On What Should the Working Class Base its Stand?

WHAT WILL THE FORTHCOMING ELECTION mean to the working class? From the point of view of the capitalists, they are already gearing up so that whichever party "wins", the offensive against the people is stepped up. The issue really for the working class is how the election should be used in their class struggle for their own interests and for the interests of the vast majority.

The working class can do so in the first place by rejecting the anachronistic system of parliamentary democracy, which appears to give them a "choice", but is organised so that what is unchallengeable is that only parties which serve the maintenance of the status quo, of the capitalist system, get elected. Suppose a majority emerged in parliament hostile to the capitalist class. Then it can be removed through the royal prerogative by the armed forces being mobilised to overthrow that government.

What should be the principles on which the working class bases its stand on the election? Should it take part or should it boycott the election? Should it participate in voting in this "beauty contest" between the parties, or should it fight for democratic renewal? Only if there were candidates who stand for the people becoming sovereign and rejecting the so-called "representative democracy" in which sovereignty is kept away from the people and ultimately resides with the most powerful economic interests could the working class participate in this election. Such candidates would as a starting point have to come from the ranks of the working class and people themselves and be chosen by them.

Tony Blair and the Labour Party are busy adapting their programme and saying to the electorate, we will only promise what we can deliver. It is turning out that what they can deliver is only what the Tory Party has been promising. What reason then should the working class have to support the Labour Party? This is causing concern amongst those in the workers' movement whose task it is to deliver the working class vote to the Labour Party.

Workers should not be diverted into the blind alley of using their vote to support Labour under the pretext that it is the lesser of two evils, and that under Labour the possibility is there to manoeuvre for the workers' interests. The existing "representative democracy" is so anachronistic that there is no possibility for the working class and the vast majority to defend their interests within it, nor is there any way that socialism will be brought a millimetre nearer through the Labour Party. The immediate need is for democratic renewal to bring about a democracy consistent with the demands of the people to have control over their own lives, in which a written constitution, drawn up by the people themselves, lays down that sovereign power lies with the people, so that they may govern themselves.

On January 2, Michael Portillo, the Defence Secretary, took the opportunity afforded by a visit to the British colony of the Malvinas Islands to outline what he called "Britain's continuing global responsibilities". Portillo acknowledged that some might find it difficult to comprehend what business Britain might have in distant territory lying off the coast of South America. His explanation shows that just as in the past British imperialism aims to revive and expand its interests in this region as in other parts of the world, not for the benefit of the peoples, as it claims, but to secure its markets and maintain maximum profits in a situation of deepening world economic crisis.

In his speech, amongst other things, Portillo asserted that Britain was not only a major European power, but also still a major world power with "global responsibilities", ready to intervene militarily or by other means anywhere it saw its interests threatened. He argued that Britain's responsibility and commitment was simply to "peace support and humanitarian operations", undertaken "out of our deep concern for our fellow man" and because "we are a civilised nation". But the true nature of this "civilising mission" was exposed many years ago for what it was, a fig leaf to cover British imperialism's bloody crimes throughout the world.

In his speech Portillo also highlighted Britain's promotion of "free market economics" and "liberal democracy" throughout the world. He argued, with scant regard for history, that capitalism "and a world populated by democracies will almost certainly be a more peaceful world". At the present time, as a response to the deepening world economic crisis, Britain and the other major powers are attempting to extend their influence by imposing these Eurocentrist values throughout the world, by force if necessary. They are all vying to control key regions of the world and forming themselves into economic and military blocs. As a result trade wars are intensifying, and far from the world becoming more peaceful the danger of world war growing out of the rivalry of the contending blocs is increasing.

Portillo attempted to portray Britain's involvement in UN operations in Iraq, Cyprus and Africa as "building international peace and security", while he referred to the warmongering NATO alliance as "the vehicle to guarantee peace and stability" in Europe. But the military intervention of Britain and the other big powers has not brought peace to Europe or other parts of the world. Rather these powers completely ignore the international norms codified in the UN Charter, and consider themselves free to interfere in the affairs of other countries and regions of the world, for instance in central Africa, the Gulf or the Balkans. In these areas of tension they claim to bring peace, only for the situation to worsen all the time.

Portillo had to admit that despite the alleged attempts of the major powers to act as "peacemakers" the proliferation of conflicts and weapons throughout the world was increasing, although he did not state that this situation was caused by Britain and the other major powers and exacerbated by their enormous "defence" spending and promotion of a world-wide arms trade. Rather he used this dangerous situation to justify the fact that Britain is now militarily prepared to intervene in over 50 "potential crisis points" all over the world including the Trans-Caucasus region, Algeria, Libya and Iraq. The major powers, including Britain, arbitrarily interfere in the affairs of other countries, incite conflicts and supply weapons and then use such circumstances as a pretext for further intervention in their own interests.

Portillo's speech also highlighted British imperialism's economic interests in the Asia-Pacific region and stressed the fact that as well as extending its own export of capital and goods in this region it was also eager to remain the main European recipient of capital investment from the Pacific economies. British imperialism's interests in this region are growing and Portillo reaffirmed the commitment to retain large military forces to protect these interests and to "emphasise that Britain's forces possess global reach".

Portillo's sabre-rattling and dreams of empire should be resolutely condemned. Britain must give up all remnants of its colonial past, withdraw from the Malvinas and other colonial territories and cease interfering in the affairs of other countries. Britain should also withdraw from the warmongering NATO alliance. As Portillo's speech makes clear, Britain's foreign policy is dictated by the interests of the monopolies and oligopolies as they collude and contend with their rivals for a redivision of the world. Their "global responsibility" is based on the need for new markets and maximum profits, not for the benefit of the people of Britain or any other country.

SINCE mass unemployment went over 1 million in August 1975 and over 2 million in August 1980 it has never reduced in any significance in spite of the economy coming out of recession on several occasions. Not only in Britain but this has become a feature of capitalism world wide that when these economies start to show growth, in terms of production and profitability, there is no concurrent drop in unemployment, which occurred in previous recessions. Unemployment remains at a high level and jobs which have been destroyed in recession are not replaced in the same numbers and those jobs that are created are mostly part time, temporary, or self employed and all are increasingly faced with growing job insecurity. What this new situation reflects is the deepening crisis of the capitalist system. In these circumstances, the bourgeoisie uses the scientific-technical revolution in its drive to maximise its profits, not to benefit society.

Throughout 1996, government statements continued to grasp at straws, to manipulate the figures and present slight falls in the official count of unemployment as evidence that "Britain is on the move" and that the economy is in "sparkling form". These statements were also accompanied with pledges and crocodile tears that "jobs matter. They are the basis of people's prosperity and welfare", and so on. This month on January 15, Education and Employment Secretary, Gillian Shephard in a government press release announced the fall in claimant unemployment, down 45,000 on the previous month to 1.885 million. She claimed, "These figures are the best start to the New Year Britain could ask for, and they will give real hope to those still looking for work that 1997 will bring them the job they want." In the same press release information from the Labour Force Survey was contradictory and revealed that "part of this appears to be due to more people failing to sign on when faced with the more rigorous tests associated with the Job Seekers Allowance (JSA)...". This shows that part of the fall was caused by the introduction of JSA which is disqualifying more unemployed people from claiming benefits than did the previous Unemployment Benefit, on which the figures were previously based. In this way the representatives of the bourgeoisie have reduced their politics to the level of trying to "talk down" unemployment. Do they really hope to enter the new millennium with such feeble assertions?!

The working class must cast off any illusions that the representatives of the bourgeoisie have a solution. Any reduction in unemployment over the last year has not eliminated the overall trend towards increased mass unemployment. In recent decades, mass unemployment has become permanently high whichever government was in power. Mass unemployment remains and the causes of mass unemployment remain in the capitalist system itself and in the bourgeoisie's drive for maximum profits. It has become a permanent feature of a system in decay.

Today, the issue facing the working class is whether, as a class, it is going to stand up for the interests of all in society and in particular the millions of unemployed and other most impoverished sections of the people. Only the working class can provide a solution to the problem of mass unemployment and the impoverishment it brings. The fact is that the working class is going to have to face reality that the big Parliamentary Parties that dominate Westminster are not going to solve the problem of mass unemployment. They are going to have to take stock of the situation and grasp the truth that capitalism cannot be turned into a system that provides for all.

Full employment and the guarantee of a livelihood for all requires moving society beyond its present level. It means developing new arrangements among human beings, changing the relations of production from capitalist to socialist. Immediately it must fight as part of its pro-social programme that the attacks on the unemployed and impoverished sections of the people must cease, and fight that the right of all to a livelihood be guaranteed in law.

ON FEBRUARY 1, a conference was held in Walthamstow, east London, entitled "Fight Council Cuts in Waltham Forest". The conference was called by various local union branches and associations and attended by union representatives, council workers, teachers, health workers, local tenants and residents and many others. Speaker after speaker gave graphic facts and figures of how cuts were to be planned and carried out and the devastating effects these cuts would have on the health and welfare of the people in that community. Furthermore, all the main parties are implementing the anti-social offensive.

Using the council's own documents, the first speaker gave figures on proposed redundancies, freezing of posts, early retirements, cuts in services, housing and education etc. He quoted a labour councillor as saying "If we can provide these services cheaper, then that's how it will be". He told how one cut of £300,000 was nodded through without anyone knowing what was being cut!. He ended by pointing out that the people can only solve these problems by relying on themselves and their own organisation Another speaker, an NUT representative, said that a two pronged offensive was being carried out against education - on the one hand on the issue of what and how the children are taught, and on the other on the pay and conditions of the teachers. Also outside school schemes and activities were being whittled away, some being cut by 50%. But there are examples, she said, and quoted some, where good organisation and united action had succeeded in blocking some of the most blatant attacks. A representative of a tenants association said that attempts were being made to hide the figures on homelessness. "Now they say you are not homeless unless you are sleeping in a doorway….they call it overcrowding, not homelessness". She said that before the council housing committee met the political parties would get together to ensure that the cuts could be decided in advance and then nodded through; and that tenants were blackmailed by being given the choice - accept the cuts or accept a rent rise. In fact her tenants association had refused to bow to this pressure. A health worker, speaking about the drastic underfunding at her hospital, gave a detailed account of the effects this was having on both patient care and the working conditions of the staff. The effects of privatisation and the government's Private Finance Initiative were that health was more and more becoming a source of profit for the few, at the expense of the health of the many. At the same time those responsible for the health service are always pleading that they "don't have the funds". Challenging this absurd assertion, the health worker raised the question "Where is this wealth going" and said that the concept that there isn't enough wealth must be challenged. Surely the aim of the economy should to provide for the welfare and well-being of the people, including their health, education and housing etc.

The conference was helpful to people in using facts and figures and actual examples to show the scale of the anti-social offensive. A positive feature was that examples were given where the effects of the cuts had been stemmed or ameliorated where people had organised on their own initiative. However, the crucial question that was not addressed in the conference is: how can mechanisms be put in place to empower people politically so that they are in a position to bring about fundamental economic changes without which any short term victories can never be consolidated? The anti-social offensive needs to be placed in its political and economic context. What are the economic laws that drive the bourgeoisie as a whole to carry out this offensive? What should be the basis of unity through which people can develop their struggles so as to avoid being blocked, diverted or hijacked. The call to "fight back" serves as a general call, but if the core of the problem is to be tackled then the working class needs to elaborate it's own independent agenda and programme. If the concern and anger that the participants in the conference clearly felt are to be transformed into effective action, then these questions must be addressed.

US PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON said in his inaugural speech on January 20 that the US government should "stand up for our values and interests around the world" and pledged, "We will stand mighty for peace and freedom, and maintain a strong defence against the dark forces of terror and destruction. Our children will sleep free from the threat of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. And the worlds greatest democracy will lead a whole world of democracies." Clinton referred to the 20th century as the "American century when the US became the world's mightiest industrial power," and spoke of the need to move on with "American's eternal mission".

In his statements Clinton is confirming that he will keep the US on its present path of imposing on the whole world its own values of the "free market economy" and the particular brand of political "pluralism" and "human rights" that the "Western" powers call "democracy". By the "dark forces of terror and destruction" Clinton is referring to any country or individual who does not accept US hegemony.

It is amazing that the President of the US, a country whose borders are threatened by no one, but which has spread its military might all over the world to attack and dominate others, should have the gall to speak of needing to defend itself.

The US is relentlessly driving to dominate the world regardless of what opposition it faces from anyone, or what dangers this leads to for the world's people, including the very children he speaks of so manipulatively.

The reality is that this country so concerned about "defence against dark forces" is the world's top military power with huge military installations spread over the globe. It could justly be said that it is the US and its "eternal mission" to bring all other countries under its domination as it pursues its "values and interests" around the world, which should be characterised as a "force of terror and destruction".

According to a paper published last year by the US Defence Secretary, the pretext for the US deployment of this immense military power across the globe is to cope with international threats or disputes. But when has any dispute amongst the peoples of a country been solved by military intervention by the United States? The facts speak for themselves. Did US military intervention bring peace to Vietnam? Troops and weapons are being poured into Bosnia today and causing devastation for the people there. Every new initiative seems to bring the seeds of deeper problems. The US has been interfering in the Middle East for generations now but what kind of peace or democracy has this "world's greatest democracy" brought there? US imperialism uses as a pretext that the people of a region are not capable of sorting out their own problems in order to intervene for its own ends.

When countries do not submit to the US dictate, they are blockaded, food and vital medical supplies are denied them and all manner of pressure is brought to bear. Countries like Cuba, Iran, Libya, Algeria, Sudan or north Korea have already been called "rogue states" by the US because they have decided to continue on their own paths of development in opposition to the demands of the US. Even if its people have chosen their own form of society, if a country does not conform to US "values" it is characterised as undemocratic. It is the very "pluralism" that is being imposed by force of arms on countries across the world as a definition of "democracy", which is being used by the US to further its own interests.

No matter how much it dreams of "leading a world of democracies", who would follow it meekly, in fact the striving for a unipolar world by US imperialism has brought it into contradiction with other world powers who are also following their own interests and have their own plans for various areas of the globe. Yet whenever it is faced with any opposition whatsoever the US seems to continue on its set path with even greater arrogance. Just one marked example of this was evident in the United Nations where the US used its veto in the Security Council to oust the UN Secretary General Butrous Butrous Ghali in spite of the overwhelming support amongst the UN member states for his continuing in his post. Another example is the opposition that the US has incurred over its controversial extra-territorial legislation seeking to penalise countries that invest in areas against its will. The US has economic and strategic interests which conflict with other large powers in every area of the world. These issues can only come to a head and bring increasing dangers of war to the people of these regions.

The world in 1997 sees people all over the globe seeking solutions to the very serious problems that beset them. The solution of these problems is becoming a question of crucial importance for people all over the world. The search for solutions brings more people daily to oppose the path that the US is taking so relentlessly. What Bill Clinton seems incapable of recognising is that events are revealing that the US can no longer set the global agenda.

The United States military budget of some $260 billion exceeds by far all other countries in the world and the US has the most powerful conventional as well as nuclear forces in the world. Some of these forces are:

Europe:

The US has pledged to maintain around 109,000 troops in Europe as well as supporting naval and marine forces deployed in neighbouring waters.

East Asia and the Pacific:

The US has 100,000 troops here as well as a Marine Expeditionary Force and aircraft carrier battle group. There are a little over 100 combat aircraft based in Japan, and 90 combat aircraft based in South Korea. Two carrier battle groups have been deployed in waters off Taiwan.

Middle East and South West Asia:

In this area the US keeps pre-positioned equipment to facilitate rapid deployment of its forces when needed. There is a "heavy" brigade set of equipment in Kuwait, another afloat on ships in the Indian Ocean and a third, together with a divisional headquarters base in Qatar. A carrier battle group is usually at sea in the Gulf and Indian Ocean region including ships carrying Tomahawk missiles and a Marine Expeditionary Unit. A number of combat aircraft are sited in the region, based at Incerlik in Turkey and in Saudi Arabia. The US also carries out regular joint exercises with the armed forces of the Gulf Co-operation Council member states. These include joint air exercises in Qatar involving up to 30 F-15s and F-16s and 4K-135 tanker aircraft. In July 1995 the US 5th fleet was established to take charge of Naval operations in the Gulf, Arabian sea and Indian Ocean jointly with the GCC.

Caribbean and Latin America:

The US maintains 4,000 troops in Panama and has now declared that they are to stay there indefinitely. It also deploys 5,000 troops in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Source: International Institute of Strategic Studies publication The Military Balance 1996/97