Renegade Eye

By Luke Wilson
Friday, 16 May 2008

Introduction

On May 14th, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, leader of the Jewish Agency in Palestine, declared the independence of the State of Israel. Soon afterwards, the constant fighting between Jewish and Arab militias would erupt into a full-scale war, dragging in neighbouring Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, and displacing over a million people. Though figures vary, it is estimated that over 700,000 Palestinians fled or were driven from their homes by the nascent Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and Jewish militias. Just as tragically, more than 600,000 Jews fled or were driven from their homes across the Arab world; many would make their homes in the new State of Israel.

60 years on, the problems of this troubled region remain, with repercussions for the rest of the world. The Palestinian refugees and their descendents, now believed to number 3-4 million, still live in squalid refugee camps, and face often daily harassment and terror at the hands of the IDF. On the flip-side, the creation of Israel, which was supposed to solve the ‘Jewish question’ and emancipate the Jews from antisemitism, has manifestly failed to achieve this: Israel’s citizens have had to live through several major wars and a consistent terrorist threat, and an undercurrent of anti-semitism exists today even in the West (albeit at relatively low levels).

So where did the movement to found the modern Israeli State come from? What roles did imperialism and the Soviet Union play in bringing this about? And what does the future hold for the Jewish and Palestinian peoples?

The Historical Roots of Zionism

The term Zionism refers to the nationalist movement with the aim of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Its origin is attributed to Theodor Herzl, a wealthy Austro-Hungarian journalist, who put forward the idea at the first World Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland. Initially, Zionism largely involved wealthy Jews buying land in Palestine from absentee Arab landlords (often leading to the eviction of the existing Palestinian tenants), and donating it to Jewish settlers, who would form collectives and work the land.

Zionism was Herzl’s answer to the age-old ‘Jewish question’, that of emancipating the Jewish people from anti-semitic discrimination and raising them to a level of equality with other peoples. The nineteenth century had seen severe anti-semitic reaction across Europe, particularly in Tsarist Russia, where many were butchered in pogroms. However, Zionism was a bourgeois answer to the question, seeking emancipation by separating the Jewish people from the struggles of other peoples for emancipation from the drudgery and enslavement of capitalism.

In the early years, Zionism attracted little interest from European Jews, wealthy or poor, bourgeois or proletarian. My own ancestors, who were of the German petit-bourgeoisie, had little interest, forsaking the harsh desert of Palestine for more hospitable surroundings in England (though many of their descendents have since ended up in Israel, after the holocaust). For the Jewish proletariat across Germany and Eastern Europe, the class struggle, in the form of the Bund and the Bolsheviks, was more attractive than the isolationism of Zionism. Nonetheless, a steady trickle of Jews, mostly of European origin, entered Palestine throughout the early twentieth century: by 1914, around 60,000 Jews (7% of the total population) called Palestine home, and by 1941 this had risen to just under 475,000 (30% of the total population)[i].

Relations Between Jews and Arabs in Palestine

The manner in which the Zionist movement colluded with absentee Arab landlords to expel Palestinian farmers from their land naturally created hostility between the Jewish settlers and the Arab inhabitants. Nonetheless, there were examples of joint struggle of Jewish and Arab workers against their employers.

In 1920, the General Federation of Jewish Workers in Palestine, or Histadrut, was established. A coalition of various political parties or movements, its roles included absorbing new Jewish immigrants, establishing workers’ cooperatives, and providing basic social services. Already, the industrialisation caused by settlement was attracting Arab workers from the surrounding countries, whose standard of living was on the whole much lower than that of the European Jews. As with all capitalist concerns, the businesses sought to employ these workers at lower rates, thus helping to drive down wages (and foment racism at the same time). However, a contradiction arose: the Zionist movement’s social base was Jewish immigration (it relied heavily on help from Jews outside Palestine to make it happen), and hence there was an ideological commitment to providing work for Jewish immigrants.

In 1921, David Ben-Gurion proposed a programme of creating parallel unions for Arab workers, to prevent them being used to undercut Jewish wages. However, under capitalism, the contradictions wouldn’t go away, and Ben-Gurion gradually came to the conclusion that total separation of Jews and Arabs was necessary, i.e. Palestine had to be partitioned.

Despite this reactionary role by the Histadrut leadership, joint struggles did happen. For example, 1931 saw a joint strike of Jewish and Arab bus and taxi drivers against heavy taxes imposed by the British occupiers. Both the leaders of the Histadrut and the growing pan-Arab nationalist movement vehemently opposed this strike, and it collapsed. A more detailed account of this period can be found in Arab-Jewish Workers' Joint Struggles Prior to the Partition of Palestine.

Sadly, these joint struggles were isolated examples. The reactionary role of the Histadrut and Palestinian Arab Workers' Society (an Arab union formed due to Arabs being excluded from the Histadrut), as well as the treacherous role of the Stalinists in the Soviet Union (who opportunistically vacillated between gratuitous anti-semitism and support for Zionism!), ultimately sabotaged the potential for unity along class lines.

The Holocaust, the Imperialists and Stalinism: Partition, a Crime Against Both Peoples

The Holocaust changed the dynamics considerably. The butchering of six million Jews created millions of refugees looking for a home. Many of these fled to Palestine. However, despite Zionist propaganda, it should be noted that the Zionist movement did not play an honourable role regarding saving these poor souls. Whereas the labour movements of the USA, Britain and elsewhere organised campaigns to open the borders of their countries to Jewish refugees, the Zionist movement and the Jewish communal leaderships played little role: their interest was in populating Palestine with Jews, not saving Jews from the gas chambers.

Nor were the British and US imperialists the ‘saviours of the Jews’. Consistently refusing to bomb the railway tracks leading to the extermination camps, they also vehemently resisted Jewish immigration into their own countries, and Britain severely restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine. The US government famously turned away the S.S. St. Louis, a boat full of refugees fleeing Nazi terror, in 1939 (many of the refugees eventually perished at the hands of the Nazis), and the British similarly refused to allow the Struma to land in Palestine in 1942 (the ship was later sunk by a Soviet submarine).

Contrary to some views on the left, neither the British nor US imperialists gave unconditional backing to the Zionist movement (see Some historical clarifications on Israel/Palestine for more details). Britain promised Palestine first to the Arabs (in 1916), then to the Jews (the famous Balfour Declaration of 1917). Following their historical imperialist policy (replicated, for example, in India), they attempted to maintain control by turning the resident peoples against each other. In fact, Britain was against the emergence of a strong Jewish state: British officers commanded the Jordanian units that attacked Israel in 1948! The holocaust had caused Jews of all political stripes (including… communists) to emigrate to Palestine, and the British feared a Jewish state might fall under Soviet influence.

Amazingly, some Stalinists believe that Stalin was a consistent fighter against Zionism. This could not be further from the truth! Whilst Stalin did indulge in the most obnoxious anti-semitism (including murdering many Jewish Bolsheviks), he in fact supported the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state, believing he could use it as a bulwark against the British-influenced Arab monarchies. Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia was in fact one of the first states to arm the new Jewish state after the United Nations voted to partition Palestine.

Similarly, the US initially supported the embargo of Israel. It changed its position as a result of its manoeuvring against British imperialism, as Britain’s position weakened in the Middle East. Still, Britain and the US would only come to fully support (and dominate) Israel as the Soviet Union extended its influence over Arab states, particularly Egypt and Syria.

On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. Britain agreed to withdraw gradually from Palestine, relinquishing control to the UN. However, as we have seen, it was already manoeuvring to strengthen its own interests. The British occupation of Palestine had seen consistent violence between Jewish and Arab gangs, and between Jewish guerrillas and the British army (in 1946, the Irgun, a Jewish guerrilla group, blew up the King David Hotel, home to the British military command, killing 92 people). In 1948, this broke out into full-scale war. As we have seen, over 700,000 Palestinians fled or were driven from their homes by the nascent Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and Jewish militias, and more than 600,000 Jews fled or were driven from their homes across the Arab world. Whilst these Jews would later become citizens of Israel (admittedly amongst the poorest), the Palestinians to this day remain refugees.

Aftermath

As the Soviet Union extended its influence over Egypt and Syria, Israel would become an ever-increasingly important bulwark of US imperialism in the region. The Cold War turned the Middle East into a battleground, and Israel’s short history has been a bloody one. Even since the fall of the Soviet Union, Israel has been a key part of US attempts to maintain control over the region. Poverty in Israel is also rising. Capitalism has failed to create a prosperous society for Israel’s Jews. Pensioners are reduced to eating rotten fruit thrown out by supermarkets at the end of the day; civil servants go unpaid for over a year; students are crippled with rising fees and debt.

As for the Palestinians, they continue to live as refugees in the Occupied Territories, Lebanon and Jordan, confined to the margins of society. A decades-long guerrilla-campaign by various petit-bourgeois groups around the Palestinian Liberation Organisation has failed to liberate this people; indeed, the PLO leaders have (as in Ireland with Sinn Fein) transformed themselves into collaborators of the worst sort. Hamas cannot provide an alternate to Palestinians.

It’s therefore safe to conclude that Zionism has utterly failed the peoples of Israel and Palestine. What has it done for Jews in the West? Well, despite the relative economic prosperity of Jews in the West (for example, in Britain, nearly 60% of Jewish males and 30% of Jewish females are employed in ‘managerial and professional’ occupations, much higher than any other religious group[ii]), violent attacks against Jews still occur, and are actually increasing. Many of these attacks are by young Muslims, brought up with television images of suffering Palestinians, and encouraged by reactionary religious leaders to attack their Jewish neighbours.

In addition, a section of respectable political discourse centres around disturbing conspiracy theories of Jewish domination, particularly of the US government (Mearsheimer and Walt’s 2006 paper, for example, purports to show that a Jewish lobby directs US policy in the Middle East counter to US strategic interests). The fact that anti-semitism still plays a political role is because the Jewish Question has transformed itself into a national question (something Marx could not have been expected to predict when he argued in On the Jewish Question that Jews would be freed from anti-semitism when they were economically emancipated). Zionism’s gift to the Jewish people is a continuation of anti-semitism.

Is There a Solution?

Capitalism, with its history of pitting different ethnic or religious groups against each other in search of lower wages, clearly offers no solution. Nor can we have any faith in the manoeuvring of the imperialist powers, and their so-called ‘peace-plans’, which would lead to a hopelessly weak Palestinian Bantustan (like the black ‘homelands’ in apartheid South Africa, which were actually just labour reserves for South African capitalism) under the economic heel of Israel, and continued exploitation of Jewish and Arab workers.

Some sections of the petit-bourgeois left give support to Islamic fundamentalism, and argue for the destruction of Israel and its replacement by a single Arab (possibly Islamic) Palestine. Obviously we cannot support any such thing. To begin with, it would have catastrophic consequences for Israel’s Jews, who would be a persecuted minority in an Arab/Islamic state. Secondly, a capitalist Palestine, even an Arab/Islamic capitalist Palestine, would be incapable of raising the Palestinian people out of poverty. Capitalism drives down wages and living conditions, it does not raise them. Thirdly, Israel has the Middle East’s biggest military machine. Whilst guerrilla tactics have had some success in defeating Israeli aggression (Hezbollah’s victory in 2006 is one such example), destroying the state is another matter entirely.

In the last analysis, the only allies the Israeli and Arab workers and poor have are each other. The marvellous workers’ movements across Egypt show that the power of capitalism and imperialism can be challenged. Only united in revolutionary struggle against their common enemy, the vampiric capitalist class and imperialist overlords, can the workers of Palestine, Israel and the wider Middle East transform society into something better.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] Israeli - Palestinian ProCon.org - Population Statistics

[ii] See second figure in National Statistics - Employment Patterns

RENEGADE EYE

Labels: Balfour Declaration, Histadrut, Israel, Palestine, Palestinians, Zionism

By Dekel Avshalom in Israel
Tuesday, 13 May 2008

Well over 60 people have been killed during the street fighting in Lebanon between Hezbollah and Maronite militias. What instigated the fighting was a decision of the Lebanese government to eliminate Hezbollah's telecommunications network. Hezbollah leaders regarded that move as a declaration of war on their movement and started an armed struggle against the government.

During the fighting, the utter impotence of the Lebanese state was clearly evident. It took only two days for Hezbollah to conquer the west of the capital city Beirut. Prime Minister Fuad Siniora ordered the army to intervene, but the army refused his command. The only ones that were prepared to fight for "stability" were the Maronite militias. After realizing the weakness of the state, Siniora backed down completely, announcing that Hezbollah's telecommunications network would remain intact.

The recent events show beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Lebanese state has no real power, and has stopped functioning. It is also clear that today Hezbollah is the most powerful political movement in Lebanon. Since the end of the 2006 war against Israel, there has been nothing to stop Hezbollah from taking control of the state and removing the minority-rule of the Maronite oligarchy. However, Hezbollah still seems to respect the Lebanese "rules of the game". It even expressed support for the Lebanese chief of staff - the Maronite Michel Suleiman - as the country's next president. What prevented Hezbollah from taking over lies in the nature of the Lebanese class struggle.

Class Struggle in Lebanon

Like many "post"-colonial counties, Lebanon is an artificial state, created by French imperialism. It was fashioned in a way that would allow the leaders of a Francophile religious sect - the Maronite Christians - to control the state while being a very small minority in the Muslim dominated Middle East.

A controversial ethnic survey conducted in 1932 showed that the Maronites were the largest ethnic group in Lebanon (although not having an absolute majority). The other two major groups were the Sunni and Shiite Muslims. This survey gave the Maronites the pretext to concentrate the bulk of political power in their hands. This pretext is used to this today, despite demographic changes in favour of the Shiites.

While the Sunni leaders were largely co-opted by the Maronites, the Shiite remained the most socially deprived group. Many still living in rural areas, and another sections in the poorer urban suburbs, the Shiites live in immense poverty, while the Maronites and the Sunnis benefit greatly from Lebanon's emerging role as a financial nexus for Middle Eastern petroleum-capital and investors from the West.

This situation could not remain stable for long. The Maronite oligarchy found itself facing increasing opposition from the entire Lebanese population (including many rank-and-file Maronites). They accused this opposition from below of promoting "separatism" - trying to destroy the "peaceful co-existence" of the different ethnic groups in Lebanon. Actually, the opposite was true. This opposition revealed the collaboration of various ethnic groups, Shiites, Sunnis, Christians, Palestinian refugees and Druze, all united in the fight against the exploiting class, that had been using the ethnic shield to retain political and economic power. The true separatists were the Maronites themselves - which consistently fought against uniting Lebanon with the rest of the Arab world, especially with Syria.

Tensions erupted in a civil war which started in 1975 and officially ended in 1990. During that war a new section emerged within the Shiite ruling class. While the co-opted Shiite landowners were largely supportive of the order in Lebanon, a more populist faction emerged from among the Shiite religious leaders. This faction - called Amal (Hope) - demanded equality for the Shiite poor and grew out of their support.

This populist yet reactionary organization managed to stop the influx of many Shiites into the Left and secular resistance movements. The secular Left opposition demanded true equality for all peoples in Lebanon and an immediate end to the ethnocratic nature of the Lebanese state. By detaching the most exploited section s of the population from the Left opposition, Amal turned a class struggle that united various ethnic groups into an ethnic struggle that kept these groups apart. In this way it perpetuated the deadlock that governed Lebanese society from its beginnings.

In 1982, the situation of the Maronites was most dire. In desperation they pleaded with Israeli imperialism to assist them. Israel invaded Lebanon using the pretext of bringing under control the PLO- the Palestinian national liberation movement. This invasion very quickly became a long-term presence designed to protect the Maronite oligarchy. The Shiite villagers were concentrated in the south of Lebanon, which meant that they suffered most from Israel's aggression. This brought forth radicalisation within the Shiites and their leadership. As a consequence, Hezbollah grew as a more radical faction of Amal and finally, with the aid of Syria and Iran, took over as the leader of the Shiite resistance movement.

Hezbollah is a Dead-End

Hezbollah and Amal diverted the Lebanese class struggle along reactionary ethnic lines. For that reason they play a counter-revolutionary role in Lebanon. By hijacking the Lebanese class struggle, Hezbollah receives great political support which enables it to be the leading force in the Lebanese political arena. However, its separatist and reactionary nature prevents it from being a progressive force that can mitigate the distress of the Lebanese people.

The Lebanese counter-revolution could not have been accomplished without the generous assistance of the imperialist powers. From the days of French colonial rule until the present conflict, the imperial powers have consistently intervened in order to maintain the pro-Western oligarchy in Lebanon. This intervention was required to fight the Arab secular Left which was affiliated to the Soviet Union and raised the progressive flag of uniting the Middle Eastern artificial countries into a single state. At times of great distress for the Maronites, Western troops were sent to defend them. In the uprising of 1958 American troops were sent in. In the uprising of the seventies and eighties Israel intervened. These interventions prevented the Left from taking over. Disappointed by the failures of the secular Left, many Lebanese turned to religion.

However, precisely because Hezbollah only represents a faction of Lebanese society, it cannot solve any of the contradictions in Lebanon, just as the Maronites cannot do. Hezbollah took part in destroying the supra-ethnic nature of Lebanon's mass resistance movement - the only type of resistance that can solve the problems created by ethnocracy. Hezbollah can only replace one type of ethnic rule with another - but unlike the Maronites, Hezbollah will find it much more difficult to maintain stability. First of all, the Lebanese bourgeoisie are mostly of Maronite and Sunni origin. The army is also controlled by these groups. They are not ready to give political power to the Shiites. Secondly, Hezbollah will find itself isolated in the international arena. It will not be able to recruit the entire Lebanese society to defend its rule.

This drives a more inclusive standpoint to Hezbollah's political approach. Hezbollah's domestic actions show that all it wants is a piece of the political pie, and not much more. Just as Hamas did not go forward after taking over Gaza, Hezbollah also shows unwillingness to disrupt the present order: if they get too greedy, they might lose it all. An example of this is Hezbollah's support for the economic policy of Lebanon's late Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri, a flat income tax rate and the permission to import cheap Syrian labour in 2005, which utterly deteriorated the already poor conditions of the Shiites. Hezbollah was also silent about smuggling from Syria, which drove many Shiite farmers into bankruptcy. Hezbollah used funding from Iran to build a welfare network which gave it support from the same Shiites it had helped to push into even greater poverty. This example shows that Hezbollah would prefer political stability rather than the interests of its constituency, as long as it is getting its share of the pie.

The recent conflict in Lebanon was not about taking power, it was about maintaining it. Hezbollah retaliated to what appeared to it as an intention of the government to alter the status quo. Once the government backed down from its intentions, Hezbollah announced a cease-fire and withdrew from Beirut.

Thus, thanks to Hezbollah's counter-revolution, Lebanon will continue to be ruled by oligarchs, dividing up this tiny country among them, and completely paralysed in mending the social ruptures that they have provoked. The only hope for Lebanon is the re-emergence of the supra-ethnic class struggle that was derailed into a dead-end ethnic struggle. So far it seems that Hezbollah is stronger than ever: its victory over Israeli imperialism and the weakness of the Lebanese government has placed great power into its hands. However, this power is based on illusions: it cannot solve any of Lebanon's social problems.

There should be no mistake about it: Lebanon's problem is not an ethnic one, and not even a national one. It is an international problem. Lebanon is a small part of the international class struggle. The Maronite oligarchy is nothing but a puppet of global imperialism - earning their due in return for their contribution to preventing the Arab world from uniting. To bring true liberation for the peoples of Lebanon, it is necessary to go beyond arbitrary ethnic piece-of-the-pie struggles.

All over the Arab world, people are beginning to realize that the Islamic movements have no solutions. In Egypt, Jordan, Iran and Iraq we are beginning to see the mighty Middle Eastern proletariat reassemble itself for the next round of its battle against imperialism and the reactionary local elites that serve it. This is the only political power, the only hope for the plight of the Arab masses in Lebanon and in other countries. The international grip of imperialism can only be fought against by an international resistance of the workers. Any form of resistance that entails dividing workers along ethnic or religious lines will do nothing but maintain the imperial world order. RENEGADE EYE

Labels: AMAL, Hezbollah, Lebanese History, Lebanon, Rafiq al-Hariri

By Pablo Roldan and Mauro Vanetti
Thursday, 08 May 2008

It is not true that US imperialism does not help the Third World! One of its agencies, the Cato Institute based in Washington DC, just signed a cheque for $500,000 (yes: half a million bucks!) to a young Venezuelan. Yon Goicoechea has been awarded the "Milton Friedman Liberty Prize", for his merits in the promotion of "Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace".

Well, we have to admit that Mr Goicoechea is not exactly a poor boy from a Caracas slum. He is a law student at the expensive Andrés Bello Roman Catholic University in Caracas, whose fees are 5,820 Bolivares Fuertes (officially equivalent to $2,710) per year, a very high price in Venezuela. Nevertheless, this badly needed financial aid was honestly earned by Mr Goicochea for the good job he did in the cause of the free market (i.e. capitalism) and democracy (i.e. conspiracy against the elected government of Hugo Chávez). The reason he is considered a hero by the Cato guys is that he is the leader of the "students' movement" that opposes the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela.

Yon Goicoechea


Right-wing and Anti-Democratic

The main activities of this movement have been organising demonstrations (and clashes with the police), with the typical display of inverted Venezuelan flags and an overwhelming presence of white-skinned people, on the following issues:

*In favour of the private right-wing TV channel RCTV, that supported the coup against Chávez in April 2002;
*Against progressive reforms in the universities (e.g., equalising the weight of students' and teachers' votes in elections for
university institutions) and promotion of affordable universities for the poor;
*Against the progressive reforms proposed by the Constitutional Referendum held on December 2, 2007.

There is no need to comment on the recurrent accusations about "erosion of human and civil rights" or "a constitutional reform that would have turned the country into a dictatorship". In the current war that the US ruling class and the nation's government are waging against the Bolivarian government of Venezuela, those statements have the same character as the old stories told by the British and American governments during the First World War about German soldiers cutting off the breasts of Belgian women - they are purely war propaganda fabrications.

Fabrications that our free and independent media, watchdog of democracy and freedom, waste no time in reproducing: "Venezuelan student leader who challenged Chávez wins prize", says Associated Press; "Student who challenged Chávez wins $500,000", announces US Today; and CBS tells us "Venezuelan student leader wins award for challenging Chávez". The movement has also been defined as "non-violent" in the award ceremony, but first-hand accounts by revolutionary students tell quite a different story (see Opposition Violence at Venezuelan university - What Really happened at the UCV).

In the muddied waters of CIA platforms and "neo-liberalism", "free-market libertarianism" or however Friedman's intellectual miscarriage is labelled, there can be no irony in the fact that an award for "Advancing Democracy" is conceded to someone who is attempting to destabilise, and eventually overthrow by any means possible, the democratically elected government of Venezuela, a country where, according to the Andean Commission of Justice (Comisión Andina de Justicia) - a body not very friendly to the Bolivarian revolution - 77% of people believe in democracy and 59% are satisfied with the levels of the democracy they experience, the highest rate in the region, and probably in the continent, if not the world.

Could it be otherwise when there have been over 11 democratic elections since Chávez was voted in? These were local, regional and national, including a recall referendum on the president himself, and all were declared free, clean and fair by such pro-revolutionary bodies as the Carter Centre or the European Union. The government was also (unfortunately) defeated in the last constitutional referendum - which would be unheard of under a dictatorship.

Remote-controlled

After spending weeks denouncing the totalitarian character of the "Chávez regime", Yon Goicoechea and his friends demanded their "right" to be heard at the National Assembly. Contrary to what they were expecting, the National Assembly invited them, along with students belonging to revolutionary organisations, to express their concerns and debate about free speech and freedom of the press; never before had a student representative been invited into the National Assembly.

The session opened with Douglas Bravo, a student opposition leader from the Metropolitan University, a private and notoriously elitist centre. He read out his speech, which was as vague as it was well written. On the one hand, he promised to continue the fight for the RCTV to the very end. On the other, he hinted to the possibility of a national reconciliation process if the revolutionary government stopped being a revolutionary government and behaved as every respectable government is expected to behave, defending the interests of the capitalist and landlords.

At the end of his speech he said in a declamatory way: "a dream of a country in which we can be taken into account without the need to wear a uniform", at which point he and his friends took off the red T-shirts they were wearing and revealed a series of pro-RCTV slogans. They started to withdraw from the Assembly, but revolutionary students convinced them to stay and, at least, listen to the intervention of Andreína Taranzón, a revolutionary student from the Central University of Venezuela.

Taranzón finished, and here came our hero. Yon Goicoechea took on the speaker's role, but having already done their show for the media, he did not feel like debating anything. Goicoechea announced that the opposition party was leaving. "We did not come to this Assembly to play at being politicians, we are students", said Goicoechea, "Having spoken once and listened once, we leave". And they left, leaving behind the script of the speech read earlier by Douglas Bravo.

The script was signed by ARS Publicity, part of Globovision's business group. Not only was the speech scripted, but also its performance. César Trompiz, a revolutionary student from the Bolivarian University, read out the last sheet of the script: "A dream of a country in which we can be taken into account without the need to wear a uniform [take off the t-shirt] with no more to say [pause] so far".

These "oppositionists" are not just generously funded by the oligarchy, they are also remote-controlled!

Tools of World Capitalism

Mr Goicoechea has been long praised by the Western press for his role in giving the Venezuelan opposition a "fresh" image and a new, relatively clean, face. Among the Goicoechea enthusiasts we also find the editorial board of Playboy-Venezuela, who put him (not his picture, that space was already occupied by a half-naked girl) on the front page of this, er..., serious political magazine.

The talent scouts who have hailed him the champion of anti-Chavism are not such an innocent group. The board who appointed Yon as a modern-day capitalist hero has an interesting composition:

*Kakha Bendukidze, a Georgian leading politician and good friend of the White House, who profited out of the US-backed
privatisation and destruction of the Soviet planned economy.
*Ed Crane, president of the Institute, member of the Mont Pelerin Society, a freemasonry-like think tank founded by rabid
anti-socialist economist Friedrich von Hayek. He is a vocal supporter for the abolition of the Social Security insurance system
in the US, because the sick, old and disabled, if poor, should be given the freedom to die without any government
interference in their health conditions.
*Francisco Gil Díaz, Mexican minister of finances until 2006, now hired by the giant banking group HSBC (the largest capitalist
company in the world).
*The capitalist Charles G. Koch (Koch Industries), who's been described as "the world's most successful private billionaire".
*Another European neo-liberal ultra-rich ideologue known by the name of Karen Horn.
*Andrew Mwenda, a Ugandan journalist who opposes sending aid to Africa and debt relief for the highly indebted countries.
*Mary O'Grady (The Wall Street Journal) and Fareed Zakaria (Newsweek), two other journalists on the payroll of Big Business.
*Rose Director, the widow of the laissez-faire economist Milton Friedman and a lunatic "libertarian" economist herself.
*Another individual who has won a Friedman "award" was Hernando de Soto, who was economic adviser in promoting the "Fujishock" in Perú, a packet of shock economic measures during the Fujimori dictatorship (free market and dictatoirship!).

Milton Friedman gave good economic advice to the dictator Augusto Pinochet who strictly collaborated with his pupils, the Chicago Boys, while he was in charge of dramatically worsening the living conditions of Chilean workers, killing and torturing thousands in the process. Receiving the Friedman Prize must have been a great honour for Yon Goicoechea. Who knows, a future career as a Venezuelan Pinochet is still possible for this brilliant advocate of capitalist freedom!
RENEGADE EYE

Labels: Hugo Chavez, Milton Friedman, Venezuela, Yon Goicoechea

Louis Proyect wrote an interesting story about the crime novels of Patricia Highsmith, the creator of the Tom Ripley series, in Swans Magazine. Tom Ripley is a cynical and amoral character, reflecting the brilliance, sexuality and politics of Highsmith's writing. Read the Swans article to be introduced to an intriguing writer.



Ernest Mandel, the great Belgian Marxist economist and Trotskyist politician, was a life-long fan of crime novels and took time off from his busy schedule to write Delightful Murder: a Social History of the Crime Story in 1984.

In the chapter titled Inward Diversification, Mandel treats the class detective story in which the hero (Sherlock Holmes, et al.) outwits the villain as a kind of parable on commodity production in the early competitive days of industrial capitalism:

However, there is a more fundamental quality of the thriller and spy novel that justifies treating them as distinct sub-species of the original detective story, despite all that they have in common. The detective outwits the criminal essentially by means of logical prowess. The paraphernalia of the trade -- Sherlock Holmes's magnifying glass or chemical retorts -- are mere secondary tools, subordinated entirely to Reason. The criminal, too, is clever, and often outwits the police, but cannot outwit the great detective's super-brain.

Here we have the purest, most elementary expression of bourgeois society: commodity production and commodity circulation under conditions of perfect competition. Everything is rational, totally geared to the maximization of income (profits), through continual cuts in production costs and sales costs including profit margins). All's well that ends well. In the end, rational
individual economic behaviour by all will bring the maximum well-being (including the satisfaction of the consumer) to the maximum number of individuals. Let the best one win (Sherlock Holmes, not the criminal), and this will be good for everybody, including the criminal (if not for his body, at least for his immortal soul).

With the arrival of monopoly capitalism, however, reason has more and more trouble triumphing over irrationality, particularly in the era of fascism. A Sherlock Holmes has little chance of coming out on top of a jackbooted SS member who would defy the law even when confronted by his guilt. To get to the top of the heap under such a system, having superior intelligence is insufficient. Instead you need cunning and determination, two qualities that typify Tom Ripley, the quintessential modern man.

The crime novelist of the monopoly capitalism epoch can even decide to subvert the norms of the genre by making the criminal rather than the detective the real hero. Indeed, Mandel points to Patricia Highsmith as best representing this category. In Ripley's world, the criminal always comes out on top. Even if Tom Ripley achieves his goals through brutal violence and a talent for falsehood, he will be a mere piker in comparison to the men who have invaded Iraq and wrought the financial scams that have resulted in the forfeiture of millions of American homes. Unlike Ripley, who retains a raffish charm throughout the series of novels that bear his name, these criminals evoke nothing but disgust and a fervent desire to disarm them before they manage to destroy the planet.Louis Proyect Renegade Eye

Labels: Ernest Mandel, gay, mystery novel, Patricia Highsmith, Tom Ripley, Trotskyists

By Jorge Martin
Monday, 28 April 2008


The oligarchy in Bolivia has launched a major challenge to the Evo Morales government in the form of a referendum on an "Autonomous Statute" in the Eastern Department of Santa Cruz. The Statue, if passed in this unconstitutional referendum, would give Santa Cruz amongst others, the right to pass its own laws, particularly on issues like land reform, control revenues over natural resources located in the region, set its own budget and most important of all, create its own security forces. The plan of the oligarchy, as explained by Santa Cruz's prefect, is that this would be followed by similar referendums in Beni, Pando and Tarija, the other Departments that make up Bolivia's Media Luna Oriental (Eastern Crescent).

In effect, what the coalition of wealthy landowners, capitalist agribusinesses and key sections of the Bolivian ruling class are attempting is a unilateral declaration of independence so that they will not have to implement the laws passed by the MAS government of Evo Morales, particularly in relation to land reform and hydrocarbons. This is a very powerful coalition, that has been described as the "100 clans", which controls large amounts of land (25 million hectares as opposed to 5 million hectares which are in the hands of 2 million poor peasants), meat packing plants, the profitable business of soy bean plantations, the country's main banks and media and the main private industries. They are defending their class interests and they are prepared to go until the end and use any means necessary.

They have used the issue of "autonomy" to mobilise mass support for what in reality is a rebellion of the slaveholders, to use Marx's expression. At the same time they have been arming thousands of young people, recruited from the sons of the wealthy and from lumpen elements, in what can only be described as the fascist gangs of the Union Juvenil Cruceña. With a strong element of racism against the "Highland Indios", people with dark, indigenous, skin have been beaten up, lists of MAS activists pasted on the main square in Santa Cruz, a city where only right-wing political activity is now allowed. Evo Morales himself has been called a "monkey" by leading figures in the Santa Cruz "Civic" Committee.

There are clear indications of involvement of the US embassy in this movement of the upper class. At the beginning of April Evo Morales denounced the fact that the government had discovered an office of the CIA within the presidential palace. This had been set up by a former high-ranking officer of the national police who, under the pretext of fighting terrorism, was passing vital information to the CIA. A government minister also denounced the fact that 93 million dollars of USAID had gone directly to opposition groups and organisations in the last year.

But how did we get to this point? As a by-product of the revolutionary movement of the Bolivian workers and peasants in 2000-05, the MAS (Movement Towards Socialism) of Evo Morales got a resounding victory in the elections in December 2005, with more than 53% of the votes against 28% of his closest rival. Even in Santa Cruz the result was good for the MAS, with 33%, even though it lost to Podemos with 41%.

As we said at the time, "the hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants voted for the MAS with a clear idea in mind, that Morales will deliver on the ‘October Agenda', that is, the demands that led to the October 2003 uprising. These are, mainly, the nationalisation and industrialisation of gas, land reform, reversal of neo-liberal policies and, for some, the calling of a Constituent Assembly."

What policies did the MAS government implement? If one thing has characterised the Morales government over the last two years it has been vacillation. Every step forward taken in the right direction (nationalisation of gas, raising the minimum wage, providing school children with free milk, raising the pensions) was met with fierce opposition from the capitalist class and imperialism. Faced with such opposition the government retreated half a step, called for negotiations and generally conciliated. This only encouraged the oligarchy to step up its campaign, created confusion amongst the supporters of the MAS (the masses of workers and poor peasants from the indigenous majority) and demobilised them. The oligarchy was able to seize the initiative and even win a base of support amongst the masses in the Eastern Crescent.

Even when the MAS leadership attempted to use the mass movement against the right wing, it did so in an indecisive way, avoided a serious confrontation and stayed firmly within the narrow limits of bourgeois legality (at a time when the oligarchy was happy to break their own laws in order to defend their land, interest and profits). This was the case for instance one year ago in Cochabamba. When the prefect of Cochabamba (the area where the MAS was born and had massive support in the 2005 elections) came out in favour of autonomy, the MAS leaders called for massive mobilisations of protest. The prefect used the police against the demonstrators and that was the spark that lit the fire. The enraged masses gathered in a massive cabildo abierto in the main town square voted to expel the prefect from the department and to give themselves a new government. What was the response of vice-president García Linera? He argued that the prefect should be respected because he had been legitimately and democratically elected and that the people should go back to their homes. Such a policy could only have two effects: to disorient and demobilise the workers and peasants and to further encourage the oligarchy.

And so it happened. Earlier this year, after many negotiations, the mediation of the Catholic Church, meetings and talks, etc., both the government and the oligarchy announced the calling of a referendum: the government in order to pass the new Political Constitution of the State (as drafted over many months of legalistic disputes by the Constituent Assembly, but only passed at a session which was boycotted by the opposition), and the Santa Cruz oligarchy in order to pass their own Autonomous Statute in a direct challenge and in contradiction with the Political Constitution of the State (CPE). Then, the National Electoral Court ruled that, because of procedural matters, both referendums were unconstitutional and had to be cancelled. The government probably breathed a sigh of relief; this was a way of avoiding a confrontation that they did not want to face. They accepted the ruling.

However, the oligarchy, emboldened by each concession on the part of the government, felt strong enough to defy the ruling and go ahead with its own referendum on autonomy. Since then there have been constant skirmishes between the central national democratically elected government and the decisive section of the country's ruling class represented by the Santa Cruz Departmental government and the Santa Cruz Civic Committee (led by wealthy landowner and agro-capitalist Branko Marinkovic).

A few months ago there was the incident over who controlled the Santa Cruz airport. After having sent the Army to take it over, the government, once again, backed down and effectively handed it over to the Department.

More recently there was a conflict over the decision of the government to block exports of basic foodstuffs in order to face rising prices and scarcity at home. Marinkovic is one of the country's largest cattle ranchers and soybean producers (for the export market). The oligarchy replied with a bosses' lock-out and threatened a national lock-out of the transport industry. The government eased the blocking of exports.

Then the Santa Cruz Department disconnected the computers dealing with its budget from those of the national government. The national government cut off money transfers to Santa Cruz.

But in all these battles, the only one force than can save the Bolivian revolution and also the MAS government, has been absent: the masses of workers and peasants. The miners' union and several peasant organisations made an appeal to the government to use all means necessary to stop the May 4th referendum in Santa Cruz. They clearly saw it as a threat to all they had fought for. What was the answer of the MAS leaders? When asked about it, Garcia Linera replied that the referendum was "just an opinion poll" and when Evo Morales was asked what he was going to do about it he said literally: "Nothing. I believe in the consciousness of the Bolivian people".

The oligarchy is launching a serious and well-organised challenge to the government of Evo Morales and the government is basically burying its head under the sand. It is not even clear that the aim of the ruling class is to split the country. Why should they do that? So far they have managed to get a stronghold in Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando and Tarija. They also have strong positions in Cochabamba and Sucre, and even the prefect of the capital La Paz has now come out in favour of autonomy for Santa Cruz. There are certainly more extreme sections of the oligarchy (represented by Marinkovic's Civic Committee) that would not hesitate in going all the way towards independence. But others are probably thinking that on the back of this movement they can force the overthrow of the Morales government and put an end to the revolutionary movement of the masses, and then they would not need to split the country.

However, not all is lost in Bolivia. At any time, all these reactionary provocations can lead to a massive movement of workers and peasants. Herein lies the only hope for the future. As in the case of Venezuela, appeals to dialogue, conciliation, the bringing in of mediators, did not prevent the ruling class from organising one attempt after another to overthrow the Chavez government. In each occasion it was only the mass mobilisation of workers and peasants in the streets that defeated the counter-revolutionary attempts. In Bolivia in the last few years the masses have shown over and over again their willingness to sacrifice in the struggle for a better future, they have overthrown three governments, faced the army and the police. In April 1952 the miners single-handedly defeated and crushed the army in what was the beginning of the Bolivian revolution. That feat can be repeated again on condition that a clear lead is given. A massive show of strength can disband the forces of reaction.

The miners of Huanuni, in a statement on April 4th clearly identified the danger: "The wealthy oligarchy, a minority composed of land owners and multinational businessmen... with the massive resources derived from their economic power and the open support of countries aligned with the US have started a serious offensive to recover all the political power they lost during the bloody struggles of 2003 and 2005"

But they add: "The national government of the MAS, is also responsible for this situation for having allowed this small minority of the rich to reorganise and raise its head again. This oligarchic minority is so powerful because they have the economic power they derive from the exploitation of our natural resources, like the hydrocarbons, mining, the land, etc. If the government does not take over these resources for the state, these vampires will continue to be powerful and will ensure the continuation of unemployment, poverty and the misery we have lived in for the last decades."

And they end up with a clear appeal for action: "Only the application of the Agendas of 2003 and 2005 will guarantee the disarming and the defeat of the oligarchy. The Huanuni miners demand that the government takes the boldest measures to disband the fraud of this autonomy referendum, and to apply once and for all real structural changes in the country. The miners, loyal to our tradition of revolutionary struggle, demand that the government gives us the necessary means and resources to smash the "civic" and business cliques which throughout the country, and particularly in the Eastern Crescent, fool the people and want to fill the country with hatred, blood and division".

One lesson must be learnt above all: the last two years of the MAS government prove in a conclusive manner that no middle way is possible, no "Andean capitalism" can be built. Even the timid measures of the Morales government have led directly to this rebellion of the slaveholders. The only way forward is the expropriation of the land, banks and industry under the democratic control of the working people of Bolivia, linking up with the revolutionary movements taking place throughout Latin America.RENEGADE EYE

Labels: Bolivia, Evo Morales, MAS

By Fred Weston
Thursday, 24 April 2008

Zimbabwe is gripped by an unprecedented economic, social and political crisis that could even push it towards open civil war. Mugabe's refusal to accept the results of the March 29 elections is an indication of his desperation as he attempts to hold on to power. The country is paralysed as the crisis at the top unravels.

In spite of clearly having lost the elections, Mugabe continues to deny defeat. The Zimbabwean electoral commission refused to accept the results in 22 of the 210 parliamentary constituencies. A recount started on April 19th. The opposition won 109 seats against 97 for ZANU-PF. It would be sufficient for the electoral commission to falsify the results in 9 constituencies to declare Mugabe the winner. The other option would be to produce a result which would force a second ballot.

All the pressure is on for Mugabe to release the election results, but he has a lot at stake, and the clique around him is in the same position. If he succeeds in forcing a second ballot by declaring that no one had a clear-cut majority in the first round, that would give him time to terrorise people into voting for his party and would allow him to prepare better his electoral fraud machine. We will see when and what results they declare in the coming days - and possibly weeks - as Mugabe desperately plays for time.

Most of the governments of the surrounding countries in Southern Africa are concerned that the situation in Zimbabwe could spiral out of control. They too have called on Mugabe to release the election results. The major Western imperialist powers have added their pressure and are calling on Mugabe to recognise that the MDC won the elections.

Amazingly Thabo Mbeki, South Africa's president, recently stated that there is no crisis in Zimbabwe, and has maintained friendly relations with Mugabe. Other leaders in the ANC have somewhat of a clearer idea of what is happening in Zimbabwe and have come out openly disagreeing with Mbeki. Jacob Zuma, who replaced Mbeki as the leader of the ANC last year has expressed concern at what is developing in Zimbabwe.

Solidarity of South African Workers

The workers of South Africa, however, have no doubts as to what is happening in the neighbouring country, as the refusal of the dockers in Durban to allow a Chinese ship, the An Yue Jiang, to unload its 77 tonnes of arms for the Zimbabwean regime, demonstrates.

While the ANC government was prepared to allow the weapons to be transported 1000 miles across South Africa to Zimbabwe, Randall Howard, general secretary of the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (Satawu) warned that, "As far as we are concerned, the containers will not be offloaded. The ship must return to China. If they, the Mbeki government, bring replacement labour to do the work, our members will not stand and look at them and smile." Even South Africa's police trade union warned Mbeki against using police as "scab" labour.

This is in the best traditions of working class international solidarity. The South African workers know what the weapons would be used for and are prepared to move against their own government to make sure they are not used against their Zimbabwean brothers and sisters.

China's involvement in the Zimbabwean crisis, however, further confirms the nature of the present regime in Beijing, which is solely interested in getting its hands on raw materials to keep its industrial expansion going. It clearly is interested in the minerals of Zimbabwe, particularly platinum, but also other minerals and has no real concern for the suffering of the Zimbabwean masses. This is in line with what China is doing all over the African continent, making deals with anyone in order to exploit the resources of the continent. This is yet another example of localised conflict between China on the one hand and the USA and the EU on the other. China backs Mugabe, while the West backs the MDC; both are merely defending their own greedy interests.

Historical Background

The question we have to ask ourselves is: how did Zimbabwe get into this situation? By looking at past developments we will see that those who are now condemning Mugabe had no problems with him when he was applying their economic policies after he came to power in 1979. In fact the present mess is a direct consequence of those policies. That is why to understand the present situation we need to go back in history.

The situation in Zimbabwe today stems from its colonial past, when it was dominated by British imperialism. Prior to 1923 "Southern Rhodesia", as Zimbabwe was known then, was under the control of the British South Africa Company (BSAC) that had been established by Cecil Rhodes, receiving a royal charter in 1889. It was modelled on the British East India Company that was the basis for colonisation of India. Rhodes, who used it for British colonial expansion in south-central Africa, was a British-born South African capitalist, a mining magnate, and a politician. He founded the De Beers diamond company and was also the founder of Rhodesia (which then included present-day Zambia and Zimbabwe, later known as Northern and Southern Rhodesia).

In 1923 the British government took over Southern Rhodesia from the BSAC. Shortly after that, in the 1930s the "Land Apportionment Act" was passed. This gave 45% of the country's land to white commercial farmers. Thus the roots of the present-day terribly unequal distribution of land go back to British rule. They simply stole the land that belonged to the people.

In 1961, still under British rule, a new constitution was adopted that favoured whites in power, in what was an overwhelmingly black country (to this day the whites are only 1% of the population).

As Britain prepared to pull out, its strategists could see that to maintain some kind of stability would require at least a formal concession of political rights to the majority black population. In 1965 Ian Smith unilaterally declared Rhodesia an independent state in a desperate attempt to hold on to white supremacy. A long guerrilla war ensued, finally leading to free elections in 1979 and the setting up of Zimbabwe as we know it now in 1980. Robert Mugabe, as leader of ZANU-PF, the main force during the guerrilla struggle, became the country's first prime minister, and has governed the country ever since.

ZANU-PF at that time embodied the aspirations of the Zimbabwean masses, who longed for social justice and equality. They had been oppressed for generations, first under British imperial rule and then under the hated racist regime of Smith. Wealth was concentrated in the hands of a minority white elite. Land was hugely concentrated in the hands of white farmers, while the blacks had to eke out an existence on subsistence farming. In fact 6000 white farmers owned 70% of the productive land. This was the basis for the sustained guerrilla war that finally ousted the old regime.

Lancaster House Agreement

The independence of Zimbabwe was achieved by the struggle of the masses, but the leaders of the guerrilla movement entered into an agreement brokered by the British government, known as the Lancaster House Agreement. That agreement included a10- year moratorium on the land issue, which meant that no land was to be expropriated and redistributed for ten years. The British government agreed to provide funding for the "purchase" of land from the white farmers to be distributed to poorer black peasants. They clearly wanted to avoid "expropriation." The same agreement established that the capitalist state and economy should remain intact.

In the 1970s the land situation was at it had always been under British colonial rule: the best agricultural lands belonged to 6000 farmers, while 600,000 black subsistence farming communities had to scrape out a living on poorer quality land. As a result of the Lancaster House Agreement land distribution proved to be painfully slow. By the year 2000 only 50,000 families had received land through this mechanism. 4500 white farmers continued to hold on to 11 million hectares of Zimbabwe's prime agricultural land, with 1.2 million black agricultural workers working for them. Contrast this to the fact that about one million blacks owned 16 million hectares, often land that was much less productive.

Thus one of the main goals of the guerrilla struggle was betrayed. The masses were prepared to tolerate this on the basis that sooner or later the issue would be tackled. The problem was that once the ten years had elapsed the Mugabe government was still doing nothing about land. This was a situation that was frustrating the rural masses.

Mugabe Shifts Right

However, it was not merely a question of not acting on the land question. Once in power Mugabe shifted sharply to the right and adopted openly "free market" policies. Initially there was some economic improvement. There was a degree of reconstruction and there was some re-capitalisation of the local economy as it was reintegrated into the world economy. Similarly to many former colonial countries, the state played a big role in economic development using state assets to invest in infrastructure. There was also a strong degree of protectionism to defend the weak local economy from the more competitive products of the developed countries.

Since the late 1970s however, the policy of the imperialist countries was changing. They were demanding an opening up of the national economies of the less developed countries. They demanded the lowering or elimination of tariff barriers, thus opening up these weak economies that were forced to compete on a "level playing field" with the advanced capitalist countries, something they were not equipped for. Part of this process also involved widespread privatisations.

Thus, in October 1990, the government of Zimbabwe was forced, under pressure from the IMF and World Bank, to implement the five-year Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP). This was supposed to be an answer to the economic crisis that began in the 1980s. The measures that were introduced were the following: removal of price controls and wage controls; cuts in government spending; a 40% devaluation of the Zimbabwean dollar; the lifting of state subsidies on basic consumer goods; liberalisation of the foreign currency allocation system; the lifting of protection of "non-productive" import substituting industries and increased profit remittance abroad; and a radical restructuring of the various state-owned companies.

This was followed by the Framework for Economic Reform between 1991 and 1995, which involved further cuts in state subsidies for publicly owned companies and privatisation. In 1998, the government launched its second stage of the Structural Adjustment Programme, known as the Zimbabwe Programme for Economic and Social Transformation (ZIMPREST): the budget deficit was to be reduced to under five per cent of GDP.

Devastating Impact on the Economy

The effects of all this were dramatic. From 1991 onwards the Zimbabwean dollar has been devalued massively. The lifting of protectionist measures opened up the home market to cheaper imports. This resulted in the closing down of many local industries leading to massive redundancies and rising unemployment, which reached 60% by 2003 and now it is estimated that it stands at 80%! Manufacturing productivity fell by 11.9% and in the mining sector by 4% in 2001. In the ten-year period, 1991-2001 GDP declined, ending up with a real decline in GDP of 11.5%.

The collapse of the real economy was accompanied by rampant inflation. In 2001 it went over 100 per cent. Since then inflation went up to 585% in 2005 and last November it stood at 26,000%. These are the official figures; private sector estimates put it at 100,000%!

From a purely capitalist point of view Mugabe exacerbated all this by trying to buy his way out of the crisis, using state handouts and by increasing military spending. He was under pressure from the war veterans who had not risen up in bourgeois society as the ZANU-PF leaders had done. He spent four billion dollars on the former guerrillas and also launched a military adventure in the Democratic Republic of Congo (1998-2002) that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. For him this was a means of "keeping the soldiers busy".

Thus, we saw a dramatic increase in poverty levels in the same period. The government's 1995 Poverty Assessment Study revealed that 62 per cent of the population was living in poverty. Poverty was even higher in the rural areas, where it stood at 72 per cent of households (compared to 46 per cent in the urban areas).

Cuts in public spending led to the introduction of school fees and payment for healthcare, denying access especially to the poorer layers, who were by now the overwhelming majority of the population. Add to all this the fall in real wages, due to rising inflation, and one can see how dramatic the situation was becoming.

Responsibility of Imperialism

All this was not the result of Mugabe's present crazy policies. It was the direct result of policies imposed on Zimbabwe by the IMF, World Bank and major imperialist powers. We did not here any of the western governments complaining about Mugabe then. They were happy to see him open up the country and impose such draconian measures on the already impoverished Zimbabwean masses.

The degree to which Mugabe's western backers, including the IMF and the World Bank - these hypocrites who have suddenly discovered the need for democracy in Zimbabwe - would go was seen when the army's 5th Brigade was unleashed on the Ndebele people in January 1983.

The 3500 men of the 5th Brigade, composed entirely of Shona, the ethnic group that Mugabe belongs to, were responsible for the massacre of 20,000 villagers. They also tortured and assaulted many others. The imperialists conveniently turned a blind eye as the Ndebele people were massacred.

While the imperialists and local white elite profited from Mugabe's policies, for the masses gone were the days of hope that the new ZANU-PF regime would bring with it social justice, equality and a genuine improvement in living conditions. Disillusionment with the present regime set in. This was especially the case in the urban areas, where ZANU-PF started to lose support significantly.

Up until this period there had been what some describe as a "honeymoon period" between the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions and the government. There was a natural historical link between the two, as ZANU-PF was seen as a progressive, anti-imperialist force. This gave the ZANU-PF leaders huge authority among the workers and peasants of the country. But as the government moved further and further to the right, that period came to an end around 1990, the same period in which the Structural Adjustment Plans were launched.

Prior to coming to power, the leaders of the guerrilla movement had lived in modest conditions and were much closer to the masses they represented. Once in power they had become well-to-do politicians living in luxury, living on fat salaries. Their outlook thus changed. This was determined by their real position of wealth, many of them having becoming bourgeois, owning farms and companies directly.

Thus workers started to comment that the leaders preached socialism by day but practiced capitalism by night. Having acquired a privileged position these leaders had become incapable of making a break with capitalism. Rather than becoming an instrument for the emancipation of the Zimbabwean workers and peasants, they had been corrupted and transformed into tools of capitalist interests. With this went rampant corruption and nepotism.

A Revolution Betrayed

An interesting article appeared in The Times of Zimbabwe, under the title "Bitter Taste of a Revolution Betrayed", published on April 13 of this year. It describes how Mugabe is trying to exploit the heroic past of ZANU-PF when it led the guerrilla struggle in order to muster support today. It explains how ZANU-PF "is struggling to reclaim its revolutionary credentials in the face of massive electoral losses to an opposition party [the MDC] - many of whose members are drawn from the ranks of the former liberation movement."

The article goes back to a historical figure of the liberation struggle, Josiah Magama Tongogara, Mugabe's main rival for power in the exiled liberation movement. Tongogara was the commander of the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, Zanu's military wing and was a major figure in Zimbabwe's independence movement. Now many are comparing him to how Mugabe has evolved and they say that he would have been incensed at the state the country is in today.

"He would not have allowed things to degenerate to this," said a former soldier at Heroes Acre this week. "He was not a power-hungry person. He fought for equality and justice, and wanted to see all Zimbabweans enjoying the same constitutional rights. He was our favourite leader here in Zimbabwe. He had balls and was not afraid of Mugabe or of speaking truth to power. If you check our post-independence history, you will see that Mugabe has always tried to erase his contribution in the liberation struggle. Is it because he was a threat to him?"

The same article quotes Bina Dube, vice-president of the Zimbabwe National Students Union, who said that if the likes of Tongorara and Chitepo were alive today, they would see that what they had fought for had been abandoned and added that:

"They believed in the idea that one day Zimbabwe would be free. That's what they fought for. The ideas that they fought for are now being suppressed. If they were here today, maybe they would even go into another war. We really have the Animal Farm situation, where all animals are meant to be equal but in reality some animals are more equal than others. What was promised to the people has not been delivered."

Lucia Matibenga, first vice-president of the ZCTU and a former ZANU-PF activist is also quoted. Her husband, Saviour, had been a ZANU-PF member of parliament in the early 1980s. She is now an MP for the MDC. She recalls the discussions she had with her husband when he was in Parliament:

"He would say to me: ‘My friend, I see the party changing. People are busy here with estates, with farms, with huge places at Borrowdale. People are taking the party to the right'."

How these leaders would have evolved were they still around today no one can say. But the fact that many people look back to them is an indication of how they see the whole process. They respect the old tradition of ZANU-PF and feel that its present leaders have betrayed the original ideals and this explains also the falling support for Mugabe.

Why Did ZANU-PF Move Right?

In the post-war period the balance of power on a world scale was shared between two mighty superpowers, the Soviet Union and the USA. The Soviet Union had developed in a few decades from being a relatively backward economy to an advanced industrial power, with a generalised increase in living standards. This began to slow done in the 1960s and came to a halt in the 1970s. In 1949 the Chinese Revolution freed millions of people from the yoke of capitalism and landlordism. The Cuban revolution in 1959 had similar effects for the people living on the island.

Thus we saw how many of the guerrilla movements in the colonial countries were attracted to the Russian or Chinese models. They saw in these countries how the planned economy, albeit of a deformed character, had managed to develop the productive forces where capitalism had failed. Thus we saw the guerrilla movements in Angola and Mozambique take on a "socialist" outlook, i.e. they based themselves on the idea of state ownership of the means of production and centralised planning. Developments in Ethiopia and Somalia were similarly influenced.

ZANU-PF was influenced by all this, as was the ANC in Africa. In the eyes of the masses these were "socialist" organisations. But its leaders were never real genuine Marxists. They reacted empirically to events. The weakening of the Soviet Union, its eventual collapse, and the shift towards capitalism on the part of the Chinese bureaucracy, all had an effect on their thinking. They concluded that "socialism" was no longer possible. This affected the direction that the leaders of the ANC were to take. It also affected Angola and Mozambique, and of course the ZANU-PF leadership as well.

The clearest example of all was the evolution of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. They took power, expropriated the Somoza clique, ending up with 60% of the economy in state hands, but advised by the Soviet bureaucracy they pulled back from completing the process, and since then have swung over to the right and undone all the past gains.

Thus, once in power the ZANU-PF leaders had no socialist perspective and no understanding of the role of the working class in the revolution. Their only alternative was therefore to try and manage capitalism in Zimbabwe. Once they had taken this path, all the subsequent Structural Adjustment Plans, cuts in welfare and a general attack on all the gains of the Zimbabwean masses, became perfectly logical.

Across the border, in neighbouring South Africa, the leadership of the ANC followed a similar path. They too adopted economic policies in line with the interests of capitalism. Imperialism and the white South African bourgeoisie understood that they could not keep the Apartheid regime on its feet any longer. The pressure from the overwhelmingly black working class and peasantry was too great for this to continue. So they turned to the leaders of the ANC who they consciously groomed and corrupted. Thus the aspirations of the South African masses were also betrayed.

South Africa is by far the dominant power in Southern Africa, and the most developed industrial power on the continent. The South African working class therefore has a decisive role in the whole region. Once the class struggle had receded in this key country this would inevitably influence developments in the surrounding countries, not least in Zimbabwe.

It is within this historical and regional context that one has to understand the direction the ZANU-PF leadership took. They had never been Marxists, and were therefore pushed in one direction and then another, depending on the dominant forces worldwide. This is what led them to eventually betray the Zimbabwean masses.

Emergence of the MDC

All this process led to the setting up of the MDC, Movement for Democratic Change. The main force behind the MDC was the ZCTU, the Zimbabwean Congress of Trade Unions. Here was a clear-cut example of a workers' party being formed out of the unions, attempting to give expression to the Zimbabwean workers. The formation of the party raised the hopes of many.

Unfortunately, its leaders declared themselves to be social democrats and aimed to work within the confines of capitalism. Instead of adopting genuine socialist policies, they looked to Tony Blair as a model! Here we see a major contradiction between how the masses saw the party and what its leaders actually stood for. For instance, while growing support for the MDC was due to mass opposition to the IMF imposed Structural Adjustment Programmes, the leaders of the MDC declared these same policies as "necessary but insufficient", i.e. they wanted to go further!

The MDC was also lacking in its agrarian policy. It refused to back the expropriation of the big white farmers, thus placing itself on the side of imperialism on this question. That explains why it gained a lot of support in the cities but struggled to make gains in the rural areas, something which Mugabe has been able to exploit to his advantage.

In spite of all this, the emergence of the MDC demonstrated that it is possible to create a mass workers' party out of the trade unions, and that such a party can be successful. The party was born out of the real struggles of the Zimbabwean working class. The general strike of December 1997 against tax increases was a major turning point. This was followed by the mass protests in 1998 against rising inflation and the government's IMF-imposed austerity measures.

At its founding rally held in Harare on September 11, 1999 20,000 workers and youth took part. The speeches promised much, a "continuation of the ages-old struggle of the working people." The party promised free primary and secondary education, free healthcare and a massive house-building programme.

Very quickly, however the leadership moved to the right. That is not surprising, seeing that its model was Tony Blair. They discovered the advantages of a "social market economy", which would involve cuts in government spending, a programme of privatisation of all state-owned companies and the elimination of all price subsidies. These are precisely the policies the MDC was built to fight against!

As we pointed out in a previous article, (Building a workers' party? Lessons of the MDC experience for Nigeria)

"How could such a sharp change in direction have taken place? Patrick Bond (an expert on Zimbabwe and author of the book, Uneven Zimbabwe: A Study of Finance, Development and Underdevelopment) recently wrote the following revealing comment: ‘...is it not the case, as of February, that the MDC began to receive generous funding by (white) domestic and foreign capitalists, including white farmers? At that stage, didn't Zimbabwe's skewed land relations and abominable property rights simply drop off the MDC's campaign agenda? Wasn't a representative of big business put in charge of its economics desk, and wasn't his first major speech a firm endorsement of the International Monetary Fund and wholesale privatisation for post-election Zimbabwe?' In fact, the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries strategist Eddie Cross was appointed as the party's economics policy secretary!

"Thus a party, which was created by the workers of Zimbabwe through the trade unions, is now seen by the capitalist class as a possible instrument for carrying out the same discredited policies of Mugabe's government! The capitalists in Zimbabwe do not have their own party so they corrupt the workers' party and try to use it to their advantage. About a third of the MDC's national executive is made up of trade union leaders and activists and only nine of the MDC's elected MPs come from a trade-union background. The rest are middle-class academics, lawyers, some business people and one or two farmers. And this non-working class layer is playing an increasingly dominant role in deciding the policies of the party."

So long as Mugabe was applying policies that allowed the white elite to continue to enrich itself they tolerated him. When their interests and those of the clique around Mugabe came into conflict, the white bourgeois elite began to look for a political alternative. The problem the minority of white capitalists and landowners faced was that of building a social base upon which to build a political expression of their own interests. Alone, they could not do this. They are seen as the heirs of the old British colonial exploitative system, and thus can have no appeal for the mass of Zimbabwean workers, peasants and urban poor. It is ironic that they have partially solved this problem by basing themselves on the tops of the Trade Unions and the MDC!

As we explained above, by not taking up seriously the question of land redistribution, the MDC leaders limited the appeal they could have among the rural population. Here we had some of the poorest layers of Zimbabwean society. Landless peasants began to demonstrate their rage and started to occupy some farms - well before Mugabe adopted the policy. Among them were war veterans who were growing impatient after nearly 15 years of waiting. Having lost support in the cities, with the trade unions against him and with growing support for the MDC, Mugabe was starting to feel the pressure.

Many were asking themselves where the gains of independence had gone. Fighters who had given everything in the guerrilla struggle found themselves victims of the Structural Adjustment policies. In 1995 the lowest 10% of the population consumed only 2% of the wealth, while the top 10% consumed a staggering figure of 40.4%. At the same time they could see that the wealthy white farmers were able to continue making big money, and on top of that were able to keep much more foreign currency than they had ever been allowed to do in the past.

Mugabe Comes into Conflict with Imperialism

As political tensions rose and the country reached a political impasse, Mugabe could see that by simply applying IMF imposed economic policies he was not going to hold on to his social base. The MDC was growing in the urban areas and at the same time there were also cracks appearing within ZANU-PF itself, as some layers within its leadership could see that they could no longer hold the rural masses back.

Thus, by 1999 Mugabe was coming into conflict with his imperialist masters. He slowed down the pace of so-called "reform", i.e. the pro-capitalist policies he had been following up till then, and imposed price controls, in a desperate attempt to get inflation under control. He ignored the fact that in a "market economy" - where the state has no direct control over the productive process - price controls merely lead to a black market without any real alleviation of the burden on the masses.

That is why he demagogically rediscovered the land question. Official figures showed that in 1996 66% of the labour force still worked on the land, whereas only 10% worked in industry and 24% in services. The rural population is still a very big constituency in Zimbabwe.

In order not to lose support he was forced to lean on the war veterans and landless peasants. That is where the land expropriations took off in a big way. Today there is a lot of talk about the white farmers "producing the food" but it is a fact that a section of these were not utilising all the land, and many of them were absentee farmers. This is typical of many big landowners in the former colonial countries. Some of the white farms were utilised for game ranching, not exactly a productive activity as far as the impoverished masses were concerned. It is true that tobacco, the major export, was produced by the large white-owned farms, but the small farmers were actually producing 70 per cent of the food of the country. This situation allowed Mugabe to point the finger at the big white farmers. The fact that many of them had supported the old racist Smith regime and some had actively fought the guerrillas made them a very easy target.

Now the western media is full of propaganda about "land-grabbing" and they have turned against Mugabe. We are presented with a picture of Mugabe using the mob to consolidate his own base of political power. All this ignores the fact that the land question had remained unresolved under Mugabe for years. The same people who today are protesting about "expropriation" were very happy to make deals with Mugabe when this suited their interests.

Mugabe had in reality betrayed the poor black masses on the backs of whom he had come to power and had moved closer to the wealthy white elite. In the process a minority of blacks were integrated into the wealthy elite and a black bourgeoisie was created side by side with its white counterpart. In fact many of the elite around Mugabe went to live in the same wealthy neighbourhoods as the rich white and started to have the same class outlook.

Frankenstein's Monster

Now Mugabe is like Frankenstein's monster. He is a creature of the bourgeoisie, but now the imperialists and white elite in Zimbabwe no longer have any control over him; he holds the levers of state power firmly in his hands. He has his own agenda, which is that of holding on to power at all costs. In the process he is devastating the economy even further.

An important fact that we have to take into consideration is that the expropriation of the land has often been to the advantage of Mugabe's cronies rather than poor peasant families. Even according to official figures provided by the Zimbabwean government itself, of the over one million black farm workers only about 10% became landowners, the rest falling into desperate poverty.

This grossly unequal redistribution of land is part of Mugabe's attempt to create a privileged elite loyal to him personally. Many top people in the military and state bureaucracy have benefited form this process. But many of these new "farmers" have little knowledge of farming and have often allowed the land to go fallow.

The country has suffered from drought in recent years but the way agricultural reform has been handled has not helped. Irrigation systems have been allowed to go into disrepair, resulting over the past two years in a drop of two-thirds in the production of cereals. The amount of land planted with maize, soya and tobacco has also fallen significantly and it is estimated that as a result half of Zimbabwe's 12 million population needs food aid to survive.

Marxists support the expropriation of the big farms, but expropriation in and of itself is not enough. The big farms were productive because they were mechanised. Large-scale mechanised farming is far more productive than small-scale subsistence farming. One example is that of a farm south of Harare, where a commercial farm has been broken up into 35 smaller plots. Now the land is farmed by poor peasants, who without investment, machinery, irrigation and fertilisers, or finance to buy seed, only manage to eke out a meagre subsistence level of farming. The commercial farm used to employ 100 farm workers.

Socialist Expropriation

On the basis of genuine socialist expropriation such a commercial farm would not have been broken up. It would have been collectivised, maintaining the high level of mechanisation, under the control of the farm workers themselves. In this way the land would be far more productive and would be to the benefit of those who till it and of the wider population who desperately needs the food it can produce.

Thus we can see how Mugabe has carried out the policy of land expropriation in a demagogic manner, without actually offering a genuine improvement to the lives of the farm workers and the population in general. This is because he does not have in mind a socialist transformation of society, far from it. He has married capitalist values completely, and is only applying this policy in a desperate attempt to hold onto power.

This, combined with all the other elements we have outlined, means that Zimbabwe's economy is now on the brink of total collapse. The IMF "Structural Adjustment" devastated the economy. This was followed by Mugabe's zig-zag policy, including the chaotic manner in which the land was taken over. Commercial farming, the traditional source of exports and foreign exchange and the provider of 400,000 jobs, has been severely damaged, turning Zimbabwe into a net importer of food products. Now there are widespread shortages of basic commodities.

GDP fell by an estimated 6% in 2007. The population living below the poverty line now stands at close to 70%. Zimbabwe has become one of the most unequal societies in the world, with a Gini index, the distribution of family income, standing at 50.1 in 2006. It is generally accepted by bourgeois analysts that when the Gini coefficient in any given country rises above 40 then the situation cab become extremely unstable. Life expectancy has plummeted to an average of 39.73 years, whereas it used to be 60 in 1990. The health service is in a state of collapse, while AIDS has hit nearly a fifth of the population. The public debt has skyrocketed to 189.9% of GDP and the external debt has reached $4.876 billion (2007 estimated figures).

In May 2005, the Zimbabwean government added to the terrible suffering of the masses with its infamous "Operation Murambatsvina" (Restore Order). It initially targeted high-density shanty towns involving forced evictions and demolitions resulting in the internal displacement of an estimated 570,000 people, many of whom are now living in rudimentary camps. These people are urban poor who have been supporting the MDC. It seems Mugabe has given up on the urban working class and poor and is prepared to ride rough-shod over them.

So bad is the situation that the International Organisation of Migration (IOM) has estimated that around 3.4million Zimbabweans have left the country, most of them emigrating to South Africa. The South African government has placed military personnel on the border in an attempt to stop this sea of impoverished humanity.

Faced with such a devastating economic situation Zimbabwe could be dragged into the pits of hell, into utter barbarism. Unless an alternative is found civil war could be its future. Also, the national question could be whipped up again. 98% of the population is Black African, but this is divided mainly between the 82% Shona and the 14% Ndebele.

In fact to this day in Matabeleland, ever since the 1983-85 massacres, there is bitter resentment among the local Ndebele towards Mugabe and ZANU PF. The people in the region have reached the limit of what they can take. If Mugabe holds on to power for much longer, the area could erupt into violent conflict. The barbaric scenes that we have seen in other African countries could come to haunt Zimbabwe once again, as they did in 1983.

Imperialism is terrified by such a prospect as it would destabilise the whole region, and would have an important impact on neighbouring South Africa. In this situation Mugabe could continue for a further period but losing more and more support as time goes on. His regime is at risk of being overthrown at some point. The fact that divisions have opened up within ZANU-PF are an indication that even his own cronies are now looking for a way out of the impasse.

Splits at the Top

The fact that Mugabe's former Finance Minister, Simba Makoni, broke from ZANU-PF and stood in the recent elections basing himself on a splinter group from the MDC is an indication of what may happen later: an important section of the clique around Mugabe may turn on its master. A complete collapse of the economy would also seriously affect them and they would want to act before it is too late.

In the past we have seen in other African countries examples of despots being removed when they no longer represented the interests of the ruling elite. The example of Nigeria comes to mind, when the military tops moved against Abacha and started a process towards civilian rule and the coming to power of a regime more in line with the interests of imperialism. Abacha also was in conflict with imperialism, having his own personal agenda. Having clearly outlived his usefulness, he was removed... with the help of a poisoned apple!

A recent article that appeared in The Economist (Feb 28th 2008) pointed out that:

"Mr Makoni claims that most of ZANU-PF's leadership supports him. None of the ruling party's heavyweights publicly admits to backing him; they will almost certainly hedge their bets until the election. But few have criticised him or tried to block his candidacy (...)

"The army, police and much-feared Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) may no longer be united behind the 84-year-old president. His party has fractured, thanks to the intervention six weeks ago, as a challenger from within, of Simba Makoni, a former finance minister whom many of Zimbabwe's black and shrinking white professional middle class see as the decent and competent face of ZANU-PF (...)

"But it is pretty clear that the president's popularity, such as it is, has been waning, even among his old guard. Even if he somehow hangs on, and lots of seasoned watchers think he will, the mantra in Harare is that ‘something big has changed', thanks to Mr Makoni's challenge. Many of the ruling party's vultures clearly sense it is time to eye fresh pickings."

No doubt the imperialists would be prepared to collaborate with these "vultures" if they considered them useful tools in pushing forward their agenda in Zimbabwe. As they cooperated with Mugabe in the past, so would they work with these gangsters.

To what degree these divisions at the top have reached the point where an open split becomes imminent we cannot say. But it does seem to indicate that there are important divisions within the leading group of ZANU-PF, and that at some stage these could lead to moves against Mugabe. Either this or Mugabe will hold on desperately for some while longer, merely making matters worse.

At some point Mugabe will be pushed out and the MDC will be brought on board. A section of ZANU-PF could even break away and offer to form a coalition government with the MDC. After all, as we have seen, apart from the question of land expropriation, on all other questions they have very similar policies. It would suit the interests of imperialism to see such a government come into office. They fear destabilisation and would prefer a "smooth" handing over of power. A coalition would seem the best option.

The idea of some form of coalition has also been raised in recent days in the Zimbabwean press, notoriously controlled by the regime. But there is a difference: they are calling for a coalition with Mugabe still at the head of government. That seems practically impossible in the present scenario, but some form of coalition that would allow Mugabe to withdraw without any of his privileges being touched, without him facing any consequences, is a concrete possibility.

The policies of such a government would be dictated by the IMF, the World Bank, and the major imperialist powers. In the present context of a slowdown in the advanced capitalist countries, the weaker economies will be affected. What the masses desire - land, jobs, decent wages - will not be forthcoming. If the imperialist powers manage to bring to power a government more in tune with its present interests we will see a continuation of the same old austerity measures. They will demand severe cuts in public spending and an even greater opening up of the economy.

They would have to tackle the land question, which is a burning one. But they would not grant the millions of landless peasants their wishes. The MDC has raised the idea of compensation for the white farmers (where would the government get the money?) while others have raised the idea of an audit. In order to maintain some kind of stability they may have to accept some of the expropriations but they would attempt to unravel much of what has been done.

Thus, while the MDC says it will cut public spending it will seek money for the white farmers. We can be sure that the cuts would be in healthcare, education and other public services. Some of the more urgent problems may be tackled in the short run, such as food distribution. To help stabilise the situation and consolidate imperialism's grip over the country, food aid would be forthcoming and could lead to a temporary alleviation of the suffering of the masses.

This would be done in an attempt to stabilise the situation, only to allow for capitalist economic policies to be imposed. No fundamental problem would be solved. Thus if and when the MDC comes to power, it would enjoy a brief honeymoon period. Many hopes would be raised, but eventually it would be exposed for what it has become, another bourgeois party.

Need for a Socialist Alternative

Neither ZANU-PF nor the MDC, or any splits from both, are capable of offering a real solution to the Zimbabwean workers and peasants. So long as capitalism dominates there is no way out for the masses. Especially under the present world conditions, the economic prospects are dire.

What is required is a socialist programme, based on socialist expropriation of the land and industry. Many former activists of ZANU-PF and also many of those who initially looked to the MDC must be asking themselves what went wrong. The Marxists are the only ones who can explain how all this happened and what is the way out.

Marxists in Zimbabwe also need to base themselves on an internationalist perspective. On its own Zimbabwe cannot build socialism. However, a socialist Zimbabwe would have a huge impact on the South African working class. In the same way that Lenin saw the Russian revolution as the spark that could ignite the European revolution, the Zimbabwean revolution could set in motion the South African proletariat and that of the whole region. Socialism in one country is not possible, as the experience of all the former Stalinist regimes amply demonstrates.

A key role will be played by the mighty South African working class. The refusal of the Durban dockworkers to unload the Chinese shipment of arms destined for Zimbabwe graphically highlights how the fate of the Zimbabwean workers and peasants is tightly linked to the movement of their South African brothers. As any serious move of the Zimbabwean workers would immediately impact on the South African workers, would the movement of the South African working class have a decisive impact on developments in Zimbabwe.

The South African workers have been to the ANC School of reformism. Last year we saw a massive strike against the ANC government and we will see more of this. The class struggle is rising everywhere, including Africa. The recent upheavals in Egypt and last year's powerful general strike in Nigeria are an indication of what is to come.

The task of Marxists in Zimbabwe is to "patiently explain" all this to the advanced layers among the workers and youth, working inside the trade unions and youth organisations. An internationalist perspective, combined with the patient build up of the forces of Marxism is the only long term solution to the plight of the Zimbabwean masses today.RENEGADE EYE

Labels: MDC, Morgan Tsvangirai, Robert Mugabe, Zanu-PF, Zimbabwe

By Fred Weston and Pablo Sanchez
Thursday, 17 April 2008

As we write these lines the votes cast in the recent Nepalese elections are still being counted, but with most of the first-past-the-post seats declared and more than 4.5 million votes checked, the Maoists have achieved an outstanding result, a clear indication that the masses desire a radical change.

For the first time in eight years the Nepali people have been able to express their views in an election, and there is no doubt what those views are! These were the first elections since the October movement that had led to the Maoists being brought back into "legality" and also into a coalition government with the mainstream political forces.

There were months of negotiations about which electoral system should be adopted, which also saw the army in parliament, and this was then followed by a bloody electoral campaign. In fact the celebration of the elections on the terms demanded by the Nepali Congress terms, i.e. before the declaration of a Republic, is an indication of how much the Maoists have been willing to concede.

They have in fact come a long way since the days of their guerrilla campaign, which saw them control a large part of the country. From that position, they have given up the armed struggle, agreed to integrate their armed groups into the official army and even agreed to join a government with bourgeois parties. This is all in line with a classical Maoist outlook, which states that because Nepal is so underdeveloped the immediate perspective is not one of a struggle for socialism, but some form of bourgeois democracy, i.e. the "first stage" of the two-stage theory.

However, the way the masses have voted would indicate that they are very much intent on leaping over the first stage and move towards socialism. The fact that they voted so massively for a party that is called Communist and up until very recently was attempting to come to power through the armed struggle, would confirm that. So far, the Maoists have won 116 seats out of the 218 declared in the first-past-the-post part of the election, out of a total of 240.

The great losers in these elections are the Nepali Congress, that gained only 32 seats. This reduces it to the same level as the other, more "moderate" Communist Party, the CPN-UML, which has gained 31 seats. The CPN-UML had in fact pulled out of the government becoming the main opposition party, due to its bad electoral result. The regionalist Madhesi parties won around 30 seats, and they are the only real force that remains that can defend the keeping of the monarchy.

One of the ironies of this situation is that the Maoist leaders were so pessimistic about their own prospects that they feared a majority first-past-the-post electoral system. That explains in part why the electoral system adopted has been a mix, a hybrid, between seats elected on a proportional representation (PR) basis and a section of first-past-the-post seats. In the end the PR section is going to save the face of the bourgeois parties, especially the Nepali Congress, who would have been completely smashed if all the MPs had been elected on the basis of a majority system.

In the complicated system they have adopted, the two votes, PR and first-past-the-post, were not linked to each other. In any case, the results so far would indicate that the Maoists will get around 30% overall, while both the Congress and CPN-UML stand at around 20%, and the regionalists will score less than 10%.

The new Parliament is made up of 601 MPs, of which 335 will be elected by the PR system, 240 by the majority system and 26 are to be appointed by the government. This will very probably mean the Maoists will be by far the biggest force, but possibly short of getting an absolute majority. This would allow them to form an alliance of the left forces (the five communist organisations with electoral representation in the Chamber) which would have a clear majority in parliament.

Here again, we see the massive shift to the left: the combined vote of the two main Communist parties stands at about 50%! Thus rather than seeking any alliances with the parties that represent the weak Nepalese bourgeoisie, the two main Communist parties should be thinking in terms of a United Front without bourgeois parties and leading the masses in the struggle for socialism. Unfortunately, it is unclear what parliamentary tactic the Maoists will adopt.

They have two options now. The first is to refuse any alliance with bourgeois parties, unite all the Communist forces, and by mobilising the masses outside parliament lead them in the struggle for a socialist Nepal. The other option is to enter into negotiations with forces such as the Nepali Congress on the basis that this is the so-called "democratic stage" of the revolution. This would also involve holding back the masses and explaining to them that it is necessary to join forces with the so-called "progressive wing of the bourgeoisie."

Maoists send a soothing message to bourgeois

As could be expected, Prachanda and other Maoists leaders have been very quick to issue statements calming down anyone who might think that the former guerrilla leaders may go "too radical". Prachanda in talks with the Indian Foreign Minister, Pranab Mukherjee and EU foreign affairs officials said that, "he avowed his commitment towards the peace process, multiparty democracy and economic development". (Nepal news.com, April 17, 2008). This is in line with the policies of the Maoists leaders of rejecting any move towards socialism, sticking to their programme of "social development" of Nepal within the confines of capitalism, while abolishing the monarchy.

The Nepalese masses will be expecting serious change from this new parliament. In fact the Maoists will now come under enormous pressure to deliver the goods. But they will also come under huge pressure from the bourgeois forces both in Nepal and internationally. These will put in motion their machinery to make sure that the Maoists resist the pressure from below and do not go too far in their social and economic policies. Meanwhile the Terai and Madhesi regionalist movements will be used to continue their campaign against the democratically elected government.

It is clear that the Nepali ruling class is deeply divided between a staunchly monarchist wing on the one hand and those that see Gyanendra as a dead weight, who because of his stupidity and stubbornness was responsible for the Maoist victory. This king took the crown after the dramatic events in 2001, when ten members of the royal family were massacred by the crown prince, including the king and queen, who then took his own life.

The following year in October the new king, Gyanendra, dismissed the prime minister and his cabinet. He accused them of "incompetence" after they had dissolved parliament and had proven incapable of holding elections due to the ongoing insurgency. The king thought that the insurgency was merely a question of incompetence of the ministers. He was completely out of touch with the real situation on the ground.

In June 2004 although he did not re-establish parliament, he reinstated the most recently elected prime minister who formed a four-party coalition government. But then again blaming it for its inability to tackle the Maoist insurgency he dissolved the government in February 2005 and declared a state of emergency, imprisoning party leaders, and assuming power directly. The state of emergency was brought to an end in May 2005, but the king held on to absolute power until April 2006.

That was when three weeks of mass protests forced the king to reconvene parliament. Reality was beating the king on the head repeatedly, but he seemed incapable of really understanding what was happening, believing he could dictate as in the past. In spite of the king, in November 2006 a deal, a peace accord, between the government and the Maoists, allowed for an interim constitution to be promulgated. It was on this basis that the Maoists were allowed to enter parliament in January 2007.

That same accord entailed a new Constituent Assembly whose task it would be to draw up a new constitution. The recent elections are part of that process. All this has been done in spite of the king, not thanks to him. The more serious and far-sighted bourgeois leaders, clearly receiving advice from imperialism, understood that in the face of such mass opposition they could not continue to rule in the old way. As they had done previously in South Africa with the ANC, in Palestine with the PLO, and even in the North of Ireland with Sinn Fein, they understood that the only way of stabilising the situation was to open negotiations with the recognised leaders of the masses. In this case that was the leadership of the Maoist guerrillas.

By making "democratic" concessions to these leaders, who were already inclined to accept the market economy, i.e. capitalism, as the base upon which all political developments should be based, they hoped to use them to hold the masses back from overthrowing the system s a whole.

A recent statement by the President of the Federation of Nepalese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI), Kush Kumar Joshi, is an indication of this. He has said that the incoming Maoist-led government should adopt a "liberal" economic policy. We can expect much more of this kind of "advice" both from the bourgeois commentators inside Nepal and internationally. It is rather unfortunate that the Maoist leaders seem to give more credence to the opinions of these people rather than to those of the millions of workers and poor who have elected them.

What will happen to the king is not totally clear, although it does seem that on this question at least a move towards a republic is inevitable. The king himself is an unpredictable figure, but his personal position is not the unimportant issue here. The bourgeois can easily accept that he must go, if in exchange they can get the Maoists to accept a moderate stance.

One thing is clear: this electoral victory is proof of the power of the Nepali masses and it also is a vote of confidence in those who led the guerrilla struggle for over a decade. It clearly shows the willingness of the masses to transform society, and it would be criminal not capitalise on all this support. There is the danger that by accepting a bourgeois parliamentary "stage" the Maoists will be sucked into spending a lot of time in committees and elections. The new Assembly now has the task of voting on a new Constitution, probably holding a referendum, which would then be followed by new elections. This is the terrain that the bourgeois politicians prefer. They are experts in dragging out processes, delving into the detailed minutiae of each legal change. In the meantime the masses will be expecting alleviation from the miserable conditions they live in.

The population of Nepal stands at around 30 million, and a few figures give an idea of the level of underdevelopment of this country. It is among the poorest countries in the world. Three quarters of the population still makes a living from agriculture. GDP per capita stands at only US$1,100 per year. Almost one-third of its population lives below the official poverty line, unemployment stands at the staggering level of 42% and more than half the population is illiterate. Inflation officially stands at around 9% but is obviously much higher, especially in the recent months with massive food price hikes.

The Maoists therefore now have a big responsibility on their shoulders. They will not be able to tackle the serious economic problems if they form an alliance with any of the bourgeois parties and if they spend most of their time discussing constitutional change. The masses have voted not for talks but concrete action against poverty

The bourgeois are preparing a trap for the Maoists. In fact Koirala, the current President, has already called for a coalition government and all the pressure will be on the Maoists to go as slow as possible. If they do this it will only strengthen the right wing and the bourgeoisie. A clear indication of the tactics the ruling class are adopting comes from the chairman of the country's chamber of commerce who has praised the Maoist leaders for their promise to "listen to the private sector" when working out economic policy. By this it seems the Maoist leaders are preparing to "manage capitalism". In line with this are declarations by Prachanda in favour of a "mixed economy".

The Royal Army is also falling into line with the needs of the moment. It has expressed its commitment to work under the direction of an elected government, and carry on the discussions concerning the integration of the guerrillas into the national army under UN control. The only demand of the military leaders is that the army should not be "politicised". By this they mean the Communists should not meddle in the affairs of the army. They conveniently ignore their own "political" role in a decade of struggle against a communist orientated guerrilla movement. The Maoists are now pushing for the full integration of its former guerrillas into the army.

The Maoists will undoubtedly continue to have genuine mass support for some time. They have only just been elected and the masses will have a degree of patience. Thus they will have some breathing space, but so will the bourgeois and the imperialists, who are manoeuvring behind the scenes. As part of this process, the Maoists will most likely push for the abolition of the monarchy and for the introduction of other democratic measures, all things that the Marxists would support. Senior Maoist leaders have in fact "urged the country's beleaguered King Gyanendra to step down ‘gracefully'," according to BBC News, (April 16, 2008). However, the fact that they "urge" the king to go, rather than mobilise a mass movement behind this demand, is an indication of their approach.

The mass of workers, peasants and poor in general will be waiting for the proposals any new government will make concerni