2009年11月8日

Seminar: Towards A Marxist Analysis of the Global Crisis

Historical Materialism Journal (IIRE)
November 6, 2009


On 2-4 October, the IIRE held its first international Economy Seminar on the Global Crisis. Thirty-six participants, economists and non-specialists, from Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America attended the three-day event which was open to activists from different tendencies of the radical left.

The objectives of the seminar were to analyse the nature, characteristics and consequences of the current global economic crisis, from perspectives relevant to social activists, and to fortify the global network of Marxist economists. All talks will be available at the IIRE podcast, which we expect to launch with the next newsletter. For now it is possible to download all the talks in one file (original languages, more than 500MB).

Three main questions guided the various sessions of the weekend. First, what is the nature or cause of the crisis? Second, what are the social, economic and political consequences? Finally, what are the links between the current economic crisis and the global ecological and food crises? A solid look at Keynesianism, Ernest Mandel’s contribution on long waves and economic cycles and a (self-) critical take on discourse and propaganda were activities that peppered the debates.

The seminar kicked off with a well-attended public meeting on the crisis with guest speakers Chris Harman of the SWP in Britain and IIRE fellows Michel Husson of the French National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies and Claudio Katz of the University of Buenos Aires.

François Chesnais (France) opened the seminar itself with an introduction on the role that the so-called financialisation of the economy had in the global crisis. He stated that the crisis cannot be labelled either financial or financialised. Rather, the current crisis has its roots deep in the process of capital accumulation, which, revealing its contradictions, should lead us to look at the dynamics of productivity, the rate of profit and its distribution. The discussion that followed generated a debate between over-accumulation versus under-consumption as explanations for understanding the crisis.

Ozlem Onaran (Turkey), Claudio Katz (Argentina) and Bruno Jetin (France) presented reports on the conditions of the European, Latin American and Asian economies. The debates paved the way for a deeper understanding on how the crisis is perceived and dealt with in the different regions. Participants concluded that an essential characteristic of the crisis is the lack of de-linking tendencies among countries and continents; on the contrary, the efforts to save capitalism have been concerted and almost unanimous.

Michel Husson (France) and Klaus Engert (Germany) analysed the crisis in the framework of the theory of long waves. According to this theory, elaborated by IIRE founder Ernest Mandel, it is possible to use important endogenous factors, i.e. related to the logic of capital and its internal contradictions, to explain the general fall in accumulation that began during the 1970s and has not yet concluded. This discussion left open the possibility of a new ascending wave of economic growth and capitalist accumulation dependent on such exogenous factors as a radical change of the relationship of forces between the classes. One of the conclusions, therefore, was that another wave of attacks on the working class is most likely on its way.

Eric Toussaint (Belgium) emphasised that there is no automatic link between the fact that the crisis is being paid for by workers and the popular masses, and an increase of social struggles. Political, ideological and organisational factors will also play a role in the development of the struggles.

Esther Vivas (Spain) and Daniel Tanuro (Belgium) brought in a fundamental analytical dimension with their introductions: the economic crisis cannot be observed in isolation from the global ecological and food crises. Vivas presented the causes and structure of the food crisis: the current model of agricultural and livestock production is in a large measure responsible for climate change. Tanuro demonstrated how the official, ruling class responses to climate change are insufficient, unreal, irrational and even put us in more danger. He argued that eco-socialists should push for and end to unnecessary production, the retraining of workers in affected sectors and the development of a new agricultural model instigated by radical anti-capitalist measures.

Overall, the analyses revealed that the crisis is systemic, that those who are paying for it are the popular and working classes, and that now, more then ever, it is necessary to build an emancipatory, global anti-capitalist and eco-socialist project.

2009年10月5日

The Serious Obama

Reflections by Fidel Castro
Fidel Castro
September 22, 2009

NOTE: Here Fidel presents the principal political points Obama made yesterday at the conference, in detail, and they are printed in the principal newspapers of the island. Such documents often are read on Cuban radio and television. AFTER presenting what the President of the United States had to say, accurately and in detail, Fidel makes essential observations and draws conclusions. He's really trying to reach a range of audiences, domestically and internationally, with this calm, rhetoric-free approach.

It is unusual for adversaries to speak of one another in the way which Fidel Castro speaks of Barack Obama here. He sets a positive example for political behavior everywhere, in my opinion.

Walter Lippmann
CubaNews
Los Angeles, California
Bolivarian President Hugo Chavez really made a clever remark when he referred to the “riddle of the two Obamas.”

The serious Obama spoke today. Recently, I recognized two positive features in his behavior: his attempt to make healthcare available to the 47 million Americans who don’t have access to it, and his concern for climate change.

What I said yesterday about the imminent threat to the human species could sound pessimistic but it is not far from reality. The views of many Heads of State on the ignored and neglected issue of climate change are still unknown.

As the representative of the country hosting the United Nations High Level Meeting on the subject, Obama was the first to express his opinion.

What did he say? I’ll refer to the substance of his remarks.

- He said that he recognizes that the threat on the planet is serious and growing.

- That history will pass judgment on the response to this environmental challenge.

- That there is no nation, big or small, that can avoid the impact of climate change.

- That there is a daily increase of the high tides lashing against the coastlines while more intensive storms and floods are threatening our continents.

- That the security and stability of every nation are in danger.

- That climate has been placed at the top of the international agenda, from China to Brazil, from India to Mexico, Africa and Europe.

- That these can be significant steps if we are all united.

-That we understand the seriousness of the situation and are determined to act on it.

-That we were not there to celebrate any progress.

- That much remains to be done.

- That it will not be an easy job.

- That the most difficult part of the road is ahead of us.

- That this is happening at a time when to many the priority is to revitalize their economies.

- That we all have doubts about the climate challenge.

-That difficulties and doubts are no excuse to act.

- That each of us should do his share so that our economies can grow without endangering the planet.

- That we should turn Copenhagen into a significant step forward in the climate debate.

- That we should not allow for old divisions to jeopardize the united quest for solutions.

- That the developed nations have caused most of the damage and should thus take responsibility for it.

- That we shall not overcome this challenge unless we are united.

- That we know that these nations, particularly the most vulnerable, do not have the same resources to combat climate change.

- That the future is not a choice between economic growth and a clean planet because survival depends on both.

- That it is our responsibility to provide technical and financial assistance to these nations.

- That we are seeking an agreement that would enhance the quality of life of the peoples without disturbing the planet.

- That we know that the future depends on a global commitment.

- But that it is a long and tough road and we have no time to make the journey.

The problem now is that everything he has said contradicts what the United States has been doing for over 150 years, especially from the moment --at the end of World War II-- when it imposed to the world the Bretton Woods accord and became the master of the world economy.

The hundreds of military bases set up in scores of countries in every continent; their aircraft carriers and Navy fleets; their thousands of nuclear weapons; their wars of conquest; their military-industrial complex and their arms trade are incompatible with the survival of our species. Likewise, the consumer societies are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet. The unlimited waste of non-renewable natural resources, --especially oil and gas accumulated throughout hundreds of millions of years and depleted in barely two centuries at the current rate of consumption—has been the major cause of climate change. Even if the unfriendly emissions of the industrialized nations were reduced, which would be commendable, it is a reality that 5.2 billion people on planet Earth, that is, three-fourth of the population live in countries that are still in various stages of development and will therefore demand an enormous input of coal, oil, natural gas and other non-renewable resources that, according to the consumption patterns created by the capitalist economies, are incompatible with the objective of saving the human species.

It would not be fair to blame the serious Obama for the abovementioned riddle of what has happened until today, but it would not be fair either to have the other Obama make us believe that humanity could be preserved under the prevailing rules of the world economy.

The President of the United States has conceded that the developed nations have caused most of the damage and should take responsibility for it. It was certainly a brave gesture.

It would also be fair to concede that no other President of the United States would have had the courage to say what he has said.

2009年10月1日

Are worker-owned companies an alterative to capitalism?

Louis Proyect
September 29, 2009
This is a follow-up to my review of Michael Moore’s “Capitalism: a Love Story” where I neglected to discuss his proposals for an alternative to capitalism, which boil down to worker-owned firms or cooperatives. He interviews the top guy at the Alvarado Street Bakery in California, whose website describes a cooperative as “an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise”. He also visits a robotics manufacturer in Wisconsin that operates on the same basis.

In an interview on Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” radio show, Juan Gonzalez asks a pointed question that gets to the heart of the matter: “Michael, you have obviously amassed a lot in terms of the indictment of capitalism as a system, but some would say the film doesn’t offer much in terms of the alternative.” Moore replies:

I do show in the film some very specific examples of workplace democracy, where a number of companies have decided to go down the road of having the company actually owned by the workers. And when I say “owned,” I’m not talking about some ding-dong stock options that make you feel like you’re an owner, when you’re nowhere near that. But I mean these companies really own it. And I’m not talking about, you know, the hippy-dippy food co-op, and I don’t mean that with any disrespect to the food co-ops who are listening or any hippies that are listening. But I go to an engineering firm in Madison, Wisconsin. These guys look like a bunch of Republicans. I mean, I didn’t ask them how they vote, but they didn’t necessarily look like they were from, you know, my side of the political fence. And here they all are equal owners of this company. The company does $15 million worth of business each year.

I go to this bakery. It’s not a bakery really; it’s a bread factory out in northern California, Alvarado Street Bakery. And they’re all paid. They all share the profits the same. They’re all shared equally, including the CEO. And they vote. They elect, you know, who’s going to be running this and how this is going to function. The average factory worker in this bread factory makes $65,000 to $70,000 a year, which, I point out, is about three times the starting pay of a pilot who works for American Eagle or Delta Connection. And that’s another harrowing scene in the movie, where I interview pilots who are on food stamps—pilots who are on food stamps because of how little they’re paid.

As someone who has paid fairly close attention to the airline industry over the years, I could not help but remember how worker ownership did little to stave off the race to the bottom in what was once a well-paying industry with excellent benefits. On July 7th, 1996 Louis Uchitelle informed his NY Times readers that worker ownership was no obstacle to the kind of downsizing that victimized the workers at Republic Window, whose sit-in was documented by Moore. Uchitelle reported:

Or take Kiwi Airlines, founded in 1992 by former Eastern Airlines pilots. It is 57 percent owned today by its 1,200 employees. But to cut costs, 60 owner-workers were laid off in January, many of them clerks whose jobs had been automated. “If we had done these layoffs earlier, there would have been revolution,” said Robert Kulat, a Kiwi spokesman. “We still had this concept of a happy family and of employees being bigger than the company. But big losses changed that. And people realized that to remain alive, to keep their own jobs, they had to change too.”

Interestingly enough, Uchitelle claimed that a strong union allowed United Airlines, another worker-owned firm, to avoid downsizing but only four years later economic reality caught up with the company, as the January 14, 2000 New York Times reported:

Faced with rising labor and fuel costs, the UAL Corporation, the parent company of United Airlines, said yesterday that its 2000 earnings were likely to be as much as 28 percent below expectations.

United Airlines, the world’s largest carrier, is being plagued by troubles that are common to the industry and by others that are singular to its operation. Jet fuel prices increased about 24 percent last year and United predicted further jumps this year.

Adding to the carnage, several of United’s unions were demanding large wage increases, in part to keep up with competitors and to replace money generated from the company’s expiring stock ownership plan.

“UAL gave a very sobering message yesterday,” said Kevin Murphy, an airlines analyst with Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. “No airline outperforms when you’re negotiating with labor. If United gives big wage boosts to its pilots and mechanics, the other carriers may have to catch up.

In 2001 United Airlines went bankrupt as a result of the impact of 9/11 on travel and rising fuel costs and was subsequently reorganized as a regular corporation. This had nothing to do with whether the company was “democratic” or not. Even if it was the most democratic institution in the world, it could not operate as a benign oasis in a toxic wasteland. Capitalism forces firms to be profitable. If they are not profitable, management takes action to make them more profitable, including slashing wages or laying workers off. The only way to eliminate these practices is to eliminate the profit motive, something that Moore is reluctant to advocate.

It is understandable that Naomi Klein would have referred to the notion of worker owned firms this way in an interview with Moore that appears in the latest Nation Magazine: “The thing that I found most exciting in the film is that you make a very convincing pitch for democratically run workplaces as the alternative to this kind of loot-and-leave capitalism.” Klein, like Moore, has extolled the virtues of worker ownership in her own documentary “The Take”. This was my take on her movie:

In the opening moments of Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein’s documentary about occupied factories in Argentina titled “The Take,” we see Klein being hectored by a rightwing TV host. If she is not for the capitalist system, then what is she *for*. This is obviously is a tough question for autonomists like Klein who resist being pinned down, but she and her partner decided to make an attempt in “The Take.” Despite their best intentions, the film poses more questions than it answers. Ultimately, the film succeeds not as a political statement but as a record of ordinary workers trying to maintain their dignity.

For non-Marxist radicals like Klein, coming up with a model means first of all rejecting the USSR or Cuba which are dismissed as verticalist nightmares at the beginning of the film. The attraction of occupied factories in Argentina is that they are exercises in direct democracy, but do not involve the messy business of government, with its distasteful cops, courts and bureaucracy, etc. Of course, if you do not evaluate such institutions through the prism of class, you will never be able to operate politically on the most basic level. In the final analysis, cops will either support factories run by workers or they will evict them. Class power is the ultimate determinant of that outcome.

The film focuses on the efforts of workers to keep three factories running on a cooperative basis: Forja San Martin, Zanon and Brukman. Although Brukman, a garment shop, has only 58 workers, it is by far the best-known of these experiments. For autonomists, it has achieved the kind of mythic proportions that the St. Petersburg Soviet has for some Marxists. (It should be mentioned that the sectarian Marxist left rallied around Brukman as well, not so much because it was a model but because it was seen as an apocalyptic struggle between society’s two main classes.)

There’s a certain cognitive dissonance at work with Moore’s treatment of cooperatives. If it is a virtual panacea for what ails American workers, it amounts to a rightwing conspiracy when it is advocated as a solution to the health care crisis by Obama’s adversaries (of course, Obama is open to the idea himself.) If you go to Moore’s website, you will find an article by Robert Reich that makes a rather effective case against health insurance cooperatives: “Don’t accept Kent Conrad’s ersatz public option masquerading as a ‘healthcare cooperative.’ Cooperatives won’t have the authority, scale, or leverage to negotiate low prices and keep private insurers honest.” The same thing applies to outfits like the Alvarado Street Bakery in California or the robotics plant in Wisconsin. They lack the power to transform the American economy, just as health insurance coops would lack the power to safeguard the health of American workers. They would be nothing but tokens in a vast system operating on the basis of profit

2009年8月10日

Venezuela: Class Struggle Heats up over Battle for Workers’ Control

Federico Fuentes
Green Left Weekly
July 26th 2009

Federico Fuentes, Caracas - Green Left Weekly - On July 22, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez again declared his complete support for the proposal by industrial workers for a new model of production based on workers' control.

This push from Chavez, part of the socialist revolution, aims at transforming Venezuela's basic industry. However, it faces resistance from within the state bureaucracy and the revolutionary movement.

Presenting his government's "Plan Socialist Guayana 2009-2019", Chavez said the state-owned companies in basic industry have to be transformed into "socialist companies".

The plan was the result of several weeks of intense discussion among revolutionary workers from the Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana (CVG). The CVG includes 15 state-owned companies in the industrial Guayana region involved in steel, iron ore, mineral and aluminium production.

The workers' roundtables were established after a May 21 workshop, where industrial workers raised radical proposals for the socialist transformation of basic industry.

Chavez addressed the workshop in support of many of the proposals.

But events between the May 21 workshop and Chavez's July 22 recent announcement reveal much of the nature of the class struggle inside revolutionary Venezuela.

Chavez's announcement is part of an offensive launched after the revolutionary forces won the February 15 referendum on the back of a big organisational push that involved hundreds of thousands of people in the campaign.

The vote was to amend the constitution to allow elected officials to stand for re-election - allowing Chavez, the undisputed leader of the Venezuelan revolution, to stand for president in 2012.

With oil revenue drying up due to the global economic crisis, the government is using this new position of strength to tackle corruption and bureaucracy, while increasing state control over strategic economic sectors. This aims to ensure the poor are not made to pay for the crisis.

Workers' control
On May 21, Chavez publicly threw his lot in with the Guayana workers, announcing his government's granting of demands for better conditions in state-owned companies and the nationalisation of a number of private companies whose workers were involved in industrial disputes.

"When the working class roars, the capitalists tremble", Chavez told the

To chants of "this is how you govern!", Chavez announced his agreement with a series of measures proposed by workers.

However, like an old train that begins to rattle loudly as it speeds up, more right-wing sectors within the revolutionary movement also began to tremble.

With each new attack against the political and economic power that the capitalist class still holds in Venezuela - and uses to destabilise the country - the revolution is also forced to confront internal enemies.

The radical measures announced at the May 21 workshop were the result of the workers discussion over the previous two days.

Chavez called on workers to wage an all-out struggle against the "mafias" rife in the management of state companies.

The workers of SIDOR conducted a long and hard struggle against the Argentinean multinational Techin.

Chavez then designated planning minister Jorge Giordani and labour minister Maria Cristina Iglesias, who both played a key role in the workshop, to follow up these decisions by establishing a series of workers' roundtables in the CVG industries.

The CVG complex is on the verge of collapse in large part due to the privatisation push by pre-Chavez governments in the 1990s. State companies were run down in preparation to be sold off cheaply.

The workers of SIDOR conducted a long and hard struggle against the Argentinean multinational Techin.

In the Sidor steel plant, for example, the number of workers dropped from more than 30,000 to less than 15,000 before it was privatised in 1998.

Chavez's 1998 election stopped further privatisation. But the government has had to confront large scale corruption within the CVG, continued deterioration of machinery and, more recently, the sharp drop in prices of aluminium and steel.

The plan drafted up by workers and given to Chavez on June 9 raised the possibility of "converting the current structural crisis of capitalism" into "an opportunity" for workers to move forward in "the construction of socialism, by assuming in a direct manner, control over production of the basic companies in the region".

The report set out nine strategic lines - including workers' control of production; improvement of environmental and work conditions; and public auditing of companies and projects.

Measures proposed include the election of managers and management restructuring; collective decision-making by workers and local communities; the creation of workers' councils; and opening companies' books.

The measures aim to achieve "direct control of production without mediations by a bureaucratic structure".

The report said such an experience of workers' control would undoubtedly act as an example for workers in "companies in the public sector nationally, such as those linked to hydrocarbons or energy companies".

Bureaucracy bites back
Sensing the danger such an example represents to its interests, bureaucratic sections within the revolutionary movement, as well as the US-backed counter-revolutionary opposition, moved quickly to try and stop this process.

Unidentified worker holding casing from National Guard rubber bullet as Sutiss Secretary General José Rodriguez Acarigua addresses striking workers at Portón 1
Credit: Jonah Gindin - Venezuelanalysis.com


A wave of strikes and protests were organised in the aluminium sector during June and July, taking advantage of workers' disgruntlement with corrupt managers and payments owed.

The protests were organised by union leaders from both the Socialist Bolivarian Force of Workers (FSBT), a union current within the mass party led by Chavez, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), and those aligned with opposition parties such as Radical Cause.

Revolutionary workers from Guayana condemned the unholy alliance of bureaucratic union leaders and opposition political forces, which aimed to stifling the process initiated on May 21.

This alliance was supported by Bolivar governor, retired General Francisco Rangel Gomez, who called on the national government to negotiate directly with local unions.

Opinion pieces began to appear in the local press, calling on the government to once again make Rangel president of the CVG in order to bring "stability".

The alliance between Rangel and union bureaucrats in Guayana is long running.

Officially part of the Chavista camp, Rangel has long been accused of being corrupt and anti-worker. During his term as CVG president before becoming governor in 2004, Rangel built up a corrupt clientalist network with local union and business figures.

He stacked CVG management with business partners and friends.

While on the negotiation commission to resolve the 15-month long dispute at Sidor, Rangel ordered the National Guard to fire on protesting Sidor workers.

Also on the commission was then-labour minister and former FSBT union leader from Guayana, Jose Ramon Rivero, who was similarly accused by Sidor workers of siding with management.

He was also criticised for using his position as labour minister to build the FSBT's bureaucratic powerbase by promoting "parallel unions" along factional lines and splitting the revolutionary union confederation, National Union of Workers (UNT).

In April last year, Chavez disbanded the Sidor negotiation commission and sent his vice president, Ramon Carrizales to resolve the dispute by re-nationalising the steel plant.

Rivero was then sacked. Today, he works as the general secretary in Rangel's governorship.

The forces behind Rivero and Rangel hoped not only to stifle the radical proposals from the May 21 workshop, but also remove basic industry minister Rodolfo Sanz.

Sanz has moved to replace Rangel's people with his own in the CVG management.

In the recent dispute, Sanz accused aluminium workers of being responsible for the crisis in that sector. He worked to undermine the proposals of the roundtable discussions.

After several days of negotiations union leaders - essentially sidelining the workers roundtables - Sanz agreed on July 20 not only to pay the workers what they were owed, but also to restructure the board of directors in the aluminium sector.

Through this process, the radical proposals for restructuring the CVG appeared to have been push aside - which suited both Sanz and Rangel.

Revolutionary leadership
However, Chavez intervened with his July 22 announcement, which came after a meeting with key ministers and advisors involved in the May 21 socialist transformation workshop.

Thousands of workers and activists launch the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), April 19. Photo: Reuters/Jorge Silva

Chavez said his government was committed to implement the recommendations of the "Plan Socialist Guayana", placing himself clearly on the side of the workers.

He said the workers' proposals, embodied in the plan, would "guide all the new policies and concrete and specific measures that we are beginning to decide in order to consolidate a socialist platform in Guayana".

When a journalist directed her first question to Sanz regarding the plan, Chavez stepped in to respond, by-passing Sanz and handing the microphone over to Giordani, who many revolutionary workers identify as strongly committed to the process of socialist transformation.

Rangel, who had been at the May 21 workshop, was not at the July 22 meeting.

Chavez also appeared to differentiate himself from other sectors within the revolutionary movement, such as those behind the "A Grain of Maize" daily column, whose authors are linked to a political current involving oil minister Rafael Ramirez.

This current has recently been vocal in arguing that socialism simply entails state ownership and central planning from above - with minimum participation from workers.

For Chavez, state-owned companies "that continue to remain within the framework of state capitalism" have to be managed by their workers in order to become "socialist".

The Plan Socialist Guayana is Venezuela's first example of real "democratic planning from below", Chavez added.

The battle in Guayana is not over. Workers from the Alcasa aluminium plant told Green Left Weekly that management at aluminium plants met on July 25 to continue the process of restructuring agreed to by Sanz and union leaders - in direct opposition to Chavez's statements.

Other fronts of intense class conflict have opened up. Various struggles have emerged involving different forces and interests in the electricity sector, as well as the still-emerging communes, which unite the grassroots communal councils, to name a few.

A central arena of struggle is the PSUV, which is in a process of restructuring ahead of its second congress in October.

But the battle in Guayana may be one of the most decisive as it involves the largest working-class population. This is in the context of a revolution whose weakest link has been the lack of a strong, organised revolutionary workers' movement.

靠左對齊Venezuela: Class Struggle Heats up over Battle for Workers’ Control

Federico Fuentes
Green Left Weekly
July 26th 2009

Federico Fuentes, Caracas - Green Left Weekly - On July 22, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez again declared his complete support for the proposal by industrial workers for a new model of production based on workers' control.

This push from Chavez, part of the socialist revolution, aims at transforming Venezuela's basic industry. However, it faces resistance from within the state bureaucracy and the revolutionary movement.

Presenting his government's "Plan Socialist Guayana 2009-2019", Chavez said the state-owned companies in basic industry have to be transformed into "socialist companies".

The plan was the result of several weeks of intense discussion among revolutionary workers from the Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana (CVG). The CVG includes 15 state-owned companies in the industrial Guayana region involved in steel, iron ore, mineral and aluminium production.

The workers' roundtables were established after a May 21 workshop, where industrial workers raised radical proposals for the socialist transformation of basic industry.

Chavez addressed the workshop in support of many of the proposals.

But events between the May 21 workshop and Chavez's July 22 recent announcement reveal much of the nature of the class struggle inside revolutionary Venezuela.

Chavez's announcement is part of an offensive launched after the revolutionary forces won the February 15 referendum on the back of a big organisational push that involved hundreds of thousands of people in the campaign.

The vote was to amend the constitution to allow elected officials to stand for re-election - allowing Chavez, the undisputed leader of the Venezuelan revolution, to stand for president in 2012.

With oil revenue drying up due to the global economic crisis, the government is using this new position of strength to tackle corruption and bureaucracy, while increasing state control over strategic economic sectors. This aims to ensure the poor are not made to pay for the crisis.

Workers' control
On May 21, Chavez publicly threw his lot in with the Guayana workers, announcing his government's granting of demands for better conditions in state-owned companies and the nationalisation of a number of private companies whose workers were involved in industrial disputes.

"When the working class roars, the capitalists tremble", Chavez told the

To chants of "this is how you govern!", Chavez announced his agreement with a series of measures proposed by workers.

However, like an old train that begins to rattle loudly as it speeds up, more right-wing sectors within the revolutionary movement also began to tremble.

With each new attack against the political and economic power that the capitalist class still holds in Venezuela - and uses to destabilise the country - the revolution is also forced to confront internal enemies.

The radical measures announced at the May 21 workshop were the result of the workers discussion over the previous two days.

Chavez called on workers to wage an all-out struggle against the "mafias" rife in the management of state companies.

Chavez then designated planning minister Jorge Giordani and labour minister Maria Cristina Iglesias, who both played a key role in the workshop, to follow up these decisions by establishing a series of workers' roundtables in the CVG industries.

The CVG complex is on the verge of collapse in large part due to the privatisation push by pre-Chavez governments in the 1990s. State companies were run down in preparation to be sold off cheaply.

In the Sidor steel plant, for example, the number of workers dropped from more than 30,000 to less than 15,000 before it was privatised in 1998.

Chavez's 1998 election stopped further privatisation. But the government has had to confront large scale corruption within the CVG, continued deterioration of machinery and, more recently, the sharp drop in prices of aluminium and steel.
The plan drafted up by workers and given to Chavez on June 9 raised the possibility of "converting the current structural crisis of capitalism" into "an opportunity" for workers to move forward in "the construction of socialism, by assuming in a direct manner, control over production of the basic companies in the region".

The report set out nine strategic lines - including workers' control of production; improvement of environmental and work conditions; and public auditing of companies and projects.

Measures proposed include the election of managers and management restructuring; collective decision-making by workers and local communities; the creation of workers' councils; and opening companies' books.

The measures aim to achieve "direct control of production without mediations by a bureaucratic structure".

The report said such an experience of workers' control would undoubtedly act as an example for workers in "companies in the public sector nationally, such as those linked to hydrocarbons or energy companies".


Bureaucracy bites back
Sensing the danger such an example represents to its interests, bureaucratic sections within the revolutionary movement, as well as the US-backed counter-revolutionary opposition, moved quickly to try and stop this process.

A wave of strikes and protests were organised in the aluminium sector during June and July, taking advantage of workers' disgruntlement with corrupt managers and payments owed.

The protests were organised by union leaders from both the Socialist Bolivarian Force of Workers (FSBT), a union current within the mass party led by Chavez, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), and those aligned with opposition parties such as Radical Cause.

Revolutionary workers from Guayana condemned the unholy alliance of bureaucratic union leaders and opposition political forces, which aimed to stifling the process initiated on May 21.

This alliance was supported by Bolivar governor, retired General Francisco Rangel Gomez, who called on the national government to negotiate directly with local unions.

Opinion pieces began to appear in the local press, calling on the government to once again make Rangel president of the CVG in order to bring "stability".

The alliance between Rangel and union bureaucrats in Guayana is long running.

Officially part of the Chavista camp, Rangel has long been accused of being corrupt and anti-worker. During his term as CVG president before becoming governor in 2004, Rangel built up a corrupt clientalist network with local union and business figures.

He stacked CVG management with business partners and friends.

While on the negotiation commission to resolve the 15-month long dispute at Sidor, Rangel ordered the National Guard to fire on protesting Sidor workers.

Also on the commission was then-labour minister and former FSBT union leader from Guayana, Jose Ramon Rivero, who was similarly accused by Sidor workers of siding with management.

He was also criticised for using his position as labour minister to build the FSBT's bureaucratic powerbase by promoting "parallel unions" along factional lines and splitting the revolutionary union confederation, National Union of Workers (UNT).

In April last year, Chavez disbanded the Sidor negotiation commission and sent his vice president, Ramon Carrizales to resolve the dispute by re-nationalising the steel plant.

Rivero was then sacked. Today, he works as the general secretary in Rangel's governorship.

The forces behind Rivero and Rangel hoped not only to stifle the radical proposals from the May 21 workshop, but also remove basic industry minister Rodolfo Sanz.

Sanz has moved to replace Rangel's people with his own in the CVG management.

In the recent dispute, Sanz accused aluminium workers of being responsible for the crisis in that sector. He worked to undermine the proposals of the roundtable discussions.

After several days of negotiations union leaders - essentially sidelining the workers roundtables - Sanz agreed on July 20 not only to pay the workers what they were owed, but also to restructure the board of directors in the aluminium sector.

Through this process, the radical proposals for restructuring the CVG appeared to have been push aside - which suited both Sanz and Rangel.

Revolutionary leadership
However, Chavez intervened with his July 22 announcement, which came after a meeting with key ministers and advisors involved in the May 21 socialist transformation workshop.

Chavez said his government was committed to implement the recommendations of the "Plan Socialist Guayana", placing himself clearly on the side of the workers.

He said the workers' proposals, embodied in the plan, would "guide all the new policies and concrete and specific measures that we are beginning to decide in order to consolidate a socialist platform in Guayana".

When a journalist directed her first question to Sanz regarding the plan, Chavez stepped in to respond, by-passing Sanz and handing the microphone over to Giordani, who many revolutionary workers identify as strongly committed to the process of socialist transformation.

Rangel, who had been at the May 21 workshop, was not at the July 22 meeting.

Chavez also appeared to differentiate himself from other sectors within the revolutionary movement, such as those behind the "A Grain of Maize" daily column, whose authors are linked to a political current involving oil minister Rafael Ramirez.

This current has recently been vocal in arguing that socialism simply entails state ownership and central planning from above - with minimum participation from workers.

For Chavez, state-owned companies "that continue to remain within the framework of state capitalism" have to be managed by their workers in order to become "socialist".

The Plan Socialist Guayana is Venezuela's first example of real "democratic planning from below", Chavez added.

The battle in Guayana is not over. Workers from the Alcasa aluminium plant told Green Left Weekly that management at aluminium plants met on July 25 to continue the process of restructuring agreed to by Sanz and union leaders - in direct opposition to Chavez's statements.

Other fronts of intense class conflict have opened up. Various struggles have emerged involving different forces and interests in the electricity sector, as well as the still-emerging communes, which unite the grassroots communal councils, to name a few.

A central arena of struggle is the PSUV, which is in a process of restructuring ahead of its second congress in October.

But the battle in Guayana may be one of the most decisive as it involves the largest working-class population. This is in the context of a revolution whose weakest link has been the lack of a strong, organised revolutionary workers' movement.

Thinking of Action in Iran

Milad S.
Khiaban #18
July 8, 2009
(Note from translator Reza Fiyouzat:This translation of an analytical article from the newspaper Khiaban, #18, came in the mail. The article presents a perspective that needs serious consideration by socialist forces. Whether we agree totally, mostly or partially, the perspective is well worth reflecting on. Thanks to the sender! August 1, 2009)
The purpose of this note is to point out some of the obstacles to the expansion of the Iranian communists' activities.

1. For taking further and well-thought steps, we have to discard a number of erroneous notions. The first misconception is to perceive contemporary Iran as a 'post-revolutionary' society. Iran is not in a post-revolutionary situation, in which another revolution is necessary. The current movement is a new sequence of the revolutionary process that started in 1978. The internal conflicts of the ruling factions, the machinery of oppression and the forms that people's struggle take, their slogans and demands, all these are parts of a historical period that started by the Iranian Revolution in 1978-79. We should perceive the present popular movement in such a broader context, and discard any prevalent sort of sociological analysis, even those that in appearance seem class-based. We will explain this.

This means that the movement that started on June 15 [2009] is a continuation of the people's struggle in answering questions, which they themselves had posed in the society through the overthrow of Shah's regime: How can we establish freedom, independence and a people's republic in Iran? How can we run the society based on people's sovereignty, and without relying on any of the pre-capitalistic institutions, without the royal court and its allies? The first answer, the Islamic Republic, has failed that test. It was not the Iranian revolution that failed the test; such a statement is meaningless, those political alternatives pertaining to the first sequence however failed. The revolution itself is still young.

This is not to say that the course of the events, forms of the struggle and the behavior of the forces in this sequence are a repetition of what happened between 1977 and 1980. Quite the contrary, this movement is different in form and content, and its enemy is not the classic dictatorship of the Shah, but an Islamic regime, which emerged from the same revolutionary process and claims to have inherited the demand for republicanism, freedom and the independence of the Iranian people (this is a reference to the emblematic tripartite central slogan during winter 1978-79_ trans. note).

In the historical events of June 15, this claim was unambiguously taken back from the ruling regime. When Mousavi and the Participation Front [jebhey-e mosharekat] end up in opposition to the main symbol of the Islamic Republic, i.e., velayat-e faqih [rule of religious jurists], and in effect stand alongside the people (not just in words, but in its social objectivity), this is indicative of the fact that the Islamic Republic separated its path from that of the revolution, which amounts to the political suicide of the regime. From this point on, the 1979 revolution will anew seek its own identity and fate, is no longer an Islamic revolution as this regime called it; what it is will be determined by this very movement in its references to that revolutionary memory. The easiest example is the 'Allah-o Akbar' slogan. The slogan was used first time during the uprising in 1978-1979. Today, it is employed against the regime that once had transformed that symbol of protest to an ideological alibi for establishing political Islam. By employing the same phrase, people indicate the radical level of their demand that goes beyond the phrase. People are employing the religious Arabic wording 'Allah-o Akbar' as a metaphor for something else in Persian: Death to the dictator. Here the content goes beyond the phrase. If we don't see this difference, we will misunderstand people's slogans and, worst of all, we will move away from the people and leave the initiative to others. Therefore, in the first instance, any radical political force in Iran must synchronize its behavior, position and outlook with the calendar and sequences of the Iranian Revolution.

This means: Don't interpret! Don't make up slogans that seem revolutionary! Be the thought for an action. (The word employed in the title of the article in Persian is "eqdam" which means the initial, commencing phase of an action, the intentional component of an undertaking. The title of the text reads "fekr e eqdam", thought of/for an action, which is deliberately ambiguous; it both means a thought or idea discernable through action and the deliberations before an action.)

An idea that pertains to such an action is the articulation of the very people's demands. Its point of departure is the people's, all the people's pain and suffering, their capabilities as well as shortcomings. The Iranian people, when they take the initiative to wrest back the political cause from their rulers, are not Muslims, nor idolaters, nor liberals and royalists, nor demanding the overthrow of anything, nor a sect wishing to establish a socialist republic based on premeditated plans. No people have ever been like that. If a people have overthrown any system, it has been because that system blocked the collective movement of the people; if a people in some places transformed their councils/soviets into a new form of republic, this was because in the course of their struggles, they achieved all-encompassing and universal goals, for which that form (the councils, soviets, etc.) was found to be optimal; if they rose to do away with private property in a factory, some neighborhood, this city, a given country, this was because in their daily battles they realized that this form of property was an obstacle to the realization of a humane life. We must think of communism as an equivalent to these conditioned propositions, which means we must free our ideals from burdensome clichés. Anyone who wants to stage the last scene of another revolution as the first act of a revolution here is not thinking of any concrete measures for action. He is, at best, a plagiarist.

2. In the writings of leftist activists in Iran, we see two burdensome concepts, which have caused the scattered, oppressed and wounded figure of the left to turn even more scattered. One is the seemingly unproblematic concept of the 'middle class'. Interesting that this concept is seen precisely in such analyses that most certainly contain class in their titles, and in which quotations from Marx or Lenin abound. However, Marx has never used anything called middle class, with the particular meaning envisioned by these writers, in his historical analyses. On the contrary, this is a contemporary sociological concept. 'Middle class' is a deeply vague and ideological concept. Middle of what, and how did this middle become a class? In the present misery, hospital workers and staff, our school teachers, the factory workers and the youth who have been deprived of employment and who live in dormitories are not middle class. In the midst of the summer solstice in the third world, what middle class?

These are labor force, the very thing you have been looking for, and right in front of your eyes, in the streets of self-representation and in the alleys of common interests. They have, at least momentarily, felt their capacity to impose their presence in the public arenas of our cities and from now on nothing will remain the same as before, including the meaning of democracy. The ashes of petty-bourgeois academism is incapable of understanding the simple fact that people who, reliant on solidarity, claim a common objective for all are no longer the same as a formless mass.

Besides this, this movement has as yet not benefited fully from the independent presence of the organized poor. The current presence of a section of the rulers alongside the movement has also caused some confusion. The most wrongheaded policy in the current situation is to busy ourselves with polemics with this segment of the rulers to prove that they cannot be our fellow travelers. From the point of view of the people, such arguments, no matter how filled with revolutionary phrases, resemble the arguments of the two factions of the rulers. Such is not communist activity. Expansion of people's movement means helping to build popular organizations amongst those people whose voice is not counted, not recognized by the state. Joining of the poor alongside the presence of the labor forces will show any petty-bourgeois ideological illusion to be what they are: moralistic speech. It is at such a [historical] moment, but not earlier, that those few journalists who advocate neo-liberalism will be forgotten.

Do you see how the difference between people and their enemies is cognizable? It suffices that people organize themselves around all-encompassing demands and recognize their own representation in a common cause. Slogans such as "Give me back my vote!" has, neither immediately nor necessarily, anything to do with acceptance of the elections game or parliamentarianism. We see that many people who had boycotted the elections participated in the rallies. It does not even relate immediately to Ahmadinejad and the overthrow of the Islamic Republic, but goes farther and deeper than these things. This lack of immediate relation must be taken as our point of departure. The important point is the collective uprising to claim our crushed rights; this readiness to rise up for the right to have a vote must be understood the way it actually is, beyond ideological imageries about elections, and must be expanded to include other rights of the people.

3. The second reason for lack of cohesion, I think, relates to a mistake by the communists about who the addressee is. One component of such a mistake concerns the concept of 'enemy'. In short, it is simplistic to think that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and, vice versa, to consider those who are not friends of the people as the enemy. Enemy and friend are asymmetrical terms. We don't determine the enemy by their beliefs and speech, but the criterion is their objective behavior in concrete conditions. The enemies are those who take up arms against the expansion of the people's movement and are destroying their organizations. 'Enemy' is a concept, whose use is akin to that of a weapon, which must be pointed in a particular direction and at a certain target. Friends who are fond of Marx should believe that this is exactly what Marx says. Running hurriedly into the arena, and without any popular backing calling the people whose flags are not our desired colors 'the enemy', is akin to firing an empty gun in the darkness.

Let us reach some conclusions from these three points:

A. If the communists are on the side of revolution, and are capable of discerning the historical demands of the Iranian Revolution and able to understand the logic of its development, then they must welcome the disintegration of the governmental coalition called Islamic Republic and the joining with their ranks of segments of a republican system that claimed to have answers to the demands of the Iranian Revolution. They must not forget that this split among the different factions of rulers was caused by the very movement of the people, and not by the infighting of the two factions, as declared in sociological analyses. NO! Any infighting within the ruling system occurs against the background of a revolutionary society, and always has three sides.

If we look at the behavior of the people from this angle, we can easily see how the people in effect are constantly pushing forward this segment of rulers [that has joined them] with all its resources, and at least for the short-term. Once, a while ago, it was possible for Khatami to avoid such a position, but for Mousavi any retreat is tantamount to political suicide or even a threat to his life.

Intellectual friends, militant comrades! Abandon exposing every inconsistency in their statements; in doing such things, you are actually looking at the whole thing from the top, and staring wide-eyed only at the surface appearance of their infighting, and by necessity you will be limited to playing the role of the permanent pen-wielding critic of the policies of those upstairs, without giving any space or chance to communism as a positive idea to be constructed. From the point of view of the people's movement and its inventiveness, the separation of a segment of the rulers and its alignment alongside the people's demands is a non-negligible victory. Without having any illusions about this segment or its historical background, this victory should be protected. Otherwise, and by proposing ideas about the class nature of this segment and by repeating hasty misreadings of the separating line between 'proletariat' and 'bourgeois', you would be underestimating the present force of the people's movement. Instead of this petty-bourgeois incredulity, turn to organizing the labor forces, turn to expanding the struggle among the poor and the workers, disseminate awareness among the people based on tangible given demands, get to work alongside them for formulating tangible and relevant demands, and thereby recognize yourself as part of a common cause.

B. The relationship between the people and the communist activists and intellectuals is not one of a passive 'addressee' and an active 'agent'. A lot of friends in the Iranian left seem unable to inspire confidence. They are trapped in intellectual labyrinths, in which workers or poor people can not recognize themselves, and at times they produce road maps such as would befit those by parties boasting millions of members. For communists, the dialectic of addressing is a complex one. If an intellectual or an activist has more time to read and think, this does not make them a popular movement's engineer or an expert on budgeting and planning for the people's movement. This type of engineer-like thinking among the left has its own reasons. But, what is important here is that, the people, when in a struggle or when voicing slogans in a demonstration, are both 'addressees' and 'agents'.

Every time we address the people, it is because we want to make their own voices to be heard, and their own right to address all to become possible. This important fact must be present in the very first words that we utter publicly. This means that if we voice a slogan, it must express a demand that is achievable even though it appears for now impossible and is based on a responsible examination of reality and real capacities of social forces; meaning, our slogans are consistently a minimal expression that can embrace a maximum of imaginable objectives, not a blind maximalism that bears no relation to the real conditions. This means that our slogans are part of the collective understanding and our enthusiasm a co-conspirator in the plans that the people, before us, have forged against the dominant grammar of power. "Do not fear, do not fear; We are all together here!" This slogan engages in no exaggerations, nor does it encourage any singular voice, and is not vague, either. It is effective and encouraging, and paves the way. This togetherness of all for a common claim beyond the governmental powers and the media discourse is a thousand times more radical and revolutionary than using worn out clichés.

This inventiveness of the people is the source of force for the communists. Please do not say that you would separate out and arrange two camps facing each other, and that "co-presence of all" is a bourgeois slogan. That is not the case. In its best form, capitalism can only guarantee the wellbeing of a minority among the millions of people deprived of their rights. 'All' is both the 'addressee' and the 'addresser', a historical moment that extends beyond the limits of capitalism; class struggle signifies that a group, as a social class, stands on the way of this progression. To misread Marx, Lenin and others is worse than not reading them at all.

That which is encouraging for our young forces, is their objectively better possibility of success, compared to the period of 1978-1981. The weakness and the scatteredness of the leftist militants from the 1978 revolution, at this moment can be a positive point for the creation of new communist forces that have learned from the past, and stand alongside the people to solve crucial problems of the movement, using their ideas and without concepts estranged from our lived experience.

I will end this note with a reminder: one of the best articles about the conditions of realization of historical demands from the 1978 revolution was written by the reformist thinker Sa'eed Hajjarian, published a few days before the [June 12] elections. Hajjarian's thesis, in a reference to Rosa Luxembourg's slogan, 'Socialism or Barbarity', was that in today's Iran, the choice is between barbarity and civility. We must read this thesis correctly, meaning with the opposite intention of the writer. You have the best chance of success, since the Iranian Revolution, at each new sequence, each time clearer than before, shows that socialism, or better to say communism, is the only possible civility for the future of a free Iran. If we do not act thoughtfully and intelligently, tomorrow we will end up looking blindly for the spent shells after shooting those bullet-less guns; something that some leftist-leaning friends have been busy doing for too many the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

2009年7月28日

Debate: How Should Anti-Imperialists Respond to Iran’s Political Crisis?

Socialist Voice
July 28, 2009

A recent Socialist Voice article, Iranian Workers in Action for Democratic Rights, by Robert Johnson and John Riddell, provoked an online debate about how anti-imperialist activists should defend Iranian sovereignty in response to the political crisis there. Because this debate reflects broader disagreements in the left around the world, we are publishing two submissions by Stansfield Smith, together with responses from Johnson and Riddell.

All four contributions originally appeared as comments to the Socialist Voice article:

* “A poorly veiled way of taking sides in Iran” (Stansfield Smith)

* “Self-determination and democratic rights are two aspects of the same question” (Robert Johnson and John Riddell)

* “Support workers movements – but not regardless of the context” (Stansfield Smith)

* “Siding with Ahmedinejad against imperialism does not mean siding with him in his repression” (Robert Johnson and John Riddell)

We welcome further comments on the issues raised in this discussion.
* * * * *

A poorly veiled way of taking sides in Iran
Stansfield Smith
June 29, 2009

Your statement is better than what I have seen in Links, the RCP paper, ISO paper, CP, or IMT, but it still not very good.

1. The most important activity people in imperialist countries should be doing is exposing the imperialist campaign against Iran. You now consider this incidental. The CIA and NED, as you must know, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to destabilize Iran. Iran is surrounded by countries with U.S. troops. It is blockaded by the U.S. The Big Business media, as you must know, was not simply reporting on they called Iran’s democracy movement, but was instigating it.

These are examples of the primary issues Marxists should be exposing to the public.

2. So far there has never been presented evidence of election fraud on the scale that would overturn Ahmadinejad’s vote. As the protestors against him were calling for the overthrow of the government, should the Iranian government, which was just approved by a large majority vote, simply let them do that? Should a government chosen by the majority in an election just surrender to the forces of the losing candidate? I am sure the Big Business media would call that a victory for the “democracy movement.” As the losing candidate was the choice of imperialism to be president of Iran, and neither he or the movement behind him, denounced the role that imperialism was playing in his campaign, it certainly is reasonable that any anti-imperialist nationalist government should take repressive measures once they warned demonstrators to stop. (And this repression, if the number is still 17, includes eight government police killed by anti-government people.)

3. We should normally support workers movements, but not regardless of the context of the whole class struggle. Any progressive workers movement that does not denounce its being used in an imperialist campaign against an anti-imperialist government is forfeiting its legitimacy and credibility.

We have seen events somewhat reminiscent of this, probably Poland in the 1980s being the most well-known, Walesa never denounced the imperialist role in Poland, and moved steadily to the right over time. Solidarity discredited itself, and Poland became a de facto U.S. colony, all accomplished via a democratic revolution.

Similarly, your printing of articles from workers struggles against the government of Iran right in the middle of an imperialist campaign against Iran strikes me as quite insincere. Is this not participating in the imperialist campaign in a back-handed way?

4. You state, “Progressive activists in Canada should not take sides between the competing factions in Iran ’s capitalist class, nor should we try to instruct the Iranian people on how the present crisis might be resolved. These questions can only be settled by the Iranian people themselves.”

But then you state the following, which is nothing but a poorly veiled way of taking sides in Iran:

“We should, however, support the right of the Iranian people to communicate freely, to demonstrate, and to form trade unions and other popular associations independent of government supervision or control. We should support calls for freeing political prisoners and for an end to the repression.”

Your first paragraph quoted here would sound more sincere if you eliminated the second and then followed it with this:

“At the same time, we should strongly oppose attempts by imperialism to take advantage of this crisis, and call for an end to sanctions and other forms of foreign oppression of the Iranian people.”

However, you do make it seem like the attempts by imperialism to interfere in Iran are hypothetical, while in fact imperialism is intimately involved. Again, the primary task for us in imperialist countries is to oppose the imperialist campaign against the gains of the Iranian revolution. That is the most effective way we can ensure the democratic rights of the Iranian people.

* * * * *

Self-determination and democratic rights are two aspects of the same question
Robert Johnson and John Riddell
July 11, 2009

Thanks to Stansfield Smith for a thoughtful comment on our article, Iranian Workers in Action for Democratic Rights1.

We heartily agree with his main point, that the central activity regarding Iran in imperialist countries must be to oppose the imperialist campaign against Iran. This activity has gained new urgency as the imperialist powers renew their campaign against Iran, taking diplomatic reprisals, planning new sanctions, and revving up for a possible Iraq-style campaign of “regime change.”

U.S. Vice-President Joseph Biden has now declared that Washington may not restrain Israel from a military attack on Iran – an obvious threat of a U.S.-sponsored aggression in one form or another. It should be a wake-up call as to the real stakes in the Iran question.

We also agree that we in the imperialist countries should not support the media campaign to overturn Iran’s election results or line up behind the Mousavi opposition faction among Iran’s capitalist rulers. Nor should we support the pro-Ahmadinejad faction in its dispute with what is clearly a substantial proportion of the Iranian people. The Iranian people must be allowed to decide these matters, free of foreign interference.

We stated these points strongly in our article. What, then, are Stansfield Smith’s objections?

Many issues here are worth discussion. But in our opinion, the central issue relates to our advocacy of support to “the right of the Iranian people to communicate freely, to demonstrate, and to form trade unions and other popular associations independent of government supervision or control. We should support calls for freeing political prisoners and for an end to the repression.”

Quoting this passage, Stansfield Smith states that it is “nothing but a poorly veiled way of taking sides in Iran.”

Yes, supporting democratic rights for the popular masses is a way of taking sides – but not for imperialism, as Smith implies, but for Iranian sovereignty. During the 30 years since the Iranian revolution, the Iranian popular masses have been the main bulwark of resistance to imperialism, leading the people’s defense against the imperialist-backed invasion of the 1980s and holding firm against the continued imperialist sanctions and conspiracies to this day.

To be an effective force for Iran’s defense, Iran’s masses need to be able to speak, organize, and assemble – including, when they wish, to raise criticisms of the present government or defend themselves against exploitation.

This fact must be apparent in Iranians’ intensive utilization of the democratic rights which they already possess, which are more extensive than in U.S. client states in the region such as Jordan, Kuwait or Egypt. We are confident that Stansfield Smith joins us in defending the democratic rights that exist in Iran today.

Elections in all capitalist countries are channelled and manipulated by the wealthy and powerful. That is true of Iran as well as of Canada, to say nothing of Canada’s ally Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy with no elections at all. Canada’s rulers have no right to preach to Iran about democracy.

But democratic rights in Iran are restricted in ways that are harmful to working people in Iran and that have led to considerable disaffection. In the statements we reprinted, workers call for the right to form unions freely and for these unions to function without mass arrests and police persecution. Such a reform would strengthen Iranian popular sovereignty and improve its defenses against imperialism.

Moreover, workers in Iran, just as in Canada, need freedom to defend themselves against the impact of capitalist exploitation in the neoliberal era. Expansion of worker rights should be supported in Iran as in Canada.

Venezuela today provides us with a striking example of how to organize defense against imperialism by building a dense network of unions and popular committees to draw working people into political action.

Of course Iran must take firm action against imperialist plots and disruption. But this must not become an excuse for anti-worker repression. When workers strike to receive back pay, for example, this cannot be dismissed as an imperialist plot.

To repeat: our main responsibility toward Iran is to oppose imperialist threats against its sovereignty and the hypocritical media campaign aiming to demonize the country and its institutions. However, in defending Iran, we must recognize that national self-determination and democratic rights for the people are two aspects of the same question: popular sovereignty. Defense of Iran includes speaking out against repression that bears down on Iranian working people and weakens the country’s ramparts against imperialist attack.

* * * * *
Support workers movements – but not regardless of the context
Stansfield Smith
July 15, 2009

John Riddell in reply states, “We also agree that we in the imperialist countries should not support the media campaign to overturn Iran’s election results or line up behind the Mousavi opposition faction among Iran’s capitalist rulers.”

Does this mean that you now repudiate what was in your article, where you take Teachers union statement and print it without criticism:

“The Teachers’ Organization of Iran, further, supports the goals of Messrs. Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi and calls on the election authorities to annul this election and undertake a free election.”

If you recognize that you should not support the media campaign to overturn Iran’s elections, what do you think you were doing by printing that Teachers Organization statement?

You approve of the Vancouver group, which states they:

“sends warm greetings and solidarity to all those who are rallying for democracy and justice in Iran and abroad this week. We share your commitment to a peaceful and just resolution of the disputes brought to the surface by the recent presidential election in Iran, and your desire for Iranians themselves to determine the future of their country.”

The Mousavi supporters are rallying for “democracy and justice” and the Ahmadinejad supporters were not? That view is taken straight from the corporate media. If there was no fraud more substantial in any bourgeois election, and if there is no fraud of such a size to show that Mousavi won the election – and there has been no evidence of that yet, then the Iranian people have spoken in their election.

And the interests of democracy and justice would mean we respect the will of the Iranian people to overwhelmingly re-elect Ahmadinejad. Why are the supporters of the losers in the election the supporters of “democracy and justice”? That is the view of the corporate media, not the view of Iranians. If that is not the case, where is the evidence Mousavi won the election?

The Vancouver group goes on:

“We demand the release of all arrested workers, students, and political prisoners.” In their statement, they do not mention that 7 volunteer government militia members were killed by protesters. The Vancouver group does not qualify their statement by saying “except for those guilty of crimes, which included murder.” They demand that ALL those arrested be released.

There is no other way to regard their statement except as one that gives legitimacy to the imperialist campaign against Iran.

In addition, I will repeat what I wrote in my first letter, which you did not address:

3. We should normally support workers movements, but not regardless of the context of the whole class struggle. Any progressive workers movement that does not denounce its being used in an imperialist campaign against an anti-imperialist government is forfeiting its legitimacy and credibility.

As I said before, your statement is better than what I have seen in Links, the RCP paper, ISO paper, CP, or IMT, but it still not very good.

* * * * *
Siding with Ahmedinejad against imperialism does not mean siding with him in his repression
Robert Johnson and John Riddell
July 27, 2009

Thanks again to Stansfield Smith for his penetrating questions.

To reiterate, for us in Canada, the central issue posed here is the necessity of supporting Iran against imperialism – and that includes supporting its government, headed by President Ahmedinejad, in that confrontation.

But we have no cause to take sides in the present dispute among Iran’s rulers. Nor do we have cause to condemn Iranians who have taken a position for one side or the other.

Stansfield Smith’s comments focus on the need to differentiate between the world’s imperialist countries and countries, like Iran, that suffer imperialist oppression. We agree that it is necessary to forge alliances of countries prepared to resist imperialism, on whatever level, and to defend them against Empire. This is certainly the ABC of revolutionary politics in today’s world. It is the essence of the policies of revolutionary Cuba and its ALBA allies, and explains their firm defense of Iran in the present context. Their policy applies the spirit of socialism at a governmental level.

It is disturbing that many socialists in imperialist countries do not grasp this principle.

However, siding with Ahmedinejad in Iran’s struggle with imperialism does not mean siding with him in his repression of the recent protests. In our opinion this was a spontaneous outpouring of protest, initially not planned or organized by the Mousavi leadership. It is false to claim, as the Iranian government does, that the protests were inspired and organized by U.S. and British imperialism – although we do not doubt that they have made every effort to take advantage of the situation. The crisis that erupted last month over the election results is only the latest in a series of crisis that have occurred in Iran in recent years as working people have attempted to defend and extend their democratic rights. The struggle to form independent unions has been an important aspect of this broader trend.

The current crisis is deeper and more sustained than its predecessors, reflecting the profound challenges facing Iranian society. Although the movement has been heavily repressed and driven from the streets, the strivings that it expressed remain an weighty factor in Iranian political life.

At present, two factions within the Iranian leadership appear to be waging an extended struggle for power. One faction is headed by President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the other by Mir Hossein Mousavi and Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. They are conducting their struggle mainly behind closed doors; we know very little about the substance of their differences. But each of these leading figures has a long history as a leader of the Iranian government. There is no evidence that any of them have acted as a Trojan horse for imperialism; their policies on the issue of Iranian sovereignty have been essentially similar. During their rule each of them has repressed political dissent, labour organizing, and pro-democracy movements. They have acted to safeguard the interests of Iranian capitalists at the expense of the working people.

Smith states that a workers’ movement that permits itself to be used in an imperialist campaign forfeits its credibility. If we wish to apply that concept, surely the place to start is right here in Canada, where our Labour Congress shares responsibility for Canadian government crimes in Palestine, Haiti, and elsewhere. Yet no one suggests we should withdraw support for struggles by workers in Canada for union rights.

We have no cause to lecture Iranian workers about anti-imperialism. They have stood firm against imperialism for 30 years, and if they protest now, it is not in favour of fraudulent U.S.-style “democracy” but for basic rights of speech, assembly, and unionization. It goes without saying that if these rights are persistently denied, in the name of defending national sovereignty, this casts discredit on the national movement and creates an opening for the CIA.

Smith objects to us publishing the position of the Iranian teachers’ union. We think that the voice of Iranian workers on the crisis deserves to be heard. We published statements by three different workers’ organizations, presenting a range of views. We stated our own position in the introduction to the article.

Smith also objects to the call of the Vancouver antiwar coalition Stopwar.ca for “the release of all arrested workers, students, and political prisoners.” He states that this gives “legitimacy to the imperialist campaign against Iran.” But in its statement Stopwar – which unites a wide range of political currents – unambiguously opposes imperialism’s attempts to use the crisis to undermine Iran’s right to decide its own future. This appeal remains one of the very few statements on Iran to combine respect for the democratic rights of working people with a firm axis of opposition to imperialist intervention. This is an example of effective defense of Iranian sovereignty that is well worth emulating.

2009年7月26日

The Story of North Korea

Adam Ritscher
Socialist Action
July 2009

The capitalist press is full of horror stories about North Korea of late. Almost every day we are bombarded with sensational stories about North Korea's nuclear program, the test firing of its ballistic missiles and its reclusive leader, Kim Jong-Il. And hand in glove with these sensational stories, is a steady drum beat from Washington calling the use of any means necessary to bring this rogue state to heel.

Treading a path well worn by Clinton and Bush before him, President Obama has eagerly picked up the war baton, and is enthusiastically waving it at Pyongyang. Rare is the Democratic or Republican politician who passes up an opportunity to denounce North Korea as an source of pure evil.

Despite all of the press coverage and all of the politicians warmongering speeches, very little truth has been uttered, and to date many American workers are probably very much in the dark about what is really happening in Northeast Asia. What are Washington's real goals for beating the war drums? How did this current nuclear stand off between the U.S. and North Korea come about? What is the story of North Korea? Because you won't find answers to those questions on CNN or in your daily newspaper, we are going to try and share them with you.

Korea's History
To understand the current conflict, you have to understand something about Korea's history. The story of the Koreans people is a long and rich one, but one of the prevailing themes of their history has been their centuries old struggle against foreign domination. To many Koreans, the current stand off is yet another chapter in a long book of foreign meddling.

For centuries, the Koreans have fought to free their country from the rule of their more powerful neighbors, namely China and Japan. While originally China was the main aggressor, in modern history it was Japan that most actively sought to colonize the Koreans.

Japan's first major invasion of Korea took place in 1592. However, it wasn't until the early 1900s that Japan was able to definitively conquer Korea. By this time Japan had become a rising industrial power, and in the wake of its defeat of czarist Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, Japan was given the nod by the other imperial powers to gobble up Korea as war booty. By 1910 Japan had subjugated Korea, and turned it into a colony. While a small layer of the Korean elite were groomed to be local lackeys for the Japanese occupiers, the vast majority of Koreans were treated like mere slaves â€" forced to grow food, mine minerals and manufacture cheap goods for the Japanese homeland.

This brutal occupation was met by a number of popular rebellions, that unfortunately were all ultimately unsuccessful.

In 1925, in the wake of the inspiring Bolshevik revolution in 1917, the Korean resistance gave birth to an embryonic communist movement. Forced to work underground, many of its early activists were killed by the Japanese occupiers. The brutal repression by the authorities forced the young communist movement to take up arms in self-defense. Small bands of revolutionaries around the country came together to try and defend their communities, and from time to time to strike out at police and military installations. The Japanese response was to organize sweeping military offensives that drove many of these revolutionaries to the far north of the country, and over the border into neighboring Manchuria â€" a region in China.

While hundreds of thousands of Koreans found themselves in Manchuria, it provided no refuge, as the advancing Japanese imperialists were hot on their heals. Using the deposed ruling family of the old Chinese empire as their puppets, the Japanese set up a puppet state in Manchuria that they dubbed Manchukuo. The presence of hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers, and a government filled with Japanese rather than Manchurian officials, made clear who really ruled “Manchukuo†.

The Korean resistance to Japanese occupation though continued, both within the Korean peninsula, and in Manchuria. Within Manchuria Korean communists, soon found themselves not only hounded by the Japanese, but also often by the Chinese Communists, who looked on Koreans as possible collaborators of the Japanese, and who killed thousands of them in various purges. Despite this, the Stalin led Communist International insisted that the Korean communists submit to the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, and as a result the bands of Korean resistance fighters in Manchuria came under Mao Zedong's nominal control.

One of the most important leaders of these Korean resistance bands was Kim Il-Sung - the future leader of North Korea. While Kim Il-Sung's feats were later grossly exaggerated when he become North Korea's leader, it is true that he led one of the more successful bands of revolutionaries, and engaged in a number of armed actions with the Japanese.

By the end of the 1930s Kim Il-Sung, and most Korean communist leaders, found themselves forced to take refuge in Soviet Siberia after a series of massive Japanese military offensives against them. Here the Korean fighters would sit out most of the rest of the Second World War, as the Soviets were hesitant to anger the Japanese by letting the Koreans use the USSR as a base of operations. Not until the Soviet Union declared war on Japan in August of 1945 did Kim Il-Sung and company get to cross the border again, and then it was as part of the baggage train of the Soviet armies that quickly occupied Manchuria and the northern part of the Korean peninsula in the final few weeks of the war before Japan surrendered.

Creation of North Korea
Once the war ended, the Allied powers decided to divide the Korean peninsula between the North, which would be occupied by the Soviets, and the South, that would be occupied by the United States. No consideration was given to the will of the Korean people, and despite their decades of heroic resistance against the Japanese, they weren't even nominally consulted on the matter.

Both the Soviets and the U.S. quickly set about creating puppet governments in their new protectorates. Unlike the U.S. though, the Soviet army soon withdrew from North Korea, leaving a new regime headed by Kim Il-Sung in place.

Kim Il-Sung's regime in many ways resembled the new Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe. Ostensibly they were multi-party “people's democracies†in which the Communist Parties were simply part of coalition governments, but in reality the Stalinists were in firm control. The other parties that made up the North Korean government, such as the Chongdois Chongu Party and the Social Democratic Party were soon reduced to hollow shells with little autonomy and even less influence. They became little more than window dressings. Similarly, within the Korean Communist Party (later renamed the Korean Workers' Party), Kim Il-Sung quickly pushed out any potential rivals and assumed undisputed control of the party and the government.

Despite the growing repressiveness of the Stalinist regime in the North, the Communist Party continued to have broad support in the U.S. puppet state in the South. The Communist Party counted hundreds of thousands of members and sympathizers, and despite the U.S. occupiers best efforts to ban and repress the party, it continued to grow. Already beginning in 1945 it was organizing armed resistance in a number of parts of the country. Some of these guerilla battles involved more up to tens of thousands of South Korean revolutionaries taking on U.S. occupation forces and attacking pro-Japanese landlords and other collaborators.

Back in the North, with Stalin's active support, Kim Il-Sung was rapidly building up his military forces. In 1950, in a bid to re-unite the Korean people, the North Korean army invaded the South. This attack come on the heals of a series of skirmishes and incursions between the North and South Korean militaries. At the same time the North invaded, hundreds of thousands of South Koreans rose up against the U.S. occupation. The result was the near total collapse of the Syngman Rhee regime in Seoul which was forced to flee while the U.S. military itself was nearly ejected from the peninsula. Within the span of only a few weeks U.S. forces had been pushed back to a tiny corner of the peninsula around the city of Pusan.

While one can criticize the tactics used by the North Koreans to re-unify their people, the fact remains that re-unification was nearly universally supported. The Syngman Rhee regime, comprised of numerous Koreans who had collaborated with the Japanese occupation, was extremely unpopular. It ruled only through U.S. military backing. The rejection of the majority of the South Korean people of this state of affairs was powerfully demonstrated by the popular uprising in support of the Northern invasion, and the large scale defections of many South Korean soldiers to the North.

The will of the Korean people however mattered little to the imperialists holding court in Washington D.C. President Truman and his generals quickly mobilized reinforcements for the beleaguered troops trapped in Pusan, and then launched a massive amphibious landing behind North Korean lines, forcing the North Koreans to retreat. The U.S. military, joined by a number of other pro-imperialist armies (British, South African, Turkish, French, Canadian, Australian, Greek, Dutch, Thai, Belgian, New Zealander, Luxembourgian, Columbian, Ethiopian and Filipino) under the guise of the United Nations, pursued the North Koreans past the former border and into the North. Aided by devastating carpet bombings and massive use of napalm, the United Nations forces literally devastated the North. Its cities were literally leveled â€" with whole neighborhoods left with no buildings standing. Tens of thousands were killed, and hundreds of thousands fled in terror before the advancing U.N. forces.

Intending to completely conquer North Korea, the imperialists were dealt a stunning blow in 1951 when an army of Chinese soldiers came to the aid of the North Koreans, and changed the course of the war yet again. U.S. and U.N. forces were pushed back down the peninsula, back to a line near the original border â€" where the war would drag on for another two years in the form of bloody trench warfare.

In the end the imperialists had to cry “uncle†and agree to a ceasefire. This represented a partial victory for the Korean people â€" but the cost in lives and destruction had been astronomical â€" the peninsula and its people were left divided.

In the wake of the war, the U.S. poured significant resources into rebuilding South Korea, and supported a string of brutal dictators who vigorously repressed the labor, socialist and student movements. The North Koreans, in comparison, received far less reconstruction aid from the Soviets and Chinese. Nevertheless the North was able to slowly rebuild. Benefiting from having most of the peninsula's mineral resources, and having been the site of most of the industries that the Japanese had built during their occupation, the North Korean economy was able to boast significantly higher growth and output compared to the South throughout the 50s, 60s and into the 1970s.

During this time North Korea as also careful to remain neutral in the political rift that developed between the Chinese and Russian Stalinists during the Sino-Soviet split that began in the late 1950s.

It was during this time that Kim Il-Sung and his co-horts first put forth their famous "Juche" theory (主體思想) in 1955. Juche preached self-reliance and independence at all costs. It made a virtue out of autarky. While initially it was described as a Korean addition to Marxist thought, by 1972 Kim Il-Sung replaced all references to Marxism-Leninism in North Korea's constitution with Juche, and it was soon described as having "superceded" Marxism-Leninism. While still referring to themselves as socialists, the North Korean Stalinists rejected Marxism and Leninism as European notions. In essence Juche became the ideological framework for a particularly nationalistic, and even xenophobic, form of Stalinism.

Despite what it called itself though, North Korea remained a degenerated workers' state. Capitalism had been expropriated, but the workers had been denied democratic control of the society by a self-serving, parasitic bureaucracy surrounding Kim Il-Sung.

North Korean Famine
By the 1980s it had become clear that South Korea had economically surpassed North Korea. By brutally repressing labor and students, often at the point of gunpoint, the South Korean ruling class had succeeded in turning their country into an up and coming economic power â€" one of the so called "Asian Tigers". South Korean capitalists, taking advantage of cheap labor, generous U.S. aid and Japanese investment, were able to become major producers in the field of steel, ship building, automobiles and electronics, among other things.

Meanwhile North Korean industry was unable to advance beyond a 1960s level of technology. Internationally isolated, things went from bad to worse when the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of 1991. Cut off from the subsidized oil that the Soviets had provided, energy poor North Korea went into a serious crisis. Many factories were idled for lack of energy, and electricity blackouts became common. Agriculture was similarly affected by a decrease in the amount of fertilizer and other chemical inputs that North Korea's failing industries were able to provide. But these problems would be dwarfed by the natural disasters that were to follow.

In 1995 a devastating series of floods destroyed thousands of acres of crop land, knocked out roads, dams and railroad tracks. There was a drop of 50% to 75% in the nation's harvest, and matters were made worse by an ensuing drought. Food, which had already become scarce in the early 90s as a result of the economic crisis, now became almost impossible to obtain. By 1996 the country was in the grips of full on famine, and it's estimated that between 1996 and 1999 anywhere from 200,000 to 3 million people died.

The response of the international community was slow and woefully inadequate. The U.S. likes to brag that when news of the famine hit, only China stepped forward and offered more aid. Given that the total amount of aid given in 1995 amounted to only $8 million dollars, less then the cost of half a dozen cruise missiles, the U.S. should be ashamed. Despite their claims to the contrary, the slow and checkered reaction of the imperialists to this devastating human catastrophe was clearly a case of using food as a weapon.

Nuclear & Missile Stand Off
Kim Il-Sung, who had ruled North Korea since its founding, died in 1994 at the beginning of the crisis. He was succeeded by his son, Kim Jong-Il, who continued his father's absurd cult of personality which reached such extremes that it would have made even Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong blush.

Kim Jong-Il inherited a state in near total economic ruin. The state run economy had broken down to such a point that the state no longer even bothered to try and nationally distribute food, requiring instead that each local area become completely self-sufficient in food production or starve.

Kim Jong-Il's response to this crisis was to rely almost exclusively on the military. He put forth a new ideology called Songun (先軍). Songun, which is meant to supercede the old Juche philosophy, is based on the notion that the military, not the working class, is the revolutionary foundation of the state, and that all resources necessary should go to it.

It was during this time that North Korea began to accelerate its nuclear program. Begun in 1980s with a small Soviet research reactor, the North Koreans went on to build their own primitive reactor in Yongbyon in an attempt to reduce their need to import petroleum.

It was also during this time that the North Korean regime dramatically ramped up its arms sales. North Korea had built up a significant arms industry way back in the aftermath of the Korean War. While much of their output was of obsolete Soviet and Chinese designs, much of it reverse engineered with little support from either, they came to produce a wide range of military equipment â€" from small arms all the way up to tanks and even submarines. They also succeeded in reverse engineering old Soviet Scud missiles, from which they went on to produce a whole family of single and multi-stage missiles.

While crude by modern standards, North Korean missiles were cheap, and available to any regime willing to pay for them. As a result, during the 1990s the North Koreans became one of the world's leading exporters of short and medium range ballistic missiles, with many of them going to countries on the U.S. bad side, like Iran and Syria.

The combination of North Korea developing a nuclear industry, together with ballistic missiles, sent Washington into a tizzy. Nothing infuriates imperialists more than when third world countries dare to arm themselves with weapons that might actually be able to deter imperialist bullying. Despite the fact that the U.S. has for decades openly kept nuclear weapons in South Korea, and on naval vessels in the region, the U.S. hypocritically denounced the North Koreans for their nuclear program.

The North Koreans insisted that they had the right to defend themselves, and indicated that what they were after was a non-aggression pact from the U.S., a nuclear free Korean peninsula, and energy aid.

For our part, Socialist Action agrees that North Korea has the right to develop nuclear energy, and nuclear weapons for the matter, as much as we find both things distasteful. Given the threat that the U.S. poses, North Korea has the right to defend itself, and to create a deterrent to possible aggression.

The imperialists could not disagree more though! They cried bloody murder. After a whole series of United Nations resolutions and attempts to further isolate North Korea economically and diplomatically, in 1994 the Clinton administration however agreed to sit down with the North Koreans and work out a compromise. Frustrated by its inability to stop the North Korean regime, the U.S. imperialists offered them a deal. In exchange for shutting down their nuclear reactor, and agreeing to allow inspectors in, the U.S. would provide a certain amount of petroleum and assistance in providing alternative nuclear technology that could be used for generating electricity, but not weapons grade material.

This deal held for several years, but then the U.S. broke the deal. It began to reduce the amount of oil delivered to North Korea, Then under the Bush administration the spigot was eventually cut off completely. The North Koreans then restarted work on their reactor, and in 2006 tested a nuclear bomb.

What has followed since then has basically been a broken record where the U.S. screams and hollers, and the North Koreans holler back. Very little new is ever said or proposed. Since 2009 the North Koreans have tested another bomb, and have test fired a number of missiles, and the U.S. has responded with more efforts to tighten the noose around North Korea's neck.

The U.S. Campaign Against North Korea
The recent escalation has resulted in the U.S. and U.N. saying that they will begin boarding and searching North Korean ships suspected of transporting arms for export, which the U.N. sanctions now prohibit. The North Koreans have stated that any boardings of its ships will be taken as a declaration of war.

Meanwhile back home, American workers are being fed a steady diet of anti-North Korean horror stories. While careful to never mention the U.S. violations of its agreements with North Korea, or the presence of U.S. nukes in the region, we hear a steady torrent of stories about North Korea's threats and deceptions. A considerable degree of fear is being drummed up about North Korean missiles, and a possible nuclear attack, reminiscent of the war mongering carried about against Iraq in 2001, and against Iran today.

Also, the capitalist press has taken a particular fancy to running stories about the personal life and lifestyle of Kim Jong-Il. We have been regaled with stories ranging from his alleged love for orgies and Swedish blondes, to claims that he is personally the world's largest purchaser of Hennessey brandy. Some of these stories are rather dubious â€" (The Hennessey brandy claim is questionable. North Korea is one of the few nations that still maintains an old tradition of giving and expecting expensive gifts during diplomatic missions, and as such it imports a considerable amount of luxury wines and other goods that it then givens out as gifts to foreign leaders and diplomats on their birthdays, or on other special occasions. This is a more likely explanation of North Korea's brandy imports than some insatiable appetite for it by Kim Jong-Il). It's worth keeping in mind that one of the stock and trades of U.S. imperialism is to demonize the leaders of rival nations. And at the end of the day, regardless of whether these stories are true of not, they are a distraction from the real issues, and in no way constitute a legitimate justification for Washington's unrelenting campaign against North Korea.

There is no denying the fact that North Korea is indeed a brutal Stalinist dictatorship that represses its own people and puts the interest of the ruling bureaucracy and its armed forces above all else. Nevertheless, it is not the job of the United States to police the Korean peninsula. The world's major manufacturer, distributor and user of weapons of mass destruction, of the nuclear, chemical and biological varieties, has no standing in our view to make demands on any nation. It has no right to dictate the internal policy of any country, period. Only the Korean people themselves have the right to determine their country's policies, and overthrow their government â€" both North and South. It is the Korean people alone who can create a just solution to the problems they face, on both sides of the DMZ.

And it also needs to be pointed out that not only does U.S. imperialism not have the right to intervene, but that its bully tactics are not meant to improve the lot of the Korean people, or protect them from nuclear war. Rather its policies are geared towards increasing its own power and position in East Asia to the detriment of the working people of the region.

While we do not lend any political support to the North Korean regime, Socialist Action unconditionally defends North Korea against any and all U.S. aggression. We reject the notion that imperialism has any role to play what so ever in the region. We call on all anti-war activists to join us in opposing all U.S. and U.N. military, economic and diplomatic moves against North Korea. Hands Off North Korea! Self-determination for the Korean People!