INTERNASYONALISMO

WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

Workers have no country. Their class interest have no boundaries.

April 30, 2008

Labor Day Statement

Diwa ng Mayo Uno: MAGKAISA AT MAKIBAKA LABAN SA KAPITALISMO!

Dineklara ng lahat ng manggagawa sa mundo ang Mayo Uno bilang Internasyunal na Araw ng Paggawa. Isa lamang ang ibig sabihin nito: Ang mga manggagawa ay isang internasyunal na uri at pareho ang mga interes at pinaglalaban kahit saang bansa man sila. Iisa lamang ang kaaway ng mga manggagawa sa buong mundo – ang uring kapitalista at ang bulok na sistema nito.

Subalit hindi pagbubunyi ang ginagawa ngayon ng naghihirap na mga manggagawa sa kanilang Internasyunal na Araw kundi mga kilusang protesta. Nagdurusa ang mga manggagawa, sa mga atrasadong bansa man gaya ng Pilipinas o sa mga abanteng bansa gaya ng Amerika sa mataas na presyo ng mga batayang bilihin laluna ng bigas, mababang sahod, di-makataong kalagayan ng trabaho, walang katiyakan ng trabaho, pagkalubog sa utang, kawalan ng permanenteng tirahan at marami pang iba.

Daang libong mga manggagawa ang nagwelga sa France, Germany, Amerika, Britain, Greece, Bangladesh, Egypt, Dubai at iba pang bansa laban sa mga atake ng kapital sa kanilang pamumuhay mula 2003. Malawak na mga welga ang sagot ng mga manggagawa laban sa krisis ng kapitalismo. Sa mga welgang ito temporaryong napahinto ng mga manggagawa ang mga atake ng kapital at nakamit ng masang anakpawis ang ilang mga temporaryong tagumpay.

Ang kalagayan ng manggagawang Pilipino

Magkatulad ang kalagayan at kahirapang naranasan ng manggagawang Pilipino at ng kanilang mga kapatid na manggagawa sa ibang mga bansa. Isang malaking KASINUNGALINGAN ang propaganda ng mga kapitalista at ng gobyerno na magkaiba daw ang kalagayan ng mga manggagawa sa Pilipinas at sa ibang mga bansa laluna sa mga abanteng bansa gaya ng Amerika. Sapat na ang mga karanasan ng ating OFWs at ng mga welga mismo sa naturang mga bansa para makita natin ang katotohanan mula sa kasinungalingan.

Subalit maraming hadlang sa pag-unlad ng pakikibaka ng manggagawang Pilipino na nagbunga ng demoralisasyon at kawalang tiwala sa lakas ng sariling pagkakaisa.

Ano ang mga hadlang sa pag-unlad ng pakikibaka ng manggagawang Pilipino?

Una, pag-asa na mayroong “tagapagligtas” sa kanila mula sa kahirapan at pang-aapi ng kapitalista at ng gobyerno. Ang inaasahan nila ay ang mga unyon, mga abogado, mga relihiyoso, panggitnang uri, mga politiko at mga elektoral na partido. Ang iba ay umaasa sa mga armadong gerilya at mga rebeldeng militar.

Pangalawa, paniniwala na ang pagkatalo at kabiguan ay isang “tagumpay”. Ang mga pangako at panlilinlang ng kapitalista at gobyerno ay iniisip na “tagumpay”. Ang settlement ng DOLE at NLRC ay pinaniwalaang “tagumpay ng pakikibaka”. Ang malaking perang binayad ng management bilang separation pay ay iniisip  na “tagumpay” ng mga kaso sa NLRC at DOLE.

Pangatlo, pag-iisip na walang magandang ibubunga ang paglaban sa kapitalista at gobyerno dahil siguradong talo pa rin. Kaya mabuti pang tiisin ang kahirapan at patayin ang katawan sa trabaho para lalaki ang kita. Pag-iisip na walang magagawa ang pagkakaisa at mabuti pang magkanya-kanya ng paghahanp-buhay. 

Dalawang hakbang tungo sa tagumpay ng pakikibaka

Ang unang hakbang tungo sa tagumpay ng pakikibaka ay hawakan mismo ng mga manggagawa ang pagsusuri sa kanilang kalagayan at ang pagdesisyon kung ano ang dapat gawin at HINDI aasa sa mga “tagapgligtas”. Ang kongkretong ekspresyon nito ay ang mga ASEMBLIYA o malawak na pulong ng mga manggagawa — hindi lang sa loob ng pabrika kundi ng iba’t-ibang pabrika para mag-usap, magdiskusyon at magdebate hanggang makamit ang kolektibong pagkakaisa kung ano ang dapat gawin. Pero magagawa lamang ito kung independyente ang mga ASEMBLIYA mula sa kontrol ng anumang tipo ng unyon o elektoral na partido. Hinati-hati at pinahihina lamang ng mga unyon at elektoral na partido ang ating pagkakaisa.  

Ang mga ASEMBLIYA ng lahat ng manggagawa (dadaluhan ng mga regular, kontraktwal, unyonista at di-unyonista, empleyado ng publiko o pribadong empresa, walang trabaho, at mga indibidwal na totoong tumindig para sa interes ng manggagawa) ang epektibong organisasyon ng pakikibaka laban sa pagsasamantala ng mga kapitalista at ng gobyerno sa kasalukuyang panahon at hindi ang mga unyon at elektoral na partido.

Ang mga ASEMBLIYA ng manggagawa ng iba’t-ibang pabrika ang tunay na ekspresyon ng pagkakaisa. Kung hindi pa kakayanin ang mga asembliya ay maaring magsimula sa mga grupo ng diskusyon at talakayan upang pag-usapan at suriin ang kalagayan at karanasan sa loob ng pagawaan.

Dapat nating muling isabuhay ang kasabihan na napatunayang wasto sa mahigit 200 taon na pakikibaka ng manggagawa sa buong mundo: ANG EMANSIPASYON NG MGA MANGGAGAWA AY NASA PAGKAKAISA MISMO NG MGA MANGGAGAWA.

Ang pangalawang hakbang tungo sa tagumpay ng pakikibaka ay ang pagtanggap sa katotohanan na WALANG maibigay na matagalang kagalingan ang kapitalistang gobyerno at sistema para sa mga manggagawa hawak man ito ng administarsyon o oposisyon, ng Kanan o Kaliwa ng burgesya. Ang tanging maibigay lamang nila ay panlilinlang at mga pangakong hindi matutupad, ibayong pang-aapi, pagdurusa at kahirapan. Nasa permanenteng krisis na ang kapitalismo at para makahinga pa ito, kailangan nitong ilublob tayo sa kahirapan. WALANG MAAASAHAN SA GOBYERNO. Para makaraos sa kahirapan, kailangang magkaisa at lumaban ang mga manggagawa sa buong daigdig.

INTERNASYONALISMO
Mayo 1, 2008

Contact us: internasyonalismo@yahoo.com

April 27, 2008

On Popular Front, Partial Struggles and the Union Question: A Reply to a Comment

Una sa lahat, nagpapasalamat kami kay JK sa kanyang prangka at praternal na komentaryo sa paninindigan ng grupong Internasyonalismo sa Pilipinas. Ang diskusyon at debate ay kailangan para sa teoritikal na klaripikasyon ng lahat ng mga elementong seryoso para mabago ang bulok na kasalukuyang kapitalistang sistema. At ang pinakamahalagang porma ng diskusyon at talakayan ay harapan sa isang praternal na pulong.

Sa aming pagkaunawa tatlong mahalagang magkaugnay na usapin ang pinahayag ni JK sa kanyang komentaryo:

  • Ang usapin ng pakikipag-isang prente sa mga organisasyong Sosyal-Demokrata at Stalinista
  • Ang parsyal at sektoral na pakikibaka
  • Ang pagpasok sa mga unyon

I. Ang pakikipag-isang prente

Ayon kay JK “kahit sila ay may maka-kapitalistang programa at liderato ang mga samahang ito ay nakapaloob pa rin ng kilusang manggagawa na dapat ipagtanggol laban sa atake ng maka-uring kaaway. Ito ay nakasandig sa di-sektaryan at maka-uring pakikibakang tradisyon ng kampanya…” Nakaangkla ang argumento niya na “Ang komunista, bagamat hindi niya sinasang-ayunan ang pampulitikang programa ng iba pang tunguhing nakabase sa manggagawa, pati na rin ang mga nakikibaka para sa karapatan ng mga aping saray, ay may tungkulin na lumahok at sikaping pamunuan ang mga pakikibakang ito… bilang tribuyn / tagapagtanggol ng mga api.

Ang usapin ng pakikipag-isang prente o prente popular sa panahon ng WW 2 ay unang lumitaw sa panahon ng 1920s ng matalo ang rebolusyong Aleman at na-isolate ang rebolusyong Ruso. Ito ang istorikal na konteksto ng ganitong taktika. Bagama’t maari ding ikonsidera na “pakikipag-isang prente” ang pagsuporta ng mga komunista sa 19 siglo sa burges na rebolusyon at sa liderato ng burgesya, sa esensya hindi ito ang konsiderasyon ni JK dahil para sa kanya “ang mga samahang ito ay nakapaloob pa rin ng kilusang manggagawa”.

Naging gabay ng tunguhin ng pakikipag-isang prente ang pampleto ni Lenin na “Kaliwang-komunismo, sakit ng kamusmusan”.

Subalit kaiba ang praktika ng mga internasyunalistang komunista sa pangunguna nila Lenin, Luxemburg at Trotsky sa panahon ng WW I. Hindi nakipag-alyansa at hindi kinilala ng mga komunista noon ang Sosyal-Demokrasya na kabilang sa kilusang manggagawa ng ang huli ay nagtraydor sa proletaryong internasyunalismo at lumahok sa inter-imperyalistang digmaan. Sa halip, tahasang nilantad nila ang pagtraydor ng Sosyal-Demokrasya. Inilantad nila na ito ay kaaway ng uring manggagawa. Katunayan, hiwalay na naglunsad ng kumperensya ang mga internasyunalista sa Zimmerwald upang manindigan sa internasyunalismo.

Nang napatunayan sa kasaysayan na tama sila Lenin, nanalo ang rebolusyong Oktubre at itinayo ang Comintern, malinaw na sa kongreso ng pagkakatatag (founding congress) nito ay hindi pinapasok ang mga traydor (social-traitors) na SD organisasyon o pinagtanggol ng una ang huli dahil “bahagi ng kilusang manggagawa.”

Subalit mismong ang mga matatag na internasyunalista sa panahon ng WW I tulad nila Lenin at Trotsky ay nagkamali ng ma-isolate ang rebolusyong Ruso. Pinagtanggol nila ang pakipag-alyansa sa Sosyal-Demokrasya at pagpasok sa mga unyon para “mapalapit sa masa” at “mapalawak ang baseng suporta” laban sa pangungubkob ng mga imperyalista. Ang kongkretong karanasan ng kilusang manggagawa sa mahigit 70 taon ang nagpatunay kung tama o mali ba ang pampletong “Kaliwang-komunista, sakit ng kamusmusan”. Ang pampletong ito ni Lenin ang ginawang bibliya ng mga Stalinista-Maoista hanggang ngayon para kilalaning “kaaway” ng uring manggagawa ang mga kaliwang-komunisya partikular ang German-Dutch communist-lefts at ang Italian commnunist-left.

Pinagbayaran ng mahal ang pagkakamaling ito dahil sa pag-akyat ng Stalinismo sa Rusya at sa iba pang mga partido komunista. Ganap ng naging kontra-rebolusyonaryo ang mga partidong ito hanggang sa tuluyan na nilang wasakin ang internasyunal na partido ng uri – ang Comintern. Naghari ang kontra-rebolusyon sa loob ng 50 taon hanggang natapos ito noong huling bahagi ng 1960s ng pumutok ang serye ng independyenteng aksyon ng internasyunal na manggagawa na binuksan ng malawakang welga ng milyun-milyong manggagawa sa France. Dahil sa panawagang depensahan ang Stalinistang USSR sa panahon ng WW 2, tuluyan ng tinalikuran ng Trotskyismo ang kampo ng proletaryong internasyunalismo at niyakap ang prente popular at entreyismo.

Ang mga organisasyong SD, Stalinista-Maoista at Trotskyista  sa loob ng kilusang paggawa ay hindi BAHAGI nito kundi instrumento ng burgesya para pigilan at i-sabotahe ang makauring kamalayan at pagkakaisa ng proletaryado. Ang pagtatanggol sa mga organisasyong nagtraydor sa kilusang paggawa ay pagsuporta sa burgesya. Ito ba ay sektaryan? Palagay namin ay hindi. Ito ay Marxistang tradisyon para makonsolida ang uri sa kanyang sariling landas ng pakikibaka.

Sa Pilipinas, sapat na ang aral na mahalaw natin sa kontra-rebolusyonaryong aktibidad ng mga Maoista sa usapin ng pakikipag-isang prente. Ang mga Maoista ang may pinaka-mayamang karanasan sa united front pero sila ang pinakamasahol na sektaryan na organisasyon.

Kailangang nasa loob at unahan ng kilusang manggagawa ang mga komunista tulad ng pahayag ni JK. Pero para sa amin, esensyal na tungkulin ng huli na ilantad sa malawak na masa ang mga organisasyon na galamay ng burgesya sa loob ng kilusan. At ang epektibong paraan ay ang hindi pagsama at pagsuporta sa mga kontra-rebolusyonaryo at traydor na organisasyon.

Sang-ayon kami kay JK na kailangang bakahin at labanan ang sektaryanismo. At sa aming maiksing karanasan sa Pilipinas at sa mahigit 30 taong pag-iral ng ICC sa internasyunal na saklaw, laging mulat ang mga kaliwang komunista sa pagbaka sa sektaryanismo. At napatunayan namin ito sa aming interbensyon sa kilusang manggagawa sa bawat yugto ng kanilang pakikibaka ayon sa aming kapasidad. Maging noong 1930s-50s kung saan halos ganap na nahiwalay ang mga kaliwang komunista sa kanilang uri, nagsisikap pa rin itong magkaroon ng mga interbensyon sa kanilang pakikibaka ayon sa paninindigan ng Marxismo.

Hindi sektaryanismo ang matatag na pagtindig sa rebolusyonaryong prinsipyo na napatunayan na sa karanasan na tama.

Ang isa pang mali na batayan sa “pagtatanggol” sa mga Stalinista-Maoistang organisasyon ay ang paniniwala na may “sosyalismo” sa kanilang programa gaya ng paniniwala ni Trotsky na may sosyalismo sa Stalinismo kaya nanindigan siya na “depormadong estado ng manggagawa” ang USSR na siya namang tangan-tangan ng maraming Trotskyistang mga paksyon sa kasalukuyan kabilang na ang RGK-LFI sa Pilipinas.

II. Ang parsyal at sektoral na pakikibaka

Ayon kay JK: “Hindi mapapalaya ng uring manggagawa ang sarili niya kung hindi niya pamumunuan ang pakikibaka para palayain ang iba pang inaapi ng uring burgesya, halimbawa ang kababaihan, pambansang minorya, mga homosekswal atbp.”

Para sa amin, ang bulok na kapitalistang sistema ang puno’t-dulo ng kahirapan at kaapihang dinanas ng mga di-proletaryong pinagsamantalahang saray sa lipunan. Katunayan,  ang permanenteng krisis mismo ng kapitalismo ang siyang dahilan kung bakit isang proseso lamang ng proletaryanisasyon ang dinaanan ng mga saray na ito ay hindi na sila ganap na napasok sa kapitalistang produksyon o sa mga pabrika, ang pangalawa at pinal na proseso. Halimbawa, ang mga maralitang magsasaka o mababang saray ng peti-burges na dinurog ng kapitalismo ay hindi naging mga manggagawa. Kaya dumarami ngayon ang impormal na sektor o maralitang tagalungsod.

Mapalaya lamang ang mga saray na ito kung lubusan ng madurog ang mga kapitalistang relasyon sa lipunan. Ito ang aming batayan kung paano titingnan ang mga saray na ito. Pangalawa, nanindigan kami na ang paglaya mismo ng uring manggagawa sa kapitalistang pagsasamantala ang pangunahing rekisito para mapalaya ang mga saray na ito mula sa kuko ng kapitalismo. Bakit? Dahil tanging ang uring proletaryo lamang ang may istorikal na misyon at kapasidad na durugin ang kapitalismo sa buong mundo.

Ang pangunahing rekisito ng paglakas ng kilusan ng mga saray na ito ay ang paglakas ng independyenteng kilusang proletaryo at hindi ang kabaliktaran. Mahihimok lamang na sundin ng mga saray na ito ang makauring pamumuo ng manggagawa kung malakas ang independyenteng kilusan ng huli. Sa esensya, ang parsyal at sektoral na pakikibaka gaya ng “kababaihan, pambansang minorya, mga homosekswal atbp” ay mga pakikibaka para sa reporma sa loob ng kapitalistang sistema at hindi para durugin ang huli. Tingnan na lang natin kung ano ang ginagawa ng iba’t-ibang sektoral na organisasyon na pinamunuan ng Kaliwa at makikita natin kung paano nila nais repormahin ang kapitalismo.

Ang isa pang mali sa konseptong ito ay ang linya na magkaroon ng organisadong baseng masa ang isang partido gaya noong 19 siglo kung saan ang katangian ng mga partido ng 2nd International ay mass parties. Kaya naman ang iba’t-ibang Kaliwang grupo ay nagtatayo ng mga sektoral na organisasyon sa ilalim ng kanilang pamumuno. Ang nangyari tuloy, nahati-hati ang uri sa iba’t-ibang organisasyon at maliitang pakikibaka para sa reporma. Kung ganito ang pananaw ni JK, pundamental ang aming pagkakaiba sa paghugot ng aral sa pagtatayo ng partido at ng papel nito sa loob ng kilusang manggagawa bilang taliba sa panahon ng dekadenteng kapitalismo.  

Binalewala ba ng aming paninindigan ang interes ng kababaihan, pambansang minorya at iba pang sektor? Hindi. Ang mga aktibidad namin ay paghikayat sa kababaihang manggagawa na aktibong lumahok sa pakikibaka ng kanilang uri laban sa kapitalismo subalit hindi kami nagdadala ng mga isyung pangkababaihan lamang (inter-classist women’s movement gaya ng ginagawa ng maoistang Gabriela). Hindi rin kami sumusuporta sa pakikibaka para sa sariling pagpapasya ng mga pambansang minorya at ng pambansang burgesya sa panahon ng dekadenteng kapitalismo (pero sa palagay namin ay mas ma-elaborate ang paninindigan namin dito sa usapin ng Bayan o Uri?) Malinaw ang aming paninindigan na hindi kami sumusuporta sa Iraqi Resistance, Hamas, Hizbollah, FARC at mga katulad nila.  

III. Ang pagpasok sa mga unyon

Ayon kay JK: “Tungkulin nating ng mga awtentikong rebolusyonaryong maka-uri ang lumahok sa unyon at dito bakahin ang burges na kamalayang “trade unionism” habang isinusulong sa hanay ng unyon ang buong programang komunista.” Dagdag pa niya: “Ang mga unyon ay tagumpay ng uring manggagawa, at nagsisilbing larangan para sa mga komunista para makabig ang mga rebolusyonaryo ng kinabukasan.”

Totoong ang unyon ay nilikha at organisasyon ng uring manggagawa sa 19 siglo. Sa mga organisasyong ito sinimulang pandayin ng uri ang kanyang pagkakaisa at pakikibaka laban sa pasulong na kapitalismo. Subalit dapat nating tandaan na ang katangian ng unyon kasama na ang mga pangmasang partido ay hindi para sa rebolusyon kundi para makakuha ng makabuluhang reporma mula sa kapitalistang sistema. Ganun pa man, malinaw ito sa mga komunista noon. Kaya mayroon silang minimum at maksimum na programa. Ibig sabihin, isang perspektiba at direksyon ng pakikibaka sa reporma ang paghahanda para sa komunistang rebolusyon. Ang obhetibong kondisyon ng pasulong na kapitalismo ay may kapasidad pa itong makapagbigay ng mga reporma para sa kagalingan ng manggagawa. Pero syempre, hindi nila ito binibigay ng boluntaryo kundi kinuha ng uri sa pamamagitan ng mga militante at malawakang pakikibaka sa internasyunal na saklaw. Sa ganitong istorikal na konteksto titingnan natin ang mga unyon bilang organisasyon ng manggagawa. Hindi maaring paghiwalayin ang katangian at ang tungkulin ng isang organisasyon.

Walang “komunista” o “sosyalistang” unyon kundi mga unyon na nasa pamumuno ng isang Marxistang partido na noon ay may katangiang "pangmasang partido" (mass party) at lumahok sa burges na parlyamentaryong pakikibaka.

Para sa amin, tama lamang na lumahok at pamunuan ang mga unyon sa panahon na ang obhetibong kalagayan ay angkop sa pakikibaka para sa reporma dahil may kapasidad pa ang kapitalismo na ibigay ito. Subalit ang panahong ito ay lumipas na at hindi na babalik pa. Nasa permanenteng krisis na ngayon ang sistema at hindi na makapagbigay ng anumang makabuluhang reporma magmula 1914. Sa termino ni Trotsky, ang kapitalismo ay nasa kanyang “death agony”.

Pangalawa, ang mga unyon magmula 1914 ay ganap ng nasanib sa estado at naging instrumento na nito para hadlangan ang pag-unlad ng makauring kamalayan ng proletaryado para sa komunistang rebolusyon. Ang obhetibong kondisyon na nagtulak sa mga unyon na maging ganito ay ang kanilang natural na katangian mismo na para sa reporma at ang pagpasok ng sistema sa kanyang permanenteng krisis. Para manatili bilang organisasyon, ang mga unyon (Kanan man o Kaliwa) ay nagbibigay ilusyon sa uri na may mahihita pang makabuluhang reporma mula sa kapitalismo. Sa ganitong sitwasyon ay ganap ng naagaw ng burgesya ang mga unyon at naging instrumento nila sa loob ng kilusang paggawa. At mas masahol ang pagsanib ng mga unyon sa mga bansang kapitalismo ng estado ang sistema gaya ng sa Stalinistang USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea. Dahil sa kasinungalingan na ang mga estadong ito ay “estado ng manggagawa”, ganap ng naging tagapagsalita at pulis ng estado ang mga unyon sa pabrika para linlangin at supilin ang paglaban ng mga manggagawa at tanggapin ang anumang pahirap ng “estado ng manggagawa” para sa “sosyalistang inang-bayan”.

Ito ba ay haka-haka lamang ng mga kaliwang komunista? Hindi.

Malinaw ang naging papel ng mga unyon at ng Sosyal-Demokrasya upang kabigin ang milyun-milyong manggagawa na lumahok sa WW I. Malinaw ang papel ng mga Kaliwang unyon (Stalinista at Trostskyista) sa pagkumbinsi sa uri na magpatayan sa pangalawang inter-imperyalistang pandaigdigang digmaan, sa pagpasok sa Prente Populat at anti-pasistang prente. Maliwanag na ang mga unyon ay naging instrumento ng inter-imperyalistang tunggalian ng bloke ng USSR at Amerika sa panahon ng Cold War sa ilalim ng bandilang “pakikibaka para sa pambansang kalayaan at demokrasya”. At kitang-kita ito sa kasaysayan ng unyonismo sa Pilipinas. Maliwanag kung paanong ginamit ng estado ang mga unyon sa diumano “sosyalistang” mga bansa.

Samakatuwid, ang unyon ngayon ay parang isang estado sa usapin ng katangian. Hindi simpleng pasukin at pamunuan kundi kailangang wasakin. Makamit lamang ng uri ang tunay na pagkakaisa kung maintindihan nila at mabaka ang mga mistipikasyong dulot ng unyonismo at parlyamentarismo.

Isolasyonista ba ang paninindigang ito ng kaliwang-komunista? Hindi. Katunayan, ang uri mismo ang nagturo sa kanyang taliba kung anong organisasyon ang kailangan nila sa panahong nasa agenda na ang proletaryong rebolusyon at pag-agaw ng kapangyarihan. Itinuro ito ng manggagawang Ruso noong 1905 at napatunayang tama noong 1917. Ang organisasyon ng pakikibaka ng uri ngayon ay ang mga konseho at asembliya ng manggagawa kung saan ang katangian nito ay ekonomiko-pulitikal. Organisasyon para sa depensa at opensa laban sa kapital. Itinayo ito ng mga nag-alsang manggagawa sa Alemanya noong 1919, sa Hungary noong 1950s, sa Poland noong 1980-81, sa France at Spain noong 2006.    

Ang pagkabig sa mga seryoso at rebolusyonaryong manggagawa na nasa loob ng unyon ay hindi sa pamamagitan ng pagpasok dito kundi sa pagkumbinsi sa kanila mula sa labas ng unyon. Kung wala ba sa loob ng unyon ay hindi na maaring sumama at manguna sa pakikibaka ang mga komunista at militanteng manggagawa? Hindi. Napatunayan ito sa karanasan na pwdeng-pwede at siyang nararapat. Ang mga Bolsheviks noon ay hindi sa mga unyon nangumbinsi kundi sa loob ng mga sobyet o konseho ng manggagawa. Ang mga kaliwang-komunista ay sumama at nagsisikap na makapagpaliwanag sa malawak na masa ng uring nakibaka sa komunistang programa at panawagan sa abot ng kanilang makakaya. Ang pinakahuli ay ang interbensyon ng ICC at iba pang kaliwang komunista sa mga welga ng manggagawa sa France, Britain, Germany at USA sa 2006-2007. Panghuli, ang unyonismo ay hindi ang kilusang manggagawa.

Ano ba ang napatunayan ng unyonismo sa loob ng nagdaang halos 100 taon? Hindi pinalakas ang proletaryong kilusan, bagkus ay hinati-hati at pinahina sa harap ng kanilang mortal na kaaway. Hindi na maibalik pa ang unyonismo sa 19 siglo sa kasalukuyang panahon. Iba na ang porma at laman ng organisasyon at pakikibaka ng uri sa kasalukuyan na itinuro mismo ng mga manggagawa. Pandaigdigang komunistang rebolusyon ang tanging programa ng uri para bigyan ng pinal na bigwas ang naghihingalong naaagnas na sistema ngayon. At ang unitaryong organisasyon ng uri para dito ay ang mga konseho at asembliya sa pandaigdigang saklaw.

Pagsusuma:

Ang Kaliwa at mga unyon, ano man ang hibo nila ay nasa kampo na ng burgesya sa panahon ng dekadenteng kapitalismo at hindi bahagi ng kilusang paggawa. Sila ay nasa Kaliwa ng burgesya, isa sa mga paksyon ng kapital. Para sa amin, kailangang ilantad sa malawak na masa ng uri ang burges na katangian ng mga organisasyong ito na nagbalatkayong “komunista”, “sosyalista” at “maka-manggagawa”. Isang pagtraydor sa uri kung manawagan ang mga komunista sa masang manggagawa na ipagtanggol sila dahil inaatake sila ng kanilang kaaway na paksyon. Ang paghawak sa ganitong maling pananaw ay walang kaibahan sa ginawa ng 2nd International noong WW I at ng mga Stalinista at Trotskyista noong WW 2. Wala itong kaibahan kung depensahan natin ang CPP-NPA, ang Iraqi resistance, ang Hamas at Hizbollah o ang FARC dahil inaatake sila ng imperyalistang Amerika.

Para sa amin, higit sa lahat, matibay na panghawakan ang internasyonalismo at independyenteng kilusang manggagawa sa lahat ng usapin at pagkakataon. Para sa mga seryosong rebolusyonaryo na nangangarap pang maulit ang 19 siglo ngayon, narito ang sabi ni Marx: “The tradition of the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the minds of the living. And, just when they appear to be engaged in the revolutionary transformation of themselves and their material surroundings, in the crea­tion of something which does not yet exist, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary cri­sis they timidly conjure up the spirits of the past to help them; they borrow their names, slogans and costumes.”(Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852)

—–

Note: This article was posted in reply to a comment made by JK in the comment section of the topic The Proletariat is the only revolutionary class. You can read the comment here: comment #130 (Admin - 04/28/08) 

April 26, 2008

World Food Crisis

Filed under: Perspectives

Pandaigdigang Krisis ng Pagkain: Bunga ng Naghihingalong Pandaigdigang Sistema

Hindi na maaring itago at napilitang aminin ng mga estado at internasyunal na institusyon gaya ng International Monetary Fund at United Nations na merong pandaigdigang krisis sa pagkain. Subalit nagsisikap pa rin ang burgesya na pakalmahin ang masa at ipakitang “under control” pa rin nila ang krisis ng kanilang sistema.

Ang pandaigdigang krisis ng pagkain ay hindi maiwasang resulta ng permanenteng pandaigdigang krisis ng kapitalismo magmula pa noong huling bahagi ng dekada 60 at sinindihan ngayon ng malalim na resesyon sa Amerika. Dahil sa paghahanap ng mga produktong madaling mabili sa pamilihan at malaki ang tubo, binabago ng mga kapitalista ang prayoridad sa mga produktong agrikultural (hal, asukal, rubber, atbp) hindi pa kasama dito ang pagkasira sa lupa sa pamamagitan ng paggamit ng chemical fertilizers, ang lumalalang polusyon bunga ng walang pakundangang kompetisyon sa industriyal na produksyon na nakaapekto sa klima at agrikultura at marami pang iba. Isa din sa salik dito ang batas ng kapitalismo na nagmula sa pagkagahaman sa tubo – ang law of supply and demand na dinidikta ng batas ng pamilihan. Mayor na salik din ang pagtaas ng presyo ng mga kagamitang pansakahan at gastos sa transportasyon na itinutulak ng patuloy na pagtaas ng presyo ng gasolina. Sa madaling sabi, ang krisis ng pagkain ay bunga ng samut-saring krisis ng sistema na naiipon sa loob ng ilang dekada.

Katunayan, sa kalagayan ngayon ng naghihingalong sistema, ang ibig sabihin ng “normal” na sitwasyon ay mas malala kaysa sa nakaraang taon. Halimbawa, kung “manormalisa” man ang presyo ng bigas, tiyak mas mataas na ito sa nakaraan. Ganun din sa gasolina at maging sa lahat ng batayang pangangailangan ng populasyon.

Nahubaran din ang maka-kapitalistang ideolohiya ng mga anti-globalisasyon na“isinusuko” na diumano ng mga estado sa mga pribadong kapitalista ang pagpapatakbo sa pandaigdigang ekonomiya. Maliwanag pa sa sikat ng araw kung paano pinangunahan at aktibong pinakialaman ng mga estado ang pagsisikap na isalba ang kasalukuyang krisis. Kaya, makikita natin ang nangunguna at aktibong interbensyon ng mga ito sa krisis sa bigas. Patunay lamang ito na ang estado pa rin ang tanging may kontrol sa takbo ng kapitalistang lipunan at pangunahing kaaway ng uring manggagawa, kontrolado man ito ng Kanan o Kaliwa ng burgesya.

Tuloy-tuloy ang mga atake ng kapital sa pamumuhay ng uring manggagawa sa buong mundo. Pinipilit ng estado ang uring naghihirap na dagdagan pa ang pasanin na pagdurusa para lamang maisalba ang bulok na sistema. Kakutsaba ng estado ang Kaliwa ng burgesya para lasunin ang kaisipan ng mga manggagawa na “tanging ang estado” lamang ang makapagligtas sa masang api mula sa kahirapang kagagawan mismo ng sistemang pinagtanggol nito. Pangunahing linya ngayon ng iba’t-ibang grupo ng Kaliwa na dagdagan pa ang panghihimasok at kontrol ng estado para maisalba ang bulok na sistema. Sa anyo ng pagiging “radikal”, “kinudena” ng Kaliwa ang matamlay na panghihimasok ng kapitalistang estado sa kasalukuyang krisis ng sistema at tila humihiling sila ng abosulotong kontrol ng estado sa buong lipunan. Tila nagyayabang pa ang Kaliwa na kung sila ang nasa kapangyarihan titiyakin nila na absoluto ang kontrol ng estado sa buong populasyon gaya ng nangyayari ngayon sa China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela at iba pang mga bansa na ang sistema ay kapitalismo ng estado.

Walang solusyon na krisis sa loob ng kapitalistang sistema

Kapwa ang Kanan at Kaliwa ng burgesya ay nagtutulungan na itago sa malawak na masang anakpawis ang katotohanan na wala ng solusyon ang kasalukuyang krisis sa loob ng sistema.  Nasa rurok na ang kontradiksyon sa pagitan ng mga pwersa at relasyon ng produksyon. Ganap ng hadlang ang huli sa pag-unlad ng una. Dahil dito, ang bawat temporaryong solusyon na mahanap ng burgesya sa kaniyang krisis ay magbunga lamang ng mas malalim at malalang krisis at pagkasira ng kalikasan. Ang bawat “epektibong” solusyon ng estado ay nagkahulugan ng mas mabigat na pasanin na kahirapan at paghihikahos ng malawak na masang anakpawis.

Kahit pa maging absoluto ang kontrol ng estado sa buhay pang-ekonomiya ng lipunan, patuloy na lalala ang krisis na bunga ng pagkasaid ng pandaigdigang pamilihan at permanenteng kawalan ng kapasidad ng populasyon na bilhin ang labis-labis na mga produkto ng sistemang nabubuhay sa matinding kompetisyon at tubo. Napatunayan na sa kasaysayan na ang kapitalismo ng estado ay bunga ng matinding krisis ng pandaigdigang kapitalismo at bumagsak ang mga ito sa USSR at Eastern Europe noong 1990s.

Tanging solusyon sa krisis

Ang tanging solusyon sa krisis ay wala sa estado at sa loob ng sistemang kapitalismo kundi nasa labas nito. Ibig sabihin, kailangang ibagsak ang estado at durugin ang kapitalismo. Masolusyunan lamang ang krisis sa pamamagitang ng sosyalisasyon ng pag-aari ng mga kagamitan ng produksyon sa pandaigdigang saklaw. Ang unang hakbang para dito ay hawakan ng uring manggagawa ang kapangyarihan sa pamamagitan ng kanilang mga ASEMBLIYA.   

Subalit hindi ito mangyari kung hindi magkaisa ang malawak na uring manggagawa para tutulan at labanan ang mga atake ng kapital sa kanilang pamumuhay. Dapat maunawaan ng milyun-milyong manggagawa na ang kalayaan mula sa kahirapan ay wala sa estado kundi nasa kanilang mga kamay mismo, sa kanilang makauring pagkakaisa sa loob ng mga ASEMBLIYA na lalahukan ng lahat ng tipo ng manggagawa na nasa pampubliko at pribadong mga empresa.

Ang makauring pagkakaisa at sama-samang pagkilos ang tanging rekisito para makamit ang tunay na pagbabago sa lipunan. Ang pagkakaisa at sama-samang pagkilos na ito ay hindi na sa pamumuno ng mga unyon at elektoral na partido kundi nasa pamumuno na ng mga ASEMBLIYA ng mga manggagawa.

Mga kapatid na manggagawa, may solusyon sa krisis. At ang solusyon ay nasa labas ng kapitalismo at nasa ating mga kamay! Muli tayong magtiwala sa sariling lakas ng ating pagkakaisa! Lagpasan natin ang mga balakid na hinaharang ng mga unyon at elektoral na partido! Gawin nating inspirasyon at halawan ng aral ang malawakang pagkakaisa at mga welga ng ating mga kapatid na manggagawa sa Amerika, France, Germany, Britain, Egypt, Bangladesh, Greece, Dubai  at iba pang bansa.

Benjie, April 25, 2008

April 14, 2008

April 24 Strikes in Britan

Strikes on April 24: For a common struggle across all divisions

This article is available as a leaflet to download and distribute here:

http://en.internationalism.org/files/en/April-24-leaflet.pdf



On 24 April 250,000 teachers will be staging a one day strike against the government’s latest pay offer. They will be joined by further education lecturers, civil servants, and council workers. Marches and rallies will be held in a large number of cities.

There are certainly any number of reasons for taking action, not only in these sectors, but right across the working class:

  • below-inflation pay offers
  • rising prices for basic necessities like food and fuel
  • increasing unemployment, not least the 6,500 jobs under threat at the newly nationalised Northern Rock
  • attacks on pensions and other benefits
  • spiralling personal debts
  • decline in services like health and education

All these and many other attacks on workers’ living standards are being supervised or directly imposed not just by individual employers but by the state, whether in its national or local guise. Faced with a mounting economic crisis that is clearly global in scope, the national state is revealing itself more and more as the only force capable of organising the response required by the capitalist system: reducing labour costs to compete for markets and preserve profits. Therefore the state steps in to bail out failing banks in Britain and the US, forces public sector workers to accept ‘pay restraint’, introduces cuts in health, welfare and education (in other words, reductions in the social wage), introduces new laws reducing pensions and lengthening our working lives. And when economic competition gives way to military competition, as in the Balkans, Afghanistan or Iraq, it’s the state which diverts vast amounts of social wealth into building weapons and waging war.

These polices are not the result of evil individuals or of particular governmental parties. Governments of the right or the left carry out the same basic policies. In North America the Bush government extols free enterprise and presides over an economy in which 28 million need food stamps to survive. In South America, Chavez denounces Bush, talks about ‘21st century socialism’ - and dispatches squads of ‘Bolivarian revolutionaries’ to suppress striking steel workers.

Faced with this centralised, statified attack on their living and working conditions, workers everywhere have the same interests: to resist wage cuts and job cuts, to react against inroads on their social benefits. But they cannot do this by fighting separately, sector by sector, workplace by workplace. Faced with the power of the capitalist state, they need to form a power of their own, based on their unity and solidarity across all divisions into trade, union, or nationality.

After years of dispersal and disarray, workers are only just beginning to rediscover in practice what unity and solidarity mean. They need to take every opportunity to turn these general principles into practical action. If the unions are calling for strikes and demonstrations around issues of direct concern to them, as on April 24, workers should respond as massively as possible - go to the mass meetings, join the marches, take part in the pickets, discuss and exchange ideas with workers from other sectors and workplace.

Workers’ unity cannot be organised through the unions

But beware: the trade unions, who present themselves as the representatives of the workers, in reality serve to keep us divided.

This is nowhere clearer than in the education sector. The strike on 24 April involves the NUT members in primary and secondary education. It doesn’t involve teachers in sixth form colleges who have ‘different’ employers. Neither does it involve teachers from other unions, such as the NAS/UWT which says the issue isn’t pay, but workload. Nor does it involve thousands of education workers who aren’t teachers, such as learning support assistants, site staff, cleaners, caterers etc, even though they have plenty to be aggrieved about. And though the NUT seems to be talking tough today, when many of these educational support workers came out on strike in 2006, the NUT told its members to cross their picket lines.

The same story can be repeated in the civil service, in the local authorities, on the tubes and railways, and any number of other industries where workers are divided up into different categories and unions. The state in Britain has long made it illegal for those who work for different employers to strike in solidarity with each other. By keeping workers in the framework of these laws, the unions do the work of the state on the shop floor. The same goes for the laws that forbid workers to decide on strike action in mass meetings. Union ballot rigmaroles tie workers’ hands behind their backs and prevent them from making decisions as a collective force.

It follows that if we are to become such a force, we have to start to take the struggle into our hands, and not leave it in the hands of the union ‘specialists’. Council workers in Birmingham voted in mass meetings to take part in the strikes around April 24. It’s a good example to follow: we need to hold meetings in every workplace where all workers, from all unions or none, can take part and take the decisions. And we need to insist that decisions taken in mass meetings are binding, not dependent on ballots or private meetings of union officials.

Unity at the workplace is inseparable from building unity with workers from other workplaces and other industries, whether we do it through sending delegations to their meetings, by joining their picket lines, or gathering together at rallies and demonstrations.

Calling on all workers to assemble, strike and demonstrate together for common demands is, naturally, ‘illegal’ in the face of a state which wants to outlaw real class solidarity. This may seem daunting at first, too big a step to take. But it’s in the very act of taking matters into our hands and uniting with other workers that we develop the confidence and courage to take the struggle even further.

And given the bleak prospects offered by the world capitalist system - a future of crisis, war, and ecological disaster - there’s no doubt that the struggle has to go further. It has to go from the defence of our basic living conditions to questioning and challenging this entire social order. Amos 5/4/8

April 7, 2008

Oppression of Women

International Women’s Day: only communist society can end the oppression of women

International Women’s Day

On March 8th, all the feminist groups once again commemorated International Women’s Day with the full blessing of the radical petty bourgeoisie represented in the various left wing groups (the Socialist Party in particular). Once again this day, associated with the struggle of working women, will be perverted and transformed into a giant democratic and reformist masquerade. Like Labour Day (May 1st), March 8th has been recuperated by the bourgeoisie and has become an institution of state capitalism.

In the Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State (1887), Engels had already denounced the oppression of women in affirming that with the end of matriarchal societies and the rise of patriarchal society, woman had become "the proletarian of the man". In 1891, Auguste Bebel, in his Woman and Socialism continued the work of Engels in a profound historical study of the female condition.

From the end of the 19th century, the ‘woman question’ was closely linked to the working class struggle for the emancipation of the whole of humanity. The conditions of poverty and exploitation suffered by women workers pushed them unavoidably into the vanguard of the proletarian struggle at the start of the twentieth century.

Women’s struggle within the workers’ movement in the twentieth century

March 8th has its origins in the demonstrations of textile workers in New York that took place on March 8th 1857 and were suppressed by the police (though apparently there is no American workers’ movement archive with any evidence of the event).

The international movement of socialist women emerged in Germany in the main party of the working class, the SPD, under the impetus of Clara Zetkin[1]: in 1890 she established the review Die Gleichheit (Equality), with the support of Rosa Luxemburg, which advocated the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, replacing it with a world communist society. Across the world, in both Western Europe and the United States, women workers were beginning to mobilise against their conditions of exploitation. They demanded the reduction of the working day, the same wages as men, the abolition of child labour and an improvement in their living conditions. Along with these economic demands, they also raised political demands, notably woman’s right to the vote (though this political demand would subsequently be submerged into and confused with that of the bourgeois women’s movement known as ‘the suffragettes’).

But it was from 1907 in particular that women workers and socialists would find themselves in the vanguard of the struggle against capitalist barbarism faced with the harbingers of the First World War.

On August 17th of that year Clara Zetkin announced the first conference of the Women’s Socialist International in Stuttgart. 58 delegates from all over Europe and the United States attended and adopted a resolution on women’s right to the vote. This resolution would be adopted by the Stuttgart congress of the SPD that followed this conference. At the time when women’s wages were a half that of male workers doing the same work, there were many women’s organisations and the vast majority of them had been actively involved in all the workers’ struggles at the turn of the century.

There were mass demonstrations of women textile workers in New York in 1908 and 1909. They demanded "bread and roses", (the roses symbolised improvements in living conditions beyond mere survival), the abolition of child labour and better wages.

In 1910, the Women’s Socialist International launched an appeal for peace. On March 8th 1911, on International Women’s Day, a million women demonstrated all across Europe. A few days later on March 25th, more than 140 women workers perished in a fire in the Triangle textile factory in New York owing to a lack of safety measures. This drama would further galvanise the women’s revolt against their conditions of exploitation and against the denial to them of a political voice in parliament. In 1913, all across the world, women were demanding the right to vote. In Britain, the bourgeois ‘suffragettes’ were also adopting a more radical stance.

But it would be in Tsarist Russia, particularly, that the struggle of women would give an impetus to the revolutionary movement of the whole working class. Between 1912 and 1914, Russian women workers organised clandestine meetings and declared their opposition to the imperialist butchery. After war broke out, women from all across Europe would join them.

In 1915 the French army’s open offensive at the front initiated a terrible butchery: 350,000 soldiers were massacred in the trenches. At home, the women suffered increased exploitation in having to keep the national economy running. Reactions began to explode against the war and women were the first to mobilise. On March 8th 1915, Alexandra Kollontai[2] organised a demonstration of women against the war at Christiana, near Oslo. Clara Zetkin called a new Women’s International Conference. This was a prelude to the Zimmerwald Conference that re-grouped all those opposed to the war. On April 15th 1915, 1136 women from 12 different countries assembled in La Haye.

In Germany, particularly from 1916, two of the greatest women figures in the western workers’ movement, Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg, would play a decisive role in the foundation of the German Communist Party, the KPD. In the United States, Emma Goldman, anarchist militant (and friend of journalist John Reed, a founder member of the American Communist Party), led a bitter struggle against the imperialist war. In 1917 she would be imprisoned (and was considered to be "the most dangerous woman in the United States") before being expelled to Russia.

In Russia, it would be women workers who would lead the triumphant march of the proletariat to the revolution. On March 8th (February 23rd in the Gregorian calendar), women workers from the textile factories in Petrograd went on strike spontaneously and took to the streets. They demanded ‘bread and peace’. They called for their sons and husbands to be returned from the front. "Disregarding our instructions, the women workers from several mills went on strike and sent delegations to the engineering workers to ask for their support… It didn’t occur to a single worker that this could be the first day of the revolution." (Trotsky History of the Russian Revolution). So the slogan ‘bread and peace’ that was a spark to the Russian Revolution was initiated by the women workers of Petrograd, and it gave a lead to the workers from the Putilov factories and the whole of the working class to join the movement.

The recuperation of the women’s movement by bourgeois democracy

It wasn’t a gamble for the German bourgeoisie to grant women the right to vote on November 12th 1918, the day after it signed the Armistice. It was no surprise that in the country where the international movement of socialist women was born, in the country where the greatest female figures in the workers’ movement at the start of the 20th century, Rosa Luxemburg and Clara Zetkin, were militants, that the ruling class would try and break the revolutionary spirit of women by granting this demand when parliament had become an empty shell for the working class. With capitalism’s entry into its period of its decadence, it was no longer practical to struggle for reforms and for the right to vote, but only for the overthrow of capitalist order.

The First World War had opened a new period of history: "that of wars and revolutions", as the Communist International had declared in 1919.

From the beginning of the 1920s, the women’s movement followed the course of the proletarian struggle; it entered a dynamic of reflux and was rapidly absorbed into the capitalist state. It would become more and more distinct and separate from the proletarian movement and become an inter-classist movement. The question of women’s sexual oppression was raised independently of the conditions of women’s exploitation in the mills and factories, sowing the illusion that women could indeed be emancipated within a society based on exploitation and the search for profit. From the start of the 1920s the women’s ‘liberation’ movement started to focus its attention on birth control and abortion rights, particularly in the United States.

From the mid 1920s in Germany, the women’s movement was rapidly derailed onto the terrain of the struggle against Nazism.

In the other European countries, notably France and Spain, women continued to demand the right to vote while allowing themselves to get sucked up into anti-fascism, an ideology that was going to lead to millions of proletarians being recruited into the Second World War.

The women’s movement was very quickly recuperated by all kinds of agents of the capitalist state, such as the UFCS (Union Féminine Civique et Sociale) in France and the Catholic women’s organisations that called for women to struggle not against the capitalist system as a whole, but against colonialism and fascism.

Though women’s right to vote was still not on the statute book in France, Léon Blum nevertheless introduced women into the government for the first time. On June 4th 1936, three women were appointed Under-Secretaries of State (Cécile Brunschwig, Irène Joliot-Curie et Suzanne Lacore). It was presented it as a ‘radical’ move, allowing the left wing capitalist parties to mobilise large numbers of women behind the flag of the Popular Front and getting them involved in the preparations for the Second World War.

During the Occupation, large number of women joined the Resistance, notably behind the flag of the Stalinists of the PCF. De Gaulle would eventually reward their ‘bravery’ and ‘patriotism’ by granting them the right to vote on March 23rd 1944 so that they would be able… to elect their own exploiters from the right wing or the left wing.

However, just when women obtained the right to vote in France, the PCF, with its sickening chauvinism, was glorifying in the Liberation of Paris. In 1945, women who had committed the crime of having sexual relations with the enemy (‘the boche’) had their heads shaved. They were accused of having tarnished the Tricolor (the French flag) and of having ‘collaborated’ with the enemy. They were forced to parade in public and exposed to public ridicule.

Feminism: a sexist and reactionary ideology

At the beginning of the 1970s, the women’s movement no longer had any characteristics of the workers’ movement. The Women’s Liberation Movement was the new voice of feminism and rejected any idea of women joining political parties. In the name of ‘anti-chauvinism’, men were forbidden to attend many of their meetings. The movement called itself ‘autonomous’ and strengthened the illusion that it was only women that were oppressed, not by the capitalist system, but by men in general. They contributed to a sexist viewpoint whereby feminists didn’t just demand the same ‘rights’ as men but considered men as their enemies, their real oppressors. Numerous ‘feminists’ took up the Don Quiotesque struggle for women’s ‘sexual liberation’ without the least consideration for the economic foundations of their oppression. The feminist movement had broken definitively with the tradition of the women’s struggle inside the workers’ movement. It had become a reactionary ideology of the petty bourgeoisie that has no historical perspective, and had blossomed on the streets of May 68. And it’s no accident that the feminists had chosen the colour mauve as their emblem, the same colour as that of the ‘suffragettes’ at the beginning of the 20th century. In 1975 the feminist movement incorporated prostitutes who were demanding the right to continue selling their bodies "freely" (living off men’s sexual impoverishment) without having to suffer police repression.

A mascarade in the service of capital

In 1977, the United Nations gave official recognition to International Women’s Day and adopted a resolution inviting each country to dedicate the day to the celebration of ‘women’s rights and international peace’. As regards to the ‘peace’, it’s enough to refer to the numerous massacres that are perpetrated under the aegis of the great democratic powers to show what value is served by noble ‘resolutions’ from the den of the imperialist brigands that is the UN. As regards the international day for women’s rights, it is nothing but a charade to mystify working class women and to deflect them from struggling as workers exploited by the capitalist class.

In France it was the left (and the PS in particular) with Mitterrand as President that became the main advocate of feminist ideology. In 1982 under the Mauroy government with its Minister for Women’s Rights, March 8th became an institution of the bourgeois democratic state.

Since then, every fraction of the left of capital has contributed to creating a multitude of feminist associations that serve to dissolve women workers into the mass of women ‘in general’, to involve them in campaigns where women from all layers and classes of society can make common cause as ‘women’ without distinction of their class interests.

Today’s electoral campaigns (with Hillary Clinton as a candidate for US president, following that of Ségolène Royal in France) want us to kid us into believing that having women in charge of government could possibly bring an end to the brutal attacks against the working class. They would also have us believe that a woman head of state would mean fewer barbaric wars; ‘a woman’ would be less ‘violent’, more ‘humane’ and more ‘peaceful’ than men.

All this chatter is nothing but pure mystification. Capitalist domination isn’t a problem of sexuality but of social class. When bourgeois women take control of the state, they carry out exactly the same capitalist policies as their male predecessors. They would all follow in the steps of the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, who is remembered for her leadership in the Falklands War in 1982 and for having let 10 IRA hunger strikers demanding political prisoner status die around the same time. They all behave the same, like Sarkozy’s associates, Michèle Alliot-Marie, Rachida Dati, Valérie Pécresse, Fadela Amara and their consorts. The bourgeoisie can’t contemplate any difference between the sexes in the management of its national economy. And the boss of the bosses’ organisation, Laurence Parisot, also does a good job for the bourgeoisie, as her predecessors from the ‘stronger sex’ did before him.

In 1917, immediately before the October Revolution, Lenin wrote:

"During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, receiving their teachings with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonise them, so to say, and to surround their names with a certain halo for the ‘consolation’ of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time emasculating the essence of the revolutionary teaching, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarising it" (State and Revolution).

What happened to the revolutionaries has happened to May 1st. And it has happened to March 8th (international women’s day) just as it happened to May 1st.

One of the most pernicious weapons of the bourgeoisie, as the dominant class, is its capacity to turn the symbols that once belonged to the working class in the past back against it. Thus it was with unions and workers’ parties as it is with May 1st and international women’s day.

Since the end of prehistory, women have always suffered the yoke of oppression. But this oppression cannot be abolished under capitalism. Only the arrival of a world communist society can offer women this perspective. They can only free themselves by actively participating in the general movement of the working class to emancipate the whole of humanity.

Sylvestre (12/02/08)

 



[1] Clara Zetkin, born in 1887, was actively involved in the foundation of the Second International. Faced with the opportunism gangrening the life of her party, the SPD, Clara Zetkin allied herself with her friend Rosa Luxemburg on the left wing of the party. She participated in the revolutionary movement against the First World War. In 1915, she was a founder member of the Spartakist League at the side of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. She was a delegate of the Communist International at the Tours Congress when the French Communist Party was founded.

[2] Alexandra Kollontaï, born in 1872, was one of the more senior female figures in the Bolshevik Party in 1917. Having joined the Menshevik Party after the Russian Social Democracy congress in 1903, she fought against the war from 1914 and rejoined the party of Lenin in 1915. She participated in the Russian Revolution and was the first woman in the world to have a role in government after the October Revolution. Thanks to her activity and to the revolutionary women workers’ movement, voting rights and equal wages were won in Russia and in 1920 the right to abortion. From 1918, Alexandra Kollontaï more and more opposed the direction of the Bolshevik Party and was be involved in the foundation of an internal fraction, the Workers’ Opposition, in 1920.

April 1, 2008

How Stalin wiped out the militants of the October 1917 revolution

How Stalin wiped out the militants of the October 1917 revolution

On the occasion of the anniversary of the October 1917 revolution in Russia, the scribblers of the ruling class regularly serve us up with the same refrain: the dictator Stalin is the heir of Lenin; his crimes were the inevitable consequences of the policies of the Bolsheviks of 1917. The moral? The communist revolution can only lead to the terror of Stalinism.

Men make history, but they do so in definite circumstances that necessarily weigh on their actions. So, the principal cause of the emergence of a regime of terror in the USSR was the tragic isolation of the 1917 October revolution. Because, as Engels said in 1847, in his Principles of Communism, the proletarian revolution can only be victorious at the world level: "The communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries…It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace. It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range."

The Russian revolution wasn’t beaten by the armed forces of the bourgeoisie during the civil war (1918-1920), but from the inside, through the progressive identification of the Bolshevik Party with the state. That is what allowed the bourgeoisie to spread its historic big lie, either presenting the USSR as a proletarian state or spreading the idea that any proletarian revolution can only end up with a Stalinist-type regime.

The politics of Stalin weren’t those of Lenin

Contrary to what the ideologues of the bourgeoisie affirm, there is no continuity between the politics of Lenin and those undertaken after his death by Stalin. The fundamental difference that separates them rests in the key question of internationalism: the idea of ‘socialism in one country’, adopted by Stalin in 1925, constituted a real betrayal of the basic principles of proletarian struggle and the communist revolution. In particular, this thesis, presented by Stalin as a ‘principle of Leninism’, meant the exact opposite of Lenin’s position. The intransigent internationalism of Lenin, his total adherence to the cause of the proletariat, was a constant throughout his life. His internationalism wasn’t dimmed with the victory of the Russian revolution in October 1917. On the contrary, he saw this as the first step of the world revolution: "The Russian revolution is only one detachment of the world socialist army, and the success and triumph of the revolution that we have accomplished depends on the action of this army. This is a fact that no one amongst us forgets (…). The Russian proletariat is conscious of its revolutionary isolation, and it clearly sees that its victory has the indispensable condition and fundamental premise of the united intervention of the entire world proletariat". (Report to the Factory Committees of the Province of Moscow, 28 July, 1918).

It’s for that reason that Lenin played a decisive role, with Trotsky, in the foundation of the Communist International (CI) in March 1919. In particular it was Lenin who drew up one of the fundamental texts of the founding congress of the CI: the ‘Theses on the democratic bourgeoisie and the dictatorship of the proletariat‘.

At the time of Lenin, the CI no connection with what it was to become under the control of Stalin: a diplomatic instrument of Russian state capitalism and the spearhead of the counter-revolution on a world scale.

Contrary to Lenin, Stalin affirmed that it was possible to construct socialism in a single country. This nationalist policy of the defence of the ‘socialist fatherland’ in Russia constituted a betrayal of the proletarian principles enunciated by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto: "The proletarians have no country. Proletarians of all countries unite!" The politics of Stalin served to justify the strengthening of state capitalism in the USSR with the accession to power of a privileged class, the bureaucracy, living on the ferocious exploitation of the working class. Stalin was the iron fist and the figurehead of the counter-revolution.

If he was able to be the hangman of the revolution, it’s because he had certain personality traits that rendered him more apt than other members of the Bolshevik Party to fulfil this role. It was exactly these traits of personality that Lenin had stigmatised in his ‘last testament’: "Comrade Stalin in becoming General Secretary has concentrated an immense power into his hands and I am not sure that he always knows how to use it with sufficient prudence."

And in a post script, drawn up on the eve of his death, Lenin wrote: "Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a General Secretary. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a minor detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance" ( 4 January 1924).

From the middle of the 1920s, Stalin oversaw the ruthless liquidation of all the old comrades of Lenin, using the organs of repression that the Bolshevik Party had originally put in place in order to resist the White Armies (notably the political police, the Cheka).

The great Stalinist purge within the Bolshevik Party

After Lenin’s death in January 1924, Stalin was quick to place his allies in key posts within the Party. He took his aim at Trotsky principally, the alter ego of Lenin during the revolution of October 1917. Opportunistically, Stalin allied himself with Bukharin who committed the fatal error of theorising the possibility of constructing socialism in one country (later, Stalin had no scruples about executing Bukharin).

From 1923-24, a whole series of divergences appeared within the Bolshevik Party. Several oppositions were constituted, the most important of which was led by Trotsky, later joined by other militants of the Bolshevik old guard (notably Kamenev and Zinoviev). With the growth of bureaucracy within the Party, the Left Opposition had understood that the Russian revolution was degenerating.

Stalin occupied a key post. He controlled the apparatus of the Party and even the promotion of its leadership. This is what allowed him to put his men in place and transform the Bolshevik Party into a deadly machine. He particularly favoured the entry into the Party of a great number of ambitious arrivistes. The latter, whom Stalin supported, were only looking for a career within the state apparatus.

Henceforth, he had a free hand to undertake the great purge of the Party, with the principal aim of removing from the leadership the principal figures of the October revolution (Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin and above all Trotsky) in order to finally liquidate everyone.

Progressively Stalin withdrew all political responsibilities from Trotsky up to the time he was expelled from the Party in 1927 and from Russia in 1928. This is the period where all oppositions to Stalin and all suspects filled up the Gulags. The Moscow Trials (1936-1938) allowed Stalin to liquidate the Bolshevik old guard under the fraudulent pretext of hunting ‘terrorists’, following the assassination of the party chief of Leningrad, Sergei Kirov, on 1 December 1934.

Dozens of Bolsheviks were persecuted, imprisoned, and finally exterminated in terrifying conditions. It was the time of the great Stalinist campaign against the "Hitlero-Trotskyists". Accusing them of a lack of ‘loyalty’ towards the ‘Socialist Fatherland’, Stalin also executed thousands of Bolshevik militants who had been the most implicated in the October revolution. It was necessary to definitively muzzle all those who had kept their internationalist and communist convictions. It was necessary to wipe out for ever all the witnesses capable of contradicting the ‘official’ history, by exposing the great lie: the idea that Stalin was the executor of Lenin’s will, the idea of a direct continuity between Lenin and Stalin[1].

The complicity of the democratic bourgeoisie with Stalin

Faced with the barbarity of Stalinist repression, what was the reaction of the great democracies of the West? When, from 1936, Stalin organised the wretched ‘Moscow Trials’, when the old comrades of Lenin, broken by torture, were accused of the most abject crimes and themselves ended up asking for exemplary punishment, this same democratic press in the pay of capital let it be known that ‘there was no smoke without fire’ (even if some newspapers made some timid criticisms of Stalin’s policies, affirming that they were ‘exaggerated’).

It was with the complicity of the bourgeoisies of the great powers that Stalin accomplished his monstrous crimes, that he exterminated, in his prisons and concentration camps, hundreds of thousands of communists, more than ten million workers and peasants. And the bourgeois sectors that showed the greatest zeal in this complicity were the democratic sectors (and particularly Social-Democracy); the same sectors that today virulently denounce the crimes of Stalinism and present themselves as models of virtue.

It’s only because the regime that consolidated itself in Russia after the death of Lenin and the final crushing of the German revolution (1923) was a variant of capitalism, and even the spearhead of the counter-revolution, that it received such warm support from all the bourgeoisies that only a few years earlier had ferociously fought the power of the Soviets. In 1934, in fact, these same ‘democratic’ bourgeoisies accepted the USSR into the League of Nations (ancestor of the UN), an institution that Lenin had called a "den of thieves" at the time of its foundation. This was the sign that Stalin had become a ‘respectable Bolshevik’ in the eyes of the ruling class of every country, the same rulers who had once presented the Bolsheviks of 1917 as barbarians with knives between their teeth. The imperialist brigands recognised Stalin as one of their own. Henceforth, the communists who opposed Stalin submitted to the persecutions of the entire world bourgeoisie.

It was in this international context that Trotsky, expelled from country after country, under police surveillance at all times, had to face a campaign of shameless Stalinist lies, which were obligingly repeated by the bourgeoisies of the western democracies.

But where the complicity of the big democratic powers is most evident is in the fact that no one would give Trotsky asylum when he was expelled from Russia. The old leader of the Red Army was considered persona non grata everywhere. For Trotsky, the world became a planet without visa.

At the time of his stay in France in 1935, journalists, members of the intelligentsia, and some members of the Academie Francaise (like Georges Lecomte) went as far as circulating rumours that Trotsky was planning a terrorist ‘coup d’état’. Following these rumours, Trotsky was expelled by the French democratic state. To prevent him being delivered to the Stalinist political police, the Norwegian government offered him provisional asylum, before expelling him.

After wandering for more than ten years, Trotsky was finally welcomed by the Mexican government in 1939 thanks to the painter Diego Rivera who had some sympathy for Trotskyism. After a first murder attempt from a squad led by the Stalinist painter Siqueriros, Trotsky was assassinated on 20 August 1940 by an agent of Stalin, Ramon Mercader, who infiltrated his entourage by seducing one of the old revolutionary’s collaborators.

Trotsky succumbed to the blows of Stalinist repression at the very time when he was beginning to understand that the USSR wasn’t a "proletarian state with bureaucratic deformations" so dear to the epigones of the Fourth International (to which many of today’s Trotskyist organisations give allegiance).

Today’s democrats can shout as loud as they like about the abominable crimes of the Bolshevik Party. They will not wipe out our memory of these historic facts: it is with the blessing and complicity of their predecessors that Stalin was able to carry out his dirty work.

This reminder of one of the most tragic episodes of the 20th century reveals, if it’s needed, that there was no continuity but a radical break between the politics of Lenin and those of Stalin. On his death-bed Lenin had seen correctly: Stalin had concentrated too much power in his hands[2]. Replacing him wouldn’t have changed the course of history: another leader of his stamp would have taken on the role of hangman of the revolution. Stalin’s personality was suited to take on this role, as was that of Hitler, himself benefiting from the favours of a German bourgeoisie avid for revenge after the defeat of 1918 and shaken to the core by the revolutionary wave of 1918 and 1923.

Contrary to the lies spread by democratic propaganda, the worm wasn’t in the fruit of October 1917. Bolshevism did not contain in itself the terror of Stalinism. It was the crushing of the revolution in Germany that opened the royal road to the counter-revolution in Russia, the same as the death of Lenin on 20 January 1924 removed one of the last obstacles to Stalin’s grip on the Bolshevik Party. The latter became a Stalinist party with the adoption of the theory of ‘socialism in one country.

Bolshevism belongs to the proletariat, not to its hangman, Stalinism.

Sylvestre, 20/1/08.



[1] In order to wipe out any trace of the past, all testimony, Stalin even tried to liquidate foreigners residing in Russia, such as Victor Serge who was imprisoned. He was quite a well-known writer and was only saved thanks to a large international campaign.

[2] It’s for that reason moreover that Lenin’s doctor, under orders from Stalin, estimated that it wasn’t necessary to prolong his agony and proceeded with his euthanasia (this ‘humanitarian’ gesture had the ‘merit’ of preventing Lenin giving his last directives about the weaknesses of the Party).






















Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome
Theme designed by Minz Meyer

Modified by d.worker