ICC

On March 2nd, despite all our objections, the tents were taken down by the union bosses and the street in front of the Turk-Is HQ was cleared with us being told we had to return home. 70 to 80 of us stayed in Ankara in order to discuss what we could do for the next three days. After these three days, 60 of us returned to our hometowns, and 20 of us including myself stayed for two more days, so although the Ankara struggle lasted for 78 days, we stayed for 83. We agreed that we had to work very hard in order to advance the struggle, and I too eventually returned to Adiyaman. As soon as I got back from Ankara, 40 of us went to visit our class brothers and sisters involved in the Cemen Tekstil strike in Gaziantep. The Tekel struggle was an example to the class. I was, as a Tekel worker, both proud and also thought that I thought we could do more for our class and that I had to contribute to our class. Although my economic situation did not allow it and despite the exhaustion of 83 days of struggle and other problems, I had to do more than I could to move the process further. What we had to do was to form a formal committee and take the process into our own hands. Even if we couldn't formalize it, we at least had to form it by keeping in contact with workers from all cities, since we were to return to Ankara on April 1st.

We have to go to everywhere we can and tell people about the Tekel struggle to its last detail. For this we have to form a committee and unite with the class. Our job is harder than it seems! We have deal with capital on the one hand, the government on the other and the trade-union bosses on the other hand. We all have to struggle in the best way. Even if our economical situation isn't good, even if we are physically tired, if we want victory, we have struggle, struggle, struggle!!!

Although I was away from my family for 83 days, I stayed at home only for a week. I went to Istanbul to tell people about the Tekel resistance without even having a chance to catch up with my wife and children. We had many meetings of the informal Tekel workers committee especially in Diyarbakir, Izmir, Hatay, and I participated in many meetings with fellow workers from the informal committee in Istanbul. We had meetings in the Mimar Sinan University, one in Sirinevler Teachers' Hostel, one in the Engineers' Union's building, we had discussions with pilots and other aircraft workers from the dissident Rainbow movement in Hava-Is [a trade union], and we met with law employees. We also met with the Istanbul chairman of the Peace and Democracy Party and asked for Tekel workers to be given the chance to speak on the Newroz holiday. The meetings were all very warm. Our request from the PDP was accepted and they asked me to participate in the Newroz demonstrations as a speaker. Because I had to return to Adiyaman, I suggested a fellow worker from Istanbul as a speaker. While I was in Istanbul, I visited the struggling firemen, Sinter metal workers, Esenyurt municipality workers, Sabah newspaper and ATV television strikers on the last day the struggling workers from the Istanbul Water and Sewers Department (ISKI). For half a day, we talked with these workers how we can make the struggle grow bigger and also we told them about the Tekel struggle and discussed. What the ISKI workers told me first was that they started their struggle with the courage they got from the Tekel workers. Every demonstration I went to, every struggle I visited, this I heard, ‘We got courage from Tekel', in the week I spent in Istanbul, this made me feel the happiest. The time I spent in Istanbul was very fulfilling for me also. There were also bad things, of course, unfortunately a close relative of mine passed away but I still decided not to leave and stay the whole week as planned.
Speaking of bad things, in this period, 24 student class brothers and sisters were kicked out of their school (Mehmetcik High School) for supporting the Tekel struggle. Also, in Ankara, a class sister of ours from the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK), Aynur Camalan, was fired. When capital is attacking us workers like this, so ruthlessly, we have to unite against it. Thus we made two press announcements in Adiyaman and showed that our friends were not alone. We also had been preparing for the demonstration on April 1st. What the trade-union bosses wanted was to go to Ankara with 50 people from every city, with a total of one thousand. As the informal committee, we increased this number from 50 to 180 in Adiyaman alone, and I myself came to Ankara with ten other workers on March 31st. Despite all the announcements of the union to make the number limited to 50, we managed to help 180 workers come (with us covering the costs, not the union), because we were aware of how the trade-union wanted to manipulate like they did before. We had meetings with lots of mass organizations, associations and unions. We visited Aynur Camalan, the TUBITAK worker sister, who had lost her job.
On April 1st, we gathered in Kizilay [the centre of Ankara, the capital of Turkey] but we had to make a lot of effort to get to the street in front of Turk-Is, because 15 thousand policemen guarded the building. What were all these policemen doing in front of us and the trade-union? Now, we have to ask those who stand against us even when we talk about the union bosses, even when we say the unions should be questioned: if there is a 15 thousand-strong police barricade in front of us and the trade-union, why do the trade-unions exist? If you ask me, it is quite natural for the police to protect the union and the union bosses, because don't the union and the trade-unionists protect the government and capital? Don't the trade-unions exist only in order to keep the workers under control on behalf of capital?
On April 1st, despite everything, 35-40 of us managed to cross the barricade one by one and went to the street in front of Turk-Is. Our purpose was to have a certain majority and to manage for other friends of ours to get there, but we failed, unfortunately our majority couldn't deal with 15,000 policemen. The trade-union had declared previous that only 1000 of us would come to Ankara. As the informal committee, we managed to increase this number to 2300. 15,000 policemen were blocking the way of 2300 people. We gathered on Sakarya street. We were to at least spend the night there, with all those who came to support us. Within the day, we had been attacked twice by the police with pepper gas and police batons. Our purpose was of course to spend the night on the street in front of the Turk-Is HQ but when we came up against the police, we stayed in the Sakarya street, but during the night the trade-unionists silently and cunningly called for fellow workers to leave the area. We remained only as a certain minority. The trade-unionists called myself too several times and told me to leave the area but we did not heed to the call of the union bosses and stayed as a certain minority. When the supporters also left around 23:00, we had to leave as well.
There was to be a press announcement on April 2nd. When we were about to enter Sakarya street at about 9:00 in the morning, we were attacked by the police, who again used pepper gas and batons. An hour or so later, about a hundred of us managed to cross the barricade and had a sit-in. The police kept threatening us. We kept resisting. The police finally had to open the barricade and we managed to unite with the other group who had remained outside. We started marching towards Turk-Is but the union bosses did what they had to again, and made their press announcement 100 meter away from the Turk-Is HQ. No matter how we insisted, the union bosses resisted to going to the street in front of Turk-Is. The union and the police joining their hands, and some among us actually falling for what they stood for, we ended up not managing to go to where we wanted to go. There was an interesting point among the things the trade-unionists had said. They said we will come back on June 3rd and stay in front of Turk-Is for three nights. It is curious how we will manage to stay there for 3 nights, as we didn't even stay for a single night this time. Afterwards, the police had to first protect the trade-unionists from us and aid their escape, then we were left alone with the police. Regardless of the threats and the pressures of the police, we did not disperse and then we were once again attacked with pepper spray and batons and had to disperse. In the afternoon, we had a black wreath made by some flourists in order to condemn Turk-Is and the government, which we left in front of the Turk-Is building.
My dear class brothers and sisters, what we have to question is, if there are 15 thousand policemen barricaded in front of the trade-union and the worekrs, why do the trade-unions exist. I am calling on all my class brothers and sisters, that if we want victory we have to struggle together. We the Tekel workers have lit a spark, and we shall turn it into a massive fireball all together. In this sense, when I express my respect for all of you, I want to conclude my text with a poem:
The steam of the tea flies away while our lives are still fresh
Cloths get as long as roads, and only sorrow returns
A bown of rice, they say our food has landed on our homes
Yearnings become roads, roads, where does labour go
Hunger is for us, cold is for us, poverty is for us
They have called in fate, living with it is for us
Us who feed, us who hunger, us who are naked again
We have not written this fate, it is us who will break it yet again
We the Tekel workers say that even if our head hits the ground, still we shall leave an honorable future for our children.
A Tekel Worker from Adiyaman

This article is available as a leaflet to download and distribute in two versions: one for Britain [3] and one for the rest of the world [4]

In Greece, there is immense anger and the social situation is explosive. Right now the Greek state is raining blows on the working class. All generations, all sectors of the class are being hit hard. Workers in the private sector, in the public sector, the unemployed, pensioners, students working on temporary contracts... No one is being spared. The working class as a whole is threatened with dire poverty.

In the face of these attacks, the working class is beginning to react. In Greece, as elsewhere, it is coming out onto the streets, going on strike, showing that it is not prepared to put up with the sacrifices demanded by capitalism.

But for the moment, the struggle has not yet become really massive. The workers of Greece are going through a difficult period. What to do when all the media and all the politicians insist that there is no alternative but to pull in your belt and save the country from bankruptcy? How to stand up to the monster of the state? What methods of struggle are needed to establish a balance of force in favour of the exploited?

All these questions are faced not just by the workers of Greece, but by workers all over the world. There can be no illusion: the "Greek tragedy" is just a foretaste of what's waiting for the working class all over the planet. Thus "Greek style austerity packages" have already been officially announced in Portugal, Rumania, Japan and Spain (where the government has just cut public sector workers' pay by 5%!) In Britain, the new coalition government has only just started to reveal the extent of the cuts it's aiming to make. All these attacks, carried out simultaneously, show once again that the workers, whatever their nationality, are part of one and the same class which everywhere has the same interests and the same enemies. Capitalism forces the proletariat to endure the heavy chains of wage labour, but these same chains also link together the workers of all countries, across all frontiers.

In Greece, it's our class brothers and sisters who are under attack and who have begun to fight back. Their struggle is our struggle.  

Solidarity with the workers of Greece!
One class, one struggle!

We have to reject all the divisions the bourgeoisie tries to impose on us. Against the old principle of all ruling classes - "divide and rule" - we have to raise the rallying cry of the exploited: "workers of all countries, unite!"

In Europe, the different national bourgeoisies are trying to make us believe that it's all down to Greece that we are going to have to pull in our belts. The dishonesty of the people in charge of Greece, who have allowed the country to live on credit for decades and have fiddled the public accounts, they are the main cause of the "international crisis of confidence" in the euro. One after the other, governments are using this false pretext to explain the need to reduce deficits and bring in draconian austerity measures.

In Greece, all the official parties, with the Communist Party at the forefront, are whipping up nationalist feelings, blaming "foreign powers" for the attacks. "Down with the IMF and the European Union!" "Down with Germany!" - these are the slogans raised in the demonstrations by the left and the extreme left, doing their best to defend Greek national capitalism.

In the USA, if the stock markets are taking a dive, it's all down to the instability in the EU; if companies are closing down, it's a result of the weakness of the euro, which is a handicap for the dollar and US exports...

In short: each national bourgeoisie is accusing its neighbour and blackmailing the workers it exploits: "accept sacrifices, otherwise the country will be weakened, and our competitors will take advantage of us". In this way the ruling class is trying to inject us with nationalism, which is a dangerous poison for the class struggle.

This world of division into competing nations is not ours. The working class has nothing to gain from being chained up to the capital of the country it lives in. To accept sacrifices today in the name of "defending the national economy" is just a way of preparing the ground for further and harder sacrifices tomorrow.

If Greece is on the edge of the abyss; if Spain, Italy, Ireland and Portugal are close behind; if Britain, France, Germany, the US are also in deep trouble, it's because capitalism is a dying system. All countries are doomed to sink deeper and deeper into this mess. For the last 40 years the world economy has been in crisis. Recessions have succeeded each other one after the other. Only a desperate flight into debt has up till now enabled capitalism to achieve any degree of growth. But the result of this today is that households, companies, banks and states are now weighed down with debt. The bankruptcy of Greece is just a caricature of the general and historical bankruptcy of this system of exploitation.

The ruling class needs to divide us: we need solidarity!
The strength of the working class is its unity!

The austerity plans now being announced are a frontal, generalised attack on our living conditions. The only possible response is therefore a massive movement from the workers. It's impossible to respond to these attacks by fighting in your own corner, in your own factory, school or office, isolated and alone. Fighting back on a massive scale is a necessity. It's the only alternative to being crushed separately and reduced to poverty.

But what is being done by the trade unions, those official ‘specialists' of the struggle? They organise strikes in numerous workplaces... without ever trying to unite them. They actively encourage sectional divisions, especially between private and public sector workers. They march the workers out on sterile ‘days of action'. They are in fact specialists in dividing the working class. The unions are equally adept at instilling nationalism. One example: the most common slogan of the Greek trade unions since the middle of March has been "buy Greek!"

Following the trade unions always means following the road to division and defeat. Workers need to take the struggle into their own hands, by organising in general assemblies and deciding on the demands and slogans to raise, by electing delegates who can be recalled at any moment and by sending massive delegations to discuss with other groups of workers, in the nearest factories, offices, schools and hospitals, with the aim of encouraging them to join the movement.

Going outside the trade unions, daring to take control of the struggle, taking the step of going to see other sectors of workers... all that seems very difficult. This is one of the obstacles to the development of the struggle today: the working class lacks confidence in itself. It is not yet aware of the enormous power it holds in its hands. For the moment, the violence of the attacks being mounted by capitalism, the brutality of the economic crisis, the proletariat's lack of self-confidence - all this tends to have a paralysing effect. The workers' response, even in Greece, is still well below what the gravity of the situation demands. And still the future belongs to the class struggle. Against the attacks, the only way forward is the development of increasingly massive movements.

Some people ask: "why wage such struggles? Where can they lead? Since capitalism is bankrupt, and no reform is really possible, doesn't that mean that there's no way out?" And indeed, inside this system of exploitation, there is no way out. But refusing to be treated like dogs and fighting back collectively means standing up for our dignity. It means realising that solidarity does exist in this world of competition and exploitation and that the working class is really capable of bringing this priceless human feeling to life. And then the possibility of another world can start to appear, a world without exploitation, nations or frontiers, a world made for human beings and not for profit. The working class can and must have confidence in itself. It alone is capable of building this new society and reconciling humanity with itself by taking what Marx called "the leap from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom".  

Capitalism is bankrupt, but another world is possible: communism!

This article is available as an article here [7] to download and distribute.

So, finally, the BA strike is on.

To judge from the media, you'd think the whole issue was something that goes on in the courts and in the top level negotiations between BA and union bosses.

First the courts issued an injunction against the strike- the latest in a series which have blocked even the most carefully organised official strikes, the most recent being the RMT strike a few weeks ago.  Then the Court of Appeal overturned the injunction.

Is this because the courts can really be on the side of the workers? No. Most likely it's because parts of the ruling class have realised that if you legally abolish even the appearance of a ‘right to strike', workers will have no alternative but to take matters into their own hands. The example of the unofficial oil refinery strikes, which spread so rapidly across the country, is very fresh in their memory.  

The truth is, however, that the ruling class have already made all effective strike action illegal. The law on ballots - aimed at preventing workers from taking decisions in mass meetings where they feel strongest and can launch struggles on the spot. The law on secondary action - aimed at preventing workers from going directly to workers from other categories and companies and asking them to join their fight.

These laws are often described as ‘Thatcher's anti-union laws'. In reality, Thatcher only carried on where the previous Labour government had left off; and the laws are really designed to increase the unions' grip over the workers, by outlawing all spontaneous, wildcat actions.

So now the BA workers are on strike. And there's no doubt that there is a strong will and determination on their part. Coming out on strike and losing pay at a time when many are struggling with rising living costs is not an easy decision to make. And the media, with their incessant campaigns about all the ‘inconvenience' caused by the strikes, are doing their best to make workers feel guilty and isolated. 

The problem is that the strike is taking place inside the cramped confines of the law and the union rule book, which are tailor-made to isolate workers even more.

The BA workers are not alone

Over the last decade and, especially since the September 11th attacks in New York, there has been a crisis in the airline industry. This has lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, for example  a report in the eTurbo News website (posted 24th February) states "As the U.S. airline industry lost tens of billions of dollars over the past 10 years, it also lost a tremendous number of employees. Nearly one in every four U.S. airline jobs disappeared in the 10 years that ended Dec. 31, and the largest airlines were among the hardest hit, according to new data." As it says, the largest airlines have been the hardest hit leading to huge job losses, 'voluntary' redundancies, agreements for the suspension of pay, changing shift patterns and attacks on travel 'perks' for airline employees. And this was before the current debt crisis hit the world. We are now seeing the bankruptcy not just of the big financial institutions but of entire nation states: Greece is in the front line but the whole Eurozone is under threat, as is Britain itself. 

None of the election parties made any secret of the fact that they were preparing to make huge cuts to deal with Britain's debt. The new government has already set the ball rolling. The public sector will be hardest hit, but no workers' job is safe today.

So BA cabin crew are in the same situation as the entire working class. But the present strike is being limited even within BA - to the cabin crew, as if the thousands of other BA employees from pilots to baggage handlers and catering and cleaning staff - haven't also got their grievances against the company. And as if hundreds of thousands of other workers employed by other airlines aren't facing the same attacks on their conditions.

There's a crying need for solidarity, for workers raising common demands and fighting together. But experience has shown that they can only get this solidarity if they act on their own behalf. The best example in the airline industry was supplied by the baggage handlers in 2005, when they walked out in solidarity with Gate Gourmet workers who were being trampled on by management. No ballots, no separation between workers with different jobs or bosses.

This kind of solidarity is what workers need now, and it will mean ‘illegally' making decisions in mass meetings, ‘illegally' sending pickets and delegations to workers in other categories and asking them to join the struggle. The law is there to protect the bosses and their state. Workers' solidarity can only develop if we develop our own power against them.

WR, 25/5/10.

"Guayana is a powder-keg". This phrase is often repeated by the representatives of the bourgeoisie, the leaders of political parties and unions, whether they are members of the opposition or favourable to the Chavez government; this is how all of them talk about the struggles and mobilisations being carried out by the working class in Cuidad Guayana (also known as the ‘Iron Zone', a huge working class concentration in the state of Bolivar, Venezuela) - movements that express the profound discontent of the Venezuelan working class as a result of the repeated attacks on its living conditions."

What is that frightens the bourgeoisie and its union guard-dogs so much?

The region of Ciudad Guayana is one of the biggest working-class concentrations in the country, with more than 100,000 workers who work in the so-called "Basic Companies" that produce and process iron, steel and aluminium; including an important number of workers in small and medium size companies that supply the big companies.

The whole of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie knows that Guayana is an area to be reckoned with. Since the 1960's the Guayana proletariat has shown its will to fight; one of the more remarkable struggles took place at the end of the decade, when the workers of the SIDOR steel company (one of the biggest in Latin America) confronted the state forces and the main union at the time, the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV). At that time, angry steel workers travelled the 380 miles from Guayana to Caracas to protest opposite the CTV headquarters, which were burnt by the strikers.

Chavez's government had a direct experience of the worker's courage in May 2001, when the SIDOR workers struck for 21 days due to the management's refusal to discuss the recently expired collective agreement[1].This forced the CTV and the steel union SUTISS[2] to join forces in order to prevent the strike spreading to other businesses in the region. So serious was the conflict that Chavez himself had to praise the strike's success to save face for the "workers' government".

From 2002 on, in Guayana as in the rest of the country, the proletariat was more and more led into political traps by the CTV-controlled unions, who opposed Chavez, as well as by the pro-Chavez unions (with Trostkyist currents acting inside them), who were starting to grow stronger. In this way the bourgeoisie got some peace on the labour front, leading the proletariat onto a ground where its interests didn't lie, creating division among the workers and weakening  their class solidarity.

But in 2007, at the same time as the oil workers were coming into struggle, the Guayana proletariat took up the fight again: the Venezuelan proletariat was searching for its class identity, confronting its enemies with its own demands. In view of this increase in labour conflicts Chavez's government, with the union's support, ordered SIDOR's nationalisation in March 2008; this was greeted with great fanfare. Nevertheless the nationalisation trick failed to stifle the workers' discontent even if it slowed down the demonstrations for some months. The workers kept putting on pressure for the discussion of the collective agreement; the precarious workers of the small businesses linked to the steel company mobilised to demand being hired directly by the steel company. As the permanent workers started showing their solidarity towards the precarious ones, the government and the unions began to attack and weaken this movement. Even so retired SIDOR workers as well as workers in the aluminium, iron and electrical industries held several demonstrations in 2008, demanding outstanding wages among other things (see the article ‘The bourgeois state of Chavez attacks the steel workers', https://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/apr/steel-struggles [9] )

But it was during 2009 that the struggle intensified:
- in July the aluminium workers started demonstrations that went on for a week: they demanded the payment of social benefits the workers are normally given in the middle of the year. The government suggested paying this in several parts; this enraged the workers who protested opposite the offices of the CVG (Corporación Venezolana de Guayana), which forced the government to divide the payment into two parts only;
- a few days later a SIDOR worker was killed in an industrial accident. That provoked a 24 hour strike in the steel plant: the workers demanded more investments for repairs because the accident happened as a result of a lack of maintenance in the system;
- that very month SIDOR workers started demonstrations in Guayana to demand payment from a profit-sharing scheme, a bonus the workers get in the middle of the year but which the company had failed to pay;
- in August in Ferrominera Orinoco (an iron extracting company), there was a strike that went on for 16 days in Ciudad Piar. The struggle was particularly strong in the San Isidro mine, where the workers remained firm on their demands for back payments and safety measures, all of them recent benefits achieved in the collective agreement. For 16 days the government and the management kept the strike "blacked out" A month later the general secretary of the Ferrominera union along with 10 workers was put under arrest;
- in October several workers and the CVG union leader were put under arrest too, while protesting opposite the Basic Companies Minister, Rodolfo Sanz, demanding the supply of work uniforms and other contractual claims;
- in December SIDOR workers went on an 8 hour strike because of the delay in the payment of the end-of-the-year bonuses; also the workers of the Basic Companies Carbonorca, Bauxilum and Alcasa protested because of the delay in payment of wages and bonuses;
- in 2009 the Ferrominara, Orinoco and Bauxilum co-op workers protested and so did the precarious employees of a company nationalised in 2009, Matesi.

Given that these mobilisations couldn't be stopped, either by the bureaucrats in government or by the unions, Chavez himself had to handle the issue: in March 2009 in Ciudad Piar he gave the Basic Company workers the stick, accusing them of pursuing "wealth" and "privileges", trying to sow discord between them and other workers and the population of the area in order to demoralise them, the same way he did with the oil workers in 2002[3]. Playing the fear card didn't work however, and the protests carried on, so he had to come back to Guayana two months later, this time "praising" the workers as a way of winning their support for the Socialist Guayana Plan which was supposed to take the local companies out of the crisis.

According to Chavez Venezuela is armoured against the crisis of capitalism. In fact the Venezuelan state is in a dangerous position because the fall in raw material prices after 2008 has limited national revenue and shown up a long-hidden reality: the Basic Companies are practically bankrupt and are a heavy burden on the state because of their low productivity, resulting from their obsolescence and lack of maintenance. The workers are made to pay the consequences of this of course: the state has refused to discuss the collective agreements on wages and bonuses, wage payments are delayed and the workers are even threatened with redundancies. As the bourgeoisie does at a global level, the crisis is used as a tool to attack workers' living standards and make their employment less secure. And since the end of 2009 rationing in electricity supply has been used to limit the production of iron and aluminium, putting pressure on part of the staff to take forced holidays and developing a situation of distress and insecurity among workers. Pushed by the workers' mobilisations the state has been forced to sign a number of collective agreements but delays in the paying of wages are common and are a frequent source of distress among workers.

It can be seen that capitalism's world crisis and its effects on Venezuela has become a factor that increases the workers' willingness to fight, since it cuts the state's income and therefore the national bourgeoisie's leeway, and they inevitably try to unload the crisis onto the workers' backs. The Guayana companies' unions, mostly pro-Chavez, are quickly losing credibility among the workers; the attempts to turn the local masses against the workers - using the Consejos Comunales (communal councils)- have failed, since the population is mainly made up of proletarian families whose survival depends on the workers, most of whom work precisely in the Basic Companies. Owing to the high working class concentration and the resistance shown by the workers, the bourgeoisie is not easily able to use the weapon of mass unemployment since it could be the fuel for upheavals and revolt among the population.

This situation has led to an impasse in the region: the bourgeoisie can't apply its plans in its own way and the proletariat, for the time being, hasn't got the force to impose itself against the state. This means that Guayana is a pressure cooker that could explode at any time.

The trap of worker's control

For Chavism and the Venezuelan bourgeoisie, Guayana has been a laboratory in its efforts to his wish to make employment more precarious. After having progressively weakened the working conditions of the oil workers, the bourgeoisie wants to do the same to the workers in the Iron Zone - workers which it sees as part of the "labour aristocracy" produced by the Social Democratic and Social Christian governments before Chavez.

In the middle of the last decade it was intended to make ALCASA (an aluminum producing plant and the first co-managed company) a model for the rest of the companies in the country. Actually the example it set was in the way it attacked the conditions of the aluminium workers, through the promotion of "socialist values", that is, work more and earn less; something like Stakhanovism, the "socialist emulation" promoted by the Stalinist bourgeoisie, whose main mouthpiece in Cuba was Che Guevara[4]. But workers in ALCASA didn't buy that, didn't accept worsening working conditions and reduced benefits, and co-management in the aluminium sector was a complete failure.

The government tried to do something similar with the "Socialist Gurayana Plan", based on "workers' control over production" through the "Consejos de Trabajadores" or "Workers' Councils", state institutions allegedly inspired by the Russian soviets of 1917.... Faced with the crisis in the basic industries, Chavism has taken on the Trotskyist slogan of "workers' control", which is very convenient for the bourgeoisie since it would lead the workers to accept the dterioration of their conditions with the excuse of "saving" the companies; thus, for example, the plan suggests the abolition of the "maximisation of profits at an individual level". Leading this project are the PSUV (Socialist Unified Party of Venezuela) and the companies' unions, all of them supporters of the Chavez project.

The Trotskyist unions, nowadays dissident Chavists, denounce this plan since it's not "genuine" workers' control and the state is still the boss. In this sense they serve to trick the workers into accepting the logic of defending the interests of the national capital, proposing that they should  save the companies through a true workers' control. In short, encouraging the workers to accept a form of self-exploitation where the bureaucrats are replaced by workers (preferably Trotskyist ones of course).

But the workers don't easily buy such fairy tales: after the Plan was approved last June they carried on the struggle for wage increases. This pushed the state to sign some collective agreements, while  the pro-government unions tried to divert workers' anger into a battle against the bureaucracy who, according to them, are the ones preventing "workers' participation"; they have even gone as far as supporting actions promoted by dissident unions to save their face in front of the workers. This context has been favourable to anti-Chavist union tendencies like the Trostkyist CCURA[5], who introduce themselves as equally critical of Chavism and the opposition.

Guayana's proletariat: a hard nut to crack

In view of the persistance of the workers in fighting for their demands, the government has attempted to criminalise the struggle: temporary arrests of workers, redundancy threats, even overt repression. These state actions, accompanied by union sabotage, led the protests to fall back at the beginning of 2010. Nevertheless in Guayana the atmosphere is of unresolved tension, an imposed calm that can explode any time.

The attacks of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie are leading the Guayana proletariat to take a stand on a class terrain, showing that it is not willing to sacrifice itself passively for the bourgeois project of "21st century socialism". It seems that with the acceleration of capitalism's crisis the proletariat is recovering its combativity.

The Guayana proletariat, like the whole of the working class, hasn't got any other option: either it carries on the fight against the attacks of capital (state or private) or capital will further impoverish workers and their families. The actions of the unions (those false friends of the workers but genuine defenders of national capital), corporatism, co-operativism, workers' control, co-management, all the schemes aimed at locking up the workers in "their " companies, all of them are factors that hinder the class struggle. The answer to these and other obstacles has been provided by the working class itself: the assemblies where grass-roots workers can express themselves; the spreading of struggles and the seach for class solidarity, not only in Guayana's companies but on a national, even international, level.

In Guayana the conditions are coming together for developing and strengthening solidarity between the workers and the population, since most of the inhabitants of the region have a relative in the  local companies. If Guayana's proletariat is able to keep the fight going in spite of the abuse from government, parties and unions, it will set an example to the rest of the workers in the country, and    create a link between its struggle and the movements of the global proletariat in Greece, Spain, France, Peru and other countries.

The task of the most politicised minorities in the class is to take part with all their strength in the process of resistance by the proletariat in Guyana and all around the country; their task is to denounce all the traps and obstacles on the path towards class consciousness. The proletariat of Guayana and Venezuela is not alone in its task, since its fight is part of a movement that is slowly emerging at a global level.

Internacionalismo, 06/03/2010

[1] At this time state capital had a minority paricipation in steel, the majority being in the hands of the private capital of the Tchint corporation

[2] Unified union of the steel industry, then controlled by a centre left party

[3] Chavez could not hide his anger at the workers at this point: "We are going to profit from this to clean up the enterprises of the CVG. If they threaten to stop work or they do stop work, I will deal with this myself! I have already been through the strike at Pàvsa....people who go on strike in a state enterprise are bothering the president of the republic" (Correo del Caroni, 7.3.2009).

[4] It's no accident that one of the government Missions is called ‘Che Guevara'. As it preaches on its website, it offers "an integral programme of training and qualification in the productive occupations, aimed at transforming the capitalist economic model into a socialist model" 

[5]  See the article in Internacialismo 58, ‘Correo del Lector: Los trabajadores inician la lucha, los sindicatos la sabotean' (‘Reader's letter: the workers enter into struggle, and the unions sabotage it')

https://es.internationalism.org/ismo/2000s/2010s/2010/58_E [10]

Recently the media has been talking about revolution and we have seen scenes of mass street protests and violence on our TV screens. In Kyrgyzstan, armed workers in the street kicked out the government. In Thailand, massive political protests by ‘Red Shirts' have been continuing for more than a month now. For communists it is important to ask what the nature of these movements is.

Firstly the movement in Kyrgyzstan, in April, certainly included large numbers of workers on the streets. In the months preceding the events there had been massive prices increases; gas for heating had risen 400% and electricity by 170%. All this in a country where the average monthly wage is only around $30-50. Events came to a head on April 6th with a massive protest in Tals, caused by another round of price increases in fuel and transport costs. These rises were directly caused by Russia's decision to impose new duties on energy exports to Kyrgyzstan on April 1st. Demonstrators stormed the government buildings, but they were later retaken by riot police.

The following day protests in the capital, Bishek, were attacked by police who disarmed them taking control of police vehicles and automatic weapons. The demonstrations grew, and the police responded with more violence. Protestors then drove two trucks at the gates of the Presidential White House, and the police responded by firing live ammunition, killing at least 41 protestors. Later in the day protestors stormed the palace, and the government was forced to flee.

A paper of the English ruling class, The Financial Times, quoted exiled opposition leader, Edil Baisalov as saying "What we are seeing is a classic popular uprising. This is a revolution, and it is bloody. ...This is what happens when you hold the lid on the cooking pot too tightly - it explodes".

It is clear that the government was overthrown. The question that communists have to answer is whether this was a revolution, or whether it was a struggle in which workers were used between different ruling class groups struggling to control the state.

For us, it is very clear that what has happened here is merely a change of bosses. Interestingly enough the recently ousted President Bakayev came to power just 5 years ago in the so-called "Tulip revolution", another ‘popular' movement. Although workers were the ones who actually overthrew the government, they weren't fighting for their own interests. There were no workers' councils, no workers organs' prepared to seize power. The workers were being used as foot soldiers by different factions of the bosses. Roza Otunbayeva, the acting head of the provisional government, was previously foreign minister of the government after the "Tulip revolution" It would be fair to say that nothing has changed but the faces of the leaders, and not even all of them.

Imperialist games

Added to this is the international dimension. Russia and the US, who have been in dispute for some time about US bases in Kyrgyzstan and the region as a whole, were quick to deny Russian involvement. Michael McFaul, a senior United States White House adviser on Russian affairs, was quick to state that the seizure of power by the Kyrgyz opposition was not anti-American in nature, and was not a Russian backed coup. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin himself denied any Russian involvement and said that the incident had personally caught him "off guard" and that "Neither Russia nor your humble servant nor Russian officials have anything to do with these events". Unfortunately for them, the new rulers of Kyrgyzstan don't have the same experience of playing political games. Omurbek Tekebayev, a leading figure in the new government gave the game away: "Russia played its role in ousting Bakiyev. You've seen the level of Russia's joy when they saw Bakiyev gone". Russia immediately recognized the new government, and Putin quickly rang Otunbayeva to ‘congratulate' her. On the 9th April, Almazbek Atambayev, deputy head of the new government, was in Moscow for ‘consultation' with unspecified Russian government officials, according to the official Russian state news agency.

Thailand: not a workers' movement

The events in Thailand also seem to be a struggle between different factions of the ruling class. The ‘Red Shirts', the nickname of the ‘National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship', is mostly a movement in support of the multi-billionaire, Thaksin Shinawatra, a former Prime Minister of Thailand in exile from Thailand due to corruption charges. The ‘Red Shirt' movement is basically one of the urban and rural poor, mobilised behind the new bourgeoisie, who are opposed to the ‘old' military and monarchist factions. It is not a movement of, or controlled by, the working class. The only workers' action during this period, a strike of 8,000 workers at the Camera maker Nikon, emerged completely independently of the ‘Red Shirt' movement.

And here lies the central point of our argument. These so-called ‘revolutions', like the ‘Green movement' in Iran recently, are not movements of the working class. Yes, there are many workers involved in them, and probably in the case of Kyrgyzstan a majority of the participants were workers, but they take part in these actions as individuals not as workers. The movement of the working class is one that can only be based upon class struggle of workers for their own interests, not cross-class alliances and populist movements. It is only within a massive movement of strikes that the working class can develop its own organs, mass meetings, strike committees and ultimately workers' councils, that can assert working class control over the movement, and develop a struggle for working class interests. Outside of this perspective is only the possibility of workers being used as cannon-fodder for different political factions. In Greece, perhaps, we can see the very start of the long slow development towards this process. In Kyrgyzstan, and Thailand, we only see workers getting shot down in the streets on behalf of those who want to be the new bosses.

Sabri, 1/5/10.

ANew Acceleration of Global Crises of Capitalism and Perspectivesfor the Development Class Struggle

ICC held a public meeting in New Delhi on 2 May 2010on the above subject. The meeting went on from 12.30 Hours to 17.30 Hrs and discussionsduring the meeting turned out quite lively. 

Discussion was divided in two parts:

1.       New acceleration of crises exemplified byeconomic collapse of Greece.

2.       The development of class struggle in theface of generalized attacks

A New Acceleration of Crises

ICC opened the meeting with a presentation focusedon the first part of the discussion. Presentation spoke of the open expressionsof this crisis: spiraling of budget deficit of Greece to 13.6%, its Debt to GDPratio to 115%, downgrading of Greece Government loans to the level of junk andrefusal by banks to give any loans to Greek state thus threatening its bankruptcy.Although events in Greecewere expression of a serious crisis, the reason they sent shock waves throughthe world bourgeoisie was not due to any concern for Greece. The reason for the fear ofthe world bourgeoisie lies in their knowledge that Greece is not exception. Othercountries in Europe are in the same or worsesituation. At 12%, Budget deficit of Britainis second highest in Europe, followed by Spainat 11.2% and Portugalat 9.3%.  Thus, far from being anexception, the bankruptcy that is staring Greece today is a curtain raiser forthe fate of many countries in the world.

These events denote a new, catastrophic accelerationof global capitalist crises that began in 2008.  The discussions saw the present acceleration asa continuation of the crises of 2008. In 2008 bourgeoisie was able to avoid collapseof global financial system by gigantic injection of the same medicine,mountains of new debts, which had caused these catastrophic explosions in thefirst place. That exercise did stave off a complete collapse of the financialsystem at the moment. But this effort of saving the system by more of the samedid not resolve the problems afflicting the global capitalist system.

While immediate background of threat ofbankruptcy of capitalist states is the shattering of the global financialsystem in 2008, its roots go back to the end of 1960's.  1968 is the year when the period ofreconstruction ushered by world war two came to an end and when a cycle ofinexorable permanent decline and collapse of capitalism began. Since then thebourgeoisie has met every cycle of crises of over production by creating moredebts to artificially stimulate the markets, try to overcome its immediateproblems and postpone the hour of reckoning. Over the last some decades, giventhe fact that real economy has continued to shrink, especially in advancedcapitalist countries, these debts have only been offset by newer and moregigantic debts, both private and state. Also, as the real economy declined andavenues for capital to earn profits by productive means disappeared,bourgeoisie has more and more turned to exotic, speculative methods to earnprofits, method that even the bourgeoisie now call gambling and casino economy.Although the states now blame banks, it is not only the banks that haveresorted to this gambling with trillions of dollars. Even manufacturingcompanies, unable to earn profits in their own businesses, resort to thesespeculations and bets.

The collapse of the financial sector thatoccurred in 2008 was result of the explosions of contradictions that had beengathering within capitalism since previous decades. This collapse came as thecrises of gigantic debt that could no longer be paid and that pulled down anddestroyed some of the greatest banks in the world. The world bourgeoisie wasable to avert complete collapse of its system by pumping trillions of dollarsinto banks and into the economy in general. This did not resolve anything forthe bourgeoisies. It only meant that the hour has been postponed and the logicthat had pulled down the banks in 2008 will soon apply to the states that havebeen building debts.

This is what is happening today. Manystates, even USA whosebudget deficit is 12.3%, are in same condition as Greece. Many have debts that arebigger than their GDP. These have to be paid. The capitalist ‘markets' believethat many of these debtor states can not really repay and they stopped lendingmore money to these states. This is what triggered the bankruptcy of Greece. Many Europeancountries are in the same boat. Their incomes are not enough even to sustaintheir current expenses what to talk of sparing money for repayment of debts.These states are therefore starting a new, brutal offensive against the workingclass. Greecehas declared reduction of wages and pensions of public sector workers by 25%and similar cuts in social wages. Other countries like Spain, Portugaland Britainare preparing the same.

A possibility was posed - the bourgeoisiewill possibly resort to nationalizations to overcome its crises. After all thishas served the bourgeoisie well in the past. Why not now?

Ensuing discussion tried to clarify why thisis not an option for bourgeoisie today. It cannot really help the bourgeoisieto improve the situation. In this context the discussion recalled the wholehistory of nationalizations and the conditions in which it served thebourgeoisie well. Discussion further recalled how and why, in the face ofworsening crises, the process of denationalization, began in 1980's. Today theconditions are such that nationalizations will not solve any problems for thebourgeoisies. 

Another question was posed. Why shouldworking class in Indiabother about Greece?After all Indian economy seems to be doing well. In response discussionrecalled the experience of 2008. When the global financial system collapsed,the bourgeoisie in Indiainitially showed nonchalance. The crises will not touch us, they said. Butsituation quickly changed, exports fell dramatically and whole sectors of theeconomy - auto, construction, cement, textiles, diamond exports, IT etc - justground to halt with millions of workers loosing their jobs. This was inaddition to the immense poverty and misery that is the lot of the working classin India.What 2008 proved was that Indian economy is tightly linked to global economy.Any storms in the world capitalist system can not but shake up the Indianeconomy. In 2008, Indian bourgeoisie also used the same medicine to get out ofthe crisis as the rest of global bourgeoisie - more debts, easing of moneysupply. As the present storms in the world capitalist system gather strength,it can not but shake up Indian economy and further accelerate attacks on theworking class in India.

In the context of worsening economicconditions of the working class in India, an intervention raised the questionof very high levels of unemployment in India that is destroying the future ofwhole generations of people. 

Development of Class Struggle

The briefpresentation initiating this discussion explained that today the working classis not defeated. It has already been developing its struggles everywhere in theworld. Also, there is a tendency for these struggles to be more and moresimultaneous. Different parts of the class in same geographic areas arestruggling at more or less the same time thus opening up the possibility ofextension and development of solidarity. This can also be seen in struggles inGurgaon last year.

At thesame time, bourgeoisie has now started open, brutal and generalised attacksagainst the working class in many countries in the world. This is alreadyforcing the working class to respond in a massive manner and will do the samein the coming period. These have the potential of developing into massstruggles. The development of these struggles and their politicization providesworking class with an opportunity to develop its challenge to the capitalistsystem.

A long anddeep discussion developed on this. Several questions were posed and clarified:

1.     Is it given that this newacceleration of crises will give rise to massive struggles of the class?

2.     What has been stoppingthe class from developing a massive response so far?

3.     What is the role of therevolutionaries in all this?

4.     What should we do?

Thediscussion concluded that the present acceleration of crises opens a period ofimpoverishment and suffering for the working class. But it also provides anopportunity for the class to develop its class identity, its class unity, itsstruggles and its consciousness. It provides an opportunity for the class todevelop mass struggles that can open a challenge to the bourgeoisie. There isnothing predetermined about it but indications seems to point to a directionwhere all this may yet be realized.

Thediscussion tried to answer ‘what has stopped the class so far'. One point made duringthis discussion was on loss of historical continuity, loss of the profound learningand deepening of consciousness that the working class had gone throughprogressively from early 19th century up to the Russian revolution. Thiswas a great strength of the class in that period and allowed it to quicklyovercome major setbacks. This strength was lost when revolution in Russiadegenerated and was defeated in other countries. Stalinist counter-revolution thattriumphed in Russiawas able to burry these historical acquisitions and strengths of the class. Ofthe many other barriers today are: weight of trade unionism, myth of democracy,nationalism, ethnicism, weight of decomposition and every man for himself andnear totalitarian control of the bourgeois propaganda.

Adiscussion on the role of revolutionaries started by underlining two things:

-      Their indispensable role in the struggle of the workingclass for its self emancipation;

-      Ability of the class to develop its struggles in the faceof attacks of the bourgeoisies.

Whetherthe workers in Greece, in Portugal, in Spainor Britainwill be able to respond to the massive attacks of the bourgeoisie is notdetermined by the presence or absence of revolutionaries. If it were so, thenthe cause of the working class will be a lost one. It is the very nature of theworking class, its place in capitalist society that leads it to develop itsidentity, its unity and it's combat against the bourgeoisie. It is in theprocess of politcisation of its struggles, in their posing the question of thedestruction of capitalist society and construction of communist society thatthe role of revolutionaries becomes indispensable.

Answering thelast question - ‘what should we do', ICC explained that the best way tostrengthen the struggle of the working class today is by helping build andstrengthen revolutionary organizations. Comrades present could accelerate theireffort to clarify the communist positions, build solidarity with us, join theICC and help develop communist intervention in the working class so that questionof politicizations of the struggles of the working class and destruction ofcapitalism can be practically posed.

Jvn,  9th May 2010

As it became clear that David Cameron was going to become Prime Minister, Socialist Worker (11/5/10) published an online article that started "The open class enemy is poised to enter 10 Downing Street."

In continuity with its entire history the SWP again wheeled out the idea that a vote for Labour showed a basic class instinct.

It's true that when workers go to polling stations they often vote Labour. Take a look at the maps published at every election. The bits coloured red, showing where the Labour vote is (in Central Scotland, the North East, North West, Midlands, South Wales and London) are particular concentrations of the working class. Of all the papers only the Mirror and Daily Record consistently support Labour, yet nearly nine million people vote for the party.

What this shows is the strength of the illusions in the Labour Party, in the idea that it is somehow different from the other parties. The SWP say that "After the general election no party has a mandate to impose cuts." This is the opposite of the truth. All the main parties were committed to dealing with the deficit, and that means cuts, as much by Labour as the others. Blair, Brown and Darling paved the way for Cameron and Clegg every bit as much as Labour's Wilson, Callaghan and Healey in the 1970s started the attacks on the social wage and workers' living standards that were taken up by the Thatcher government in the 1980s.

Among the biggest difficulties for the working class in Britain is breaking from all the illusions in Labour. Yes, millions of workers vote Labour, but that's part of the problem, part of putting your confidence in others (who have a commitment to capitalism) rather than in the potential of the struggle of the working class.

The SWP says that "Labour held onto its core vote because its core vote hates the Tories." The problem here is that the whole idea of ‘Tories are toffs but Labour is different' is cultivated and nourished by the leftists. This election showed again that there is still a powerful idea that Labour has something to do with the working class. The truth is that Labour is the ‘disguised' enemy of the working class where the Tories are more transparent.

In Socialist Worker you can read "The truth is that the election showed the enduring strength of Labourism. In the end a substantial number of working people decided they could not stomach the threat of a Tory government. Many workers are only too well aware of Labour's failure. But they feared the Tories more and stuck to Labour rather than the party of the open class enemy." In reality all the capitalist parties have their role to play, but while Labour or LibDem can use a more radical language, and no doubt there are more Old Etonians in the Tory ranks, they are all capable of making the cuts that hit the working class. To think otherwise is to fall for the lies of the bourgeoisie.

Socialist Worker (10/4/10) declared that "Working class confidence and struggle matters more than elections, but who wins them, does matter. Governments can raise taxes on the rich or lower them. They can invest more money in hospitals or cut funding." It's quite right to point to the importance of struggles and developing confidence in the working class. But what can seriously undermine workers' struggles and consciousness are illusions in the capitalist economy and its state. Whether under a Tory/LibDem coalition, or under Labour, New or Old, capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class and the capitalist state can only defend the interests of the ruling bourgeois class. Capitalism is based on the pursuit of profit, not the needs of the exploited.

For more than ninety years Labour hasn't been a party of ‘failure' but an integral part of the political apparatus of capitalism in Britain. Spreading illusions in the Labour Party only backs up the dominant ideas of the ruling class. For the working class what's most important is developing an understanding of what workers' self-organisation is capable of, and seeing the full extent of its enemies.   Car 12/5/10

They are appealing for money to help in this struggle. We want to stress that they are not asking for money to feed themselves during a strike. Although this type of solidarity can be important, very often it never gets to the actual strikers involved, and even if it does, it can do little to alleviate suffering amongst the tens of thousands of families affected by a big strike. What they are asking for is money to enable them to organize activities necessary for the struggle. Turkey is a very big country (traveling across it is like traveling from London to Warsaw), and TEKEL, for example, is a company with workers all across the country. Traveling to meetings costs money as does organizing things such as leafleting, fly-postering, and public meetings, and money is something which workers after a long struggle in one of the poorest countries in Europe lack.

Don't be put off if you can't afford much. Remember that Turkey is one of the poorest countries in Europe, and that even a little money can go a long way, for example the price of a packet of cigarettes and a beer in Europe can be enough to send a worker to a meeting in another city.

You can use the Paypal button at the side of the web site to send money directly to the Platform of Struggling Workers.

To learn more about the Tekel workers' struggle, read our news and articles covering the strike [2] .