Vol. 21, No. 1
VOICE OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST PARTY OF THE USA
25 cents January 1, 1991
[Front page:
No more blood for imperialism!--Take to the streets against Bush's war!;
Defend the unemployed!;
New Year's editorial: Sow seeds of resistance in a year of crisis]
| How deep a recession?............................................ | 2 |
| Banks totter; Slapping Neil Bush's wrist................ | 2 |
| Pay raises for politicians; Keating 5 bribery........... | 2 |
|
|
|
| Strikes and Workplace News |
|
| Daily News strike; Coal miners wildcat; L.A. teachers assistants strike......................................... | 3 |
| Injured postal workers on the march...................... | 4 |
|
|
|
| Step Up the Defense of Women's Rights! |
|
| L.A. clinic defense; Two views on defense............ | 5 |
| Cardinal bigot; Discrimination in AIDS................. | 5 |
| 'Pro-family' paper vs. poor having families........... | 5 |
|
|
|
| U.S. Troops Out of the Persian Gulf! |
|
| Anti-war movement grows..................................... | 6 |
| Defy the liberals, don't split the movement............ | 6 |
| Will Congress challenge the war drive?................. | 7 |
| What Bush didn't learn from Viet Nam.................. | 7 |
| Unrest in the military.............................................. | 7 |
|
|
|
| Down with Racism! |
|
| U. of Illinois; Miami masses angry......................... | 8 |
| KKK stoned; Yusef's murderers let off.................. | 8 |
| Powell in King parade; Jackson for new law.......... | 8 |
| Bush cuts scholarships; Occidental College........... | 9 |
| Wounded Knee remembered; Immigration bill...... | 9 |
| Sanctuary movement wins a round......................... | 9 |
|
|
|
| For Workers' Socialism, Not Revisionist State-Capitalism! |
|
| Riots in Albania, the pretense is over...................... | 10 |
|
|
|
| The World in Struggle |
|
| Panama: one year of U.S. occupation..................... | 11 |
| Change in Haiti?; Filipinos vs. gas price................ | 12 |
| Poor rebel in Morocco; Ershad out in B'desh...... | 12 |
No more blood for imperialism!
Take to the streets against Bush's war!
New Year's editorial: Sow seeds of resistance in a year of crisis
Cuts for the masses, pay raises for the politicians
Los Angeles teaching assistants strike
W. Virginia coal miners wildcat
Step up the defense of women's rights!
No to sectarianism
Defy the liberals, don't split the movement!
Will Congress challenge the war drive?
What Bush didn't learn from Viet Nam
Unrest in the military
DOWN WITH RACISM!
The pretense is over
Panama: One year of U.S. occupation
The World in Struggle
Populist priest is elected,
Will there be radical change in Haiti?
Filipinos protest gas price hike
Bangladesh: Upsurge forces out Ershad
January 15 is coming near. Bush has given Iraq an ultimatum to get out of Kuwait by then. Meanwhile, meetings between Washington and Baghdad are still up in the air. Both sides are talking tough and playing a game of brinksmanship.
Not being anywhere near the councils of power, far be it for us to lay bets on what will happen come January 15. There may yet be feelers for a compromise. But as things stand now the juggernaut is still rolling towards a bloody and brutal war. And it is the Bush administration which is pushing hardest for it.
But this is a war the working people and youth of America do not want. Bush has tried to come up with every argument to swing public opinion on his side. They have all been proven to be lies or hypocrisy. Talk about standing up to "naked aggression" does not sit well coming from the man who raped Panama just a year ago. Standing up for "international law" does not work well as an argument coming from a man who helped Reagan wage a dirty war against the Nicaraguan people.
No, this is a war to safeguard the profits of oil monopolies. It is a war to shore up the right of U.S. imperialism to be No. 1 power broker in the Persian Gulf. It is a war to prop up the tyrannies of filthy-rich oil kings and sheikhs of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
There is no justice in Iraq's side in this conflict either. Saddam Hussein is a fascist who is no liberator of the Arab people. He invaded Kuwait solely to increase his regime's wealth and its supremacy in the Gulf region. He is no anti-imperialist warrior; just yesterday the U.S. and other Western imperialists propping him up. Saddam deserves to be overthrown but it's not up to Washington to deal with him -- that's a task before the Iraqi and other oppressed peoples of that region.
As the world steps closer to war, the outcries of anti-war sentiment are growing louder and louder. December saw more demonstrations against the U.S. buildup. Across the U.S. and overseas. And tens of thousands are planning to march on Washington later this month.
This is an exciting development. It is a big wave of anti-war sentiment, remarkable that it has reached such a scale even before the war has broken out. You'd think that there would be more discussion in the mass media about this. You'd imagine there would be more voices being heard in the newspapers and TV who point out that what Bush is doing is wrong, dead wrong. You'd think the politicians, if they really represented the people's interests, would be warning against war and opposing it. But what's going on instead?
The media is part of the problem, not the solution. It wants the people to be involved in Rebates over how best to put pressure on Iraq, not whether American empire-building is right or wrong. They want to embroil the people into speculating whether the Pentagon will really be ready to "kick ass" on January 15 or later. The politicians want to hold hearings in Congress, but not over the justness of Bush's war effort. No, they want to debate what is the best way to wage war on Iraq: a quick military strike in the coming weeks or after economic blockade has starved enough children.
Why these debates? It's because the mass media and politicians are part of a capitalist establishment which basically agrees on the U.S. government's right to intervene in the Middle East and elsewhere. They only differ over how best to do that.
The workers and youth of America do not have their voices in such a debate. We don't want to take part in America's imperialism, but fight against it. Our beef is not with the Iraqi workers and youth but with those who oppress us here. With those who cut our wages, lay us off, maim us in the work places, and bring us homelessness, racism and bigotry. With those who now want us to sacrifice our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters, in a war so that EXXON and Texaco can make fatter profits. With those whose "foreign aid" spends billions propping up Middle Eastern despots and Israeli denial of Palestinian rights.
No thanks! Let us go all out to join the protests against Bush's war. No to a war for oil company profits! No to a war to save oil-rich tyrants in the Middle East!
More on the crisis in the Persian Gulf -- pages 6-7
* Anti-war movement grows
* Why two marches in Washington?
* Will Congress challenge war drive?
* Unrest in the military
* What Bush didn't learn from Viet Nam
[Photo: Seattle, Dec. 1st]
As the recession sets in, unemployment is soaring. At the same time, unemployment benefits have been cut to the bone. Just as in the 1930's, workers are again being forced to the choice of fight or starve.
Unemployment climbs to over 11%
The October and November layoffs were the worst two month job loss since the depths of the 1981-82 recession. Officially, unemployment reached 5.9% in November.
But, on top of the over seven million "officially" unemployed there are also over 800,000 "discouraged" workers (those who gave up looking for jobs in the past six months). And there are another 5.5 million people who are forced to work part time because they can't find full-time work. Together that's over 13 million workers and the unemployment rate has really passed 11%.
Benefits have been slashed
What is worse, unemployed benefits have been gutted.
Today under 2.5 million workers even receive unemployment benefits, about one-third of the "officially" unemployed. Those who do get benefits receive them for a shorter period. And they get an average of only $159 a week, about 35% of the earnings at previous jobs, and that can be taxed.
And even with these cuts, some unemployment funds are running short. Hard-hit states like Connecticut and Michigan could exhaust their funds in the first quarter of 1991 and would be forced to borrow from the federal government.
No help from Democrats
The cuts in unemployment benefits actually began under the Democrats. President Carter let two extended benefit programs expire, cutting the maximum benefits possible from 65 weeks down to 39 weeks.
Reagan took up where Carter left off. He cut the sole remaining extended-benefit program -- knocking another 13 weeks off the maximum -- by drawing up stiffer eligibility requirements. Under these requirements not a single state qualifies for the program even though there is $7 billion in a federal account specifically earmarked for it.
Meanwhile, states headed by Democrats as well as Republicans slashed benefits right and left. At least 31 states increased the minimum earnings and the amount of weeks worked needed to qualify for unemployment benefits. Twenty states changed formulas used to compute weekly unemployment benefits to yield lower payouts. Most states set other stricter guidelines for qualification. And more capitalist bosses contested claims, especially hitting nonunion workers who had no organization to fight back.
Obviously the workers can expect no help from the capitalist politicians -- Democrats and Republicans alike. Workers must get organized on their own to fight back.
Any way you look at it, 1991 is going to be a year of crisis. Whether it's the impending war, or the recession, or the epidemic of racism and attacks on women's rights, everywhere crises confront the working masses.
Yet a time of crisis not only means suffering and hardship for the masses. It is also a time when eyes are opened to the ugly reality of capitalism. A time when it becomes clear that the old solutions don't work. A time when the masses are looking for a new way. It is a time to plant the seeds of resistance.
Imperialism means war
Last year started with talk of a new era of peace. The collapse of the Warsaw pact, we were told, meant there.was no more enemy. Weapons production would be curtailed, the gargantuan military machine was to be whittled down, and a peace dividend was to benefit all.
But now all that talk is gone. The Persian Gulf is swamped with a million troops. The war machine is turned up full tilt. The Pentagon is getting out the body bags.
And for what? So the oil monopolies can prosper. So the U.S. can control and plunder the Arab peoples.
Imperialism hasn't changed. It is a two headed monster devouring the sweat and blood of the workers at home and ravaging the toilers abroad. It is a system of plunder and war. We must fight it every step of the way. Let us open the new year with the shout -- No to an imperialist war for oil!
Capitalism spells crisis
Last year also started with psalms to the "victory of the capitalist system." The collapse of the Eastern European regimes was supposed to prove the superiority of capitalism. Economic crisis was to be a thing of the past. Capitalism was to bring prosperity to Eastern Europe and put the whole world on easy street.
But now that talk has got quiet. The fact is there was no socialism in Eastern Europe, only state capitalism. Its plunge into "free market," western-style capitalism has only meant growing unemployment, soaring prices, losing social benefits and worse. And now the U.S. is caught up in economic crisis too.
And for what? So the S&L bankers can be bailed out. So the rich can keep their riches.
Capitalism hasn't changed. You still only work if it makes profits for the wealthy few. Advances in production still only lead to the layoff of those who produce. The boom-and-bust rollercoaster still holds sway in a system that lives only to profit off the exploitation of the workers. We must fight it every step of the way. Let us open the new year with the call -- Make the capitalists pay for the economic crisis! No to unemployment, to speed-up and overwork, to soaring prices!
Racism built into the system
Last year also began with songs about democracy, about a president who would extend a hand of friendship to civil rights, about a "kinder and gentler America."
But where are those promises now? Bush vetoed the civil rights bill, minority scholarships were shot down, and a wave of discrimination and racist attacks have swept across the country.
And for what? So the last-hired-first-fired minorities can be super-exploited by the grasping bosses. So the working masses can be split by the poison of racism and divided before the onslaught of the rich.
The establishment hasn't changed. From the slaughter of the native people and the enslavement of blacks, it has been built up on the back of racism. And we must fight it^every step of the way. Let us begin the new year with the cry -- Stand against discrimination! Fight the racist attacks!
Get organized
But how can the workers fight back? What weapons do we have?
We have numbers. We are the vast majority. And those numbers can mean strength, can mean power, if we are united by organization and guided by a clear idea of our own class interests.
Organize, organize, organize -- that is the task for the new year. Too long we have suffered in terrible isolation, each person for oneself. Too long we have been spumed by our supposed leaders and relegated to trying to resist by ourselves alone.
We must pull together our collective anger, our skills, our knowledge into organizations of every type. We need networks to spread working class leaflets and papers. We need committees to resist the racist attacks and to fight the imperialist war. We need rank-and-file groups at the workplace, and organizations of the injured, and the homeless, and the unemployed.
And, if we are to rise in action for our general class interests, if we are to fight not only this or that outrage but the whole system of outrage, we must also build up our own party, a revolutionary party of the working class.
That is why activists founded the Marxist-Leninist Party (MLP) eleven years ago this New Year's. That is why we call on all workers to give us a hand today.
Big or small, we must have fighting organization
But still there are bigwigs who say don't work with the communists, they are so small and the workers need big organizations like the unions or the NAACP or the National Organization for Women (NOW).
Of course, the more workers who are organized the better chance the struggle will succeed. But no matter how big an organization, if it does not fight then it is of no use to the working masses.
And what did 1990 show? It was not the heads of the NAACP, or the Black Muslims, or the other respectable black leaders who organized against the racist beatings at Harpos nightclub in Detroit last year. No, it was the communists -- who called out the demonstrations and initiated a community network to keep up the anti-racist sentiment. And it was not the union bureaucrats who waged a six-month campaign against the firing of the provisional track workers in New York transit last year. No, it was the communists -- who launched a petition drive, fought at union meetings, and initiated the call for the picket at the transit headquarters. Nor was it the union hacks who stood up for the injured postal workers in Detroit. No, it was the communists -- who spread protest leaflets and helped the injured find one another to initiate their organization and mass actions.
Although the MLP is small, and it cannot reach every struggle, still it fought arm-in-arm with the workers and progressive activists to resist the blockades of abortion clinics, to protest the racist outrages, to build up the anti-war movement, and more. Although small, the MLP is among the masses, and through this struggle it is helping plant the seeds for bigger organization and a broader, class struggle in the future. Can the same be said of the bigwigs of the unions, or the NAACP, or NOW?
Stand openly for the class interests of the workers
But then the bigshots complain, don't work with the communists, they have a hidden agenda, they will manipulate you for their own purposes.
Well, think about who is really manipulating the masses for their own hidden agenda.
The Democrats claim they are a party of the workers and minorities. But it's them, not the communists, who took millions in "campaign contributions" to hold closed-door meetings to help Keating and other S&L bandits.
Or look at the "respectable" black leaders. They speak for equality and justice for all black people, then turn around and sell out the masses for the sake of the black elite, for a few more positions in the government and corporate boards.
Or what about the big union bureaucrats? Although they claim to speak for labor, they keep sabotaging the mass struggle to sell the workers more concessions to the bosses. Little wonder their salaries rank with that of the politicians and corporate executives -- it is the labor aristocracy, not the rank-and-file workers, they serve.
The communists don't manipulate anybody. We proclaim our aims publicly. We call for open discussion. And we fight against hidden agendas, no matter whose they are, because only when the workers become aware of the different agendas, and understand which class they serve, can the workers consciously stand up for their own class interests.
When the communists fight for the day-to-day demands of the workers, it is not to manipulate them. It is because we know that is the only way for the workers to defend themselves, to learn organization, and to prepare themselves for greater things.
The working class can win
Still there are those who grumble "don't work with the communists because even if the workers eventually overthrow the capitalists it is inevitable that new bosses will take over."
Certainly the workers have been crushed or sold out all too often. Certainly the experience with the Soviet Union and China and others is being thrown up to cause such pessimism. But the workers have also toppled tyrants and made life hell for the bosses. The future is not settled. In the long run, it is in the workers' hands.
The communists don't fight to trade one repressive government for another, but for working class rule. The communists don't fight to replace old exploiters with some phony "socialist" exploiters, but to eliminate all exploiters and build workers' socialism. Today when we fight, it is not only against the capitalist bosses, but also against the sellout union bosses and all who mislead the workers. And, in the course of struggle, we teach the workers to distinguish their own interests, to differentiate between true working class leaders and opportunists who would climb up on the backs of the working masses.
That is why the communists study the history of the workers movement. That is why we have always stood against revisionism and distinguished it. from socialism and communism. That is why today the MLP is studying anew the history of Russia and other revolutions of the twentieth century, and why we analyze critically the different views in each mass upsurge around the world. We are working to learn from experience and develop the revolutionary theory that can guide the movement and arm it against betrayals and setbacks.
Today the communists are still small and the workers' movement is still crippled. But the growing crisis is blowing away old illusions and opening new possibilities for organization. On this new year, let us join hands to plant the seeds of resistance. Workers and militant activists, join with the MLP to get organized and build up a revolutionary part of the working class.
Only a few months ago, Bush's economists yelled to high heaven that there would be no recession, just a slight "slowdown" in the economy. Now they're shouting not to worry, they are quite sure the recession will only be a "mild" one.
But what these optimists for capitalism are hiding is that underlying this recession is a deep crisis in a whole series of sectors. And these crises, if they don't plunge the country into a 30's-style depression this year, will keep the economy sluggish and pave the way for a deeper crisis in the future.
Debt crisis grows
For example, some economists are hoping that growth in consumer spending and business investment will help pull the country out of recession, as it did in 1982. But such spending is being squeezed by a debt crisis that keeps getting worse.
Today private debt amounts to 1.42 times the Gross National Product. This is far higher than the 1.05 level during the 1982 recession. Meanwhile the government's debt, even after slashing social programs, and raising taxes, grew to around $300 billion in 1990 and is expected to grow further next year.
Real estate crisis
Economists also hope for another building boom like the one that fueled growth out of the last recession. But much of that building boom was based on financial speculation which crashed a few years ago. Today growth in building is unlikely since there is huge overproduction of office buildings, condos, etc. And mortgage debt has reached amazing heights.
For example, it is estimated that there is now a 10-year supply of office space. And the office vacancy rate in 36 major cities averages about 20%, up from last year and well above the levels of the last recession.
At the same time, total mortgage debt owed as a percentage of disposable income amounted to 66% in the third quarter of 1990. That compares with a high of 48% in the depths of the last recession.
Bank failures
Meanwhile, the real estate and debt crises -- along with other crises like third world debt -- have thrown the banking system into chaos. The Savings and Loan disaster has now spread to commercial banking and the entire system is shaking.
The government's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation announced in December that more than 1,000 of the country's 12,400 commercial banks are now on its "problem list." That is four times as many as in 1981 when the country last entered into a recession.
Service sector also in crisis
In the last recession -- while manufacturing, mining and utilities crashed -- the service sector remained stable. But this time, much of the downturn is concentrated in finance, retail and wholesale trade, and business services. These sectors account for about 40% of private jobs, and layoffs have already begun to hit them.
No help from exports
But the optimists tell us that exports will prop up the economy and make for only a mild recession. The only question is who will the U.S. sell to?
Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand -- which have a combined gross national product greater than Japan's -- are themselves all in recession now. And the "strong economies" of Japan and Germany may also see trouble.
War drive deepens the crisis
There is also the question of war. Most economists based their prediction of a "mild" recession on an estimate that, one way or another, the Persian Gulf crisis will be over by spring. But how they can predict that is anybody's guess.
Already the cost for Operation Desert Shield has doubled to up to $37 billion for this fiscal year. That has pushed up the federal budget deficit, helping intensify the "credit crunch" and other problems.
It is estimated that a shooting war would cost up to $2 billion a day. Obviously just these costs from even a short war will wreck further mayhem with the economy. And no one can guess what the destruction will do to oil production and prices.
Another 210 banks collapsed and required assistance from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in 1990 alone. That compares to an average of only five a year from the 1950's through the 70's, and only 52 a year from 1980-85.
Obviously the banking system is in deep trouble. In fact, the FDIC announced in December that more than 1,000 of the country's 12,400 commercial banks are on its "problem list."
What is more, the FDIC itself is in crisis. Its Bank Insurance Fund, which insures deposits, hit a record low level in 1990 and is sinking fast. It had fallen to about $10 billion by December 31. And the FDIC predicted that bank failures will cost it another $14 billion this year. Meanwhile, a House banking subcommittee reported that a severe recession could boost the insurance fund losses to $63 billion over the next three years.
So what is Bush doing about the crisis?
In the first place he wants to bail out the FDIC by charging the banks more for insurance and by limiting the number of insured accounts. This may temporarily shore up the FDIC, but it won't deal with the underlying crisis.
And Bush's main plan is a recipe for disaster. Bush wants to deregulate the banks -- allowing the banks to expand across state lines and into other financial services like insurance, real estate, securities, and so forth.
This is quite similar to the plan to solve the Savings and Loan crisis back in the early 1980's -- the plan that led to the enormous S&L debacle that we face now.
In the short run this might allow banks to grab more business and stay afloat temporarily. But in the long run it means unleashing a huge financial war between banks, insurance companies, S&Ls, credit companies, etc.
Such a war will undoubtedly make some people rich by accelerating financial speculation and monopolization --just as the S&L plan did. But it will also lead to even more failures of not only banks but other financial institutions as well. And then who will pay? You can bet itwill be the masses, just as we are doing with the S&Ls.
The collapse of the Silverado Savings and Loan from unscrupulous wheelings-and-dealings may cost taxpayers about $1 billion. And the president's son was in the middle of it.
While a director of the Denver S&L, Neil Bush backed a series of questionable big loans and failed to mention that the loans were to his business partners. In December, an administrative law judge found that Bush failed to disclose conflicts of interest and engaged in unsafe and unsound practices.
But does Bush have to pay back the money he made or go to jail for his crimes? Not a chance. The judge simply recommended that the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) order Bush not to do it again. It is up to the OTS to decide whether to accept the recommendation, and it probably won't decide before next April.
Remember the budget deficit. Remember the politicians saying there's no money so they have to raise taxes. Remember they said they just had to cut funds for health care and housing and welfare and more.
But then when it comes to their own pay, all of a sudden no one remembers the budget deficit and there seems to be lots of loot to spread around.
As of January 1, the politicians have given themselves another pay raise. Vice President Dan Quayle gets a 29% increase to $160,000 a year. So do House Speaker Thomas Foley and Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Meanwhile, the 435 House members get a 25% pay raise to $125,100 a year. And the 100 senators get raises to $101,900 a year, plus up to $27,500 for speaking fees. Federal judges and top government executives also get big raises.
No wonder there's a budget deficit. But such is the system that serves the filthy rich.
What we need instead is a workers' government -- a government based on the working class, serving those class interests, and which mobilizes the masses to take part in running things. Such a government would not tolerate these fat politicians. It would limit government pay to that of ordinary working people and kick out of office anyone who does not work for the needs of the masses.
'Keating Five': Bribery as usual
It used to be called bribery. Now they call it "campaign contributions." That's what you can learn from hearings of the Senate Ethics Committee on the Keating Five.
Four Democrats and one Republican senator received a total of $1.3 million in campaign contributions from Charles Keating, Jr., the head of the now-defunct Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of California.
In return, the senators pressured federal regulators to exempt Lincoln from rules limiting risky investments and to give it other concessions. According to William Black, one of the top S&L regulators, the senators' pressure helped to delay the closing of Lincoln for two years -- upping the cost of the bailout to over $2 billion.
Of course this sort of corruption is part-and-parcel of the capitalist system in the U.S. Indeed, California Senator Cranston declared that "fund-raising" while "helping constituents" is simply something that all the politicians engage in.
But don't count on the Senate Ethics Committee to do much about it. Robert Bennett, the special counsel who headed the Senate's investigation, called the Keating Five an "aberration" from the normal pattern. And, while excusing two of the senators, he's pushed for exposing the rest to save "the reputation" of the Senate from "utter ruin."
The Keating Five hearing, then, is just a showcase aimed at restoring confidence in the system. But what the hearings really show is that through campaign contributions and other legal and illegal forms of bribery, the rich capitalists exercise their power over the politicians and the government. And the masses are left holding the bill.
Strikes and workplace news
[Graphic.]
Solidarity for 'Daily News' strikers
More than 5,000 anti-war protesters rallied against Bush at the Waldorf- Astoria December 9, and then marched to the New York Daily News building in a show of support for the strikers. The next day over 10,000 workers held a solidarity rally. Hospital, hotel, transit workers, and others came out to show their support.
Daily News workers have held firm in their two-month strike against the take- back demands of the Tribune Company, which owns the News. But the company is working hard to break the strike. And it's getting support from high places.
When the strike began, for example, New York Mayor David Dinkins deployed hundreds of cops in riot gear or on horseback to protect scabs and escort scab delivery trucks. As of November 25, the costs for police overtime in the strike had reached more than $6.7 million -- over a third of all police overtime pay.
Meanwhile, Dinkins demands austerity for the city workers due to a lack of funds. The contracts for over 150,000 city workers have expired. The Dinkins administration is demanding a hew round of layoffs and brutal cuts in social services. But when the Tribune bosses need help, Dinkins pants after them.
[Photo: News strikers picket in Chicago outside office of Tribune Co.]
[Photo: L.A. teaching assistants picket outside school in N. Hollywood]
Teaching assistants (TAs) in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) struck for a union contract November 28. They are demanding district-paid health benefits, paid sick days, broader career opportunities and guaranteed minimum hours.
On the second day of their struggle, more than 200 strikers broke up a L.A. school board meeting. They angrily denounced the school superintendent and seized control of the room. They raised their fists high and chanted "Settle the contract now!" and "Si, se puede" (yes, we can). The board members fled.
After the district officials abandoned the room, the strikers continued chanting, banging on desks and scrambling over barriers to assume the board's seats. Several times the lights were turned out on them and their screaming escalated. After an hour, the strikers left the board room and joined hundreds of other TAs who had clustered in the building courtyard, waving picket signs and shouting slogans.
On December 12, over 500 strikers rallied at L.A. City Hall, demanding face-to-face negotiations with the Board of Education. The board members never showed.
There are 10,000 TAs in the L.A. school system, the majority of whom are Latino immigrants. They provide critical services in the L.A. schools, including bilingual instruction to the over 200,000 students learning English -- one-third of the entire student body.
Last year the teaching assistants voted to become unionized. In retaliation, the school district unilaterally cut their work schedule from six to three hours per day, making them ineligible for medical benefits.
While the TAs desire a militant struggle, the SEIU leaders are hamstringing them with a "rolling strike" strategy -- leaving some TAs working while others strike in limited areas for three days at a time. At the same time, the leaders of the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) are refusing them solidarity. Even though the TAs put their jobs on 4he line by honoring picket lines when the L.A. teachers struck in 1989, the UTLA leaders have ordered teachers to cross the TA's lines. Despite this, some teachers have joined the TA's pickets during non-working hours.
[Photo: L.A. teaching assistants picket outside school in N. Hollywood]
More than 300 coal miners shut down the Hobet coal mine and processing plant in Mingo County, West Virginia on November 28. They demanded the company rehire a black miner who had been fired during the midnight shift. Hobet quickly got a court injunction against the job action. But even then, over 30% of the workers on the afternoon shift did not report to work.
Hobet wants out of the master contract with the Bituminous Coal Operators Association. It is seeking concessions in health and safety, productivity, and workrules. Its first move was to unilaterally impose a harsh attendance policy in violation of the existing contract. They fired the black miner to test their new policy, even though he was led to believe he had an approved day off.
The fired miner was black and the coal bosses launched a racist attack against him by labeling him as being "lazy" and "missing a lot of time." Even though 95% of the Hobet miners are white, they refused to fall for the bosses' racist lines. An attack on a black miner is an attack on all miners.
20,000 vs. cuts in N.Y. Schools
[Photo: Students, teachers and parents rallied against school budget cuts outside New York's City Hall, Dec. 6.]
Injured postal workers on the march
The employees' entrance of Detroit's main post office is a busy place in the afternoon. As workers come and go, they mingle with each other, with distributors of left-wing newspapers, and with vendors of food, sports souvenirs, etc.
In cold weather, it's not as busy. But Wednesday, December 19, was different. This afternoon something new took place at the entrance on Fort Street. There was a spirited picket to protest postal management's treatment of injured employees. It was called by the newly-formed organization of rank-and-file postal workers, "Injured and Handicapped Postal Workers United" (IHPWU). It included workers who were injured as well as those who were not but see the importance of supporting the injured. The picket had the support of workers across all crafts and brought out employees from facilities throughout metro Detroit.
Lasting nearly three hours, the picket greeted postal workers as they came and went. Dozens of workers stopped to join the picket before continuing on -- some briefly, some longer.
The demonstrators denounced postal management for its harassment of injured workers. Pointing the finger at the Detroit postmaster they shouted Hey-hey! John Home! Who you gonna lay off tomorrow mom?
The picket kept up a steady stream of slogans. The workers shouted Overwork causes injuries! No to speedup! No forced overtime! Stop lengthening routes! Bring back the laid off - NOW! We will march, we will fight! Injured workers want their rights!
The hand-made placards held up by the group spoke of these and other concerns. Some demanded: Stop delaying workers' comp cases! Light duty for pregnant women! Allow work with medical restrictions!
The picketers also highlighted two particular outrages against injured workers.
Some people have been laid off from work because their medical restrictions require chairs with backs and the post office refuses to give them such chairs, even though they have them and put healthy workers in them! Workers shouted: Bring back work on chairs with backs - NOW!,and placards pointing out this injustice were hung on two chairs with backs in the middle of the picket.
Picketers also shouted Pushcarts for injured carriers - NOW!This referred to cases in which injured carriers have been refused pushcarts, despite the fact that the post office has such carts and gives them out at certain stations.
800 copies of a statement issued by the IHPWU were distributed at the picket. After describing the many abuses by management of the injured, it declared: "We, the Injured and Handicapped Postal Workers United -- an organization drawing together workers from all postal crafts and supporters of the injured -- believe that direct, mass action is the best answer to management harassment and brutality. As in the days of the civil rights movement, we are launching a campaign of marching and picketing to defend our health, our jobs and our well-being. Today we picket the GMF.... Next time we will march somewhere else."
It went on to say:
"Postal management: we are not going down without a fight! In fact, WE ARE NOT GOING DOWN AT ALL! Together with the other postal workers, we move the mail and have done so for years. We will not be thrown away like used toilet paper! WE WILL BE HEARD!"
The statement also denounced the do-nothihg attitude of the union leaders. "Sold-out union leaders: you are a disgrace to true union struggle and solidarity. We warn you: we will not allow ourselves to be sold down the river! We stand for the age-old slogan of workers' solidarity: AN INJURY TO ONE IS AN INJURY TO ALL! We, the workers, will win!"
The Marxist-Leninist Party also took part in the picket and helped mobilize both postal and other workers to come. An issue of the MLP-Detroit newspaper Detroit Workers' Voice was distributed. It pointed out that Detroit Workers' Voicehas stood with the injured workers from the outset and supports and publicizes their fight.
The Injured and Handicapped Postal Workers United was formed in December after a smaller core of injured workers organized two public speakouts which brought out postal workers from throughout the Detroit area. They elected officers and selected as their motto: An injury to one is an injury to all.At the second speakout, the group also launched a campaign of mass action which began with the December 19 picket.
The IHPWU is a mass organization uniting all workers who support the cause of the injured. The IHPWU has brought together workers of different ideas, views, and politics around the issue of defending the rights and jobs of injured postal workers. It is based on the rank and file and has come into being to fight management harassment and the betrayal of the sellout union leaders.
[Photo.]
1,000 pro-choice activists in the Los Angeles area poured out on December 8 in order to prevent the holy bullies of Operation Rescue (OR) from blockading an abortion clinic.
Early in the morning, the pro-choice activists massed at six clinics, awaiting word where OR would attack. When it was clear that these particular clinics were not being targeted by OR, about 500 people gathered to picket at the Catholic Archdiocese in Los Angeles. The anti-abortion forces had been using the Catholic churches as rallying centers. The picket was spirited, lasting two hours. "Fight for choice!" and "Church and state, separate!" resounded through the street.
The picketers were under the impression that OR had been unable to shut any clinics. This is because the pro-establishment leaders from the National Organization for Women (NOW) and from the Fund for the Feminist Majority had announced that only a "handful" of OR raiders had hit a clinic in Santa Ana, that the police had removed OR, and hence a "great victory" had been won.
NOW leaders lie to the activists
But this was a lie. In fact, a few hundred anti-abortion zealots had descended on the Santa Ana clinic early that morning. Some pro-choice forces also made it to the clinic, but OR had succeeded in closing the clinic.
As for the police, yes, they removed a few OR people who went inside the clinic building. But this was five hours after the OR blockade began and after the clinic canceled all its appointments for the day. Nor did the police break up the intimidating blockade outside the clinic.
The day had begun with over 1,000 clinic defenders ready to confront OR. And had hundreds concentrated on Santa Ana, OR would have been in hot water. But the liberal wing of the pro-choice movement was in charge of the day's events, and they made up a phoney story to keep activists from going to the Santa Ana clinic. They handed the clinic to OR on a silver platter and had the nerve to call this a "great victory." What treachery!
It's not that the pro-establishment liberals like OR. But they like mass activity even less. So the leaders of NOW condemn confrontations with OR and advise that the fate of abortion rights should be left to the tender mercies of the police and the courts and other ruling class agencies. So when the liberals had the opportunity on December 8 to unleash a massive force to confront OR, they preferred to let the clinic close that day instead.
Clinic blockades by OR (Operation Rescue) have aroused the anger of youth and working people. Large numbers of people have come out repeatedly to oppose OR. By staging pro-choice actions to counter OR, they have hurt OR's attempt to portray itself as the voice of the masses.
But among the pro-choice activists, there are several views. People come to the clinics to oppose OR. But the pro-establishment leaders tell them not to shout slogans, not to confront OR, just to have a passive presence. At most, NOW (National Organization for Women) would prefer that people shout "boys in blue, we love you."
These differences have appeared in different clinic defense conferences last year.
The clinic non-defense conference
On October 19-21, NOW and the Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force hosted a conference on clinic defense. But the conference was devoted to discussion of injunctions, the fine points of civil litigation, and how to work with the police. It had little concern for the masses of working and poor women. And it also didn't care much about the mass of activists who actively confront the anti-abortion bullies at the clinics.
This was the pro-establishment conference. Its idea of "clinic defense" was to avoid confrontations with OR, and rely on the police. Even it had to admit that the police "all too often" sat on their hands and let OR close down the clinics. But it said the remedy was to work with to the clinic, but OR had succeeded in the police even more closely. It can be recalled that NOW even supports notoriously repressive laws like RICO in the name of having the police defend the clinics.
But what about the activists?
But then, why bother to have a conference at all? Because clinic confrontations take place despite NOW's wishes. Local NOW branches have issued several statements denouncing the clinic activists.
This last March, activists who had confronted OR held their own clinic defense conference. The Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force attended and was horrified at this "violence" and at speakers daring to criticize NOW in some workshops. Unfortunately, the March conference did not speak in its resolutions to its differences with NOW, and the majority hoped that NOW could be won over.
But far from being won over, NOW stepped up its activities to prevent confrontations. This was the point of its October conference.
And the views of the October conference were promptly put into effect in December. OR staged a big attack on a clinic in Santa Ana, outside Los Angeles. Over 1,000 activists came out on December 8, going to several clinics, to oppose OR. NOW leaders, however, headed off a big confrontation by keeping the big majority of activists away from Santa Ana. They lied that the police had kept the clinic open, and led the activists elsewhere. (See article elsewhere in this paper.)
500 people demonstrated at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City on December 9. They targeted Cardinal John O'Connor for his stand against abortion rights. They also denounced his opposition to contraception and to the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. And they condemned his anti-gay bigotry.
The Catholic church is not tolerant of protest against their medieval ideas. Shortly before, it had gotten a court order restricting demonstrations at St. Patrick's. But the protesters were not deterred.
400 people demonstrated on December 3 against policies that result in the federal government denying medical benefits to many women with AIDS. The government refuses to acknowledge that certain diseases and ailments that occur among women are signs of AIDS.
The protest took place at the Centers for Disease Control outside Atlanta, Georgia. This agency's definition of AIDS is used to determine whether a patient qualifies for Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits. Demonstrators shouted "CDC, change the definition, women are dying by omission."Meanwhile, the authorities showed their great concern for the plight of the AIDS-stricken by arresting 50 demonstrators.
Not only are benefits denied by the government, but research on how AIDS affects women is overlooked. Yet, by some estimates, a large number of women who die from AIDS have symptoms now ignored by the government. Furthermore, the government and medical establishment have been dragging their feet on support for AIDS patients in general.
[Photo.]
The editorial for the December 12 issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer was titled "Poverty and Norplant -- Can Contraception Reduce the Underclass?" Norplant is a promising new contraceptive consisting of arm implants which prevent pregnancy for several years. The Inquirer is a liberal newspaper and claims to sympathize with the plight of inner city blacks and the poor. But what it proposes is that poor people be coerced into not having babies.
The Inquirer argues that "foolproof contraception could be invaluable in breaking the cycle of inner city poverty." Why? Because "the main reason more black children are living in poverty is that the people having the most children are the ones least capable of supporting them.... There are many ways to fight back.... But it's very tough to undo the damage of being born into a dysfunctional family. So why not make a major effort to reduce the number of children, of any race, born into such circumstances?"
So the editorial suggests "incentives" for the poor to use contraception. What could this mean? If current programs like "workfare" are any guide, it means that if the women want social benefits, they will have to stop having children. And in the past, large numbers of poor and minority women were forced or tricked into sterilization.
TheInquirer doesn't propose limitingthe number of children of bankers and executives because the banks are failing and the country going into a deep recession. Yet it is the economy they run that is "dysfunctional" and going belly up, and the companies they run that force overtime and bad pay and layoffs on "underclass" families.
But it is now the accepted wisdom among the rich that the supposed immorality ("dysfunctionality") of the poor is the cause of their own poverty. The Inquirer, as a liberal paper of the rich, wasn't sure if it could admit this in public. The editorial worried that its views "might be considered deplorably insensitive, perhaps raising the specter of eugenics," to say nothing of the specter of genocide against the poor and the minorities, and particularly inner city black people. And indeed, the editorial resulted in a public outcry against its racism that forced an apology from the paper.
Today abortion rights and access to contraception are under attack. The denial of these rights has always hit especially hard at poor and working women. But how can one fight for these rights? The editorial illustrates there are different views among those who support contraception and family planning. There is a class difference in the pro-choice forces.
The Inquirer backs birth control as a means of restricting the poor. This is the approach of the rich. Establishment pro-choice leaders with these views are not only against building a movement of the poor and working people, but they would be a target of any such movement.
Workers should support making contraception available to all, while opposing coercion or forced sterilization. Denial of contraception and abortion rights always makes life even harder for the masses. But birth control will not solve poverty. This requires the class struggle of the oppressed. And women who are not crushed with unwanted pregnancies will be in a better position to join the battle for decent living conditions.
October 20 was the single day with the largest turnout for anti-war protests so far. But many individual actions are taking place across the country. And the numbers continued to grow in December.
Actions took place all over the country. Hardly a day went by without some meetings or discussion or protest in one city or another. People are questioning the war buildup and denouncing the militarists. They don't want to go to war for the oil companies, and they are asking how to fight against this war.
Among the actions in December were:
Dec. 1: 10,000 people rallied in Boston. There were protests elsewhere in Massachusetts. And 5,000 people in Seattle.
Dec. 2: over 100 came out from the Arab-American community in Dearborn, Michigan, outside Detroit.
Dec. 4: there was a speak-out against war and racism in Buffalo.
Dec. 7: Hundreds of protesters marched from the University of Arizona in Tucson to the office of Senator Dennis DeConcini, a Democrat and one of the infamous "Keating 5." There was guerrilla theater in front of his office ridiculing his corruption in the savings and loan crisis.
Also a couple of hundred people protested in front of the federal building in Louisville, Kentucky.
Dec. 8: 5,000 people in Chicago rallied against the military buildup.
Dec. 9: thousands of people demonstrated in front of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City, angry at the news that Bush, Reagan, Pentagon chief Colin Powell and White House Chief of Staff John Sununu would be receiving "medals of honor" at a dinner there. Afterwards, they marched to the Daily News building and joined the picket by striking workers.
Dec. 12: 500 people marched in downtown Detroit.
Dec. 13: 1,000 people rallied at the Amherst campus of the University of Massachusetts.
Dec. 14: hundreds of high school students marched in New York City.
Dec. 15: 150 people marched from the federal building to a public meeting at Tennessee State University at Nashville.
Dec. 16: there was a teach-in at Fairfax High School in Los Angeles. The 1,200 seat auditorium was filled to capacity, and many more people listened outside to loudspeakers, for a total of about 2,000.
Dec. 22: almost 1,000 people, stretching one and a half big city blocks, showed up at the weekly picket in Westwood, California at the federal building.
In the factories and work places, there is much interest in the movement. But they do not yet send large numbers to the demonstrations. Patient work has to take place to overcome the non-politicism fostered on the working class, and the chauvinist politics laid down by the trade union bureaucrats. This is not only a question of linking the anti-war movement with workers' demands, important as supporting various workers' struggles is -- one slogan or demand will not magically change the situation. It is a matter of building up an independent working class movement, of encouraging the class consciousness and defiant spirit of the working masses, of building up independent organization and defiance of the union hacks and respectable community leaders.
The anti-war demonstrations continued to swell in December. Such an outpouring of sentiment so early in a war crisis shows the potential of the movement. The involvement of the entire establishment in supporting U.S. aggression also provides an opportunity to show the entire system of imperialism at work. If the activists see through the deception of the imperialist parties, of the Democrats and Republicans and the pro-establishment figures, the movement will have a wide field of action before it.
[Photo: Anti-war protesters outside New York Waldorf-Astoria, Dec. 9]
[Photo: March along Michigan Ave. in Chicago denounces Bush's war, Dec. 8]
Bush has given a January 15 ultimatum to Iraq. This is a big step towards war -- whether or not the Pentagon chooses to launch hostilities immediately after this date. Such a warmongering step deserves a strong reply from the anti-war movement. Many anti-war activists agree that this would be a good time for national demonstrations to demand that U.S. troops get out of the Persian Gulf.
Unfortunately, two national mobilizations have been called for: one for January 19 and another a week later on January 26.
The January 19 National March on the White House has been called by the "Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East." Their main slogans are: Stop Bush's war now! Bring the U.S. troops home! Fight racism and poverty at home! Money for jobs, healthcare, housing, education and AIDS!
The January 26 March on Washington has been called by the "National Campaign for Peace in the Middle East." Its slogans are: No war in the Middle East! Bring the troops home now! Money for human needs, not war!
Why two marches?
Sometimes two different mobilizations might be useful. If the movement were strong enough it could have two impressive demonstrations one after the other. Or if there were two clearly distinguishable political stands based on different social forces -- for example, if one march was being organized by the anti-imperialist section of the movement while another was under liberal domination. But it's doubtful that given where the anti-war movement stands today this would be the right thing to do for January 1991. It would be preferable to have a single march, open to all different points of view in the anti-war movement.
But as these two sets of slogans for January 19 and 26 show, there isn't all that much political difference between the two calls. So then why are two successive mobilizations being called only a week apart? Why are anti-war protesters being asked to choose between these two marches? Why are the ranks of a Washington mobilization being split into two?
The sad truth is, it's because of unprincipled, sectarian warfare in the ranks of the reformist forces which dominate the two anti-war coalitions. This is a fight over turf, hegemony, and hidden agendas. Both sides want to impose their views on the movement without open discussions. And if they can't stop activists from coming with their own banners and literature, they sure as hell want to monopolize the speakers' platform.
Bogus arguments
Each side has given its explanations. And while they give some facts, they really don't justify splitting a Washington mobilization.
The January 19th Coalition people say it's essential to have the march on January 19 because it would coincide with M.L. King's birthday. The January 26th Campaign replies that they too agree with having anti-war actions around King's birthday, but they prefer these to be local events on the 15th, and they don't want to compete with official M.L. King Day events on the January 19 weekend.
The January 26th Campaign says it's important to have the march on the 26th because this would give time for campus mobilizations after schools open in January. But while a few more campuses may open by then, it's not like there will be that much time for on-campus mobilizing anyway.
We see no major arguments for one or the other date. And we feel that the arguments being given by the two sides are completely bogus. Either side could have given up and agreed to the other's date if there was a strong enough desire to have a unified demonstration.
The hidden agendas
They didn't, because the split is largely over hidden agendas and hegemony on the basis of those hidden agendas.
The January 19th Coalition led by the liberal Ramsey Clark is dominated by the reformist Workers' World Party (WWP). WWP holds that there should be no condemnation of Iraq or its invasion of Kuwait. Besides making sure that no slogans around Iraq are given, WWP and its allies also want to make sure that the official speakers' platform does not include any criticism of Iraq. This Coalition was also the first national anti-war coalition to be organized and it had organized most of the October 20 protests. WWP acts as if this gives them the right to automatically be the leaders of the anti-war movement from then until eternity.
The January 26th Campaign is dominated by social-democrats, liberal pacifists, and liberal Zionists, including Democratic Socialists of America, Mobilization for Survival, Communist Party USA, New Jewish Agenda, etc. This bloc thinks that Iraq must be condemned. However their criticism isn't from an anti-establishment standpoint, but dovetails with ruling class criticism of Iraq. Thus those who dominate the January 26th Campaign have supported sanctions against Iraq (which is an act of war) and have championed a so-called UN "solution" (which has in reality proven to be a cover for U.S. intervention in the Gulf). Their anti-war stand in fact is quite soft; in Boston their local posters at first contained the slogan Support our troops!instead of their later demand Bring the troops home now! The January 26th Campaign allows those who support their three main slogans to join the coalition but they have an internal agenda of some 14 points which decide whether you can be part of the steering committee or not. Like WWP and its Coalition, these forces too demand hegemony based on their hidden agenda.
Although the question of approach towards Iraq is a major difference between WWP's Coalition and the Campaign, the conflict does not reduce itself solely to that issue. Neither side is speaking publicly about Iraq in their main slogans; that is just a key part of the hidden agendas. But this also means that the lineup of political groups on the two sides is fairly arbitrary. Quite a few left groups who are closer to WWP's stand on Iraq have signed up solely with the January 26 mobilization. But that mainly reflects their own opportunism: they want to be part of January 26 because they think the reformists who dominate January 26 will draw the larger turnout, based on having more connections with the establishment.
The hidden agendas of these two sides do represent differences in the movement, and like other political differences in the movement, they deserve to be considered by the anti-war activists. Our Party doesn't believe that differences should be hidden but published and discussed. Only in that way will activists sort them out and rally around the most effective views for the anti-war movement.
But despite these differences, the fact remains that both sides have roughly the same demands for the two Washington marches. There is no real reason to split the national mobilization. However the reformists believe that the domination of coalitions, controlling speakers lists, etc. is the vital issue of the day. Shame on them. They cannot agree to march on a single date, with a movement open to speakers and banners and slogans of different views.
Split undermines anti-war movement
The sectarian warfare between the Coalition and the Campaign is harmful for the whole movement. It promotes an artificial division of the people who want to march on Washington -- on unprincipled grounds. It lessens the impact of a single march. And it confuses and threatens to demoralize many new activists and potential supporters of the movement.
Many activists have been disheartened and even disgusted by this unprincipled wrangling. But this must not be translated into a spirit of boycott. Nor should they feel compelled to argue that one date or the other is politically better. There will be anti-war protesters coming out to both. And our Party will go to both mobilizations. We don't agree with the political stands of the reformists who dominate both coalitions, but we will go to both marches and advance our own views. Other activists who can should do the same.
When all is said and done, both sides stand for a liberal approach
Having noted the differences between the two sides, let's observe that both sides agree on a basically liberal approach in the anti-war movement. And this underscores even more how unprincipled their wrangling is.
This is seen in their stands towards Congress and the liberal politicians. The reformists, who dominate both camps, agree on begging Congress for "war powers legislation" of some kind or another. They both agree on inviting liberal Democratic politicians to the platforms of anti-war events, although they may quibble over which politicians.
This approach is a dead end for the anti-war movement. Congress already has the power to act against Bush's war drive -- if it wanted to. There are quite a few laws allowing it to do so, including its budgetary powers. But the important thing is, Congress does not oppose the war buildup. It only squabbles over details.
Instead of begging Congress to act, the anti-war movement should denounce Congress and both imperialist parties in a clear voice. The issue facing the movement is to oppose the warmongers, not to wait upon them to see reason. Instead of looking for enlightenment in this or that segment of the establishment, the movement should strive to draw in the workers and other ordinary people. That's where the real potential of the mass movement lies.
Who will stop the war drive?
45 Democratic members of the House of Representatives filed a lawsuit on November 20 challenging the right of George Bush to launch a war in the Middle East without the consent of Congress. After all, they argue, the Constitution says that Congress, not the President, has the power to declare war.
Nine more Democrats joined the suit by December 13, when District Judge Harold Greene ruled on it. Judge Greene held in principle that Bush must seek authorization for war, but not necessarily in practice. On technical grounds he refused to require Congressional consent for attacking Iraq. Among his reasons was that only a fraction of Congress had made the request.
The lawsuit proved a dud.
But even if Judge Greene had ruled in favor, it still would have been a dud.
It does nothing to challenge intervention in the Middle East
The lawsuit isn't against aggression and war.
In fact, the lawsuit didn't challenge the U.S. war drive. It wasn't against war at all. It simply says Congress should be let in on the decision. Liberal Democrat Dellums is one of the backers of this lawsuit. In his Statement of Concern co-signed by 81 other members of Congress, Dellums put it this way:
"If, after all peaceful means [like blockading Iraq with aircraft carriers and warplanes -- ed.] to resolve the conflict are exhausted, and the President believes that military action is warranted, then... he must seek a declaration of war from the Congress."
To reassure his House colleagues, Dellums wrote them a letter promising them that this was a lawsuit about constitutional procedure, not for or against war:
"Aside from the political question of what military action should or should not be taken in the Gulf, we as Members of Congress have a stake in seeing that the Constitutional process is observed." (It was Dellums himself who emphasized this line, and only this line, in his November 15 letter.)
Dellums and the other congressmen see nothing wrong with starving the people of Iraq, with building U.S. military bases in the Middle East, with maintaining an air and naval blockade. These savage means of imperialist intervention are called "peaceful."
And the liberal congressmen won't restrict themselves to such brutal "peaceful means." They think that further action may be warranted. They just want to be consulted about when to rain bombs and missiles over Iraq.
Congress and Bush agree on the war buildup
So isn't something getting lost in the claptrap about congressional powers and constitutional process?
Don't large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress agree with the war buildup in the Persian Gulf? Haven't the leaders of both parties supported the dispatch of 400,000 troops to Saudi Arabia? Haven't they gone along with Bush's lies? Haven't they also done their bit to prepare a slaughter for "American," that is imperialist, interests?
The irony is that hawks like Republican leaders Lugar and Dole have been pushing hardest for Congress to meet and take a stand on the war. They too talk about congressional responsibility, but their intent is to put Congress on record behind Bush and the war drive.
Democratic leaders like Senators Nunn and Mitchell agree with Bush on the blockade of Iraq. They are quite happy to strangle Iraq. But they are nervous too. They are worried that the war may not go as smoothly as Bush says. And they are concerned about the consequences of war. They may demand more time for diplomatic maneuvering and economic blockade.
The most you can expect from them
They also know that down below the winds of anti-war feelings are blowing. If they blow hard enough, these Democrats may pass some toothless resolution.
Toilet paper is more useful than such resolutions. Remember what happened in Nicaragua. Reagan carried on the contra war as he liked, while Congress looked the other way.
Oh yes, it passed the famous "Boland Amendment" to block U.S. aid to the contras. Again and again. But the CIA kept running the war anyway.
To hell with Bush, Congress, and all the war makers!
Yet there are those who tell the anti-war activists to pin their hopes on Congress. Liberal congressmen themselves aren't the only ones. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and a number of other big names are being dragged before TV cameras and anti-war rallies to preach the gospel of congressional powers.
This is poison for the anti-war struggle.
To fight against the war we have to fight the war makers. We have to oppose Bush, the Pentagon, and the oil corporations. We have to expose Congress, packed with fine ladies and gentlemen who are in the pockets of big oil and big military contractors. These are not the "representatives of the people," as Clark and other liberals want us to believe. They are capitalist politicians, and imperialism is their game.
Opposing imperialism is serious business. It can't be fought with patty-cake legal games between Congress and Bush.
It needs to be fought with mass action. Demonstrations in the streets. Rallies and militant protests. Courageous actions by the young working people in the military, like those who face court martial for refusing deployment to Saudi Arabia.
U.S. imperialism, get out of the Middle East!
As he prepares for war with Iraq, George Bush is fond of repeating that the war he has in mind will take into account "the lessons of Viet Nam." And what exactly are those supposed to be?
In an interview with U.S. News and World Report, Bush answered: "Never fight with a hand tied behind your back. Never send a kid into battle unless you're going to give him total support. Don't send him underequipped. Don't send a mission in undermanned. Don't send them in where you tell commanding officers what they can't do." (Dec. 31, 1990)
This is sheer militarist arrogance. It's a declaration that might makes right, and overwhelming might means overwhelming right. Such a line of argument is akin to the German Nazi idea of blitzkrieg as the only possible military outlook.
This argument is based on the tired old lie from the American right wing that the aggression in Viet Nam was winnable and that the U.S. only lost because of lack of support from the home front -- from such villains as the press, anti-war activists, politicians, etc. This old lid is being repeated today to suggest that the Persian Gulf war will be a "quickie" and end in a clear-cut victory for the U.S.
But Bush is wrong from A to Z.
It is incredible to assert that the U.S. war machine did not try to win in Viet Nam. No, they did their damnedest, but in the end they were defeated. Try as they might, the right wing refuses to accept that the Pentagon got its "ass whipped" by an army of Asian peasants.
Just look at what the U.S. military did. It escalated its troop levels to over 500,000 by 1965. It dropped more bomb tonnage over this small country than in all of World War II. The Pentagon clearly had the edge in technological superiority over the national liberation fighters.
And what was the face-off like? It matched a popular force equipped with bicycles as opposed to big transport machinery. It matched a force equipped with small arms and relatively few heavy weapons versus B-52 bombers, Huey helicopters, napalm, defoliants, and what not.
No, U.S. imperialism lost the war in Viet Nam despite its military superiority, despite its technological edge, despite its all-out efforts to win the war. They lost, in the final analysis, because the Vietnamese people fighting the U.S. aggression were waging an anti-colonial liberation war. They succeeded in mobilizing the ordinary masses, in unleashing their creativity and initiative. Simply put, justice and the people in Viet Nam were on the other side. And they properly received the support of justice-loving people the world over.
And yes indeed, the U.S. war effort also faced troubles on the home front. An anti-war movement emerged, gripping the enthusiasm and participation of young people across America. This movement emerged because the youth saw through the official lies, hypocrisy and injustice. This movement, which developed into militant clashes across the U.S., helped bring an end to the U.S. aggression in Indochina.
The right wing lies when it credits the media and politicians for this subversive role. In fact, the media and politicians tried hard to undermine the mass movement, but still they were forced to take it into account. It should not be forgotten that while the majority of the people eventually turned against the war, the majority of capitalist politicians never rose to the occasion. They may have squabbled with the White House over how the war was run -- but if they had been serious about opposing the war, at any time they could have cut off the funds. But this they never did.
In the war which Bush is preparing, no one can exactly predict how the Pentagon will do. Comparisons with Viet Nam are limited. The Iraqi army is not a popular liberation force as the Vietnamese were. This makes a big difference. Still, the ruling class faith in its technological edge and its ability to wage war without serious losses is bound to take a drubbing. Already there are signs of this, as U.S. hi-tech equipment paid for with billions of dollars has problems in the Arabian desert.
In particular, the "total support" Bush talks about will prove to be the biggest myth of all. The U.S. war will by no means get "total support" from the American people. This can already be seen in the mass protests that are bringing out tens of thousands into the streets of America.
Jeff Paterson, the Hawaii-based Marine who refused to go to the Persian Gulf, was released December 13 from Camp Pendleton in California. The military decided not to go ahead with his court martial and granted him an administrative discharge.
A few days later Ronald Jean-Baptiste, a reservist of Haitian background, was released from jail at New Jersey McGuire Air Force Base. He was given a "less than honorable" discharge. Jean-Baptiste went AWOL in October instead of appearing at the base to be shipped out to the Persian Gulf.
Both Paterson and Jean-Baptiste had made strong statements denouncing the U.S. government's plans for war in the Middle East. They are part of a number of active-duty and reserve personnel who have refused deployment to the Persian Gulf. Many of them have linked up with the emerging anti-war mass movement.
Now that they're out, Jeff Paterson and Ronald Jean-Baptiste plan to continue work against Bush's unjust war plans.
Two black women army reservists in Oakland recently filed for conscientious objector status.
Azania Howse and Farcia De Toles, who work at the Oakland Army Base, spoke out at a December 13 press conference that they had enlisted to learn job skills and earn money for college, not to go to war. They said they had been fooled by the Army's advertising which sells military service as a scholarship program.
At their news conference, they were joined by Tahan Jones, a black Marine reservist who earlier filed for CO status. All three noted that the military recruits heavily among minorities and Jones observed, "Blacks have been used as cannon fodder throughout U.S. history."
At the end of November, Defense Secretary Cheney signed an order which freezes Army officers and enlisted personnel in their jobs. This order prohibits them from leaving the military even if they complete their term of enlistment or are due to retire. The Navy and Air Force are considering similar bans on their active duty people.
You may have signed up for two years, but now you can't leave. The Pentagon is preparing a big, destructive war in the Persian Gulf and they are no longer sure of how many reinforcements they will need.
And they still call this an all-volunteer army.
Cheney's order will no doubt make the jobs of military recruiters even harder.
For years, the military has been recruiting young men and women with promises of jobs, career training, and adventure. But now with a war imminent in the Persian Gulf, the truth has come out about what it means to sign up with the imperialist army. It means going to war for the interests of the rich men who rule the USA -- for such dishonorable causes as safeguarding oil profits and shoring up undemocratic kingdoms like Saudi Arabia.
No surprise then that this fall the military is finding it even harder to recruit. Army recruiters have fallen short of their enlistment goals by an average of 30% since August when the Persian Gulf crisis began. And the trend is expected to worsen.
[Photo: UIC students speak out against racism]
Students at the Circle Campus of the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) occupied the administration building December 3 to protest a wave of racist abuse on campus.
The campus police surrounded the building and the students were threatened with arrest. Telephone lines and heat were cut off. Police would not allow in food and clothing from parents and supporters.
When students at the Urbana-Champaign campus heard about the struggle they sat-in on the lawn of the president of the whole UIC system, despite freezing temperatures. They forced the president to agree to allow food and heat to the students at the Circle Campus. But he later reneged.
Despite the abuse, the students at Circle kept up their occupation all night. The next morning they held a press conference exposing the racism of the UIC administration.
This struggle began in November, when more than 250 students took their complaints against racist harassment of blacks, Latinos and other minority students to the administration. They denounced Interim Chancellor James Stukel for dragging his feet in investigating the wave of racist incidents. And when he failed to meet with them, they sat-in in front of his office.
Three days later they sat-in again. Stukel eventually was forced to meet with them. He agreed to take action against the racist attacks and to move the Black cultural center to a more central location on campus. He also agreed to meet again with the students on December 3, after the campus closed for Christmas break, to discuss other demands such as increased funding for the Latino cultural center, establishment of a women's cultural center, and a required course for all students in cultural diversity.
On December 3, Stukel said he was considering funding an African-American cultural center but wanted to postpone any decisions on a Latino cultural center. Funding, he claimed, should depend on the size of the student group involved. Since black, Latino and other minority groups comprise a small percentage of enrollment, they could end up with zero funds. The students were so outraged they walked out and occupied the administration building.
(Based in part on the December 3 issue of "Chicago Workers' Voice," paper of MLP-Chicago.)
[Photo: Youth rioting against racism in Miami burn dumpsters]
December found the streets of Miami once again ablaze with anger and frustration.
On December 3, six Miami police officers were acquitted of civil rights charges in the brutal murder of a Puerto Rican man. Leonardo Mercado was beaten to death while under police questioning in his apartment in December 1988.
Since the cops involved in Mercado's murder included Hispanics and blacks, as well as whites, the capitalists would like to say this was not a racist incident. But in fact, what this shows is that black and Hispanic cops are also schooled in hatred for the oppressed minorities. Police officials also tried to gain support by accusing Mercado of being a small-time drug dealer. But the masses remained angry. As the victim's sister put it, the cops "said he was a low-life cockroach. But he had children. A life is a life." Following the not-guilty verdict, the neighborhood erupted. People poured into the streets, overturned cars, stoned TV crews, and battled police. It took over three hours and several hundred police to bring the masses under control.
People from this community continually face harassment, threats, and beatings from the police. For them this trial was one more example of a justice system that has no regard for the people and allows the killer cops a free hand.
Shouts of "Death to the Klan!" rang through downtown Cincinnati December 22 as 1,500 people demonstrated against the racists.
The city council permitted six robed Klansmen to rally and erect a cross in Fountain Square. Scads of police and firemen were sent to protect them.
But the masses wanted the racists out. Cries of "Death to the Klan!" and other taunts and jeers drowned out the KKK speeches. The protesters threw rocks, ball bearings, and other objects over the police lines. And they charged the police as the Klansmen were escorted away from the danger. The police sprayed mace, assaulted, and arrested at least seven protesters.
Four racists were acquitted of murder by Brooklyn, New York juries in December. They were part of the racist gang which took the life of Yusef Hawkins last year.
Yusef was young, just 16 years old, and black. On August 23, 1989, he and some friends went into the Bensonhurst neighborhood of Brooklyn answering an ad for a used car. In this segregated white enclave, just being black was a crime. They were confronted by a gang of 30 racists armed with a gun and bats. Yusef was shot through the heart twice. A friend was injured by another bullet.
In the days that followed, hundreds of people joined in demonstrations to protest this racist outrage. They demanded "No justice, no peace!" As a result of the pressure, eight of the gang of thirty were arrested. And the trigger man, Joseph Fama, was convicted of murder.
But the trials of the rest have been delayed, hoping to quell the mass anger. And now, more than a year after the murder, the other culprits are gradually being let off. Such is the racist justice system in the U.S.
Coretta Scott King and the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolence have invited General Colin Powell to lead the ML King Day march in Atlanta. Powell is the head general of the U.S. imperialist war machine, the biggest organized force for violence ever assembled. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Powell oversaw the invasion of Panama, provides military advice and assistance to blood-stained dictators all over the world, and is preparing to launch mass slaughter in the Middle East. Now why would the nonviolence saints of the black bourgeoisie be singing the praises of such a man?
Colin Powell represents the "success" that the whole black bourgeoisie aspires to -- sharing power as junior partners of the white capitalist ruling class. Since the mass struggles of the 60's a whole crop of black professionals and politicians have made it into positions of power in the U.S. This includes a substantial number of high-ranking military officers. Besides Powell, the number-two commander of U.S. Persian Gulf forces is black -- General Calvin Waller. Like their civilian counterparts, black officers strive to ensure the submission of the black masses to the interests of U.S. imperialism. The rise of a strata of well-off black bourgeois "leaders" has done nothing to improve the lot of working and poor people in general or of black people in particular. The celebration of Powell and other well-paid flunkies represents the deepening polarization between the black bourgeoisie and the working masses.
Jesse Jackson decried the so-called "death syndrome" among blacks at a "stop the violence" meeting in early December in Washington, D.C. He argued that "The price of killing anybody must be enormously high." And, he declared, "The flow of guns and drugs have hit emergency proportions that must be addressed."
His solution -- pass legislation that would make murder a federal offense.
But this is just more of the same crap we hear from Bush's racist "war on drugs." Everybody knows that drug abuse is disastrous. Yet -- instead of funding treatment and alleviating the poverty and racism that give rise to the problem -- Bush keeps pushing more police, more jails, and stiffer laws. Far from handling the drug crisis, Bush's "war on drugs" has led to stepped up police harassment, beatings, and murders of blacks, Puerto Ricans, and other minorities.
Of course Jackson, for his part, will talk about the need for treatment and other social programs. But his call for a federal murder law shows that he is still signing on to Bush's program of more repression. We don't need another murder law. We need a fight against the police terror, against the government's slashing of social programs, and against the wave of racism spreading through this country.
No matter how many times Bush claims he is not a racist, his deeds speak louder than words.
It wasn't long ago that Bush's Justice Department pushed the Supreme Court to gut civil rights laws. They made it virtually impossible to legally challenge racial discrimination in the work places.
Then in November Bush vetoed civil rights legislation that would have, at least partially, reversed the Court's ruling.
Of course Bush hollered that he's no racist. Oh no, he was just standing against so-called "reverse discrimination" against whites. But numerous facts, like that unemployment is twice as high for blacks as whites, show that discrimination is rampant against blacks and other minorities, not whites. In fact, even Bush's chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -- who supported the president's veto of the civil rights bill -- admits "There's a crime wave of discrimination" that has been unleashed in this country.
So what does Bush do? Oh course, he moves on to cut college scholarships for minorities.
In mid-December Bush's Department of Education banned all minority scholarships at colleges and universities that receive federal funds. That's virtually all of them.
But there was a huge outcry against this new racist measure. So Bush wrung his hands, cried he hadn't been consulted, whined that he's no racist, and changed the policy. To what? Well, instead of banning all minority scholarships, he'll just ban those which use federal funds and those funded by private universities. As to those funded by state and local governments, well, Bush will leave that to the courts to decide -- the same courts that just gutted civil rights laws. That means there won't be much left.
Oh no, Bush is no racist. It's just that everything he does is an attack on black people.
For four days 250 students occupied the administration building of Occidental College, a private liberal arts college of 1,650 students in Los Angeles.
They were protesting the cancellation of a student-organized and funded concert. The school authorities canceled the event at the dictate of the Los Angeles Police Department who claimed security was inadequate as concert flyers had reached high schools with "rival gang factions."
The college students were outraged at the racist portrayal of black and Latino youth as gang members. Some of them came from those "dangerous" schools themselves. They were also incensed at the hypocrisy of the university administration who had previously approved all the concert arrangements including security.
After four days, the administration was pressured to negotiate on the concert and other issues such as financial aid and divestment from companies operating in apartheid South Africa. So far the concert has not been rescheduled, but students promised to protest again if their new-found voice is not heard.
December 29 was the 100th anniversary of the Wounded Knee massacre. Back in 1890 the U.S. Cavalry opened up with machine guns overlooking a valley encampment of Chief Big Foot and his combined band of Lakota, Oglala, and Miniconjou. Around 300 men, women and children were murdered. Despite the surprise attack, the native people were able to kill 27 of the soldiers.
This massacre marked the end of the native people's resistance to broken treaties and being forced onto reservations that were so bleak they had to depend on Washington for meager food and housing.
This year, hundreds of Lakota rode horseback several weeks to retrace Chief Big Foot's route to Wounded Knee and also to commemorate the murder of Sitting Bull on the Standing Rock reservation. Sitting Bull had led the Lakota in years of battle, including the victory against Lt. Col. George Custer at Little Big Horn.
President Bush signed a major revision to immigration law on November 29 -- the Immigration Act of 1990. Praise quickly rang out from Los Angeles Timesheadlines -- "U.S. Swings Doors Open to Immigrants." But from the major provisions of this law it seems those doors are being opened only for Europeans, millionaires, and highly skilled professionals. For the poor of Latin America the. door is again being slammed in their face.
Skilled labor for big business
Big business has been crying that there are not enough scientists, mathematicians, and other skilled labor to meet the demand for new technology in the U.S. Of course they wouldn't think of spending money on the country's education system. Heavens no. They prefer the cheaper method of stealing skilled professionals from abroad. The politicians were all too happy to meet the wealthy capitalists' demands, and so special provisions were written to encourage skilled immigration.
But the bill does not just open the doors for the skilled. It makes special provisions to allow in more immigrants from Europe. Of course, even European immigration remains limited. For example, the U.S. is pushing Jewish people leaving the Soviet Union to Israel in an effort to prop up the Zionist regime. As well, the U.S. doesn't appear interested to take in the flood of emigres from Eastern Europe.
As well, the law opens 10,000 slots to immigrants with no skills or educational requirements at all -- just so long as each has a million dollars to invest and brings the money with them.
Strengthening the Border Patrol
The other major provision of this law is to further strengthen the Border Patrol. While trying to attract millionaires, and Europeans, and skilled professionals, the capitalists still want to hound the poor workers and peasants coming from Mexico and other Latin American countries.
Every immigration law in recent years has increased the size of the border patrol and armed it to the hilt. Together with the Drug Enforcement Administration police, the National Guard, and local police, the Border Patrol hunts, hounds, and murders poor immigrants trying to cross the border.
According to a report by the American Friends Service Committee, since 1974 eighty-one immigrants have been shot, including 33 killed, by the Border Patrol or police in San Diego County alone. Most of the immigrants were shot in the back. Twelve more were killed or seriously injured by Border Patrol vehicles. And the report documents that the brutality has been increasing.
The new immigration law will mean still more attacks on the immigrants.
For years the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) has summarily deported Salvadorans and Guatemalans who were fleeing the death-squad regimes in their countries. Although U.S. law is supposed to grant political asylum to those fleeing tyranny, the U.S. government supports the Central American oligarchies and simply has been sending the refugees back to face the death squads.
But a movement has built up to defend the immigrants. The "sanctuary movement" has hidden immigrants, helped them avoid deportation, and fought for them in the courts. In mid-December the movement won a round in its battle against the INS.
The U.S. government agreed to give temporary legal status to an estimated 500,000 undocumented Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrants. The agreement halts all deportations or deportation hearings and requires the INS to give them work permits until new asylum applications can be considered. Of course, with the INS's record it may still eventually reject many of the requests for asylum. But for the moment, these immigrants have won a breathing space to organize further struggle.
A year ago, old regimes in Eastern Europe fell one after another. Governments that swore that they were socialist fell in the face of tremendous popular opposition.
These societies had never really been socialist. They had been state-capitalist societies, where state conglomerates dominated the economy. Power wasn't in the hands of the workers but in a ruling class of wealthy and privileged bureaucrats. The working class remained an exploited class.
Albania in the Balkans however claimed it was sticking to the socialist road. Its leaders attributed the other countries' problems to their revisionist departures from Marxism.
But in fact, Albania too was in deep crisis, a crisis quite similar to the rest of Eastern Europe. And its leadership too had begun Gorbachev-style reforms -- all the while shouting high and low against Gorbachev. The close of 1990 saw most of this pretense come to an end. Today Albania is rapidly following in the wake of the rest of Eastern Europe.
Albania, unlike most of the rest of Eastern Europe, did have a genuine people's revolution at the end of World War II. In the 1960's the Albanian leaders even tried to chart an alternative to the bureaucratic, state-capitalist status quo that they saw in the rest of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. But this effort only went so far and was itself marred by many revisionist ideas and practices drawn from the period of Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union when the working class revolution there was degenerating.
As the years have gone by, Albania has continued to claim that it remains different from the rest of Eastern Europe. But in fact, politics and the economy in Albania have more and more reverted to those of its neighbors. Today, as Albania confronts its current crisis, it's being revealed that this country has long been living a lie in its claim of steadfastness against revisionism. This is why it's taking the same road yesterday taken by Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, etc.
Protests of workers...
Early December brought riots in many of Albania's major cities. There were protests in Elbasan, Shkodra, and elsewhere. These are industrial, working class towns, and the protests appear to have reflected workers' dissatisfaction with the economic situation. In particular, they confronted mass unemployment which has been spreading in the country.
The censored press did not give too many details of the protests, but there seem to have been sharp clashes between the people and security forces. Tanks were deployed.
In mid-December the government announced that 150 people had been arrested during these riots. A few days later, it was announced that already 18 people had been convicted and given prison terms of up to 12 years.
This was the second time during 1990 that the regime deployed its armed forces to suppress rebellious protests. The first time was during the summer when thousands of Albanians stormed foreign embassies in order to leave the country.
The repression shows how far removed the regime is from being a power "based among the people," which is how the ruling party likes to describe itself.
...and students...
The weekend of December 8-9 brought student protests at the University of Tirana, the country's main institution of higher learning. Students demonstrated against austere living conditions at the university. Unlike the workers' protests, the government did not move to violently suppress them. The workers and unemployed are met with repression, but the government does not want to alienate the intelligentsia.
Within a couple of days, the protest developed into a strike by the university's 12,000 students. They demanded democratic reforms. On December 11 the ruling party chief Ramiz Alia met with student leaders and agreed to deal with their grievances.
...force change from the government
Since then the ruling Party of Labor of Albania has made a series of changes, trying to meet the demands of the emerging opposition while at the same time retaining its overall control over power. On December 12 the PLA agreed to legalize opposition parties and allow multiparty elections. At the same time several high officials, apparently those who opposed the new policy, were removed from top posts.
The same day a rally of thousands at Tirana University announced the formation of the Democratic Party, with a program of democratic rights -- freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly -- and "gradual market reform." In fact, this party appears to have many views in common with the Ramiz Alia wing of the ruling party; it only wants a faster pace of Western-style capitalist reforms. It appears to be based among students and intellectuals. It supported the student protests, but agreed with the PLA in denouncing the protests in Elbasan and other cities as "riots" and "hooliganism."
On December 19 the government officially recognized the Democratic Party as an opposition party and registered it to compete in national elections, to be held in February. The Democratic Party however would like a longer time period to prepare.
Religion in, Stalin out
On December 21 the PLA called for the removal of statues of Stalin around the country, and removing his name from factories, streets, squares, etc. named after him. Typical of how the PLA functions, it was done without any explanation other than "times have changed." There was no open reassessment of the PLA's long-time support for Stalin.
The government also lifted the lid on religion and allowed public Christmas services to be held for the first time in 23 years. The religious service attracted thousands, thereby exposing another lie that the government has been pushing for decades, that the Albanian people have successfully overcome religious superstition and recognized the supremacy of a scientific world view.
Marxists hold that religion serves exploitation and that the people will, abandon religion as they build a society without exploiters. But the Marxist approach also believes that religion cannot be eliminated by repression or government decree, which is how the Albanian leaders tried to deal with it. During the 1960's there were mass mobilizations against religion in Albania, in which young people played a big role. But the government went on to simply ban religion, relying on police powers instead of mass discussion and education to eliminate the influence of religion.
Angling for aid
On December 27 Ramiz Alia admitted that the Albanian economy is in dire straits. He declared that the government is trying to obtain foreign aid and credits to revive the economy. This, along with market reforms, are the magic solutions which the Albanian regime sees as the way forward. But as the rest of Eastern Europe is already showing, these are hardly miracle cures. In fact, they bring more disasters than the promised benefits.
The admissions about the economy exposed another bit of hypocrisy of the Albanian leaders, who have covered over many of the serious problems in the economy with phrases of official optimism. In 1990 most of these optimistic declarations have been shown to be threadbare.
Crisis goes from bad to worse each day
The December events showed again that Albania is sitting on a powder keg of discontent.
The Albanian leaders have been trying to keep a lid on the situation by keeping tight controls over the population while moving slowly to implement reforms from above. Every time there is a mass outburst, the leaders wonder aloud why people are not following their schedules and regulations for change. And then they respond with a new dose of repression and promises of reform. But events are moving faster than they can keep up with.
The present Albanian regime may find it hard to stay in power. The loosening of repression and dictate over the masses are clearly welcomed by the people. And they are bound to press their demands further. But the mirage of a free-market paradise does not offer progress to the working masses. It is not much of an alternative to the revisionist "socialism" of stagnation and lack of democracy, as Eastern Europe is showing. To go forward, the workers have to use the new freedoms they gain to organize for a really worker-ruled society, a society without bureaucratic tutelage, a society that can unleash the full energies and initiative of the masses.
It's been one year since December 20, 1989, when U.S. troops trampled over Panama. This invasion was to bring freedom, prosperity, and the end of drug dealing. U.S. troops were to leave quickly, while $1 billion in U.S. aid was to help the country recover.
What's been the actual results?
Freedom?
The invasion was to bring freedom.
And it did end the Noriega dictatorship, with its beatings of political opponents.
But the new government is not free, but simply a puppet. President Endara is ineffective, and the U.S. rules the roost. Endara's support has dropped dramatically. Opinion polls claim that Endara now has an "approval rating" of 25%, which makes his government no more popular than Noriega's.
Endara calls his party the Arnulfistas, referring to Arnulfo Arias, a Panamanian politician who sympathized with the Nazis in World War II. Arias advocated keeping down the darker-skinned Panamanians, comprising almost 90% of the population, and discriminating in favor of the whites. And Endara, coming to power on U.S. bayonets, has thrown out most darker-skinned politicians, and recruited his coterie from wealthy circles and from white circles.
With such ideas, it is not surprising that Endara is mainly concerned with allowing free money-making, not political freedom. Endara maintained a good deal of the apparatus from the Noriega tyranny, to keep it handy in case the masses get feisty. The constitution adopted under military rule has been maintained. In November, Endara filed libel charges against a journalist and jailed him for two days -- using a press law adopted under Noriega. Noriega's armed forces were stripped of most of their weapons and authority. But' they were also recruited as a new police force for the country.
Sovereignty?
Yet it is really the U.S. troops that have had authority the past year. Occupation troops stayed for an entire year, and have served as the real police, heavily armed and with authority, while the Panamanian police have little respect, authority, or weapons. And U.S. troops stationed nearby brandish the big stick over Panama. They are the final arbiter.
In early December, when a group of Panamanian police took over the national police headquarters building, Endara immediately called in 500 American soldiers to suppress them.
An end to drug running?
The Bush administration said its invasion of Panama was really a high-minded crusade to eliminate drug running.
But it is now admitted by everyone, including U.S. drug experts, that there is just as much drug running as ever. Just as much Colombian cocaine and other drugs go through Panama. There have been some changes in the details. Before, most drug traffic was under some centralized supervision by the Panamanian government, while now it is more scattered and on its own. But the total volume remains the same. Some reports even suggest that the Colombian drug cartels have set up a cocaine-producing plant in Darien, a Panamanian province bordering Colombia.
Money laundering also continues without letup. The Bush administration believes the answer is to give U.S. officials access to secret Panamanian banking files. It has tied $84 million worth of aid to Endara agreeing to this. But the Endara government is resisting, afraid of ruining one of its prime money-makers, banking. Whereupon a U.S. drug official has let drop that Endara is a director in a bank suspected of money laundering. But all will be forgiven if Endara just does what he is told.
Meanwhile the prosecution of Noriega has been left to the U.S. authorities. This has gone slowly, because the judge and prosecutors have to ensure that embarrassing information about the CIA and Reagan-Bush administration are not revealed. After all, Noriega was on their payroll for years before their violent divorce, and drug running was one of the means of financing the CIA's contra army against Nicaragua.
U.S. aid?
The invasion destroyed a large amount of Panamanian lives and property.
Several thousands civilian were killed -- in a brief fight in a small country of barely over two million people. This was a heavy toll of blood. Adding insult to injury, to this day the Pentagon and the Endara government refuse to investigate and acknowledge the numbers involved.
The destruction of property also caused mass misery. The El Chorrillo slum, for instance, was destroyed in the invasion, causing much homelessness. Over 1,000 people remain homeless a year later, many at a ragged refugee camp outside U.S. Albrook Air Force Base.
And what of the promised $1 billion of U.S. aid? Promises are cheap -- but after the invasion was over, there was no urgency to make good on them. Only $120 million has appeared. As mentioned, another $84 million is dependent on Panama changing its banking laws.
Mass poverty
Many Panamanians expected that the overthrow of Noriega would bring prosperity. But they have seen little in the last year. The end of U.S. economic sanctions couldn't help but bring some improvement. But the benefits have gone mainly to the wealthy business circles, who are crowing about how good things are. For them, the new government has brought back good times.
But for the workers, conditions remain as bad or worse than ever. Unemployment runs from a quarter to a third of the work force. President Endara has broken his promises to workers and engaged in austerity programs at the behest of the IMF.
The joke in Panamanian slums is that the U.S. invasion only replaced one officer by another -- General Noriega by General Discontent.
Imperialism is no liberator
Although Noriega talked about the common people, he was simply a representative of another faction of the wealthy. Although he talked of nationalism, he had been on the CIA payroll for years.
But only the struggle of the toilers can bring real progress to Panama. The overthrow of Noriega by U.S. imperialism left misery and oppression in place. It changed a few minor details. It brought back that prosperity to the wealthy that had been injured by U.S. economic sanctions. But it left a corrupt, drug- ridden situation. And it put a foreign yoke on the country.
It is not imperialism, but the development of a movement of the oppressed, that is the path for Panama.
A year ago, the U.S. was denouncing its ex-friend Noriega as a tyrant and drug-runner, and it invaded Panama. The results show that imperialism cared for nothing but its domination.
Today the U.S. is denouncing Saddam Hussein -- its friend as long as he was fighting a bloody war with Iran -- as a tyrant and terrorist. Should the U.S. invade Iraq, at a huge toll in blood, it would no more liberate the Iraqis than it has the Panamanians.
[Photo: Protesters interrupted Panama's legislature and burned cars to oppose threats to fire public workers for joining Dec. 5 general strike]
[Graphic.]
There was dancing in the streets of Haiti in December.
Almost five years after the downfall of the brutal tyrant "Baby Doc" Duvalier, elections were finally held there. By and large they were free of violence and fraud, and the result was a landslide victory for Father Jean-Paul Aristide. Aristide is a populist priest who has a reputation as a defender of the poor and an enemy of the Tontons Macoute, the Duvalier dictatorship's political police. This time the army set up roadblocks around polling places and did not give a free hand to the Tontons Macoute to terrorize voters.
The Haitian bourgeoisie and Washington thought that Marc Bazin would win. They've been surprised by Aristide's victory, but they hope they can tame him. In the background, meanwhile, the real reins of power continue to be in the hands of the military.
A tough-talking spokesman for the poor...
Father Aristide first gained a reputation as a tough-talking minister to the poor. He established a center for homeless children and other charities, and lambasted the powers that be in weekly sermons. This brought him to the attention of the Tontons Macoute, who attacked his church and killed many people in an attempt to assassinate him. The Haitian elite also pressured the church hierarchy to repudiate Aristide, and eventually his monastic order expelled him. But this only made him more popular than ever among the poor, who sheltered him from the Macoutes.
During this year's election campaign, there was yet another attempt by the Macoutes against Aristide. They opened fire on one of his rallies, killing five and wounding 43.
During the campaign Aristide aimed his fire at the Tontons Macoute. He has become a symbol of the idea of ending the Macoute's terror. Aristide has given Roger Lafontant, head of the Macoutes, an ultimatum to leave the country by February 7, inauguration day.
But the right-wing terrorists are not simply rolling over. Lafontant, for his part, has vowed that Aristide will never take office. And the police have already shown that they will not be pushed aside easily by the popular forces. During the victory celebrations for Aristide, the police opened fire on a crowd and killed one woman.
The Haitian right wing lambasted Aristide for being for "class struggle." Even the revisionist "communist" party denounced Aristide, accusing him of being too radical and wanting to expropriate the rich. In reality, however, Aristide downplayed such talk during the campaign, although in the past he has denounced the rich for their crimes against the poor and also denounced imperialism.
...who may come to terms with the rich
So far, Aristide's approach to the right wing is to appeal to other bourgeois and imperialist interests. Thus Aristide trimmed his revolutionary rhetoric against the rich and the military establishment. It appears Aristide wants to take the path of cozying up to U.S. imperialism, hoping to get some foreign aid for some social reforms.
Haitians turned out in huge numbers to vote, and Aristide ended up with about 70% of the votes. His closest competitor, Marc Bazin, a former World Bank official and the favorite candidate of the U.S. government and the Haitian elite, received only 12%.
It was the voters from the working class and poor who turned out and gave Aristide the presidency and his political bloc a large majority in the the legislature. Aristide enters office with raised hopes among the poor and a clear mandate for serious changes in Haitian society.
However, the powers that be are stacked against the prospect of the radical changes that the Haitian people need. Only revolutionary mobilization of the working masses against the establishment can wring any changes in favor of the people. Will Aristide rise to the challenge -- which would require him to stand up against the local exploiters and U.S. imperialism? Or will he squander away the people's trust by trying to conciliate the exploiters in a search for some middle way forward?
Unfortunately, it appears that Aristide is willing to trim his sails in the hope that the Haitian establishment will allow some reforms. That would be one costly mistake for the Haitian people.
The military finally allows elections
Aristide's election was made possible by a turn in the tactics of the Haitian bourgeoisie and its U.S. imperialist backers. They recognized that popular frustrations are so high that it was necessary to allow basically free elections to take place.
Since Jean-Claude Duvalier fled Haiti in February 1986, the country has been ruled by a succession of military dictators. A previous election was canceled when the Tontons Macoute opened fire on polling places, killing scores of voters. But the vicious repression by the Macoutes and military could not wipe out the masses' hopes for change. There have continued to be strikes, protests, and the growth of organizations among the masses, such as trade unions.
Since repression failed to cow down the masses, the Haitian military and elite, with some prodding from U.S. imperialism, agreed to finally allow elections.
For its part, the U.S. government has signaled that it may be willing to come to terms with Aristide. U.S. observers accepted the results of the election, but at the same time the imperialist media gave Aristide a stern warning to "be patient and to preach patience." Since Aristide never had a concrete program behind his vague phrases and has a mixed bag of followers, the U.S. imperialists feel that it may be possible to tame him.
Prospects facing Haiti
But what happens in Haiti does not depend solely on what the powers that be, or Aristide, want. Huge expectations have been raised among the working people. The masses are looking to the new regime to rid them of right-wing terror and lift them from abject poverty. Their hopes and demands will not be easily pushed aside.
Aristide's dilemma is that his reform-seeking bloc has gained control over the presidency and legislature, but the heart of the state apparatus -- the military and the bureaucracy -- remain entrenched in defense of the exploiters' status quo. Haitian history has amply shown that the exploiters don't want to allow much of any democratic and social reforms.
The issue isn't whether Aristide is personally sincere. The issue is that if he makes any real effort to carry out progressive reforms, it will inevitably involve sharp clashes with reaction -- with rural landlords, the Macoutes, the urban bourgeoisie and imperialism. This could well bring his regime to an early grave. But whether his regime survives or falls, there is the possibility that a new wave of revolutionary struggle could be ignited by such sharp clashes. And only revolutionary changed based on the toilers can really meet the mass aspirations.
In early December the Philippines were shaken by three days of protests against a government-mandated rise in the price of gasoline.
Mrs. Aquino's government first raised prices by 50-80%; the next day it said that its arithmetic had been wrong and raised prices by another 50%. Popular opposition however forced the regime to scrap the second increase.
President Aquino blamed the Persian Gulf crisis for the rise, but working class demonstrators protested against the poor being forced to bear its burden.
Demonstrators in Manila also took to the streets to protest U.S. military bases in the Philippines.
[Photo: Youth activists during a rally in Manila denouncing oil price hikes]
The North African country of Morocco was shaken by militant struggle during a general strike on December 14. Thousands of young people poured into the streets to denounce King Hassan's government and the wealthy classes.
In the city of Fez, hundreds of youths armed with stones, knives and iron bars looted and burned symbols of authority and privilege. They went after banks, fancy hotels and boutiques, and police stations. They burned one luxury hotel to the ground. Government troops came out to suppress the demonstrators, opened fire with their rifles, and killed at least 100 people.
The strike was called by the trade unions to demand a raise in the official minimum wage, from $130 to $260 a month. Moroccan poor have been hard hit by government austerity policies, imposed in collaboration with the International Monetary Fund. And recently the Persian Gulf crisis has driven up gasoline costs, making things even worse. Half the population is under 25, and the unemployment rate for youths is officially over 30%. Meanwhile a rich elite close to the monarchy has prospered.
The government arrested some 200 people during the strike and charged them with a variety of crimes including rioting and disorderly conduct. Already over 100 people have been convicted and sentenced to prison terms of one to seven years. With this kind of heavy-handed action from the government, the Moroccan poor are sure to rise again, angrier than ever.
[Photo: Remains of a bus burned in Fez]
For almost ten years, the people of Bangladesh have struggled hard to force out the military dictatorship of General Hussain Mohammed Ershad. They were finally successful the first week of December.
Beginning in October, a new upsurge of mass demonstrations, general strikes, and militant struggle had emerged to challenge Ershad's rule. Repression could not quell the people's determination. The dictator tried to impose a state of emergency but the people defied that too. Faced with the threat of an indefinite general strike, Ershad finally threw in the towel on December 4. The news was greeted by cheers and joyous demonstrations from the people.
Behind the scenes, the military establishment had decided that Ershad had become a liability. His regime had become much too synonymous with unbridled nepotism and corruption. Imperialist powers which had backed up Ershad's regime, like the U.S. and Japan, also decided that Ershad had to go.
So the people's struggle fell short of a decisive victory over tyranny. The masses have taken back some democratic rights by their struggle, and there is a more open political atmosphere today; but the repressive, anti-people government apparatus remains very much in place. Ershad's personal rule has been replaced by a temporary government enjoying the confidence of all sections of the Bengali bourgeoisie. The capitalist opposition parties agreed to have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court head up a caretaker government which has promised elections in late February.
However the new government cannot do as it pleases. It has to take into account the popular unrest. For example, it had wanted to let Ershad go into exile. But the people want him and his cronies brought to justice. Therefore, the caretaker government has been forced to arrest Ershad and a few of his closest supporters. But the government -- being a government of the rich -- would never think of placing these rich criminals into the same jails in which ordinary people 'are put. No, Ershad has been put under house arrest -- in a mansion in the diplomatic district of the capital, Dhaka! It's doubtful that Ershad will be punished in any serious way.
The working people of Bangladesh have sacrificed much in the fight against the tyranny. They need more than a reshuffle of cabinet seats among the politicians of the ruling class. If they are to win serious economic and social changes, they have to keep up the fight for the toilers' demands. They have to build up the revolutionary movement for a government of workers and poor peasants.
There was dancing in the streets of Haiti in December.
Almost five years after the downfall of the brutal tyrant "Baby Doc" Duvalier, elections were finally held there. By and large they were free of violence and fraud, and the result was a landslide victory for Father Jean-Paul Aristide. Aristide is a populist priest who has a reputation as a defender of the poor and an enemy of the Tontons Macoute, the Duvalier dictatorship's political police. This time the army set up roadblocks around polling places and did not give a free hand to the Tontons Macoute to terrorize voters.
The Haitian bourgeoisie and Washington thought that Marc Bazin would win. They've been surprised by Aristide's victory, but they hope they can tame him. In the background, meanwhile, the real reins of power continue to be in the hands of the military.
A tough-talking spokesman for the poor...
Father Aristide first gained a reputation as a tough-talking minister to the poor. He established a center for homeless children and other charities, and lambasted the powers that be in weekly sermons. This brought him to the attention of the Tontons Macoute, who attacked his church and killed many people in an attempt to assassinate him. The Haitian elite also pressured the church hierarchy to repudiate Aristide, and eventually his monastic order expelled him. But this only made him more popular than ever among the poor, who sheltered him from the Macoutes.
During this year's election campaign, there was yet another attempt by the Macoutes against Aristide. They opened fire on one of his rallies, killing five and wounding 43.
During the campaign Aristide aimed his fire at the Tontons Macoute. He has become a symbol of the idea of ending the Macoute's terror. Aristide has given Roger Lafontant, head of the Macoutes, an ultimatum to leave the country by February 7, inauguration day.
But the right-wing terrorists are not simply rolling over. Lafontant, for his part, has vowed that Aristide will never take office. And the police have already shown that they will not be pushed aside easily by the popular forces. During the victory celebrations for Aristide, the police opened fire on a crowd and killed one woman.
The Haitian right wing lambasted Aristide for being for "class struggle." Even the revisionist "communist" party denounced Aristide, accusing him of being too radical and wanting to expropriate the rich. In reality, however, Aristide downplayed such talk during the campaign, although in the past he has denounced the rich for their crimes against the poor and also denounced imperialism.
...who may come to terms with the rich
So far, Aristide's approach to the right wing is to appeal to other bourgeois and imperialist interests. Thus Aristide trimmed his revolutionary rhetoric against the rich and the military establishment. It appears Aristide wants to take the path of cozying up to U.S. imperialism, hoping to get some foreign aid for some social reforms.
Haitians turned out in huge numbers to vote, and Aristide ended up with about 70% of the votes. His closest competitor, Marc Bazin, a former World Bank official and the favorite candidate of the U.S. government and the Haitian elite, received only 12%.
It was the voters from the working class and poor who turned out and gave Aristide the presidency and his political bloc a large majority in the the legislature. Aristide enters office with raised hopes among the poor and a clear mandate for serious changes in Haitian society.
However, the powers that be are stacked against the prospect of the radical changes that the Haitian people need. Only revolutionary mobilization of the working masses against the establishment can wring any changes in favor of the people. Will Aristide rise to the challenge -- which would require him to stand up against the local exploiters and U.S. imperialism? Or will he squander away the people's trust by trying to conciliate the exploiters in a search for some middle way forward?
Unfortunately, it appears that Aristide is willing to trim his sails in the hope that the Haitian establishment will allow some reforms. That would be one costly mistake for the Haitian people.
The military finally allows elections
Aristide's election was made possible by a turn in the tactics of the Haitian bourgeoisie and its U.S. imperialist backers. They recognized that popular frustrations are so high that it was necessary to allow basically free elections to take place.
Since Jean-Claude Duvalier fled Haiti in February 1986, the country has been ruled by a succession of military dictators. A previous election was canceled when the Tontons Macoute opened fire on polling places, killing scores of voters. But the vicious repression by the Macoutes and military could not wipe out the masses' hopes for change. There have continued to be strikes, protests, and the growth of organizations among the masses, such as trade unions.
Since repression failed to cow down the masses, the Haitian military and elite, with some prodding from U.S. imperialism, agreed to finally allow elections.
For its part, the U.S. government has signaled that it may be willing to come to terms with Aristide. U.S. observers accepted the results of the election, but at the same time the imperialist media gave Aristide a stern warning to "be patient and to preach patience." Since Aristide never had a concrete program behind his vague phrases and has a mixed bag of followers, the U.S. imperialists feel that it may be possible to tame him.
Prospects facing Haiti
But what happens in Haiti does not depend solely on what the powers that be, or Aristide, want. Huge expectations have been raised among the working people. The masses are looking to the new regime to rid them of right-wing terror and lift them from abject poverty. Their hopes and demands will not be easily pushed aside.
Aristide's dilemma is that his reform-seeking bloc has gained control over the presidency and legislature, but the heart of the state apparatus -- the military and the bureaucracy -- remain entrenched in defense of the exploiters' status quo. Haitian history has amply shown that the exploiters don't want to allow much of any democratic and social reforms.
The issue isn't whether Aristide is personally sincere. The issue is that if he makes any real effort to carry out progressive reforms, it will inevitably involve sharp clashes with reaction -- with rural landlords, the Macoutes, the urban bourgeoisie and imperialism. This could well bring his regime to an early grave. But whether his regime survives or falls, there is the possibility that a new wave of revolutionary struggle could be ignited by such sharp clashes. And only revolutionary changed based on the toilers can really meet the mass aspirations.
In early December the Philippines were shaken by three days of protests against a government-mandated rise in the price of gasoline.
Mrs. Aquino's government first raised prices by 50-80%; the next day it said that its arithmetic had been wrong and raised prices by another 50%. Popular opposition however forced the regime to scrap the second increase.
President Aquino blamed the Persian Gulf crisis for the rise, but working class demonstrators protested against the poor being forced to bear its burden.
Demonstrators in Manila also took to the streets to protest U.S. military bases in the Philippines.
[Photo: Youth activists during a rally in Manila denouncing oil price hikes]
The North African country of Morocco was shaken by militant struggle during a general strike on December 14. Thousands of young people poured into the streets to denounce King Hassan's government and the wealthy classes.
In the city of Fez, hundreds of youths armed with stones, knives and iron bars looted and burned symbols of authority and privilege. They went after banks, fancy hotels and boutiques, and police stations. They burned one luxury hotel to the ground. Government troops came out to suppress the demonstrators, opened fire with their rifles, and killed at least 100 people.
The strike was called by the trade unions to demand a raise in the official minimum wage, from $130 to $260 a month. Moroccan poor have been hard hit by government austerity policies, imposed in collaboration with the International Monetary Fund. And recently the Persian Gulf crisis has driven up gasoline costs, making things even worse. Half the population is under 25, and the unemployment rate for youths is officially over 30%. Meanwhile a rich elite close to the monarchy has prospered.
The government arrested some 200 people during the strike and charged them with a variety of crimes including rioting and disorderly conduct. Already over 100 people have been convicted and sentenced to prison terms of one to seven years. With this kind of heavy-handed action from the government, the Moroccan poor are sure to rise again, angrier than ever.
[Photo: Remains of a bus burned in Fez]
For almost ten years, the people of Bangladesh have struggled hard to force out the military dictatorship of General Hussain Mohammed Ershad. They were finally successful the first week of December.
Beginning in October, a new upsurge of mass demonstrations, general strikes, and militant struggle had emerged to challenge Ershad's rule. Repression could not quell the people's determination. The dictator tried to impose a state of emergency but the people defied that too. Faced with the threat of an indefinite general strike, Ershad finally threw in the towel on December 4. The news was greeted by cheers and joyous demonstrations from the people.
Behind the scenes, the military establishment had decided that Ershad had become a liability. His regime had become much too synonymous with unbridled nepotism and corruption. Imperialist powers which had backed up Ershad's regime, like the U.S. and Japan, also decided that Ershad had to go.
So the people's struggle fell short of a decisive victory over tyranny. The masses have taken back some democratic rights by their struggle, and there is a more open political atmosphere today; but the repressive, anti-people government apparatus remains very much in place. Ershad's personal rule has been replaced by a temporary government enjoying the confidence of all sections of the Bengali bourgeoisie. The capitalist opposition parties agreed to have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court head up a caretaker government which has promised elections in late February.
However the new government cannot do as it pleases. It has to take into account the popular unrest. For example, it had wanted to let Ershad go into exile. But the people want him and his cronies brought to justice. Therefore, the caretaker government has been forced to arrest Ershad and a few of his closest supporters. But the government -- being a government of the rich -- would never think of placing these rich criminals into the same jails in which ordinary people 'are put. No, Ershad has been put under house arrest -- in a mansion in the diplomatic district of the capital, Dhaka! It's doubtful that Ershad will be punished in any serious way.
The working people of Bangladesh have sacrificed much in the fight against the tyranny. They need more than a reshuffle of cabinet seats among the politicians of the ruling class. If they are to win serious economic and social changes, they have to keep up the fight for the toilers' demands. They have to build up the revolutionary movement for a government of workers and poor peasants.