry articles on strikes at the Tehran Ray, Electrolux and gas factories, and at brick-making factories in Azar Shahr in the northwest of the country. In these struggles workers fought for getting unpaid wages and against Report also carried articles exposing layoffs, overwork, industrial murder, and forced conscription suffered by workers under the present regime.)
To recruit soldiers for the Iran-Iraq war, the capitalist regime of Iran forces workers, students and the poor masses to sign for conscription. The workers who refuse to report for military service are threatened with expulsions, their wages are cut, and they are put under various pressures and deprivations.
Recently, the tractor drivers of Tabriz (northwest Iran) were ordered to report for conscription, otherwise they would not be given petrol or tire rations, and would not be permitted to work in other parts of the country. They were told by the regime's authorities to go to the war front once every fortnight, and during this period they would be paid Tomans ($300). The workers have resisted this policy and refused to go to the war front.
Saghez, November 19: on this day, units of Komala Peshmargas (the armed units of the Kurdistan Organization of the Communist Party of Iran-Komala) ambushed the regime's forces eight kilometers from the town of Saghez and attacked a military unit of the regime. All the regime's personnel were killed. Our Peshmargas also counterattacked the regime's reinforcements who were later brought into the area. Komala Peshmargas later left the area unharmed.
(Note: Since November 1984 when the armed forces of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), out of fear of the growing influence of the communists in Kurdistan and the creation of the conditions of revolutionary democracy, attacked our bases in the Oraman region, killing 13 of our comrades, the military confrontations between the KDP and the Peshmargas of the Kurdistan Organization of our Party have continued on an extensive scale. The following news are from this front.)
* Komala Peshmargas Savagely Attacked by KDP
On the morning of November 13, Komala Peshmargas were savagely attacked by the armed forces of the KDP and a number of them were killed, injured, executed and arrested by KDP forces.
On November 12, Komala Peshmargas of 22 Uromyeh column, while returning from a mission in "Margor" area, in the north of Kurdistan, were attacked by KDP armed forces. A battle broke out and our Peshmargas counterattacked the KDP units. During this battle one of the KDP forces was killed.
Next day, at 7:22 a.m. CPI Peshmargas, while resting in the nearby village of "Kalcheh,'' were once again attacked by the military forces of KDP. Komala Peshmargas counterattacked this invasion and despite having suffered many casualties fought resolutely. This battle continued for one hour during which the Communist Party of Iran lost 15 of its Peshmarga comrades; eight of the Peshmargas were injured and later executed by the KDP; two were arrested, and so far we have no news of the whereabouts of two of our injured comrades. A number of KDP forces were killed in this battle.
* Sarshiv-Saghez, November 14-16
During November 14-16, Komala Peshmargas clashed with the KDP forces. In these battles Komala Peshmargas forced one of the KDP's leading committees in the south of Kurdistan and their units to withdraw from their bases. As the result, six KDP military personnel were killed and many injured. Two of our Peshmargas lost their lives in these clashes.
[Photo: Announcement for the famous Haymarket Square rally on May 4, 1886 to protest the police murder of six McCormick Harvester strikers.]
In 1886, workers across the U.S. combined into a mighty struggle for the eight-hour day. On May 1 of that year, the American working class unleashed its first nation-wide strike. From Chicago and St. Louis to Baltimore and New York, the workers shut down rail yards, mills and factories. The slogan of the day was "Eight Hours For Work, Eight Hours For Rest, and Eight Hours For What We Will!''
The Haymarket Massacre
The employers and the government were horrified. In Chicago, which was the militant center of the strike, the police shot dead six strikers at the McCormick Harvester works on May 3. The next day, workers held a meeting in Haymarket Square to protest these murders. But "Chicago's finest'' were out for more blood, and they charged the meeting. A provocateur hurled a dynamite bomb at the police. The police opened fire and a bitter struggle broke out. In the end seven police and four workers lay dead.
To break the strike movement, some of the principal figures of the movement were framed for this murderous police attack. They were convicted in a crude mockery of a trial typical of capitalist justice. On November 11, 1887, four of these working class leaders, Spies, Parsons, Fischer and Engel, were hanged. To the end they remained defiant before the capitalist executioners, confident in the workers' cause.
The Birth of International Working Class Day
The May First strike and the Haymarket events shook the country and were felt around the world. This mighty action of the workers, and the bloody reply of the capitalists, smashed to bits the then popular myth that America was somehow immune from the inevitable class war between labor and capital. For the first time, the American proletariat had combined in a country-wide strike to struggle as a class for its own, independent interests. The working class in this country had raised its collective fist and proved it was a force to be reckoned with.
In July, 1889, inspired by the movement in the U.S., an international conference of revolutionary workers in Paris proclaimed May First as a day of international struggle of workers everywhere for the eight-hour day. (This was the founding meeting of what was to become the Second International.) Since that time. May First has been international working class day, a day of struggle and solidarity. Over the last hundred years, millions and tens of millions of workers in countries all over the globe have taken to the streets on May First, marching in the footsteps of the Haymarket martyrs for the cause of the emancipation of the men and women of labor.
Try As They Might, the Capitalists Cannot Purge the Legacy of May First
The American billionaires rave against the traditions of May First -- traditions born in Chicago and the other industrial centers of this country -- as "un-American.'' For a century now they have worked to purge this tradition. They have scrubbed it from the history books. With the help of the labor traitors of the old AFL, they have set up an alternative, pro-capitalist "Labor Day'' observed on the first Monday of September. And to top it off, Congress has cynically adopted May 1 as "Law Day.''
At times, various social-democratic and other reformist voices, including reformists dressed up as "Marxists,'' will give a word of recognition to May First. But they do so only to purge it of its militant class spirit. They turn it into something tame, something acceptable to the bourgeoisie, something that conforms to the "pro-labor" and "human rights" rhetoric of the capitalist politicians of the Democratic Party. In fact, plans are afoot to hold a commemoration of the Haymarket centennial along just these lines, with the blessings of the Democratic Mayor of Chicago, Harold Washington.
The Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary workers have different plans for the hundredth anniversary of May First. As it has done for years, the MLP will organize May First demonstrations and rallies to carry forward the fighting traditions of international workers' day. At the same time, the centennial year provides an excellent opportunity to spread the truth about the events of 1886 and their significance. This is not for the sake of ceremony or historical curiosity. On the contrary. Its purpose is to draw lessons from this brilliant page of our working class history for our present struggle. It is aimed at building up the struggles of today in the spirit which guided the Haymarket martyrs, the unbending spirit of the class struggle.
The Eight-Hour Day Movement Showed the Power of the Class Struggle
For tens of thousands of workers, the eight-hour day movement of the 1880's brought some relief from the 12 and 14 hours of labor that were common at that time. But the struggle only went so far. It was cut short by the repression of the employers and the government and the sabotage from within the movement itself. In 1890, the treacherous top officials of the AFL called off the second general strike for the eight-hour day that had been planned for May 1 of that year. This betrayal broke the class-wide movement, forcing the workers of each company or industry to fight on their own.
The sorry results of this betrayal can still be felt today. Compared to the rest of the industrialized countries, the U.S. has maintained some of the most backward legislation on the length of the work day and other labor laws. Millions of workers are still slaving in this country on 10 or 12-hour shifts for 60 or more hours a week.
Nevertheless, the impact of the eight- hour day movement went tar beyond the limited reductions in the work day. It was a country-wide school in class warfare. It revealed the life-and-death class struggle splitting American society into two hostile camps.
Far from a helpless mass living at the mercy of the industrialists and bankers, the struggle brought out the role of the wage workers as an independent class, a class with its own interests that are irreconcilably opposed to those of the capitalist exploiters. The strike wave of the 1880's demonstrated the might of the class struggle, the enormous power of the masses in action. And the struggle showed the necessity of the workers organizing their own political party to steer the class struggle and to advance the political and economic aims of the working class.
These and other lessons made a big imprint on the thinking and action of the conscious workers of that time; and a hundred years later they are as crucial for the workers' movement as ever. Among other fronts of the revolutionary work, these lessons of the class struggle provide guideposts for the work in the strike movement, which is showing signs of a new resurgence.
Today's Strike Movement Against Concessions
Over the last six years, the capitalists have been gripped by "concessions fever," slashing wages and benefits, cutting jobs and speeding up the lines. At the same time, the strike movement has fallen to a forty-year low. This is due in part to the blows of the economic depression, and to the ferocity of the attacks of the employers and the Reagan government. As well, it is due to the fact that "concessions fever" has also gripped the chieftains of the AFL-CIO and the other unions, who have been shamelessly cooperating with these attacks on the workers.
But 1985 brought signs that the ice may be breaking. Strike battles broke out at Wheeling-Pittsburg Steel, Bath Iron Works, General Dynamics, Chrysler, and other important firms. The Hormel meatpackers, the Watsonville cannery workers, and the Los Angeles supermarket workers are still locked in bitter struggles. There is no timetable for when the corner will be turned in the fight against concessions, or when the movement will rebound. The strikers today still represent only a small fraction of the working class. However, their determination is an indicator that the workers are not going to put up with the concessions being dished out by the employers and union bosses much longer.
Building the Consciousness and Organization of the Workers
The workers' resistance is bound to grow over the coming year. The decisive thing is that out of these struggles the workers' consciousness and organization also grows. In struggle the workers can gain confidence in the strength of their own mass action. Favorable conditions are created to fight the trade union sellouts, and to counter their preachings about "labor-management cooperation" with the fighting ideas of the class struggle. In struggle the workers more rapidly recognize the need for their own independent organization -- that is organization for struggle, built on the shoulders of the workers, and independent of the corrupt union bureaucracy.
To encourage steps towards the independent mobilization and organization of the masses, the militant workers must strive to deepen the rift between the rank and file and the treacherous bureaucrats. This includes thoughtful tactics to arm the workers about those bureaucrats who may spout militant rhetoric in their efforts to seize on the new signs of rank-and-file militancy, only to channel the workers safely back into the lap of the bureaucracy.
The Working Class Party and the Class Struggle
The MLP has been highly active in numerous struggles over the last period, including the Chrysler strike, the Seattle metal trades strike, and the stirrings among the New England electrical workers and the New York transit workers, among others. Many of the questions of orientation for the workers' movement were addressed in the resolution of the Second Congress of the Party, which summed up a wealth of experience. All this provides a good foundation for strengthening the Party and its networks and influence deep among the workers.
The working class party must be built up as the organizer and guide for the class struggle. By waging an active struggle against the capitalists and its reformist frontmen on all questions of politics and economics, the Party helps raise the workers' consciousness of their class position, and of their own independent class aims. In the isolated and separate struggles of today, the Party always points to the general interests of the workers, encouraging every step towards the resurgence of the class-wide movement. And the Party brings understanding that the fight against the concessions offensive of the capitalists and the other partial struggles of the class are not an end in themselves, but a step toward organizing the class struggle for the future battles and the socialist revolution, which will put an end to exploitation once and for all.
In their famous Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels pointed to the need for a communist party to guide the workers' movement. They pointed out, "1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they [the communists] point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."
Moreover, Marx and Engels considered the communist party as the most advanced and resolute section of the workers' movement, "clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter II, " Proletarians and Communists ")
[Photo: Historical graphic depicting clash between workers and police at Haymarket Square rally.]