TOWARDS A DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST SOCIETY IN MALAYSIA AND THE WORLD

SENIMAN DAN PERJUANGAN KELAS: MENGUPAS PENGALAMAN WIJI TUKUL

2012-01-12T03:20:00.000-08:00

Di Malaysia akhir-akhir ini kita sering melihat tekanan politik yang semakin kuat daripada pemerintah terhadap segala macam bentuk penentangan terhadap kekuasaan Barisan Nasional. Situasi ini sebenarnya bukan merupakan perkara yang luar biasa bagi sebuah negara yang dipimpin oleh sebuah kuasa yang telah terlalu lama di tampuk pemerintahan dan semakin takut akan kehilangan kuasanya. Apalagi kalau melihat penentangan itu tidak hanya muncul daripada parti politik pembangkang sahaja, tetapi juga melibatkan unsur yang lain, seperti aktivis politik, peguam, penulis blog, seniman, dan anak muda. Masing-masing kumpulan ini memainkan peranan tersendiri di dalam lanskap politik terkini. Namun, tulisan singakt ini hendak memberikan penekanan khusus kepada peranan seniman di dalam proses perubahan politik tersebut.

Ada baiknya kita melihat contoh ke negara jiran Indonesia semasa Orde Baru di bawah kepimpinan Soeharto (1966-1998), di mana kuasa menggunakan segala cara dan sumber yang ada padanya untuk menekan keinginan rakyat yang mahukan perubahan. Jika dibandingkan dengan keadan di Malaysia sekarang, pemerintah Indonesia sebelum reformasi lebih teruk memperlakukan setiap aktivis politik yang menentangnya. Tentera memainkan peranan yang sangat besar dalam mempertahankan kuasa. Pembunuhan, penjara, penculikan, dan penderaan fizikal yang dilakukan oleh tentera dan polis merupakan sebuah risiko yang pasti dihadapi oleh aktivis.

Wiji Thukul (1963-???) adalah seorang penyair dan aktivis politik Indonesia yang mungkin namanya kurang kita kenal di sini, namun sebenarnya memiliki peranan besar di dalam menentang kuasa Orde Baru. Puisi-puisinya selalu dibacakan pada saat demonstrasi-demonstrasi pada awal tahun 1990-an yang dilakukan oleh mahasiswa, pekerja, petani, dalam pelagai isu. Hal ini dimungkinkan kerana puisi-puisinya dianggap mewakili suara masyarakat tertindas dan mewakili perasaan rakyat terhadap situasi sosial, ekonomi, politik pada masa itu. Ia sendiri berasal dari keluarga miskin yang tinggal di sebuah perkampungan urban yang miskin di tengah-tengah kota Solo, Jawa Tengah. Justru ketika ia berbicara tentang kemiskinan di sekelilingnya, situasi yang sama juga dihadapi oleh jutaan rakyat miskin lainnya di seluruh Indonesia.

Bait terakhir daripada salah satu puisinya yang paling terkenal, Peringatan, yang berbunyi: “Hanya Satu Kata: Lawan!” menjadi slogan utama para aktivis dalam kempen menjatuhkan Soeharto. Slogan itu selalu terdengar dalam setiap pidato dan pekik sorak para demonstran di jalanan pada saat muncul gerakan politik penentangan semenjak awal tahun 1990an sehingga tercetus reformasi pada tahun 1998. Padahal puisi tersebut diciptakan Wiji Thukul pada tahun 1985, pada saat gerakan politik menentang kuasa Orde Baru belum berani muncul secara terbuka. Ini menunjukkan bahawa dalam keadaan suara dibungkam, seniman melalui karya seninya boleh menjadi pencetus kepada penentangan dan pendorong munculnya gerakan perlawanan. Apa yang istimewa daripada sosok Wiji Thukul ialah, ia tidak hanya menciptakan puisi penentangan sahaja, tetapi juga ikut terlibat di dalam penentangan secara langsung dengan aktif berpolitik. Ia mendatangi pekerja dikilang-kilang mereka, berdiskusi, berkesenian, dan tinggal bersama mereka. Tujuannya ialah untuk memberi keberanian bersuara kepada pekerja melalui mulut mereka sendiri, tentang persoalan yang mereka hadapi. Salah satu contoh di mana pendekatan ini membuahkan hasil ialah ketika ia bersama aktivis pekerja yang lain berhasil memimpin demonstrasi seramai 15,000 pekerja kilang syarikat tekstil Sritek di Solo, pada bulan Disember 1995 yang merupakan salah satu demonstrasi mogok kerja terbesar yang pernah berlaku pada masa Orde Baru. Pada saat demonstrasi itu, sejumlah pekerja dan aktivis ditangkap dan disiksa oleh tentera. Wiji Thukul mengalami kecedaraan yang teruk sehingga menyebabkan salah satu matanya buta kerana dipukul dengan senapang oleh tentera yang menangkapnya. Namun, perlakuan semacam itu dianggapnya sudah sebati dengan perjuangan melawan penindasan, dan tidak ada tanda-tanda yang menunjukkan ia menyerah. Perlakuan kejam semacam itu dari tentera bukan kali pertama diterimanya. Sedar akan pengaruh puisi-puisinya yang menghasut kesedaran massa untuk berontak, dan juga oleh besarnya daya juang sipenyairnya sendiri, membuatkan Wiji Thukul selalu menjadi sasaran intimidasi dan penangkapan oleh tentera. Puncaknya ialah pada saat akhir kekuasaan Soeharto, menjelang reformasi 1998, Wiji Thukul hilang diculik oleh alat negara, bersama dengan puluhan aktivis lain yang menjadi mangsa kekuasaan. Nasibnya tidak diketahui sampai hari ini, namun inspirasi perjuangan melalui puisi-puisinya tetap tetap relevan bagi perjuangan.

Bagaimana dengan Malaysia? Adakah seniman boleh memainkan peranan yang sama seperti yang berlaku di Indonesia? Saat ini sasterawan A. Samad Said mungkin dilihat sebagai seniman yang paling menonjol menentang UMNO. Keterlibatannya di dalam demonstrasi menentang PPSMI dan Bersih 2.0 mendapat liputan yang meluas di media. Tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa hal itu berlaku kerana kapasitinya sebagai seorang bekas ssasterawan negara. Namun kenyataan itu tidak secara automatik meletakkannya setaraf dengan seniman pejuang Wiji Thukul yang telah kita sebutkan tadi. Apalagi melihat watak rejim di Malaysia yang tidak segarang rejim diktator dengan pengaruh militer yang kuat seperti di Indonesia, seharusnya kalangan seniman di negara ini lebih berani dan lebih keras menyuarakan suara rakyat. Bukan hanya setakat menyuarakan suara rakyat, tetapi mahu bekerja bersama rakyat, supaya mereka berani menyuarakan suara mereka sendiri.

Untuk menutup tulisan ini, saya kutip dua buah puisi Wiji Thukul yang selalu dibacakan dan dinyanyikannya di depan mahasiswa dan kaum intelektual untuk menyindir mereka.

Apa Guna

Apa guna punya ilmu tinggi

Kalau hanya untuk mengibuli

Apa guna banyak baca buku

Kalau mulut kau bungkam melulu

Di mana-mana

Moncong senjata

Berdiri Gagah kongkalikong dengan kaum cukong

Di desa-desa

Rakyat dipaksa

Menjual tanah

Tapi tapi tapi tapi

Dengan harga murah

Apa guna punya ilmu tinggi

Kalau hanya untuk mengibuli

Apa guna banyak baca buku

Kalau mulut kau bungkam melulu

Mendongkel Orang-orang Pintar

Kudongkel keluar orang-orang pintar dari dalam kepalaku

Aku tak tergetar lagi oleh mulut-mulut orang pintar

Yang bersemangat ketika berbicara

Dunia bergerak bukan karena omongan

Para pembicara dalam ruang seminar

Yang ucapannya dimuat di halaman surat kabar

Mungkin pembaca terkagum-kagum

Tapi dunia tak bergerak setelah surat kabar itu dilipat

WT, 1993

Iyan, CWI

ULASAN TAHUN 2011...MENEMPUH 2012 !

2012-01-03T19:11:00.000-08:00

2011 TAHUN KEBANGKITAN RAKYAT …2012 KRISIS KAPITALISMA DIJANGKA TENAT …PILIHANRAYA UMUM MALAYSIA KE-13 ‘IBU’ SEGALA PILIHANRAYA.

Tahun 2011 bermula dengan revolusi di negara-negara Asia Barat dan Afrika Utara. Satu demi satu regim diktator yang telah bermaharajalela berpuluh-puluh tahun runtuh akibat keteguhan kebangkitan rakyat yang dipelopori oleh anak muda dan kelas pekerja yang menuntut hak demokrasi dan keperluan sosial. Bermula dengan Tunisia, kebangkitan rakyat seterusnya menular ke Mesir, Libya, Yemen dan negara-negara lain. Manakala di Syria ketika kita mencecah tahun 2012 perjuangan rakyat di negara tersebut terhadap regim autokratik Bashar semakin sengit.

Kebangkitan anak muda dan kelas pekerja tersebut yang bersifat internasionalisme bukan sahaja telah merangsangkan perjuangan terhadap kerajaan zalim di rantau Asia Barat dan Afrika Utara tetapi juga telah memberikan inspirasi kepada perjuangan terhadap krisis kapitalisme di Amerika Syarikat dan Eropah, dan juga perjuangan anak muda atau kelas pekerja di negara-negara lain termasuk BERSIH 2.0 di Malaysia untuk hak demokrasi dan keperluan sosial.

Pada masa yang sama, kegawatan ekonomi di Amerika Syarikat dan Eropah yang bermula pada tahun 2008 masih tidak mendapat penyelesaian, dan dijangka kesuraman ekonomi tersebut akan berlanjutan pada tahun 2012. Krisis ekonomi tersebut memberikan impak yang teruk kepada kelas pekerja dan anak muda, dan mereka melancarkan mogok umum dan demonstrasi untuk menentang polisi-polisi pro-kapitalis kerajaan masing-masing. Akibatnya, satu demi satu kerajaan pro-kapitalis tersungkur di Ireland, Britain, Greek, Sepanyol, Portugal dan Itali. Ini termasuk parti-parti pro-kapitalis yang pada satu ketika telah berlandaskan kepada demokrasi sosial dan kelas pekerja seperti PASOK (Greek), Parti Buruh (Britain) dan Parti Sosialis (Sepanyol, Portugal). Polisi dan perspektif parti-parti tersebut sama sekali tidak berbeza dengan parti-parti berhaluan kanan di negara-negara tersebut, dan sosialisme dan kelas pekerja hanya menjadi momokan mereka untuk memancing undi.

Manakala, gerakan ‘occupy’ yang bermula di Amerika menduduki (menguasai) bandar-bandar utama di negara tersebut telah menular hampir ke serata pelusuk dunia. Anak muda yang hilang kepercayaan terhadap parti-parti politik yang tidak berupaya membendung krisis kapitalisme, mempergunakan gerakan ‘occupy’ untuk meluahkan perasaan anti-kapitalisme dan menuntut perubahaan tulen.

Akibat kejatuhan rejim-rejim diktator di negara-negara Asia Barat/ Afrika Utara tersebut, kerajaan autokratik yang lain seperti Myanmar, Malaysia dan lain-lain juga terdesak untuk menjanjikan ruang demokrasi yang lebih untuk mengekang kebangkitan rakyat. Kerajaan BN yang pada awalnya tidak berganjak untuk melakukan pembaharuan dalam sistem pilihanraya dan hak demokrasi, telah didesak oleh perhimpunan BERSIH 2.0 yang diterajui oleh anak-anak muda. Justeru itu, BN terpaksa tunduk dengan menjanjikan beberapa pembaharuan dalam sistem pilihanraya dan hak demokrasi termasuk pembaharuan di dalam akta ISA dan AUKU, supaya tidak menghadapi situasi sepertimana yang dilalui oleh kerajaan-kerajaan diktator di Asia Barat dan Afrika Utara yang selama ini telah terus menerus mengekang hak demokrasi. Walaubagaimanapun, setakat ini pembaharuan-pembaharuan tersebut lebih bersifat kosmetik untuk mendapat sokongan rakyat, dan BN akan berusaha sedaya-upaya untuk memastikan pembaharuan-pembaharuan yang dijanjikan tidak mengugat hegemoni Barisan Nasional selama ini. Manakala pembangkang akan cuba mempergunakan janji-janji demokrasi BN untuk mendesak lebih pembaharuan sebelum menghadapi pilihanraya umum yang ke-13.

Situasi politik dan ekonomi Malaysia sedikit sebanyak telah dipengaruhi oleh konflik politik dan krisis ekonomi yang melanda Asia Barat/Afrika Utara dan Amerika/Eropah. Situasi ekonomi negara masih tidak berubah dengan penumpuan aktiviti ekonomi yang bertujuan merangsang pasaran dalaman negara, tetapi kemasukan pelaburan luar negara dan ekspot barangan keluaran negara masih tidak memuaskan. Manakala tanda-tanda aktiviti ekonomi yang sedang menyusust di negara China dan India, dengan krisis ekonomi yang berterusan di Amerika dan Eropah, boleh memberikan impak yang lebih buruk kepada Malaysia dan negara-negara di rantau ini, jika kegawatan ekonomi dunia tidak berjaya dikekang.

2012 kemungkinan besar adalah tahun pilihanraya yang ke 13 yang dijangka akan diadakan bila-bila masa selepas bulan Februari. Pilihanraya tersebut yang dianggap sebagai ‘Ibu’ segala pilihanraya dijangka akan sengit dengan kedua-dua BN dan Pakatan akan bertarung untuk menubuhkan kerajaan persekutuan. Pada masa kini, kedua-dua BN dan Pakatan sedang melalui konflik dalaman parti untuk perebutan kerusi dan kuasa. Selain mempergunakan retorik dan agenda populis seperti 1Malaysia, Program Transformasi Kerajaan dan Program Transformasi Ekonomi, seperti biasa BN akan mempergunakan kekebalan jentera pilihanraya, wang dan media sedaya upaya untuk memenangi pilihanraya tersebut. Pakatan pula akan menaburkan janji-janji populis dan slogan seperti ‘negara kebajikan’, ‘buku jingga’ dan ‘ubah’ sepertimana pilihanraya yang ke-12 untuk mendapatkan sokongan rakyat biasa yang sedang dibebani dengan tekanan hidup akibat inflasi yang semakin meningkat dan penyusutan aktiviti ekonomi. Tetapi, BN mahupun Pakatan tidak mempunyai jalan penyelesaian kepada kelembapan ekonomi negara akibat krisis ekonomi global yang dijangka akan berterusan di tahun 2012 selain melakukan atau mensyorkan perubahan kosmetik untuk menyelematkan sistem kapitalisme negara ini. Ini bermakna, kerajaan yang terbentuk sama ada kerajaan Pakatan atau BN, akan terus dibelenggu oleh krisis ekonomi global jika krisis tersebut berterusan yang mana boleh memberikan kesan yang teruk kepada taraf sosial anak muda dan kelas pekerja.

Walaupun selepas kejatuhan dan perubahan kerajaan-kerajaan diktator di Asia Barat/Afrika Utara, dan kerajaan-kerajaan di negara Eropah, revolusi balas (counter-revolution) yang diterajui oleh parti-parti baru dengan landasan pro-kapitalis membentuk kerajaan baru dengan sokongan kuasa-kuasa imprealisme seperti Amerika Syarikat dan Kesatuan Eropah (European Union). Rakyat biasa di negara tersebut terpaksa meneruskan perjuangan terhadap regim-regim baru yang bertopengkan ‘perubahaan’ tetapi masih ghairah untuk berjinak-jinak dengan kapitalisme untuk memanfaatkan segelintir golongan kapitalis nasional dan antarabangsa.

Rakyat biasa mahukan perubahaan ekonomi dan sosial untuk mempertingkatkan keperluan-keperluan asas mereka. Ini adalah perjuangan kelas di antara 99% ( majoriti kelas pekerja dan anak muda) dan 1% (minoriti kapitalis) seperti yang dilaungkan oleh gerakan ‘occupy’ yang mencerminkan keteguhan rakyat biasa untuk perubahan tulen dan kegelojohan memaksimakan keuntungan sistem kapitalisme yang penuh dengan kepincangan dan krisis. Ini menunjukkan bahawa satu perubahan sistem kepada demokratik sosialisme amat diperlukan untuk memenuhi keperluan sosial dan ekonomi untuk memenuhi dan memperkembangkan keperluan asas dan hak demokrasi anak muda dan kelas pekerja.

Selama ini pelopor-pelopor kapitalisme dengan sewenang-wenangnya memutarbelitkan perspektif sosialisme dan idea-idea marxisme dengan merujuk kepada birokrasi dan sistem satu parti Stalinisme dan Maoisme, dan kegagalan parti-parti pilihanraya yang berlandaskan demokrasi sosial (social democrat). Kejatuhan regim diktator Stalinisme pada 1989 disambut oleh pendokong dan intelektual kapitalisme sebagai ‘Kejayaan kepada Kapitalisme’. Adalah tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa regim-regim dan parti-parti yang berlandaskan kepada Stalinisme atau Maoisme dengan nama ‘sosialisme’ atau ‘marxisme’ telah memperkasakan birokrasi dan menghapuskan demokrasi kelas pekerja, petani dan anak muda yang amat diperlukan untuk pembinaan sosialisme dan ekonomi terancang untuk meningkatkan keperluan rakyat. Tetapi, yang amat nyata pada masa kini di negara-negara bekas Stalinisme seperti di Rusia dan Eropah Timur adalah kejatuhan taraf hidup yang lebih teruk berbanding ketika era Stalinisme itu sendiri. Manakala pekerja dan petani miskin di China pula melancarkan mogok dan protes besar-besaran untuk mempertahankan hak dan demokrasi yang sedang diancam oleh perkembangan kapitalisme di negara tersebut.

Pendokong dan intelektual kapitalis yang pada satu ketika melaungkan ‘Kejayaan’ kepada sistem mereka terpaksa akur dengan ‘antara krisis yang paling teruk dalam sejarah kapitalisme’ yang sedang dilalui pada masa kini. Kegagalan kapitalisme untuk menyelesaikan krisis sistem itu sendiri telah membantutkan keyakinan ramai anak muda dan rakyat biasa kepada sistem tersebut, dan semakin ramai merujuk semua kepada perspektif sosialisme dan idea marxisme sebagai alternatif kepada kapitalisme.

Pengalaman revolusi di Asia Barat dan Afrika Utara pada tahun 2011 mengajar kita bahawa kapitalisme boleh membentuk regim baru melalui revolusi balas apabila regim lama tidak dapat berfungsi mengawal rakyat dan memanfaatkan kapitalisme. Kapitalisme telah mewujudkan parti-parti pro-kapitalisme aliran perdana untuk memainkan peranan tersebut. Ini sepertimana Parti Republican ditukar kepada Parti Demokrat di dalam pilihanraya Amerika Syarikat yang mana kedua-duanya bersifat pro-kapitalis untuk memenuhi nafsu keuntungan maksima sistem kapitalisme negara tersebut.

Di negara-negara Asia Barat, Afrika Utara, Eropah dan Amerika Syarikat anak-anak muda dan kelas pekerja menunjukkan keberanian dan keteguhan untuk berjuang, tetapi kekurangan di dalam gerakan-gerakan tersebut adalah kepimpinan kelas pekerja dan anak muda untuk menerajui perubahan politik berlandaskan aspirasi kelas pekerja dan anak muda untuk membawa perubahan sosial dan ekonomi yang tulen. Untuk ini parti massa kelas pekerja dan anak muda perlu dibina sebagai alternatif kepada parti-parti pro-kapitalis.

Persoalan yang sama akan timbul di Malaysia, tentang perlunya pembinaan parti massa kelas pekerja untuk memimpin keperluan dan hak sosial dan demokrasi anak muda dan rakyat biasa. Kesedaran dan keperluan tersebut mampu kukuh di ambang keadaan sosial dan ekonomi yang dijangka akan bertambah tenat di Malaysia dan juga secara global.

APA PERBEZAAN BELANJAWAN BN DAN PAKATAN?

2011-11-20T20:13:00.000-08:00

ANAK MUDA DAN KELAS PEKERJA PERLU MEMBINA ALTERNATIF KEPADA POLITIK PRO-KAPITALISME

Hampir setiap hari akbar tempatan mahupun antarabangsa berkisar tentang ekonomi global yang semakin hari semakin tenat. Terbukti juga bahawa teori Marx tentang ekonomi dan kapitalisme masih releven untuk memahami mengapa krisis tersebut yang bermula pada 2008 masih tidak mendapat penyelesaian. Malah runtuhnya tembok Berlin pada tahun 1989 tidak bererti Marxisme turut jatuh menyembah bumi sekali walaupun diuar-uarkan ideologinya tidak relevan lagi. Yang jatuhnya hanyalah pemerintahan kukubesi birokrasi Stalinisme yang telah menghancurkan demokrasi pekerja dan rakyat biasa yang amat diperlukan untuk pembinaan ekonomi terancang sosialisme untuk mengorganisasi keperluan masyarakat. Malahan rakyat biasa di negara-negara di bawah Stalinisme atau Maoisme tersebut yang telah kembali ke tampuk kapitalisme selepas kejatuhan rejim-rejim di negara mereka, sekarang menghadapi eksploitasi yang lebih ganas akibat krisis di dalam sistem kapitalisme itu sendiri.

Sudah hampir sebulan berlalu Najib membentang perbelanjaan untuk tahun 2012. Sebanyak 232.8 billion ringgit diperuntukan untuk belanjawan tahun depan. Naik sebanyak 8.6 peratus iaitu 20.8 billion daripada tahun lalu. Manakala, Pakatan Rakyat membentangkan peruntukan 220 billion ringgit untuk tahun hadapan. Umum sudah tahu dan sedar bahawa pilihanraya umum ke-13 sudah dekat. Maka, tidak hairanlah kedua-dua pihak saling berebut untuk mencari sehelai ataupun lebih kertas undi dengan menjaja nama sejahtera dan rakyat. Lihat saja temanya sama cuma cara kedua-dua pihak mengurus hanya berbeza sedikit antara satu sama lain. Pakatan mengatakan kalau tiada korupsi dalam kerajaan BN, maka ekonomi boleh diperkasakan, manakala BN mengatakan Pakatan bukan di alam nyata dan belanjawan mereka tak praktikal. Ringkasnya, kedua-duanya merangka belanjawan di bawah kongkongan elemen-elemen kapitalisme di negara kita yang semakin tertekan akibat krisis ekonomi global. Manakala rakyat biasa sedang merasakan tekanan hidup yang semakin membebankan akibat kenaikan harga barang dan keperluan lain yang tidak terkawal.

Persoalannya berapa lama rakyat boleh digula-gulakan dengan berbagai habuan yang semata-mata diberikan untuk satu jangkamasa pendek. Manakala masalah asas seperti hak gaji yang saksama, hak perumahaan selesa dan lain-lain terus diabaikan. Kesedaran rakyat meningkat dengan impak sosial dan ekonomi yang semakin meningkat. Hasilnya, pada tahun 2008, Abdullah Badawi juga membentang perbelanjaan seperti pemerintahan Najib. Juga dengan nama rakyat dan sejahtera. Namun , gelombang Tsunami 2008 tetap menghempas dan menjatuhkan majoriti 2/3 untuk kali pertama dalam sejarah kerajaan BN yang memerintah negara selama 50 lebih tahun. Sebanyak 5 buah negeri jatuh ke tangan pembangkang sebelum kejatuhan Perak kembali ke tangan BN.

Nampaknya, kebanyakan habuan yang diberikan adalah kepada rakyat luar bandar, manakala tidak banyak lolipop dihulur untuk golongan pertengahan di kawasan bandar. Harus diingatkan, majoriti golongan pertengahan inilah yang turun ke jalan pada 9 Julai walaupun berhadapan tindakan represi bertalu-talu daripada pihak pemerintah. Mereka mungkin boleh kembali turun ke jalan dengan jumlah yang lebih ramai jika ada gerakan massa dengan kepimpinan yang jelas. Pada masa yang sama, jika regim Najib gagal membendung inflasi yang semakin menjerut leher golongan berpendapatan rendah, maka ini boleh menaikkan kemarahan mereka terhadap kerajaan.

Pekerja sektor awam pasti tersenyum lebar dengan kenaikan gaji yang diumumkan dalam perbelanjaan ini. Tetapi peniaga-peniaga akan mengambil kesempatan tersebut untuk menaiikan harga barang. Hal ini bukan disebabkan oleh para peniaga suka menaikkan harga hanya kerana mengikut trend semasa. Dalam sistem ekonomi kapitalis, asas-asas ekonomi bukannya dimiliki oleh kerajaan. Ianya terletak di tangan para kapitalis antarabangsa dan tempatan. Tidak kiralah berapa banyak program pemantau harga oleh pihak kerajaan, harga barang tetap naik. Perkara ini bukan perkara yang baru , ianya berlaku setiap tahun.

Pakatan Rakyat dan Barisan Nasional sangat yakin dengan unjuran Keluaran Dalam Negara Kasar ( KDNK ) akan tumbuh sekitar 4 ke 5.5 peratus. Walaupun hutang negara kini pada RM437.2 bilion atau 52.7 peratus daripada Keluaran Dalam Negeri Kasar (KDNK). Pada saat ini , krisis yang bermula daripada tahun 2008 masih terus berlangsung dan pakar-pakar ekonomi kapitalis meramalkan keadaan ekonomi akan lebih parah jika kegawatan ekonomi di Eropah dan Amerika tidak dapat dipulihkan dalam jangka masa terdekat ini. Situasi di benua Eropah kian meruncing , Greece ,Spain dan terbaru ini Itali di ambang kebankrapan. Di Amerika, situasi juga tidak banyak berbeza. Kemiskinan di Amerika kini mencatat 20.8 juta rakyatnya hidup dibawah garis kemiskinan.

Namun , nafsu untuk berbelanja lebih tetap ada. Pakatan Rakyat pula sama juga seperti BN. Masing-masing berebut hendak pelaburan yang besar dan dasar pasaran terbuka akan diperluaskan lagi. Misalnya untuk beberapa sektor perkhidmatan akan dibuka kepada pelaburan asing pengangan syernya sebanyak 100 peratus. Malah semakin ramai pakar ekonomi berkata krisis kali akan lebih teruk dan lebih panjang daripada ‘The Great Depression’ 1930 dan tidak pasti bila krisis ini akan beransur pulih.

Kebanyakan agihan untuk rakyat biasa bersifat 'one-off" ( memberi sekali sahaja ) dan tiada rancangan untuk jangka masa yang panjang. Ini jelas , perbelanjaan tahun depan bukanlah seenak rasa temanya kesejahteraan untuk rakyat. Dengan keadaan ekonomi dunia yang tidak menentu, ada kemungkinan agihan ini tidak berkesan untuk menangani kesulitan yang dihadapi. Malahan ianya mungkin tidak cukup untuk menampung keperluan seharian kerana barang makanan seperti ayam sentiasa naik. Pekerja sektor kerajaan harus tahu kenaikan gaji itu hanyalah bersifat sementara. Agihan sebenarnya masih tidak cukup berbanding syarikat korporat yang mendapat cukai pengecualian yang banyak. Sebanyak 70 peratus pengecualian cukai kepada pemilik hotel di seluruh Malaysia. Tidak banyak inisiatif untuk membasmi pengangguran terutamanya dikalangan anak muda yang baru tamat pengajian di universiti. Keadaan ini diburukkan lagi, kualiti pendidikan masih lagi di tahap yang tidak memuaskan walaupun yuran naik seperti barang komiditi yang lain. Agihan 200 ratus ringgit untuk voucher membeli buku rujukan hanya sekadar memberi duit poket bulanan ke dalam dompet pelajar. Sayangnya, harga buku rujukan bukanlah semurah yang disangkakan. 200 ringgit hanyalah cukup-cukup untuk membeli satu atau dua buku. Rata-rata pengundi pada pilihanraya umum 13 adalah pengundi muda yang boleh menjadi penentu kepada pemenang pilihanraya tersebut.

Biarpun perbelanjaan tahun depan boleh dikira perbelanjaan untuk meraih undi , tidak ada perancangan jelas bagaimana kita boleh menangani masalah ekonomi yang kian meruncing. Ketika ini, satu alternatif harus dimulakan. Memilik-negara asas-asas ekonomi seperti minyak. Kepimpinan kelas pekerja harus dibina untuk memimpin negara kerana merekalah yang merasa kesan terus dari krisis ekonomi yang melanda. Mereka ini langsung tidak memiliki kepentingan berpaksikan untung seperti kapitalis-kapitalis nasional dan antarabangsa. Keperluan rakyat diutamakan bukannya untung rugi sebuah saham. Kesaksamaan dalam pengagihan sumber keperluan tanpa mengira bangsa dan agama. Anak muda harus mula mendekati golongan pekerja. Lihat sahaja kekebalan mereka pada Julai lalu. Dengan bersatunya dan kekuatan bersama anak muda dan kelas pekerja, rakyat tidak kerugian apa-apa tetapi rantai-rantai penindasan yang membelenggu sekian lamanya.

MALAYSIA: EFFECTS OF GLOBAL CRISIS FELT IN ASIA

2011-10-23T19:03:00.000-07:00

MALAYSIAN ECONOMY ENTERS DIFFICULT PERIOD

Since the ruling BN (National Front) government suffered the unprecedented loss of its two- thirds majority, due to the successes of the opposition Pakatan Rakyat in the 2008 general election. it has been going all out to regain the lost ground by introducing government and economic transformation programmes. Recently, also to try and gain some popularity, it announced plans to abolish the extremely unpopular and draconian Internal Security Act (while still retaining broad powers to try and suppress social movements that threaten its hold on power).

The uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East as well as the prolonged uncertainties in the global economy have forced the BN government, which has been in power for almost 55 years, to restructure its outlook in order to uphold its hegemony. However, the BN could not get rid of its racial politics from where it got its original base, even though they have tried to divert into nationalistic rhetoric such as ‘One Malaysia’ to give an impression of equality and unity of the various races of Malaysia. This shows that the BN government with its free market policies for the minority - the national and multinational capitalists – is incapable of solving the ‘national questions’ (such as racial and religious inequality) in multiracial Malaysia. Neither do the opposition forces have solutions on such issues. The national question can only be solved if the economy is democratically planned to meet the needs of the majority - the working class and youth - without racial or religious prejudices.

Nonetheless, the vulture character of global capitalism, that is enraging young people and the working class in the US, Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere, is also undermining the economic and social conditions of youth and workers in Malaysia. This is basically because the Malaysian economy is dependent on exports and is very much interlinked with the conditions of the global economy; there is no place to hide when the advanced economies are in trouble.

Malaysian capitalism undermined

Since the 1997/98 Asian financial crisis, the Malaysian economy could not return back to the era of the ‘tiger economy’, when it had experienced GDP growth of 9 to 10% from 1988 to 1996. The average annual GDP growth of around 5% from 1999 to 2010 has already diminished the 'Vision 2020' which was formulated in 1991 to achieve the status of a fully developed economy by 2020. This was based on the idea that “a self-sufficient industrialised nation encompasses all aspects of life, from economic prosperity, social well-being, world class educational standards, political stability, as well as psychological balance” but requires annual GDP growth of at least 7%.

The impact on the economy and society caused by the neo-liberal agenda and laissez-faire capitalism during the ‘tiger economy’ of prime minister Mahathir's era has been felt in the period since the 1997/98 Asian crisis. Mahathir himself switched to introducing protectionist measures such as strict capital controls as well pegging the ringgit to the US dollar to save Malaysian capitalism in 1998. Under the pressure of international capitalism, the new government under Abdullah Badawi removed these measures in 2005. The impact of the global economy's 2008/9 ‘Great Recession’ has further undermined the export-dependent economy of Malaysia which now expects GDP growth for 2011 and 2012 will be around 4 - 5%.

The ruling government has been zig-zagging from one policy to another to alter the export dependent economy that was strongly established in the 1980s and 1990s through massive industrialisation and privatisation. These endeavours within free market capitalism to stimulate the economy have so far not changed the outlook for the economy and further exposes the vulnerability of the Malaysian economy to global economic crisis.

Gloomy outlook of global economy

On October 7, the BN government announced the budget for 2012 – with the fifteenth budget deficit in a row since the Asian financial crisis of 1997 - as ‘The people’s budget’ with a range of welfare 'goodies' and one-off handouts, mainly to lower income families with less than RM3,000 per household. Meanwhile the government debt, which is around 53% relative to GDP, keeps on increasing. The budget hand-outs are merely another attempt by government to woo and enlarge the support of voters for the looming 13^th general election, now expected to be called early next year. However, growing inflation - the rising cost of living caused by the profit-oriented monopoly of national and multinational capitalism - is still the main concern for the majority of lower and middle income people.

The government has projected GDP growth for this year and next at between 5 and 6 percent with the fiscal deficit declining to less than 5% of GDP. It believes this is achievable by stimulating domestic economic activity and intra-regional trade among Asian countries to offset the volatility in the economies of the US, Europe and Japan. However, the major local banks, the IMF as well as the MIER (Malaysia Institute of Economic Research) have all revised downwards the country's GDP growth to between 4 and 5 percent this year and next year, owing to the slowing down of exports and weaker domestic demand.

With the current economic scenario, Malaysia is struggling to even maintain itself as an investment hub for manufacturing products as it is facing stern competition from the regional countries that are offering a far cheaper labour force. At present, the demand for the manufacturing industries, especially electrical and electronic products, have not returned to even the level of pre-2008 because of the slowdown in the US, Japan and Europe. The prospects seem very dim for manufacturing in the coming years. The government is looking towards attracting high- and green- technology based investment to create 3.3 million new jobs in the coming years. However, the competition for such investment is very intense even from the regional economies such as Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia. Insufficient skilled manpower in such industries in Malaysia would further complicate this process.

Debt crisis threatens Asia

The stimulus package of RM60 billion pumped into the domestic market in 2009 and the export of commodities such as palm oil, rubber, tin, gas and fuel oil to China and India cushioned the economy in 2010. At present, commodity exports account for roughly 40% of the country’s exports. However, in recent months the commodity futures prices have taken a downward trend as evidence of slowing growth is increasing in Asia, with the exports of China rising the slowest for seven months in September. Meanwhile the IMF has warned that “an escalation of euro-area financial turbulence and a renewed slowdown in the US could have a severe macroeconomic and financial spillover to Asia…Since 2009, investors from advanced economies have built-up substantial positions in Asian markets. A sudden liquidation of these positions could trigger a loss of confidence, and contagion could spread from bond and equity markets to currency and other markets”. This has been the reason for the weakening trend of the ringgit since last month as the reversal of short-term foreign capital flows, driven by fear of uncertainties in global economies, accelerated between August and September.

Recently, the Philippines government announced a stimulus plan while Indonesia and Singapore cut interest rates to bolster slowing growth. This shows that the intra-region trade among Asian countries could also be affected if the volatility in the global economy continues. This means that the economy of Malaysia could be further affected if the Chinese and Indian economies slow down sharply with the deteriorating demand from Europe and the US.

Pumping money into domestic market

40% of government revenue still comes from oil and gas, which means that if the oil price goes down by US$10 per barrel, RM 2 billion would be lost. If the global economy further slowed, this would push the oil price further down, and this would cut down the government revenue. In addition, further cuts in subsidies and the introduction of GST (goods and service tax) are deferred because of the looming general election.

The CPI (Consumer Price Index) went up to 3.3% in the second quarter from 2.8% in the first quarter this year. The working class and the poor, who use up to 40% of their salary on food items, have already felt the pinch. The unemployment rate is over 3 and worst amongst university graduates. This could become worse if new jobs are not created sufficiently given the low FDI coming into the country to cater for the new graduates in 2011.

Property prices increasing between 5-10% per year, especially in the urban areas, such as in the Klang valley, are alienating the first time buyers from working class and middle class backgrounds that want to own a house. There are signs of a growing property bubble in Malaysia because of uncontrolled speculation on propertiy prices. If the bubble bursts, it could have a big effect on the economy since the property sector contributed up to 8% growth to the GDP last year.

The government has planned many construction projects, from MRT (Mass Rapid Transit) to large infrastructure projects, to stimulate the domestic economy. This sector is expected to contribute 7% growth to GDP. The 'New Economic Model' (NEM), aiming to push Malaysia towards becoming a high-income nation by 2020, the '10th Malaysia Plan' (10MP), the 'Economic Transformation Programme' and the 'Government Transformation Programme' are all designed to stimulate the domestic market as well as to attract investment. But they have not changed the outlook for the Malaysian economy, much of which is still vulnerable to external changes - in the global economy. Malaysia fell six slots, from 10th to 16th, in the 2011 World Competitive Rankings.

Social implications

The gap between rich and poor gap is widening, including among the Malay population. This demonstrates that the NEP (New Economic Policy) as well as subsequent policies, have served only to increase the number of middle class Malays as well as to enlarge the economic share of Malay capitalists. This shows that affirmative policies for malay/bumiputra have been used by the ruling class only to enlarge the wealth cake of the capitalists. There was a similar experience, while under different historical circumstances, in South Africa when the ANC came to power after the ending of the racist apartheid regime. The ANC, with affirmative policies for the black population, created a black crony capitalist elite while the majority of blacks are still marginalised.

However the dissatisfactions are growing among different racial groups, both working and middle class, with rising prices and declining living standards. According to the 10^th Malaysia Plan report, the bottom 40% of households in Malaysia are still earning between RM1,000 to RM2,000 with the majority dependant on a single income. Almost 70% of EPF (Employee Provident Fund) contributors - more than 4.4 million - are earning less than RM2,500. Monthly household expenses in 2010 are RM2,190, an increase of 12% from 2005.

Household debt also has increased from 69.1% of GDP in 2005 to 76.6% of GDP in 2009. Although this is still considered low compared to other countries, it could increase if inflation continues. Because of the pressure of inflation, many working class and poor people have also been trapped by ‘loan sharks’ (illegal money-lenders) when unable to obtain credit from legitimate financial organisations.

So far, the government has been able to contain the dissatisfaction of the people to a certain extent against the diminishing living standards by maintaining subsidies - which amount to around 10 - 15% of the budget. However, if the economy further weakens and the government faces pressure to reduce the budget deficit, the government will be pushed to further reduce or stop certain subsidies. This action would undoubtedly have an effect on the living conditions of the working class and poor as well as on some sections of the middle class that have been benefiting from the subsidies.

Democratic socialism as the alternative

The Economic Agenda of the opposition Pakatan Rakyat has not offered any alternative. As Anwar Ibrahim, a leading opposition politician, stated in a recent report in the Wall Street Journal that he could only suggest “to focus on weeding out corruption and waste to make the country more efficient, and educate Malaysians about what is going on so they can prepare”. This demonstrates that the Pakatan Rakyat political agenda is merely to defeat the UMNO/BN government by any means but without genuine alternatives to correct the society and the economic conditions of the working class and poor as well as the youth, who will be the first to suffer if the economy worsens.

The Malaysian economy is entering one of its most difficult periods, and it could further dramatically worsen if there is a sharp slowdown in China, on top of the economic crisis in the US and Europe persisting for any length of time. At present, social demands are kept under control only by subsidies, a relatively low level of inflation and unemployment, and a 4 to 5% GDP growth. But a further slowdown of the economy would burden the working class and youth, and this could enrage them against the government policy. They have demonstrated this anger in the 2008 General election, and this could be repeated in the next general election.

Malaysian workers and youth have been observing the economic and political conflicts that have been unfolding in the Middle East, the US and Europe. They see young people and the working class in those countries beginning to look for an alternative to the crisis of capitalism. Similar situations could emerge in Malaysia if the economy is further affected by the world crisis. The CWI in Malaysia as everywhere, puts forward a democratic socialist alternative - nationalisation of banks and industry and democratic planning of society as an alternative to the ongoing anarchy of capitalism.

Ravi, CWI Malaysia

THAILAND: ‘CLONE’ OF THAKSIN ELECTED, BUT SOCIAL CONFLICTS COULD PERSIST

2011-08-11T23:20:00.000-07:00

The business-woman, Yingluck Shinawatra, sister of the controversial former prime minister, the tycoon Thaksin Shinawatra, was chosen by Thailand’s parliament as the country’s 28th prime minister on 5 August.

She is the first female prime minister of the country. At the age of 44, she is also the youngest female prime minister in the world. This comes after the Pheu Thai Party led by Thaksin supporters won the 3 July general elections by an absolute majority. Winning 265 out of 500 parliamentary seats, they have built alliances with smaller parties to form a 300-seat coalition.

On paper, Yingluk’s government seems stable. It has 60 per cent support in parliament, a weakened anti-Thaksin movement and a lack of support for the military at this stage. But much of the unresolved social and economic dissatisfaction in society could trigger new conflicts. Thailand has gone through many military coups, interventions by the monarchy and the removal of prime ministers through uprisings and protests. All these changes of government have safeguarded the interests of the capitalist class while neglecting the needs of the working class and rural poor.

No ‘honeymoon’

The new prime minister will have no ‘honeymoon’ period. The ‘red shirt’ supporters and the lower and middle income people that voted for her will demand that she fulfils her ‘populist’ election pledges. These included a sharp increase in the minimum wage, the construction of high-speed rail lines, providing free computers to primary school students and revamping the country’s healthcare system. The poor in the countryside hope that Yingluck will emulate Thaksin – the first Thai prime minister seen to address the needs of millions of people with cheap healthcare and village development funds from 2001 to 2005. For the urban population he was seen as corrupt and authoritarian, with a neo-liberal agenda and operating a crony capitalism.

The capitalist class in Thailand has already come out against the ‘populist’ promises of Yingluck. They believe they will undermine the country’s international competitiveness as well as increase inflation and the budget deficit, since such measures could cost as much as $77 billion over the next five years. Some corporations have already threatened to move their companies out of Thailand if Yingluck’s government raises the minimum wage. To appease the business class, the new government is expected to cut corporation tax. But an increase in public debt (expected to rise to 60% of GDP) and the growing uncertainty in the world economy could pressurise the government not to go too far with their ‘populist’ election promises and damage the capitalist economy.

Yingluk could also face tough challenges in having to pacify both the rural ‘red-shirted’ supporters of her brother and the urban ‘yellow-shirted’ supporters of the military and the elite who clashed with each other after the ousting in 2006 of Thaksin by a military coup. This was carried out in the interests of the business class and the elite, linked to the monarchy and the military, who felt excluded from Thaksin’s crony capitalism. Conflicts between the ‘red’ and ‘yellow’ groupings had also undermined the previous four governments.

Last year, the red-shirt supporters occupied certain parts of Bangkok, including its commercial centre, and suffered a military crackdown ordered by the ‘Democrat’ government of Abhisit. The army killed more than 90 people and hundreds more were injured. Yingluck has been described as Thaksin’s ‘clone’ and any of her moves will be scrutinized by the yellow-shirt supporters and the Democrat Party. If she seems to be favouring Thaksin and his red-shirt supporters, they could launch mass protests an occupations of their own, as they did during the previous government linked to Thaksin.

Yingluck under the shadow of Thaksin

Yingluck, who has never held political office before, was the president of a property company owned by the family. Just a few months ago she was urged by Thaksin to lead the Pheu Thai Party. It was in disarray with different factions fighting for the top post. Yingluck was chosen to end the bickering and win the elections. It is well known that Thaksin is the de facto leader and funder of the Pheu Thai party, as well as being involved in the planning of the election victory from his exile in Dubai. By using her ‘gentle and charming character’, Yingluck has not only garnered the votes of the red-shirt supporters of Thaksin but also the sympathetic votes of women, as well as support from some sections of the urban business class. Those who supported the red-shirts also used the election to send a protest message to the military and traditional elite, who had backed the Democrat Party of Abhisit.

Recently, Thaksin met Thailand’s ministerial hopefuls in Dubai and Brunei. This shows how he will try to continuously and meticulously use his authority in the party to plan the policies of the Yingluck government and the direction it takes. Yingluck, however, who came to power with her brother’s blessing, does not want to be seen as his puppet. Before agreeing that Thaksin can return to Thailand, she will act cautiously to avoid angering the yellow-shirt supporters, which could lead her government into trouble.

Thaksin is also known to have good relations with the Cambodian prime minister, Hun Sen, and could use the election outcome to try and soften the ongoing border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia. But any move that puts Thailand at a disadvantage, or even compromises its position, could particularly upset the nationalists linked to the monarchy and military.

If a political amnesty was implemented to allow Thaksin to return to Thailand, annulling the Supreme Court sentence of two years in jail for helping his ex-wife while he was prime minister to buy state land in 2003, it could lead to renewed street protests by yellow-shirt supporters.

There are also uncertainties surrounding the inevitable succession crisis once the ailing King dies. This could politically impact on Yingluck since Thaksin was not seen as being on good terms with the palace.

Socialists and populism

The right-wing populism of Thaksin, when he was in government between 2001 and 2005, attracted the rural poor. This was in the absence of a mass working class organisation that, aligned to poor farmers in the countryside, could have addressed their needs with a clear political alternative. At that time, the leading organisations in the countryside such as the ‘Assembly of the Poor’ uncritically supported Thaksin’s populism because he had addressed some of the demands of the poor farmers. Unfortunately, the leadership of the Assembly of the Poor, with some former members of the Communist Party of Thailand who orientated towards Maoism and NGO activism, had no clear political alternative to explain the capitalist character of the Thaksin regime.

At that time, like the rural poor, the working class in Bangkok had also been severely affected by the 1997 Asian financial crisis when the country plunged into political turmoil. The Chavalit government collapsed after just one year because of the crisis. The new government of the Democrat Party led by Chuan Leekpai, from 1997 to 2001, carried through huge cuts. It overturned the concessions for the rural poor, won through massive street protests in Bangkok by the Assembly of the Poor during Chavalit’s administration.

In the 2001 elections, Thaksin won mainly because of his populist agenda for the rural poor who were severely affected by the Asian financial crisis. The leadership of the Assembly of the Poor cultivated a cooperative relationship with him without taking a critical approach towards his pro-capitalist politics. Meanwhile, Thaksin cultivated populist support in an attempt to defend himself against being forced to step down by the constitutional court on charges that he had deliberately concealed his wealth. Later Thaksin, when there was reasonable economic growth in the country, consciously utilised populist policies to maintain support from the majority of rural voters and maintain his power in government. He also used his position in government to amass wealth for himself and his cronies. He assisted international and national capitalists to accumulate profits by exploiting the labour of the working class and the rural poor. The hypocrisy of Thaksin showed that he was not a friend of workers and poor farmers, and simply used them to maintain his own power and pursue his capitalist agenda.

During the recent election, some groups on the left also uncritically supported Yingluck’s populism merely to defeat the Democrat government linked to the monarchy, military and traditional elites. They still have some illusions in the so-called ‘progressive bourgeoisie’ or ‘lesser evilism’. They have not learnt from previous experiences of the left in Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries where the same mistakes were made of aligning uncritically with capitalist parties promising democracy. In the current economic circumstances, Yingluck could face far greater difficulty fulfilling the demands of the working class and rural poor and will be under pressure to revitalise profit-oriented activities and programmes for Thai capitalism.

Economic and social instability

The economic growth rates and social conditions in Thailand and the world are now very different from those during the Thaksin government. Currently, the uncertain economic situation in the US, with the deep credit crunch that started in 2008-09, and the contagious European debt crisis have demonstrated that the global capitalist economy is in one of its most serious crises in history and has an uncertain path to recovery.

Countries like Thailand, with GDP growth of around 4 percent, are very dependent on China and other neighbouring countries for economic growth at this time. However, the Chinese economic growth model is becoming inherently unstable based on massive overcapacity and overinvestment. With the threat of a real slow-down in China and the prolonged uncertainty in the global economy, Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries are very vulnerable; another ‘Asian Financial Crisis’ cannot be ruled out.

Although the majority of the Thai population is still involved in agricultural activities, the manufacturing industries and service sectors in Bangkok and other urban areas have been the main contributors to the Thai economy. Landlordism and other feudal economic relations and activities have slowly been integrated into the capitalist economy with the rapid industrialisation that started in the 1980s. Thai capitalism has increased the wealth of national and multinational capitalists, neglecting the working class and poor farmers’ social and democratic needs. This shows the role of the working class: even where they are a minority, they contribute most to the profits of the capitalist class.

This reinforces the importance of building an independent political party with the working class playing the leading role, at the same time aligning itself to poor farmers, youth and others oppressed by the system. This is vital in order to counter the pro-capitalist policies as well as the political opportunism and right-wing populism of Thaksin Shinawatra and now Yingluck. Such a party should also be based on democratic socialism as the alternative to the capitalist agenda. It should draw up perspectives, programmes and tactics for the struggle of the working class, poor farmers and others oppressed by the system.

Only through this, a genuine effort to replace a government based on the profit-oriented and socio-political needs of capitalism with a workers’ and poor farmers’ government, could the restoration of justice and the needs of all be carried out. When it comes to power, such a government would have to nationalise the big corporations and banks in order to democratically plan the fulfilment of the needs of the working class, poor and youth. It would proceed to build solidarity with the struggles of the working class and poor in Southeast Asia and internationally with the aim of building a democratic socialist society world-wide.

CAPITALIST LEADERS DESPERATE TO CALM TURMOIL

2011-08-11T07:25:00.000-07:00

Trying to control an anarchic and blind system, none of the measures taken stem the downward spiral

As their system continues to slide into its worst crisis since the 1930s, the frantic efforts of world capitalist leaders to reverse the process are farcical, contradictory and ineffective. “Is anyone in control? Is this a runaway train?” asked a presenter on a British news programme on Monday evening - the day Wall Street crashed by 6% and markets everywhere plummeted.

In a matter of weeks, more than $5 trillion has been wiped from equity market values worldwide – half of that total in the past week. The creditworthiness of the most powerful economy in the world has been questioned. Eurozone leaders are stumbling from one summit to another without being able to solve the crisis.

Last Friday (5 August) the credit rating agency, Standard and Poor, down-graded US government bonds from AAA to AA+. This, they said, was due to the debacle between Democrats and Republicans over the debt ceiling for the US – now standing at $14 trillion - the highest in the world. Then S&P found its sums were wrong (by a mere $ 2 trillion!). But, extremely pessimistic about growth prospects, they still maintained that lenders would have doubts about buying US government bonds.

But, apparently, those who have the most invested in US ’Treasuries’ – namely the Chinese Government, with two-thirds of its foreign reserves of $3,187 billion in dollars – have no intention of selling! It may be diversifying more into Europe and elsewhere but, like most other creditors to the US government, they are not pulling out, and the cost for the US of borrowing money has not increased dramatically.

Nevertheless, the official Chinese ’People’s Daily’ newspaper took the opportunity to suggest that the US government should not "become blind to the great risks that a weak greenback could pose to the world’s fragile economic recovery by lifting dollar-denominated commodities prices...It is time for the US to tighten its belt and solve its structural problems, in order to resume its reputation and restore world confidence".

The biggest concern in relation to the US economy is now whether it is facing a ‘double dip’. There are fears that the austerity measures needed to tackle high levels of debt in the US and some eurozone countries, could actually stifle their already weak economic recovery. There are renewed expectations that the Federal Reserve will announce a new round of quantitative easing, or QE3, in response to forecasts of the US having a 50-50 chance of entering recession before the end of the year.

Fears about the future of the world economy have been reflected in the price of gold and oil. Gold, always a favourite in uncertain times, jumped to a new nominal record of $1,720 an ounce by the end of Monday. The price of oil has considerably declined on concerns that weak global growth could lead to a fall in demand.

As the CWI has explained on many occasions, the very feeble recovery, due to massive injections of public money, has not been accompanied by any sizeable growth in gross domestic product. Apart from some notable exceptions it did not bring jobs for the tens of millions of unemployed nor stem what seems like a war on the poor - massive cuts in public spending. Further cutbacks and downturns in the prospects for young people lie behind the outbursts of anger seen this week on Britain’s streets. Seriously prepared strikes and general strikes are urgently needed in a series of countries now to stem the attacks on pension rights and other public spending.

The CWI warned that, without the trade union leaders giving a clear lead in the struggle against cuts - across Europe and in other countries - clashes with police and attacks on property could erupt in the most deprived urban areas. In Britain now, analogies are being drawn with the ’riots’ under Thatcher in the ’80s and the uprisings of the dispossessed in the ’banlieus’ of Paris two years ago. Looting and arson tend to harm the very communities in which the most oppressed live. But it is entirely understandable that the pent up anger of young people against the system and against the corrupt and often racist police should break out on the streets. Attacks on the real looters – the bankers and big business – are more to the point.

A programme of jobs and homes for all accompanied by a struggle for the nationalisation under democratic workers’ control and management of the banks and big monopolies can channel all the anger and frustration of youth and workers against the system.

Crisis measures

Two weeks ago, there was a special meeting of Eurozone finance ministers to agree on another bail-out for Greece. Within hours it was clear this would not solve the underlying problems of that country or prevent a default on the national debt. (See article: Eurozone: Last-minute rescue package)

Before the July 21 agreement can even come into force, it has to be ratified by all of the Eurozone governments, mostly through their parliaments, which are not in session during the month of August. Willem Buiter of Citigroup made the comment that, “getting 17 eurozone parliaments to support major changes is like getting a centipede hurdling”!

Only two weeks after this - last Sunday – under pressure from the Eurozone leaders, especially Merkel and Sarkozy, the European Central Bank was forced to announce new measures to try and prevent the stock markets going into a tail-spin after Friday’s news from America! The previous policy of buying Italian and Spanish bonds on the open market was reversed. This has reduced, at least temporarily, the rates on these countries’ borrowings. Other discussions have taken place about expanding the powers to intervene by using the €440bn in the European Financial Stability Fund but they are hampered by the need for unanimity across the zone. Just these two governments alone need to find an extra €840bn over the coming 18 months – more than the total of bail-outs already found for Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

The ECB measure will ease the situation in relation to the debts of Italy and Spain. But the strings attached will bring them into head on confrontation with their populations.

Tobias Blattner, a former economist at the European Central Bank, said on Monday that the ECB’s intervention had done little to help the crisis of confidence gripping the share markets. "This reflects the fundamentals that growth is in a very bad situation on both sides of the Atlantic and this is why the ECB’s interventions will not change anything".

Italy’s prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, last week tried to give the impression there was no major problem in Italy. But his country has one of the biggest debts as a percentage of GDP (nearly 120%) and an economy which has failed to grow more than a fraction of 1% for the past two decades. He has now agreed, with his government, that the budget cuts planned for 2014 (well after the next general election) will be brought forward to 2013 – still after the next election is due! Berlusconi himself has said he will not stand next time round, but he desperately needs a government in power that will not allow three major court cases against him to proceed.

Spain’s prime minister, Zapatero, has also declared he will not stand in the next election, sensing the widespread dissatisfaction with his inability to get Spain’s economy back into healthy growth. He has nevertheless agreed to increase austerity measures as a condition of the new loans. The massive level of youth unemployment and a feeling of utter neglect by politicians has been behind the mass movement of the ‘indignados’ – young people disillusioned with political parties and looking for radical, even revolutionary solutions.

David Jones, an analyst at the firm IG Index, believes that investors will remain unconvinced about putting their money into anything, despite the various attempts by leaders and international authorities to reassure the markets. "It hasn’t changed the feeling that politicians both in Europe and in the US are always a few steps behind where the crisis is," he said. "Markets still think there is a lot of talk from politicians but not much action”. This he sees as a major political reason “why the markets have been so weak over the past week”.

Richard Hunter, a broker from Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "The markets are looking for a concrete plan out of Europe and the US in terms of how they are going to deal with their deficits." But because of private ownership and the states’ role in defending the national interests of their own capitalists, a clear plan is something that capitalism, by its very nature, can never provide.

Capitalist anarchy, socialist development

Trying to control an anarchic and blind system, none of the measures they take seems to stem the downward spiral into the worst crisis since the 1930s. The measures they take to try and rescue their system will mean yet more cuts and austerity, yet more suffering and anguish for the vast majority of the world’s population. As it is, according to a medical journal, the Lancet, as a direct result of economic collapse in Greece and Ireland, the suicide rates have soared in the past two years by 16 and 14% respectively.

The accumulating crises – economic and political – of the last few weeks, have only served to underline the chaotic and wasteful way in which capitalism works…or fails to work. Only 58.1% of Americans of working age now have a real job. Tens of millions of people world-wide – young and old – are on the scrap-heap when they could be producing goods and providing services.

On the basis of public ownership and democratic planning, all the human and physical resources of society could be harnessed for the benefit of the vast majority instead of the increasingly rich minority.

The stranglehold of the banks and capitalist politicians over the lives of millions, in fact, billions, has to be broken. Mass movements including general strikes will show the power that the working class can wield in society. Linked with the energy and anger of the youth, new mass workers’ parties can be rapidly built. Confidence in the idea of a socialist alternative to capitalism can and must be renewed without delay.

Clare Doyle, CWI

Capitalism uncovered

2011-08-01T06:57:00.000-07:00

BOOK REVIEW : 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism By Ha-Joon Chang

Ha-Joon Chang exposes today’s rapacious capitalism, dominated by finance and driven by short-term profit maximisation. He provides a devastating critique of the ideology of ‘free-market’ economics. But while pointing to fundamental contradictions of the system, Chang draws back from a real alternative. LYNN WALSH reviews 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism.

SINCE 1980, ULTRA-free market (or neoliberal) policies have been implemented in Britain, the US and other major capitalist economies basing themselves on the Anglo-American model. More recently, other countries, such as Germany, Sweden, etc, have turned down the same path. The basic ingredients of neoliberal policies are clear: the deregulation of markets, especially the finance sector. Cutting back the state, through privatisation of state enterprises and the public sector. Massive tax concessions to big business and the super-rich. An assault on organised labour and trade union rights. The justification for these measures is that they lead to a more efficient use of resources, with higher growth rates and, ultimately, greater prosperity for all. The reality, as Chang shows, is completely different.

The main success of neoliberalism has been increasing profits and the income and wealth of the super-rich capitalists: "between 1979 and 2006… the top 1% of earners in the US more than doubled their share of national income, from 10% to 22.9%. The top 0.1% did even better, increasing their share by more than three times, from 3.5% in 1979 to 11.6% in 2006".

However, this did not lead to higher growth. "Economic growth has actually slowed down since the start of the neoliberal pro-rich reform in the 1980s. According to World Bank data, the world economy used to grow in per capita terms at over 3% during the 1960s and 1970s, while since the 1980s it has been growing at a rate of 1.4% per year (1980-2009)".

Moreover, capital investment in new productive capacity, the key to the development of new technology and future productivity increases, has actually declined. "Despite rising inequality since the 1980s, investment as a ratio of national output has fallen in all G7 economies… and in most developing countries". In the case of the US, "investment as a share of national output has actually fallen, rather than risen, from 20.5% in the 1980s to 18.7% since then (1990-2009)". Moreover, "the growth rate of per capita income in the US fell from around 2.6% per year in the 1960s and 1970s to 1.6% during 1990-2009, the heyday of shareholder capitalism". In Britain, "per capita income growth rates fell from 2.4% in the 1960s-70s, when the country was allegedly suffering from the ‘British disease’, to 1.7% during 1990-2009".

Chang, however, does not adequately explain the decline of capital investment. He tends to attribute it to neoliberal policies, but does not recognise a deep-rooted crisis of over-accumulation of capital, whereby additional investment in new means of production no longer produces the level of profit required by investors, who therefore turn to the finance sector in search of increased ‘value’.

Finance capital dominates

CAPITALIST GOVERNMENTS accepted the doctrine of ‘shareholder value’, that is, maximising the short-term return to shareholders (which included the top executives, who are partly paid in share options). Shareholder value was particularly promoted by the finance sector, which was less and less concerned with the long-term prospects of manufacturing corporations. High profits were achieved through savage cost cutting, especially of jobs and wages. While enormously boosting the incomes of the shareholders, including the top executives, it led to the stagnation of working-class and middle-class incomes.

"Managers", says Chang, "saw their compensation rising through the roof. Between the 1980s and the recent period, the compensation (salaries, benefits and stock options) of chief executive officers rose from 30 to 40 times that of average worker compensation, which was largely stagnant, to 300 or 400 times".

At the same time, "jobs were ruthlessly cut, many workers were fired and rehired as non-unionised labour with lower wages and fewer benefits, and wage increases were suppressed… The average hourly wage for the US worker in 2007 dollars (that is, adjusted for inflation) rose from $18.90 in 1973 to $21.34 in 2006, that is a 13% increase in 33 years, which is around 0.4% growth per year". This amounts to stagnation.

Clearly, the stagnation of workers’ incomes undermined the demand for goods and services – except in so far as falling incomes were compensated for by ever growing levels of debt, which reached unsustainable levels.

Chang shows the growing domination of finance capital over the capitalist economy as a whole. "The ratio of the stock of financial assets to world output rose from 1:2 to 4:4 between 1980 and 2007. The relative size of the financial sector was even greater in many rich countries… The ratio of financial assets to GDP in the UK reached 700% in 2007". Free-market policies were outstandingly successful in boosting the profits of the financial sector. But this did not improve overall growth, or productivity, let alone the living standards of the majority. Low inflation benefitted the moneylenders but (as Chang shows) actually held back growth of manufacturing. Despite the growth of ‘financial innovations’, especially derivatives of one kind and another (which were supposed to minimise or even eliminate risk), there was increased instability, with a series of major financial crises going back to the 1997 Asian debt crisis and culminating in the 2007-09 crisis.

Chang demonstrates the failure of so-called free-market capitalism, even according to its own claims. Each chapter begins with ‘What they tell you’, a brief synopsis of neoliberal doctrine, which is then answered with ‘What they don’t tell you’, analysing the reality of today’s global capitalism. His arguments are succinct, backed up with well-chosen figures, and he raises fundamental issues about the contradictions of capitalism and about economic planning. Chang, a native of South Korea who is now professor of economics at Cambridge, challenges the prevailing economic orthodoxy. Unfortunately, however, he does not step beyond the limits of capitalism.

An ideological offensive

CHANG RECOGNISES THE important role played by free-market ideology. National governments of the advanced capitalist countries have used their economic and political power to carry through neoliberal policies. International agencies, like the IMF, World Bank, the World Trade Organisation (backed by the weight of global financial markets), have used their power to impose the ‘Washington consensus’ (the neoliberal policy package) on the semi-developed and poor countries. But Chang rightly points to the part played by "ideological influence… exercise[d] through intellectual dominance". With the undermining of the post-war upswing after the late 1960s, Keynesian economics, which had provided the theoretical rationale for post-war capitalism (state intervention, high social expenditure, and attempted management of national economies), was rapidly discredited among capitalist leaders and hired policy-makers.

Keynesianism was replaced by ‘monetarism’, advocated by Milton Friedman and the ‘Chicago school’ of economists, and subsequently by a much broader neoliberal agenda. As Chang says, the ‘managerial classes’ (more accurately, the capitalist business elite and their political allies) "have used their economic and political influence to spread the free-market ideology that says that whatever exists must be there because it is the most efficient". This stance, a carte blanche for speculators, was exemplified by Alan Greenspan, head of the US Federal Reserve, who supplied the super-credit that fuelled a series of asset bubbles. After the financial meltdown in 2008 he belatedly confessed that he had been mistaken in believing that markets are always self-correcting.

‘Ideology’ can be used as a neutral description of a body of ideas or an intellectual trend. But in this context, ideology refers to ideas (in this case neoliberalism) that are presented as an accurate, even scientific representation of socio-economic reality, but are a completely one-sided, distorted representation of reality. Moreover, these pseudo-objective ideas conceal the interests of particular social groups, in this case the big capitalists of the advanced capitalist countries, especially the finance capitalists. It seems as clear as daylight that the extension of market relations benefits those who play the markets, the big financial institutions and wealthy speculators. To counter this politically inconvenient ‘impression’, armies of economists are drafted in to show that the market is the best way – in fact, the only way – of organising the economy. The basic tenet of mainstream economics is that ‘there is no alternative’ (Tina).

Chang makes this point very forcefully: "The free-market policy package, often known as the neoliberal policy package, emphasises lower inflation, greater capital mobility and greater job insecurity (euphemistically called greater labour market flexibility), essentially because it is mainly geared towards the interests of the holders of financial assets".

Chang explains why these policies favour finance capitalists: "Inflation control is emphasised because many financial assets have nominally fixed rates of return, so inflation reduces their real returns. Greater capital mobility is promoted because the main source of the ability for the holders of financial assets to reap higher returns than the holders of other (physical and human) assets is their ability to move around their assets more quickly. Greater labour market flexibility is demanded because, from the point of view of financial investors, making hiring and firing of the workers easier allows companies to be restructured more quickly, which means that they can be sold and bought more readily with better short-term balance sheets, bringing higher financial returns".

Neoliberal economics reflect these economic relations, which developed apace after the Thatcher-Reagan ‘revolution’ (in reality, counter-revolution) of the early 1980s. Before that time, the monetarist ideas of academics like Friedman were viewed as merely the cranky notions of a minority of right-wing economists. But with the return of major capitalist economies to more brutal market policies (with the rolling back of state social spending), monetarism and allied doctrines began to flourish. By providing theoretical justification, ultra-free-market economics played a part in reinforcing market policies, and providing legitimacy.

This is not to say that neoliberal ideology played a merely passive role, providing intellectual support only after the new relations had developed. Neoliberal ideology was used as a political weapon by the ruling class, especially the Anglo-American ruling class and especially after the collapse of the Stalinist regimes, to extend and deepen market relations on a global scale. In the absence of any ideological alternative from the leaders of the traditional workers’ parties, neoliberal ideas swayed big sections of public opinion and helped create electoral support for out-and-out pro-market policies.

The role of neoliberal economists

CHANG LEVELS A series of searing criticism against free-market economists – who now dominate the profession – which add up to a devastating indictment. "During the last three decades", he writes, "the increasing influence of free-market economists has resulted in poorer economic performance all over the world". He notes that during their periods of ‘miracle’ growth, economies like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and, more recently, China, were run mainly by lawyers and engineers, not economists. Where free-market economists intervened in semi-developed economies, like Chile, where the monetarist ‘Chicago boys’ advised the Pinochet dictatorship, accelerated economic growth was based on the savage driving down of workers’ living standards and the systematic suppression of democratic rights. "There are reasons to think", Chang says, "that economists may be positively harmful for the economy" and "for most people".

Chang refers to the incident when the queen visited the London School of Economics in June 2009. It was as if the fable of the emperor’s new clothes was reversed. Referring to the great crash, a naïve monarch asked the assembled economists: ‘How come nobody could foresee it?’ (If the queen had been reading Socialism Today over recent years, she would not have been surprised by the crisis, which we clearly predicted.) On behalf of their embarrassed colleagues, two professors, Tim Besley and Peter Hennessy, tried to provide an answer (Letter, 22 July 2010). Individually, they claimed, economists were all doing a good job. But there was a "failure of the collective imagination of many bright people… to understand the risks to the system as a whole".

Chang contemptuously dismisses any suggestion that economists are merely ‘innocent technicians’ who were all doing a good job until they were hit by an unpredictable crisis. Over three decades, "economists played an important role in creating the conditions of the 2008 crisis… by providing theoretical justifications for financial deregulation and the unrestrained pursuit of short-term profits". They advanced theories which justified policies that led to slower growth, greater inequality, job insecurity, etc, and the intensified exploitation of underdeveloped countries.

However, Chang’s explanation of the role of free-market economists is weak, to say the least. "It may be", he says, "that the economics taught in university classrooms is too detached from reality to be of practical use". He believes, "we need different kinds of economics from free-market economists".

In effect, Chang is arguing that the ‘wrong’ kind of economists should be replaced by the ‘right’ kind. Good economists would promote long-term investment and technological innovation. They would base themselves on a "nuanced view of capitalism, not the simplistic free-market view". A nuanced view would embrace a complex mixture of "markets (public and private), bureaucracies and networks".

Chang suggests that good economists would draw their ideas from an eclectic mix of economists: Karl Marx, Friedrich List (a conservative nationalist), John Maynard Keynes, Joseph Schumpeter (who advanced a theory of long waves punctuated by episodes of ‘creative destruction’), Hyman Minsky (who developed a Keynesian theory of financial crisis), and other Keynesians.

Chang’s criticism of free-market economists is correct, as far as it goes. But he fails to understand why they came to dominate. It was not because bad economists ousted good ones. The rise of neoliberal economics reflected deep-seated changes in the advanced capitalist countries, with the emergence of new economic forces – which found enthusiastic allies among the economists. After all, huge armies of economists are employed (on huge salaries and bonuses) by the big financial institutions, mainly to assess the short-term profitability of investments, while academic economists provide the theoretical rationale for the ultra-free market drive for profits. Economists like Chang, who tenaciously challenges the neoliberal orthodoxy, are a rare breed in academic circles.

The case for planning

REFERRING TO KARL MARX, Chang points to the fundamental contradiction of capitalism: the production process is socialised while ownership of the means of production is private. He very clearly shows that production under advanced capitalism depends on a high level of social organisation and cooperation. But his main purpose in taking up this argument is to use it against the false idea of neoliberal economics, according to which success under capitalism depends on visionary entrepreneurs competing as individuals in a free market that is merely an arena for competition. Chang recognises that Marx argued that private ownership rules out planning and gives rise to a mismatch between supply and demand, resulting in periodic crises. However, he rejects Marx’s solution, central planning, which he dismisses as a failure.

"With economic development… the division of labour between firms develops further and as a result the firms become increasingly more dependent on each other – or the social nature of the production process is intensified". Chang points out that giant firms can undertake massive investments and pursue their profit-making activities on a global scale only because they are supported by a range of public institutions, such as a legal system, education and training for workers, public subsidies for research and development, and so on.

However, private ownership of competing firms makes it "impossible to coordinate the actions of those independent firms". Chang correctly refers to the impossibility of coordinated production as a source of periodic economic crisis. He does not, however, refer to the exploitation at the heart of the capitalist system: the expropriation by the capitalists of surplus value (in the form of profit) which represents the wealth produced by workers’ labour power over and above what they are paid in wages. Nevertheless, Chang appears to sympathise with Marx’s argument that "with the development of capitalism… this systemic contradiction would become larger and consequently economic crises would become more and more violent, finally bringing the whole system down".

Chang goes on to summarise Marx’s case for central planning. "All means of production are owned by the whole of society and as a result the activities of interdependent production units can be coordinated ex ante [in advance] through a unified plan. As any potential coordination failure is resolved before it happens, the economy does not have to go through those periodic crises in order to balance supply and demand. Under central planning, the economy will produce only exactly what is needed. No resource will lie idle at any time, since there will be no economic crisis. Therefore, the central planning system, it was argued, will manage the economy much more efficiently than the market system".

But that, says Chang, was theory: "unfortunately, central planning did not work very well in practice". Chang bases his rejection of central planning as an alternative to capitalism on the failure of planning in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Clearly, the writing off of economic planning is one of the main effects of the collapse of the so-called ‘communist’ or, in reality, Stalinist regimes, in Eastern Europe after 1989/90. Like most critics, including those on the left, Chang makes no distinction at all between the kind of planning envisioned by Marx and the reality of planning under a Stalinist dictatorship. The failure of Stalinist planning was rooted in the conditions under which it arose, and does not prove that planning will never work.

Why Stalinist planning failed

CHANG’S EXPLANATION FOR the failure of Soviet planning is inadequate, lacking historical perspective. He makes no reference to the fact that at the beginning of the 20th century Russia was an economically and culturally backward country, where the working class was a small minority of the population, though politically powerful. The leaders of the Russian revolution, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, did not believe that they could build socialism in Russia in isolation, apart from the development of socialist revolution in the more advanced capitalist countries. For various reasons, the revolution was isolated, and backwardness gave rise to the development of a bureaucratic layer which began to dominate society. Stalin, the political representative of the bureaucracy, carried out a political counter-revolution, wiping out the elements of workers’ democracy established in 1917, and installing a totalitarian regime.

In the early period, as Chang notes, the bureaucracy was able to develop basic industries on the basis of a central plan. However, as the economy developed there was more and more distortion, waste and mismanagement. Chang attributes this to the increasing ‘complexity’ of the economy. This is valid as far as it goes, but misses the fundamental point: that under the Stalinist regime there was no democracy, the working class was politically disenfranchised and allowed to play no role in the management of the economy. There was no feedback from below to check and refine the plan. Local managers were bureaucrats, agents of the central bureaucracy.

Through planning, the Soviet Union was able to lay the foundations of a modern industrial economy, though at enormous cost to the working class. Moreover, planning enabled the Soviet Union to defeat the barbaric onslaught of Nazi Germany during the second world war, and subsequently to provide significant social gains for the population in terms of employment, housing, healthcare and education. However, the quality of consumer goods, in particular, was very poor. In the 1970s, when microelectronic technology began to develop internationally, it became increasingly apparent that the bureaucracy was incapable of systematically applying new technology to the development of production and planning. The incompetence and corruption of the bureaucracy, with increasing dislocation of central planning, led to the implosion of the Stalinist economies in the early 1990s.

Undoubtedly, this had a massive ideological impact. The capitalist class launched an unparalleled ideological offensive to prove that ‘communism’, ‘socialism’, and central planning would not work, were inherently impossible. However, the failure of planning under specific historical conditions does not prove that planning will never work. The failure of Stalinism, moreover, certainly does not prove that capitalism is a viable system with no possible alternative.

Socialist economic planning today, in economically developed countries, would be very different from Stalinist planning in the Soviet Union (which was replicated in Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, etc). First, there is the economic, technical and cultural basis for a much more developed form of economy, which did not exist in the Soviet Union after 1917. At the same time, a dominant working class, mobilised to carry through a socialist transformation, would ensure that both the new socialist state and the economy were subject to democratic control.

Democratically elected planning bodies would draw up an economic plan, which would be continually checked and modified by local bodies. The plan would be based on the nationalisation of the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy, the major manufacturing industries, banks, and infrastructure. Not every small business would be nationalised, but would operate within the framework of a plan. There would also be planning bodies to oversee the development and production of consumer goods, to ensure their high quality and that they met the real needs of the population. This is not a utopian project. As Chang himself shows, all the elements of planning already exist within capitalism. However, they are currently trapped within the limits of the drive for profit, the anarchy of the market, and rival nation states.

Elements of planning within capitalism

WHILE DISMISSING CENTRAL planning, Chang, like Marx, nevertheless points to the elements of planning within capitalism. Marx did not dream up central planning out of the blue, but based his ideas on real tendencies within capitalism: the increasing tendency of the state to intervene to regulate the economy and take over major industries, such as utilities; and the elements of planning within capitalist firms, in contrast to the anarchic competition between firms competing in the market. Chang gives more up-to-date examples, but again only as a counter to neoliberalism, not as an alternative to capitalism.

Chang refers to the fact that in times of war, both during the first and second world wars, the state in the major capitalist economies in effect introduced big elements of central planning for the duration of the conflicts, in order to ensure the supply of munitions and industrial materials. Of course, ownership was left in the hands of the capitalists, who later took back control of industries (apart from those that virtually collapsed, like coal, iron and steel, etc). Moreover, Chang refers to the interventionist role played by the state in countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc, that experienced rapid economic growth during the post-war economic upswing.

Most importantly, however, Chang points to the planning that takes place within capitalist corporations. "Modern capitalist economies are made up of large, hierarchical corporations that plan their activities in great detail, even across national borders". Many also suffer from the same kind of bureaucratic distortions that existed in the former Stalinist states.

Chang follows Marx’s line of argument: "When [Marx] talked about planning, there was in fact no real life government that was practising planning. At the time, only firms planned. What Marx predicted was that the ‘rational’ planning approach of the capitalist firms would eventually prove superior to the wasteful anarchy of the market and thus eventually be extended to the whole economy. To be sure, he criticised planning within the firm as despotism by capitalists…".

Chang points out that the "area of the capitalist economy that is covered by planning has in fact grown". For instance, it is estimated that "between one third and one half of international trade consists of transfers among different units within transnational corporations".

"Between the planning that is going on within corporations and various types of planning by government, modern capitalist economies are planned to a very high degree". This is true. However, big corporations still compete with one another in pursuit of profit, and there is particularly intense competition on international financial markets. It is still the case, despite the planning within big corporations that, ultimately, the irrational element of competition through the market still predominates over the elements of rational planning within corporations and through state intervention. That is why capitalism has again plunged into a global crisis, the worst since the 1930s.

Chang recognises the elements of planning within capitalism, but he mistakenly believes that there can be a major shift towards planning in the system as a whole, without fundamental change. Chang draws on Marxist ideas to criticise contemporary, ultra-free-market capitalism. But on every major issue, he stops short, draws back, and reverts to the idea that somehow an ideal capitalism can emerge. He favours a "modern economy in which government policy, corporate planning and market relationships are all vital and interact in a complex way".

A ‘better’ capitalism?

CHANG REJECTS THE free-market model of capitalism, which led to the catastrophe of the 2008 financial crisis and plunged the world economy into depression. "The last three decades have shown that, contrary to the claims of its proponents, [free-market capitalism] slows down the economy, increases inequality and insecurity, and leads to more frequent (and sometimes massive) financial crashes". Therefore, he concludes: "The daunting task ahead of us is to completely rebuild the world economy". Moreover, "nothing short of a total re-envisaging of the way we organise our economy and society will do". This sounds revolutionary! However, Chang makes it clear: "My criticism is of free-market capitalism, and not all kinds of capitalism".

"There is no one ideal model". So Chang sets about creating – or at least imagining – a new model of capitalism. Like an enthusiastic shopper going round a supermarket, he picks different components off the shelves of the global superstore.

In his model he would include elements of the Nordic economies, with highly developed welfare systems (at least, until recently). Figures presented in his book show that for a long period they had higher growth rates than the US and most economies based on free-market policies. Chang also selects some components from the Southeast and East Asian model, having noted with approval the role that the state played in laying the foundations of modern industrial economies in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other economies in the region. There is room in his model for some of the ‘indicative planning’ used by countries like France, where the government has used subsidies and tax incentives to stimulate (and protect) key industrial sectors. There is also a role for the market in Chang’s scheme, but it would be much more regulated than now.

Based on this model, there would be – in his scheme of things – a return to Keynesian-type economic policies. Social spending would be protected, while home manufacturing would be encouraged. There would be a return to the (attempted) macroeconomic management of national economies (which implies some kind of protection from short-term capital flows across borders). Governments would invest heavily in research and development, and encourage long-term investment in new technology. Poor and semi-developed countries would be allowed to protect their home industries until they could stand on their own feet (as the advanced capitalist countries did in the past). Enlightened self-interest, based on recognition of longer-term objectives and social needs, would replace the ruthless pursuit of short-term profit maximisation. The market would play a role, but it would be controlled, just one component of the economy.

In other words, Chang is advocating a ‘better capitalism’. This has recently become a familiar theme among left reformists internationally, and they will no doubt draw on Chang’s arguments. But how could this new model capitalism come about? Chang’s approach is completely a-historical, utopian. The components he selects for his model were the products of particular historical conditions in particular countries, and developed on the basis of real economic forces and world relations as they existed at the time.

In the case of Sweden, for instance, social-democratic governments came to power in the pre-second world war period, because of the strength of the workers’ movement. With relatively favourable conditions for Swedish capitalism during the second world war and the post-war upswing, Sweden developed a highly advanced welfare state. In contrast, Japanese capitalism, as well as South Korean, Taiwanese, etc, developed in the post-war period under the umbrella of US imperialism, which provided economic support for those countries as a strategic buffer against China, that was transformed by the revolution of 1949.

For historical reasons, the state had always played a major role in the Japanese economy. However, Chang notes that there has been a very limited development of social provision in Japan. The manufacturing base in South Korea, as Chang notes, was developed under the vicious dictatorship of Park Chung-hee, again with almost no social provision for the working class or poor farmers. Recently, however, both Japan and South Korea have entered a period of weak growth or stagnation. South Korea, in particular, has turned towards the implementation of free-market policies. Moreover, under both social-democratic and right-wing governments, Sweden has begun to unwind the welfare state, turning sharply towards the marketisation of the economy and society.

Britain, the US and other advanced capitalist countries turned to neoliberalism after 1980. This was not merely a policy change, but reflected an underlying change in economic relations. During the late 1960s there was a breakdown of the post-war economic relations which supported the long upswing in western capitalism. After the period of ‘stagflation’ (feeble growth combined with high inflation), capitalist governments, beginning with Thatcher and Reagan, concluded that they had to adopt a new approach. A key feature of the crisis was the decline in profitability, and there was a turn by the capitalists towards the finance sector as a source of profits.

The ‘big bang’ deregulation of financial markets, first in Britain and the US but then in other major economies, opened the door to ultra-free-market financial speculation. This led to the dominance of finance capital described by Chang. This dominance was not just the result of false ideology, or policy mistakes. It reflected a deep-rooted crisis of over-accumulation within capitalism. This meant that new investment in the development of the means of production no longer produced the levels of profit required by the capitalist class. The turn towards the finance sector, which accelerated in the mid-1990s, reflected this underlying crisis.

The necessity of a socialist alternative

FREE-MARKET, NEOLIBERAL capitalism is not just a mistake, or a harmful fashion that will pass given time. It reflects the fundamental character of capitalism in this period. Chang says he accepts the profit motive and the market. But he mistakenly believes that they can be controlled and directed according to some political scheme. For instance, Chang believes there should be a return to long-term investment, based on the development of new technology. But the capitalists largely abandoned that approach, which prevailed in the early period of the post-war upswing, because they were no longer reaping the profit returns that they required.

The market is not just a machine, a neutral mechanism, that can be harnessed by enlightened governments to produce greater prosperity for everyone. The market is an arena for competitive struggle between the big corporations and financial institutions, whose drive to intensify the exploitation of the working class and increase their profitability inevitably leads to growing social polarisation between rich and poor in society, and increased inequality internationally.

It is not possible to ‘completely rebuild’ the world economy on the basis of a rational appeal to the enlightened self-interest of capitalists. Fundamental change will come about only through the mobilisation of powerful social forces, primarily the working class. Change, moreover, would have to be on the basis of a change of ownership of the commanding heights of the economy, the big corporations and financial institutions. This would precisely require the economic planning envisaged by Marx, both on a national and international basis.

Chang hesitates to take this step. He believes that the predatory neoliberal capitalism of today can be changed into a benign, people-friendly capitalism run by enlightened leaders. But his project is doomed to failure. Capitalism faces a period of depression, with the possibility at any time of further, even deeper crises. The consequences internationally for the working class, the exploited rural labourers, and the dispossessed will be catastrophic. The effective defence of workers’ living standards and democratic rights will only be possible through a struggle against capitalism and for an alternative socialist society. Mass prosperity, greater equality, social welfare, enlightened mass education, technological advance – all the things which Chang clearly values – will become possible only on the basis of socialist economic planning, which for Chang is unfortunately a step too far.

THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE PROTEST IN KUALA LUMPUR FOR CLEAN AND FAIR ELECTIONS

2011-07-15T07:35:00.000-07:00

MASSIVE CRACKDOWN ON OPPOSITIONS

The 9 July 2011 BERSIH (Malaysian democracy movement) ‘walk for democracy’ protest will be recorded as another important date in the fight for freedom and democracy in Malaysia. It is the country’s biggest political protest in four years, in which 20,000 to 30,000 people (organisers estimated up to 50,000) participated. The majority of protesters were young people in their 20s and, for the most of them, this was their first experience of demonstrating. They gathered and marched through various places in Kuala Lumpur to demand fair and clean elections, as well democratic rights. These very determined and brave crowds defied various threats for the last three weeks from the ruling government. Meanwhile, the counter-protest planned by UMNO (United Malay National Organizations) youths only managed to attract around 500 people, mainly the ruling parties’ members. On the same day, small gatherings and demonstrations of Malaysians abroad were also held in more than 20 cities across the world including Singapore, Bangkok, London and Melbourne to support BERSIH.

However, 1667 people were detained, including some leaders of the organisers and opposition parties on the day of the protest in Kuala Lumpur in which the police used tear gas and chemical-laced water in repeated attempts to disperse the crowds. The police armed with batons also physically attacked some protesters and inhumanely dragged them into trucks in which some were seen bleeding. One protester was even reported to have died during the protest in Kuala Lumpur City Centre during the tear gas attack by police.

Massive Crackdown on Oppositions

Since announcing the demos on 19 June, BERSIH 2.0 -the coalition for clean and fair elections, which was initiated by NGOs as well as civil society groups and supported by opposition parties - has been threatened and undermined by the UMNO-dominated BN (national front) government. First, they detained PSM (Parti Sosialis Malaysia) supporters, during the ‘Enough BN, Retire Now!’ campaign, accusing them of ‘waging war against the King’ and then extended the detention of six of them under Emergency Ordinance for ‘subversive connections’. Then, they banned the wearing of the BERSIH yellow shirt which has demands for fair and clean elections written on it. Subsequently, they outlawed BERSIH 2.0, stating that this is not a registered organisation. They also threatened people against participating in the protest through negative propaganda in the mainstream media, almost all of which is controlled by the government. They also issued circulars to students in universities and public service employees against participating in the protests and incessant warnings that severe actions would be taken against them if they ignored these instructions.

The ISA (Internal Security Act) threats, which could see a person detained for up to 60 days or more, have also been unleashed to create fears. For the first time in many years, they even threatened the use of the military to control the crowd at the protest. They also indirectly used the ultra right-wing groups, PERKASA and UMNO youth, to counter and undermine BERSIH. A week before the protest, they had put up massive roadblocks throughout the country to stop ‘suspicious’ busses and cars coming towards Kuala Lumpur. Lastly, they restricted the main leaders of the opposition parties and BERSIH organisers from entering the city center by court order. On the day of the protests, Kuala Lumpur was practically locked down when the police blocked roads, shut rail stations and deployed water-cannon trucks at all ‘hot spots’. More than 200 people were detained before the day of the protest for various activities related to BERSIH, merely to threaten others not to participate in the protest.

In fact, a few days before the protest, under pressure, the prime minister, Najib Razak offered the BERSIH a stadium for the protest. Even the monarch had to intervene to stabilise the situation. Although the BERSIH organisers had agreed to use the stadium for the protest, as well as agreed to the ‘advice of the King’, later the government itself contradicted its ‘noble attempt’ by reneging on its own promise by not giving the permit to the organiser. Indeed, all these processes and contradictions created by the police and government ministers have further undermined the Najib government among the population.

Youthful and Lively March

The protest was planned for 2pm to gather near the Stadium Merdeka where it supposed to be led by BERSIH leaders. But the police started to intimidate and detain anyone suspected with the intention of participating in the protest as early as 7am at all gathering spots. The momentum for the protest started when a group of young people started to march at the Masjid Jamek, then through Petaling Street at around 12pm, while the other groups merged and it grew bigger and bigger until it converged in Jalan Pudu and later marched towards Kuala Lumpur City Center. There were also groups gathered around KL central, Stadium Merdeka and various other places because of the police blockade of main roads within Kuala Lumpur.

Most of the time, the protest and march were stewarded and led by mainly young people who were also managed and led the crowds as well as directed the march. During the march, the protesters shouted many anti-government and pro-BERSIH slogans, among them were, ‘democracy now’, ‘long live BERSIH’, ‘clean up the elections’, ‘reformasi’, ‘end the BN government’ etc. Along the march, local and foreign workers working in the shops and hotels, gave thumbs up signs and waves to the crowds to show their support. Even on one occasion, when the protesters were chased by riot police, some migrant workers working as guards asked the protesters to converge in their guarded space, and some residents and onlookers provided food and drinks to protesters. Even some rank and file police lined along the KLCC waved and shook hands with the protesters to show their support.

Youth unite with Working Class

This protest has again showed the potential and courage of the youth which made this protest a huge success. It could have garnered far bigger support if there weren’t unnecessary road blocks and irresponsible threats and fears created by the government authorities.

Nevertheless, the program of BERSIH is limited to calling for ‘fair and clean elections’, and have not try to address the social and economic needs of the working class majority as well as the youth, as a consequence of the pro-capitalist policies and agenda of the BN government which has always rather served the profit-making needs of national and global capitalists. If BERSIH’s demands had been linked to a programme that addressed the social and economic needs of the working class, this could also have attracted more working class people to support the protests as well.

The capitalist system that is upheld by the BN government has not only seen the government become increasingly more undemocratic over years, but also continuously diminishing the economic and social position of working class and the youth, regardless of their race or religion. BERSIH intention was only to have a protest for two hours in Kuala Lumpur. Even then, the government was more keen to protect the profits and needs of the business class in Kuala Lumpur, arguing that the protest would make them lose millions, but totally ignored the democratic demands of the BERSIH.

At the same time, some like Mahathir (former Prime Minister) even argued that the change of government as in the recent experiences of uprising of Egypt and Tunisia that overthrown Mubarak and Ben Ali dictatorships have not made Egyptians Tunisians’ lives better but made the economy worse. People like Mahathir and his cronies that have been benefitting from the BN pro-capitalist policies merely want to defend the BN government without any solutions for the working masses and youth who are looking for alternatives.

As CWI has argued, the experiences in Egypt and Tunisia have shown that the victories by the working class and youth that toppled dictators, have not guaranteed that the society’s wealth will genuinely owned by the masses and democratically controlled and managed in their interests and needs. This is because those countries are still managed by pro-capitalist regimes with the tendency of maintaining the country in the clutch of capitalist system which prioritises maximising profits. This experience reinforces the CWI’s argument that if the Pakatan Rakyat opposition, which also propagates free market capitalism, come into power, there may be possibilities to get better democratic rights under the pressure of the masses, but at the same time the new government would not be able to really address the worsening needs of the working masses if the government is still under the grip of national and global capitalists.

Therefore, the struggle for democratic rights must be linked with the struggles for economic and social gains, and this only possible if the capitalist system is replaced by a system based on democratic socialism- a system that prioritises the needs and welfare of the working masses, youth and others through democratic planning, not only in Egypt and Tunisia, but also in Malaysia. The events in Egypt, Tunisia and many other countries in the world have shown that, on its own, willingness to struggle is not enough. The needs and aspiration of the working class and youths for better society will not be defended or achieved by pro-capitalist parties. Therefore, the working masses and youth need to be independently and democratically organised in a mass party of workers, youth and the poor with a clear programme based on democratic socialism, to be able to fight to prevent the gains of their struggles being snatched away by the old elite or a new elite in formation. This is the crucial task for the working class and the energetic youth of Malaysia towards building a democratic socialist society, not only to safeguard democratic rights but also our fundamental economic and social needs.

Book Review : ‘Bhimayana’ – untouchability past and present

2011-07-15T07:05:00.000-07:00

THE CONTINUING STRUGGLE AGAINST CASTE OPPRESSION

Bhimayana is a beautifully illustrated, simple and sometimes amusing account of one of the ugliest and cruellest features of Indian society, the Hindu caste system. There are 170 million in the most oppressed caste or Dalits, referred to as ‘untouchables’, in India today. On average, two are killed every day and three Dalit women are raped. Every hour, two Dalits are assaulted. Every day, two Dalit houses are burned down.

Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, born 120 years ago, and the country’s foremost Dalit fighter, has more statues erected to his memory than either Mahatma Gandhi or Pandit Nehru, India’s first prime minister after independence. With the former he argued publicly about measures to overcome the plight of the lower castes. Under the latter he served as the first law minister and chair of the constituent assembly. His proposals for a Hindu code bill to make personal law more equitable - for assuring equal opportunities and women’s rights in the new India – were amended out of existence and he resigned.

Ambedkar had been given the chance to study in the US and Britain, unlike the overwhelming majority of Dalits, even today, in spite of education and job quotas for ‘backward and scheduled castes’, which are supposed to provide them an equal opportunity. On the first pages of the book, a young man of the 21st century is complaining to a friend that the quota system for allocating jobs is holding back his own prospects. His friend then runs through some of the most humiliating aspects of the caste system encountered by Ambedkar and points to newspaper cuttings to show how little has changed.

The Hindu caste system originated in ancient, pre-capitalist society. It is a rigid, hereditary hierarchy of social rank. But, unlike class, it is not based on particular occupations or relationships with landowners or employers. In this order, Brahmins, originally priests, generally have dominated professions such as scholars, teachers, lawyers, etc, and enjoyed high status. The so-called ‘outcasts’ or ‘untouchables’ have generally been excluded from education and training as well as access to many public assets, condemned to a life as poor labourers, engaged in so-called ‘unclean’ work at the bottom of the pile. While individuals have been able to achieve certain concessions in society, these archaic distinctions have been carried on even under ‘modern’ capitalism.

Stories from Ambedkar’s childhood and youth move along the pages of this unique book with pictures by two Adivasi artists, Durghabai and Subash Vyam. It was devised and written by Srividya Natarajan and S Anand, but the artists have added their own embellishments – pictorial and in inventions for the dialogue. There is a parallel with the cartoon book by Marjane Satrapi, Persepolis. About a rebellious girl in Iran, it was also made into an animated film.

Quite unexpectedly, simple pictures and direct messages can move you to tears and anger, joy and delight. The words of each character, including Ambedkar, are contained in speech bubbles – in the shape of a bird for those who are soft and gentle; attached by twisted venomous coils to those who are cruel and callous. The pages are strewn with birds, animals, snakes and fish. The story almost literally flows from page to page with water in various forms - streams, lakes, ponds and water storage tanks.

Fighting for water rights

And it is water over which the most glaring discrimination is practised: the denial to Dalits of water used by all other Hindu castes, by Muslims, Parsis and animals. The very name Bhimayana is a skit on the Hindu’s holy book, Ramayana, the epic tale of the life of the chief god Ram.

Bhim (Ambedkar) fought all his life against the scourge of the caste system. In one of the early scenes in the book he is travelling on a train in 1918 reading Democracy and Education, by John Dewey, a tutor of his at Columbia University. Dewey was an eminent US philosopher who, in 1937, headed a commission of inquiry into the charges fabricated against Leon Trotsky and his supporters in the infamous Moscow trials.

In 1920, Ambedkar launched a hard-hitting, anti-caste newspaper. Three years later, he began organising for a mass rebellion over access to water, the Mahad Satyagraha. It took four years to prepare a kind of mass ‘trespass’ of 3,000 untouchables to take water from the Chavadar tank in the Bombay area. They would be exercising their right to do so, inscribed in law but denied in practice. The Dalit activists called the event a ‘declaration of independence’. There were defiant speeches: “The Dalits rallied to the cry of the French revolution: ‘Liberty, equality and fraternity’. Twenty people were injured when the demonstration was violently attacked”.

Ambedkar was seen as a revolutionary in his own way. Though never a Marxist, he drew the conclusion that no ruling class gives way without a fight. He explained to those who took up the struggle with him: “If it was not for the resistance of the rulers, violent revolution would not be necessary!”

When the Brahmins at Mahad decided that, rather than let Dalits drink water from the Chavadar tank, they would pollute it with cow excrement and urine (among other things), a second Mahad Satyagraha was organised, on 25 December 1927. This time there were 10,000 protesters. A copy of the Manusmriti, the ‘sacred’ Hindu law book which upholds caste practice and women’s enslavement in the home, was ceremonially burned on a pyre.

A newspaper story from January 2008, copied into the Bhimayana, shows that nothing has changed. When Dalits, aided by human rights organisations, took direct action to claim access to the waters of a pond in Chakwara, near Jaipur, and bathed in it, they were set upon. Local Hindus bombarded them with sticks and stones. The police waded in with tear-gas and live ammunition. “The caste Hindus”, writes the newspaper, Tehelka, “have started to shit and dump garbage in the pond. Recently, some men dug up the village sewer and directed it to the pond water”. The right to use the water was granted, but the water was unusable!

A life of struggle

At various stage in his life, Ambedkar came up against the humiliations and deprivations that Dalits experience to this day – discrimination in schools, transport and hospitals, even among barbers. The only time he began to feel equal and be treated equally was when he was studying abroad. In his home country, even as an eminent lawyer, he was refused lodgings on the basis of his origins, not only by a Hindu friend but by Parsis and Christians too. A Hindu ‘friend’ says that if he gives him accommodation, his servants will leave! There follows an account from The Hindu (5 May 2008) of students in New Delhi training for the civil service being beaten up by a landlord and his family when they came to know they were Dalits.

In the book, Ambedkar shows how, even though Muslims are maltreated, even persecuted, by the majority Hindus, they operate their own kind of hierarchical system, including looking down on and discriminating against Dalits. He laments, they “teach equality but practice the caste system”.

Ambedkar’s militant anti-casteism brought him into conflict with Mahatma Gandhi. He was angry that Gandhi only saw discrimination when he was out of his country, in apartheid South Africa in the 1930s. Ghandi’s solution at that time was not to fight to abolish apartheid but to campaign for a separate category for Asians, superior to black people. This was eventually established. The pacifist campaigner against British rule in India was less aware of the brutality inherent in the caste system in his country.

Ambedkar’s approach to injustice was in many ways revolutionary and linked to the general struggle of all workers and poor against inequality and exploitation. In an echo of Karl Marx’s comments to his daughter that “happiness is to struggle”, the Dalit leader maintained, “the battle to me is a matter of joy”. “Educate, agitate and organise: have faith in yourself”, he urged. But his solutions were limited. He advocated that political representatives for Dalits should be Dalits exclusively, and be voted in by a Dalit-only electorate. This would appear to consolidate separateness rather than overcome it, but it was an understandable attempt to get a greater hearing for the views of the most oppressed in society. It was aimed at getting a certain political independence from politicians who came from other castes and continually ignored the plight of the Dalits.

Ambedkar did not turn to the class struggle as a way of uniting the oppressed against their oppressors, or to the ideas of socialism. At the end of his life, however, he did finally repudiate Hinduism. “It was not my fault I was born an untouchable”, he said, “but I am determined I will not die a Hindu”. Incredibly, he turned to another mystical explanation of the world, Buddhism. In 1956, a few months before his death, half-a-million people converted with him, the biggest known mass conversion in history. Unfortunately, Buddhism, while appearing to Ambedkar to be more honestly egalitarian, has been used in Sri Lanka, where it is the state religion, as a cover for one of the most bloody oppressions of a national minority in the world – against the Tamil-speaking people of the island.

Each of the book’s chapters shows that the worst anti-Dalit discriminations are far from eliminated from Indian society. The denial to Dalits of medical care continues. A special kind of ‘honour killing’ persists: persecuting, beating and killing women and their male relatives simply because they are Dalits.

The election of some prominent Dalits to high office has not led to the elimination of discrimination against the untouchables. A Brahmin-Dalit alliance swept the Bahujan Samaj Party to power in Uttar Pradesh in May 2007. Its leader, the Dalit woman, Mayawati, became chief minister. Dripping with gold and jewels she is as rich and corrupt as any upper-caste politician in a similar position. In her state, almost 80 million people live below the poverty line, 40% of the total population.

The Bhimayana carries a 2007 account of two Dalit women in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, who died after being thrown out of hospital as soon as they had given birth to their babies. Doctors are not meant to do life-saving examinations on Dalit patients because of their untouchability. Discrimination of this kind brings back memories of what happened in the southern states of America when the great jazz singer, Bessie Smith, was injured in a car crash. Because of the colour bar operating at the time, doctors were not ‘allowed’ to treat her until all whites had been seen to. By that time she had died, of treatable injuries.

Stalinist failures

The caste issue is deep-rooted and complicated. It is not sufficient to do as the ‘communist’ parties of India do. They declare that casteism cannot be eliminated until classes are eliminated, which would only be in a communist society. They do not put forward policies to combat caste prejudice and discrimination in capitalist society in the course of building the socialist movement. Worse still, they have stopped even trying to establish genuine socialism, let alone communism. On the contrary, by 2007 they were scandalously involved in the murderous events in Nandigram, West Bengal.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) had been in control of that state for more than three decades, partly because of its early popular land reform measures. It had not, however, pursued an uncompromising struggle against capitalism and landlordism across the state or on an all-India basis. It was the CPI(M) administration which ordered armed gangs of police and party thugs to move in against poor farmers in Nandigram and clear them from their land to make way for multinational corporations. Fourteen people were killed, many injured, hundreds made homeless and deprived of their livelihoods. This and other anti-working class and poor policies have now lost them political control in poverty-stricken West Bengal, as well as in Kerala in recent elections.

The Stalinists have argued that there must be a stage of industrialising society through developing capitalism. Then, the basis can be laid for socialism and communism. That was the policy of the Mensheviks who, in Russia in 1917, opposed the Bolsheviks’ strategy of taking power into the hands of the workers and peasants to build a socialist society. But the ideas of socialism seem now to have been sidelined along with any pretence of taking up a struggle against caste discrimination. They have not been able to develop a programme that would link up the just demands of the Dalits and their struggle for emancipation with the demands of organised workers, peasants and other poor people for a transformation of society along socialist lines. This failure, even in the middle of the last century, is also what drove Ambedkar and other Dalit activists away from what they saw as Marxism and communism – in reality, Stalinism.

Marx’s idea of communism was a society in which no private ownership of major industry, land and banks would exist. Under a democratically-run plan for the economy and society, all that is produced can be distributed according to people’s needs and without any discrimination or privilege. In the transition towards such a society, even if the working class took power tomorrow, not only would the economy have to be completely transformed along socialist lines, but many vestiges of capitalist society would remain in the form of reactionary ideas, prejudices and chauvinistic attitudes and practices. Steps would have to be taken with the aim of eliminating all forms of discrimination without worsening the rights and conditions of others.

Against all discrimination

Even under capitalism, during boom periods, some measures like quotas and positive discrimination can have an effect in providing better opportunities for women, ethnic minorities, Dalits, etc. But they are limited and open to misuse. The elimination of inequality, exploitation and injustice needs always to be linked to the need to change society along socialist lines. But long before a truly communist society can be established, socialists must take up and fight against every form of discrimination.

The workers’ movement, in the battles over wages, conditions, housing and prices must inscribe on its banner the unity of all workers and oppressed, regardless of nationality, caste, sex or religion. It must aim for the equal treatment of all workers and poor: for full and fair access to education, healthcare and other social facilities, jobs and housing.

Ambedkar’s words about Indian democracy still ring true: it is “only a top dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic”. Great advances can be achieved through struggle. But they can only be maintained for any length of time where all natural and human resources are massively expanded on the basis of nationalisation and planning under the democratic control and management of workers and poor people’s elected representatives.

‘Superabundance’ is the basis for genuine socialism and is vital to enable all to receive what is needed for a fulfilling and useful life. Until then, there will be many and varied conflicts over scarce resources. This is shown in the Bhimayana when it comes to quotas on jobs. A system of quotas can ease the situation for those who are most discriminated against in terms of jobs, education, housing and even in politics and on governing bodies. It is an attempt to redress the bias against them, the lack of opportunities and inadequate representation by politicians of their grievances and interests.

Socialists support all steps towards equality in society, but not at the expense of other exploited layers. There is always a risk of positive discrimination measures being used by individuals to better themselves, regardless of what happens to others.

In today’s corrupt, capitalist India, some Dalit political figures have been elevated into privileged positions where they have pursued their own interests and turned a blind eye to the problem of caste. They have adopted the lifestyle and approach of the caste oppressors. This has happened where caste-based parties have made compromises with capitalist politicians and business interests to gain power and influence, but then have not used their positions to further the interests of the most downtrodden people but only to feather their own nests.

Socialists will take up and combat all forms of oppression, exploitation and discrimination. Where today, as described in the Bhimayana, a resource such as water is denied to Dalits, an uproar has to be created and mass protests organised in the manner of Ambedkar’s Satyagrahas but involving as many organised workers from different backgrounds as possible to give weight and a perspective to the struggle.

The rottenness of the caste system must be exposed at every turn, along with the incapacity of capitalism to provide even the basic necessities for the world’s inhabitants. It is a system that deserves only to be swept away through mass resistance and the organised struggle of workers and poor people behind a programme of socialism that can end the horrors of class and caste oppression once and for all.

Clare Doyle, CWI

MAY DAY 2011

2011-04-29T20:54:00.001-07:00

Revolution in the Middle East and Mahgreb – workers’ struggle around the globe

Fighting to end capitalism and its crisis, the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) sends warm May Day greetings to workers, youth and the oppressed around the globe.

CWI statement

May Day, the traditional day for celebrating the international struggle of the workers’ movement, this year takes place against the background of the revolutionary wave in the Middle East and Maghreb countries. This has shown the mighty strength of the working class starting to put its stamp on these developments. But also other countries, the US with the tremendous developments in Wisconsin and the mass movements for example in Greece and Portugal, show that the new wave of cutbacks is being met with growing resistance.

The revolution in the Maghreb and the Middle East is still spreading from one country to another. The uprising against the regime in Syria continues. The regime there desperately clings to power using bloody repression, shooting demonstrators and jailing opposition activists. But the unrest in the region over state repression and social misery has dramatically changed both the area and international relations – and continues to do so. Demonstrators in Egypt have started a second wave of protest to achieve the objectives of their struggle: democracy and fundamental social change.

Even the regime in China – in many ways less affected by the global crisis – is trembling in fear of the Tunisian contagion. Dictators from Sri Lanka to Kazakhstan fear the effects of these revolutionary upheavals.

Defend the revolution! No to imperialist intervention!

Trying to use the international support for the Libyan people, the US, accompanied by European imperialist powers, started their armed intervention in Libya. Their objectives in the war, in which they are getting more and more involved, are to try to regain control over developments, to regain a grip on the whole region and for regime change in their interests.

They have no qualms about backing the brutal regime in Saudi Arabia and its intervention against the movement in Bahrain. The interests of the imperialist powers are not the interests of the working masses and the fighters for democracy and social change in Libya.

The solidarity of working people around the globe is needed on the side of those struggling against the brutal regime of Gaddafi but also against the imperialist intervention and war.

Stop the destruction of the planet!

On this May Day, our solidarity is also with all those workers in Japan fighting against a nuclear catastrophe and with all the people affected by the earthquake, tsunami and the following nuclear disaster. The Fukushima reactor crisis makes clear again that capitalist governments put profits before the need for even a minimum of security for the mass of the population. The earnings of companies like Tepco, the owner of the Fukushima reactors, General Electric (GE), Toshiba, Hitachi – the latter three all involved in the construction and design of this nuclear power station – were more important than the interests of hundreds of thousands or more people now affected by the ongoing nuclear accident.

Given the record of lies and the inability of the energy companies to guarantee anything other than profits for a few, the whole industry should be nationalised under democratic control and management by working people. The immediate need to organise an end of nuclear energy generation cannot be used as an excuse for not meeting the targets for ending carbon emissions to halt global warming. A socialist energy plan is needed, based on international cooperation, to bring to an end the age of nuclear power and fossil fuels.

Without a mass struggle this will not be achievable. Only a socialist transformation can ensure an end to the constant destruction of the vital components of our very existence.

Ongoing crisis

With the events in North Africa and the Middle East, this May Day sees the first wave of revolutions in the aftermath of the economic crisis that started in 2008. As it unfolded, it revealed the inability of capitalism to offer jobs, security and a decent life for the working masses.

In many countries, the answer of the capitalist governments to the deepest crisis since the 1930s is now an intensification of their policy of austerity and privatisation. Even in those countries with some kind of recovery, the accepted practice is to put the burden of the bailout for the bankers on the shoulders of the working masses in as short a time as possible.

However, the rebellion against this new wave of attacks has seen an impressive first round of battle in the USA. A mass movement sprang into action in Madison, Wisconsin to defend trade union rights and the conditions of public-sector workers. As Michael Moore put it, the Tea Party Republican Governor Scott declared “class war” and “aroused a sleeping giant”, the working people. In this small state of less than 6 million inhabitants, demonstrations of up to 200,000 showed the anger and determination that exists to defend trade union rights.

Unfortunately, the trade union leadership was more interested in rotten compromises than concretely defending working-class people. There was widespread support, both inside and outside the trade unions, for the call for a one-day general strike. Socialist Alternative, the CWI section in the USA, advocated concrete measures to make that next step a reality.

We have seen this in a lot of countries where many trade union leaders make verbal protests and, sometimes, organise mass protests and strikes simply as a way of letting off steam, not as mobilising measures for a serious struggle. The CWI fights for democratic and fighting trade unions. Wherever necessary, we have to re-build the unions to defend working-class people.

Stop the cuts - defend the public sector

Cushioned by the economic effects of China’s boom, some countries in Latin America and Africa hope to avoid being dragged into the European and North American quagmire. But the price they are already paying is the re-colonisation of their economies, returning them to the age of dependency on the export of raw materials.

The economic basis has therefore been prepared for future eruptions and new waves of resistance.

Most acute at present is the situation in Europe. Instead of fundamentally solving the crisis, the hopes of the capitalists and their governments are now concentrated on plans to avoid, or even just to cope with, a default on the part of Greece or Portugal. Their only objective is to avoid further contagion – but this is becoming less successful. The banking crisis is not solved and the sovereign debt crisis is increasing.

However, the policies of cuts have provoked a response in the form of mass resistance. In Greece, the regime of austerity has been met by eight general strikes. A general strike with ten million on the streets brought Spain to a halt. Hundreds of thousands protested in Portugal. In Britain where the trade union leadership postponed the protest against cuts for months, the final result was a show of accumulated anger with 700,000 marching on 26 March in London.

No government in Europe is stable or immune to the growing discontent. While much confusion in the consciousness of working people is still inherited from the past decades of neo-liberal offensive, the growing attacks of the capitalists and their states are forcing workers into action and into a new and developing debate about an alternative to the profit driven system.

So far these protests have not yet fundamentally blocked the attacks on living standards. Therefore, a clear plan of action to stop the immediate assault and to argue for an alternative to the crisis-ridden capitalist system is needed. This is why we argue for the nationalisation of all banks and the commanding heights of industry under workers’ control and management.

As Joe Higgins, together with Clare Daly recently elected to the Dáil (Irish Parliament) for the Socialist Party (CWI Ireland), put it: “There is a huge vacuum on the left. There is a need for a new movement to represent the working class in its widest sense”.

In many ways the workers’ movement has to be re-built to defend working class people, to fight capitalism and to struggle for an international socialist transformation of society.

The CWI in Pakistan - Socialist Movement Pakistan - was in the forefront of building a new independent trade union confederation. On this May Day, the SMP and the Progressive Workers’ Federation Pakistan are involved in the organisation of May Day celebrations all across the country.

In Kazakhstan the CWI helped to form a new trade union federation. As May Day is also the day to remember the martyrs of the workers’ movement, we have to honour all those fighters for democracy and socialism who – for example in Kazakhstan – have been imprisoned and, in many cases, tortured.

The ruling capitalist party in Sri Lanka is trying to hijack May Day by calling for demonstrations against the recent UN report which accuses them of war crimes on a mass scale. The United Socialist Party (CWI Sri Lanka) defends May Day as the day of the workers’ movement and links it to the struggle against Rajapakse’s dictatorship.

In many countries the CWI is involved in new political formations to build new mass parties of working class people.

In rebuilding the workers’ movement the CWI seeks to help to develop the best way to fight back, to organise resistance and to spread Marxist ideas within these new formations – the ideas of the CWI to end capitalism and the dictatorship of the markets.

Fighting for socialism

The struggle in North Africa and the Middle East poses the question of how to achieve a government in the interests of the working class and the poor, breaking with the framework of cuts and austerity, nationalising the banks and major multinationals which dominate the economy. Based on mass movements, such governments could open the way to democracy and socialism on an international level. This has nothing to do with the dictatorship of a privileged bureaucratic elite as was seen in the Stalinist former USSR and Eastern Europe.

In 1871, 140 years ago, when the people of Paris took power in the Commune, the working class showed its potential to lead a social struggle to change society. The workers of Paris established a model of workers’ democracy, based on elected representatives subject to recall and on a workers’ wage. It abolished the armed forces of the capitalist state and replaced them with the armed working class. The whole bureaucracy of the old state was superseded by democratic structures at all levels. “It was essentially a working-class government, the product of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labour.” (Karl Marx, The Civil War in France)

Given the inability of capitalism to develop the productive forces to satisfy the needs of the majority, the imperialists are relying again and again on rotten dictatorships and puppet regimes to control the masses. In the struggle for democracy and social improvement, the revolution in the Maghreb and the Middle East is pushed further towards the spontaneous conclusions of the Commune.

But the task is – as it would have been 140 years ago in Paris – to completely fulfil the revolutionary tasks by the taking of power into the hands of the working class.

In 1871, a mass socialist party was missing to give the militant fighters a lead in this struggle. Our task today is still to build such a force able to offer a way of transforming society on a world scale. This is the task the CWI has set as its objective to help to develop on an international level. With its members and sections in over 40 countries around the globe, the CWI invites all those interested in socialist ideas to take part in the struggle to overcome capitalism, imperialism, war and poverty.

The capitalist crisis since 2008 has pushed working people into a new era of sharpened attacks from above. However, it is also a new era of mass movements which are increasingly challenging the ruling classes and capitalism itself. Let us build on these forces to achieve a socialist society.

Egypt: Nasser and Arab nationalism

2011-04-09T08:45:00.000-07:00

Lessons for today’s revolution

Millions of Egyptians have brought down the hated Mubarak. Now workers and youth are discussing what should follow. The ideas put forward by Nasser over 50 years ago are being re-examined. DAVID JOHNSON looks back to Nasser’s regime and the lessons that can be drawn for the revolution today.

Young demonstrators in Tahrir Square had only known life under Hosni Mubarak, who ruled for 30 years. Older generations remember his predecessors – Gamal Abd el-Nasser and Anwar el-Sadat. Some older workers still refer to Nasser’s period in the 1950s and 1960s as ‘socialism’ – the party he established was called the Arab Socialist Union (ASU).

In the 1970s Sadat promoted the capitalist free market, including changing the name of the ASU to the National Democratic Party – the party the regime ruled with until Mubarak’s ousting.

In the 19th century, Egypt was part of the Turkish Ottoman empire but, in 1882, during a nationalist rebellion, British imperialism sent its navy and an army of occupation. The British ruling class wanted to protect the Suez canal route to its empire, as well as its investments in cotton, Egypt’s main export. The cotton trade expanded over the next 20 years, enriching a layer of landowners. By 1913, 13,000 landowners owned almost half of all cultivated, while one-and-a-half million peasants only owned about one third. During the first world war, cotton prices rose sharply, so big landowners planted more, making large profits, but leading to food shortages and higher prices for the poor. Today, Egyptian agriculture is also increasingly geared towards cash crop exports.

Financiers and businessmen emerged from this layer of wealthy landowners, profiting by making goods that were not imported during the war. Local industry developed quickly so the small working class grew in size, and militancy, joined by rail and dockworkers employed in war transportation. The developing Egyptian capitalist and working classes confronted an obstacle to both their interests: the continuing occupation by British imperialism.

Capitalists and landlords wanted independence from Britain to build their political and economic interests – but they feared a movement of the workers and rural poor. Government positions would give them prestige and the power to reward supporters with contracts and jobs. The biggest party agitating for independence was the Wafd (Delegation). Forty percent of its leaders were landowners, others were financiers, industrialists and administrators.

Workers wanted independence to end exploitation and hardship, which greatly increased during the war. A massive strike wave and demonstrations in 1919 forced the British government to agree to negotiations over independence. Three years later, after continuing strikes and unrest, the British Declaration announced an ‘independent’ Egyptian state, while keeping a veto over foreign policy, protected British business interests and maintained a garrison in the Suez canal zone.

Permanent revolution

The Ottoman sultan was appointed king. Weak unstable governments came and went - from 1922-52 their average life was under a year. The same ministers, 60% of whom were landowners, took turns to hold different posts. The Egyptian capitalists were unable and unwilling to carry through the tasks of a capitalist (‘bourgeois’) revolution: throwing out foreign rule, ending the power of feudal landowners, developing a modern capitalist economy. Capitalists, bankers and landowners were linked to each other. All feared the small but potentially powerful working class more than they feared British imperialism. In 1923, the first Wafd government brought in laws to repress left-wing parties and ban many strikes.

Only the working class, drawing behind it the mass of poor peasants, could have completed the tasks of the bourgeois revolution. This was Leon Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution, developed in relation to Russia at the start of the 20th century. A workers’ government would not stop at creating conditions for capitalism to develop, but would nationalise industry, banks and land, laying the basis for a socialist plan of production. An appeal to workers in more economically advanced countries to follow their example would spread socialist revolution across the world and provide the aid needed to develop a poor country.

The Russian revolution brilliantly confirmed this theory. However, the revolutions it sparked did not lead to other workers’ states. Workers’ leaders either failed to take advantage of opportunities to take power or, later, under the influence of the Stalinist bureaucracy which developed in the Soviet Union, derailed revolutionary movements. Nevertheless, the bureaucracy’s position depended on a state-owned economy – a return to capitalism would have meant its ousting from power. The advantages of state planning meant the economy grew rapidly, although at far higher cost than if workers’ democracy had survived.

The Egyptian Communist Party was founded in 1922 but was mainly based among minorities. It followed Stalin’s disastrous policies and never grew to a mass force. Instead, disappointment in the results of independence led to the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928.

A crisis during the second world war led the British army to instruct king Faruq to form a Wafd government, with British tanks outside his palace making sure he got the message. This highlighted that, ultimately, power still rested with imperialism. It also showed the weakness and hypocrisy of the Egyptian ruling class, including the Wafd, which 20 years earlier had agitated for independence. A period of stagnation and conflict between the king and government followed, each trying to get their followers into positions of influence.

Although the economy grew between 1922-52, most people’s living standards fell. The gap between rich and poor increased. A 15-hour day was common and factories still employed children under ten years old. By 1950, only 30% of children received secondary education. There were two million industrial workers in 1952, one tenth of the total workforce. Widespread strikes, including general strikes, took place after the war along with demonstrations by students and others. Left-wing parties and papers were banned and activists arrested.

The rise of the Free Officers

The 1947 United Nations resolution dividing Palestine prior to the formation of Israel fuelled anger, which increased after the defeat of the Egyptian army in the 1948 war. Thirteen disaffected middle-ranking officers started meeting secretly in 1949. They were all aged 28-35, the sons of small landowners or minor government employees. Nasser became the chair of this Free Officers movement. Sadat was a founding member.

They gradually built influence among other officers. When, on 20 July 1952, another weak government resigned after only 18 days, the Free Officers took action. Overnight on 22/23 July, troops took over key buildings, roads and bridges in Cairo. The corrupt king was ordered into exile. Sadat made the radio announcement of the takeover. Nasser became deputy prime minister and minister of the interior – then prime minister and president in 1954.

The Free Officers represented middle-class frustration at the complete failure of capitalist politicians to develop society. In contrast to the weak landlord-capitalist class, the military was a powerful, organised force. The officers wanted political power and opposed independent working-class action. All political parties were abolished in January 1953. Like other ‘third world’ regimes of that period, Egypt’s military played a ‘bonapartist’ role, playing off different classes and political groupings against one another. The press, local councils and lawyers’ association were purged. In 1954, the Muslim Brotherhood was banned, its leaders arrested and exiled to Saudi Arabia, from where they were to return later, having adopted the more extreme Wahhabi Islam.

The new government’s programme spoke of nationalism and social justice. Its objectives were the destruction of imperialism, eradication of feudalism and ending of monopoly. However, there was no clear economic policy, which was expected to continue under private ownership. “We are not socialists. I think our economy can only prosper under free enterprise”, said Gamal Salim, a leading Free Officer.

Nonetheless, most capitalists were panic stricken and many emigrated. Private-sector investment plummeted, pushing the regime in a different direction. An early measure was land reform, limiting the size of holdings to 80 hectares. The tiny number of very big landlords who had dominated previous governments lost the economic basis of their power. Fifteen percent of cultivable land was transferred to landless peasants. Cooperatives gave cheap credit, seeds and fertiliser. But more than half the rural population remained landless, the main winners being small landowners.

The Suez crisis

Two global superpowers emerged at the end of the second world war – the USA and the USSR. They both attempted to extend their spheres of influence, bringing them into conflict in many parts of the world. With nuclear weapons threatening ‘mutually assured destruction’, conflicts took the form of proxy wars between their client regimes. So-called ‘non-aligned’ governments, including Nasser’s regime, tried balancing between the two superpowers.

In 1955 Nasser signalled a shift in his position by ordering arms from the USSR. This may have been a negotiating ploy to get more arms from the USA. He told the US ambassador that he would still prefer US military assistance. The 1955 Baghdad pact, signed by the British government, had also angered Nasser. This central Asian treaty defended imperialist interests in Iran, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Nasser infuriated the French government by refusing to call for an end to the uprising in Algeria against French occupation. Independence movements were spreading like wildfire throughout the old European colonies.

At the same time, the Egyptian government was negotiating for international loans to build the Aswan high dam – a huge project that would greatly increase land available for cultivation and generate electricity needed for industrialisation. The USA and Britain had offered a fifth of the cost, hoping this would buy influence over the regime. However, after the USSR arms deal, the USA cancelled its offer in July 1956.

Nasser responded by announcing the nationalisation of the Suez canal to a massive meeting in Alexandria, saying its revenues would finance the dam. An eyewitness described how “the people went wild with excitement”. The canal company was French, with the British government the largest shareholder.

These two governments secretly colluded with the Israeli government to launch an invasion of Egypt in October. The invasion proved disastrous for Britain and France, achieving its military targets but arousing huge international opposition. Arab masses throughout the Middle East supported the Nasser regime. There was massive opposition in Britain. The US government saw its regional interests threatened and demanded the invasion be ended, imposing economic sanctions against Britain. The three governments were forced into a humiliating withdrawal. Meanwhile, Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary to suppress the political revolution there.

State control of the economy

Nasser emerged with the reputation of a leader who stood up to imperialism – completely different to the spineless bourgeois nationalists he had replaced. French and British banks and companies were immediately nationalised. Two months later, the rest of banking and insurance was nationalised.

After the failure of private enterprise to invest between 1952-56, most industry, manufacturing, trade and other services were nationalised. State control of foreign trade, progressive taxation and the seizure of property from 600 of the wealthiest families took place. State investment increased industry from 10% of GNP in 1952 to 20% by 1962. The Aswan dam was completed in 1968, tripling electricity output.

Between 1952-67 real wages rose by 44%, not counting food subsidies, shorter hours, insurance and social security. School education was made free in 1956, with higher education following in 1962, when all graduates were guaranteed a job in public service. The number of students grew by 8% a year from 1952-70. The number of state officials grew from 350,000 in 1952 to 1.2 million by 1970, and 1.9 million by 1978.

These measures reflected the balance of forces on the world stage as well as in Egypt. It was a period of unprecedented and almost uninterrupted growth of the world economy. Imperialism was unable to intervene in Egypt after the Suez debacle. Stalinist Russia supported a regime that mirrored some its own features.

In 1957, state control turned trade unions into an arm of the state, with well-rewarded leaders preventing workers’ independent organisation and struggle. No workers’ control or any element of workers’ democracy was allowed, without which genuine socialism cannot exist. Opposition was ruthlessly stamped on, including the Communist Party (CP). The middle class Free Officers found the absence of democratic rights appealing, leaving their power unchallenged.

Despite the regime’s description of itself as ‘Arab socialism’, capitalism continued in a distorted form. Egyptian capitalism had been too weak to develop without massive state intervention. Sadat and Mubarak later carried out privatisation without changing the nature of the state. Key sections of the economy were taken over by senior army officers and Mubarak’s supporters, friends and family.

Arab nationalism

Britain, France and Turkey largely drew the Middle East map in 1919, reflecting their imperialist interests. The appeal of ‘Pan-Arabism’, embracing the whole region, was partly a reaction to these artificially created states and also to the terrible legacy of exploitation by imperialism. Nasser used the new media of his time, radio, to reach a mass audience across the Middle East. The Cairo-based Voice of the Arabs radio station, launched in 1953, overcame national boundaries and illiteracy, broadcasting ideas of Arab nationalism directly over the heads of other governments.

In 1957, Syria was in deep political crisis, its capitalist class weak and ineffectual. The two most influential parties were the Ba’th (Renaissance) and CP. The CP, like other Stalinist parties, did not put forward a programme of independent working-class action and socialism. Both parties hoped Nasser’s popularity would rub off on them and approached him with plans to unite the two countries. Syria’s senior army officers also favoured the plan. Among Nasser’s conditions for the union was the disbandment of all political parties apart from a single state-controlled party.

The United Arab Republic (UAR) was founded in 1958, further enhancing Nasser’s reputation throughout the Arab world. The impact led to revolution in Iraq and nearly brought the downfall of governments in Lebanon and Jordan in the same year.

However, no other states joined the UAR and Syria split from it within three years. The land reform programme had angered Syrian landlords, while businessmen were angered by nationalisation. Politicians and army officers were embittered by their exclusion from power. The working class, agricultural labourers and poor farmers had no independent organisations and were not allowed any democratic control over the state.

A genuine workers’ state would have gained mass support with improved living standards, education and welfare programmes. A federation of democratic socialist states could have become a shining example to the entire Arab world. But a bureaucratic regime without democratic rights, not fully breaking from capitalism, could not overcome the contradictions of the nation state. Each ruling class put its own self-interests first.

After the failure of the UAR, Nasser turned further towards the Soviet Union with more nationalisation. In 1962, a national charter spelled out the revolution’s aims: ‘freedom, socialism and Arab unity’. The official state party was renamed the Arab Socialist Union, part of which became the National Democratic Party in 1976, providing Sadat and then Mubarak with a base. (Last November, businessmen paid high sums to become NDP candidates for the misnamed peoples’ assembly, knowing election would help them win government contracts.)

Nasser supported the Algerian revolution against French colonial rule and then the 1962 overthrow of the Yemeni royal family. Nearly half the Egyptian army was sent to fight in Yemen, where it sustained heavy casualties over the next five years. Without a class appeal to the workers and poor, linked to a socialist programme including land distribution and democratic rights, Egyptian troops became embroiled in a bloody civil war.

This was followed in 1967 by the six-day war against Israel and heavy military defeat, the Egyptian armed forces seriously depleted by their continuing involvement in Yemen. For the first few days of war, the Egyptian government maintained a stream of stories of military success, even as its entire air force was destroyed and the army sustained massive damage.

Nasser assumed full responsibility and resigned. But a massive demonstration in Cairo demanded that he stay on. People refused to leave the streets for 17 hours until he withdrew his resignation. However, he never regained his previous authority among the Arab masses. Student riots broke out in 1968, protesting against those responsible for the war defeat but also reflecting wider dissatisfaction.

Nevertheless, when he died in 1970 an estimated ten million people poured onto the streets for his funeral. Nasser’s legacy lived on, with a nostalgic memory of anti-imperialism, rising living standards and improving education.

Nasserism today

Socialism had widespread support among workers, the poor and youth throughout the world at the time. Despite using the word ‘socialism,’ Nasser balanced between western imperialism and the Stalinist deformed workers’ states. Without the democratic involvement of the working class, together with the rural and urban poor, genuine socialism could not be built. Instead, the way was paved for the subsequent counter-reforms of Sadat and Mubarak, based on a bigger role for the capitalist market.

Egypt’s population is more than twice as big today as in the 1960s. The working class is far bigger, many working in giant factories employing thousands. More people live in cities. There is now a much stronger foundation for democratic socialism led by the working class, and supported by the rural and urban poor, compared to half a century ago.

The international situation in 2011 is very different. The Soviet Union has gone, leaving one global superpower. But the USA and world capitalism is not enjoying a 25-year boom as in the 1950s and 1960s. On the contrary, it is in the midst of the worst financial crisis for 80 years. There is no possibility of a new Egyptian government being able to develop rapidly, providing jobs and rising living standards, if it remains on the basis of capitalism.

The idea of pan-Arab nationalism has also changed. Although a strong sense of solidarity has seen a revolutionary wave spread from Tunisia across North Africa and the Middle East, the countries artificially formed by European imperialists nearly a century ago have developed their own national identities. Demonstrators have waved national flags, symbolising their desire to reclaim their state from corrupt dictators. Rather than a unified Arab state, as Nasser attempted to build, a democratic federation of socialist states would now have more appeal throughout the region. But socialism is less popular today as a result of the after-effects of the collapse of Stalinism. The task of socialists is to rebuild that support, by linking it to a programme addressing all the problems facing workers, the poor and youth.

David Johnson, CWI England & Wales

MASALAH RAKYAT DENGAN KENAIKAN HARGA BARANG DAN MINYAK

2011-04-09T08:37:00.000-07:00

Kita telah melabuhkan tirai 2010. Kini cabaran dan dugaan di tahun baru iaitu 2011 akan kita hadapi dalam situasi yang semakin sukar. Perhatikan betul-betul, seawal tahun baru ini iaitu pada 4 Januari 2011 rakyat malaysia telah digemparkan lagi dengan pengumuman kenaikan harga petrol RON97, sebelum itu ketika penutupan tahun 2010 harga petrol RON95, harga gas masakan, harga minyak tanah dan beberapa barang keperluan lain termasuk harga gula dan tepung telah turut dinaikkan. Kerajaan tanpa segan silu dilihat semakin rakus menarik sedikit demi sedikit subsidi yang dinikmati oleh seluruh rakyat malaysia.

Persoalannya, mengapakah hal-hal seperti ini berlaku ?

Untuk memahami dan mengungkap persoalan demi persoalan yang semakin membebankan rakyat ini, kita perlu kembali kepada permasalahan pokok, kita wajib melihat apa yang telah berlaku semenjak tahun 2008 dan bagaimana dunia mengalami wabak kemerosotan ekonomi yang kesannya pada hari ini, menekan kehidupan rakyat malaysia dan seluruh warga dunia.

Semenjak tahun 2008 yang lalu, telah sampai berita kepada kita tentang krisis ekonomi global yang menjerut leher setiap kaum pemodal kapitalis. Masalah lambakan produksi di kesemua sektor industri telah membuatkan institusi kewangan gergasi dunia seperti IMF dan federal reserve memaksa negara-negara dunia ketiga membuka pasaran seluas mungkin dan terpaksa menerima hasil lebihan produksi ini dengan lapang dada. Dasar liberalisasi ini adalah strategi untuk menekan warga dan kaum buruh di seluruh dunia untuk membantu meningkatkan nilai dolar yang semakin merudum.

Kemudian, diberitakan sekali lagi kepada kita bahawa sumber petroleum dunia semakin mengecut. Negara-negara membangun terutamanya negara China yang terkenal dengan konsep ‘upah buruhnya yang murah’ telah menggunakan berjuta-juta tong petroleum setiap hari. Manakala dalam sistem ekonomi kapitalis ini, petroleum merupakan asas yang paling penting. Sehingga ke hari ini, kita masih tidak boleh menafikan bahawa, apabila harga petroleum di pasaran dunia meningkat, maka harga petrol di Malaysia juga akan meningkat. Justeru apa yang berlaku ialah, kesemua harga barangan yang melibatkan asas petroleum tadi akan meningkat sama.

Lalu kita kembali kepada Malaysia. Kerajaan Barisan Nasional (BN) kini dilihat semakin terdesak, beberapa langkah dan usaha yang dijalankan jelas menunjukkan yang mereka hanya berusaha untuk mengekalkan kuasa sekurang-kurangnya untuk penggal selepas pilihanraya umum ke 13. Pelan transformasi ekonomi dan bajet 2011 yang baru-baru ini diumumkan langsung tidak mengurangkan beban yang kini ditanggung rakyat. Justeru apa yang kita semua alami ketika penutupan tahun 2010 dan sambutan tahun 2011 yang lalu jelas menunjukkan kerajaan yang dipimpin oleh Dato' Najib Tun Razak semakin ganas dan rakus untuk menekan rakyat. Kenyataan ini disokong dengan hasrat dan cita-cita kerajaan yang melaksanakan projek-projek mega termasuk pelan pembinaan menara warisan setinggi 100 tingkat di kuala lumpur. Yang jelas keperluan dan kebajikan rakyat bukan lagi menjadi agenda utama kerajaan selain daripada memperkaya dan memperbanyak projek serta kontrak untuk kroni dan ahli keluarga.

Hari ini, segala keperluan asas untuk rakyat telah berjaya diswastakan. Air, elektrik, pendidikan dan perubatan yang ada di Malaysia bukan lagi dimiliknegarakan, malah telah dikuasai sepenuhnya oleh pemodal-pemodal tempatan dan antarabangsa. Justeru beban yang ditanggung oleh kelas pekerja dilihat semakin memburuk. Segala jenis keperluan asas yang wajib dimiliki telah berubah menjadi satu beban yang maha berat. Pembinaan insfrastruktur bukan lagi satu faedah yang baik, malah ia telah menjadi lubuk untuk negara memperoleh hasil dari nilai atau kadar yang telah ditetapkan.

Inilah apa yang kita panggil sebagai dasar penswastaan. Dalam sistem kapitalisma yang penting ialah memaksimakan keuntungan, maka penswastaan yang lahir dari idea neoliberal ini harus dan wajib berlaku. Lalu, apa yang sedang kita tonton di hadapan kita ini merupakan tekanan yang dikenakan oleh kaum pemodal ke atas kerajaan untuk terus memastikan keuntungan maksima tidak pernah lari dari landasan asal mereka. Dan sekali lagi kita telah melihat bahawa kebajikan tidak pernah wujud dalam nadi sistem yang semakin merobek norma-norma kemanusiaan hari ini.

Kita wajib sedar dan perubahan wajib berlaku. Penindasan yang diberikan keatas warga dan kelas pekerja perlu mendapat perlawanan yang setimpal dari rakyat. Kesadaran tentang situasi politik serta kemelut ekonomi adalah kata kunci yang paling penting untuk kita terus mencorak perubahan. Tidak dapat dinafikan, petrol dan harga barangan keperluan akan terus melambung di pasaran, justeru yang wajib kita lakukan ialah, menyatukan anak semua bangsa dan bangkit untuk melawan sistem kapitalisma yang rakus dan zalim ini.

LIBYA: STOP THE BOMBING - NO TO FOREIGN INTERVENTION!

2011-03-29T20:32:00.000-07:00

Build an independent movement of workers, the poor and youth

The UN Security Council’s majority decision to impose a “no-fly zone”, while greeted with joy on the streets of Benghazi and Tobruk, was in no way intended to defend the Libyan revolution. The air strikes’ mounting civilian toll is leading to growing questioning of these attacks that is leading to pressure on governments, like South Africa, that originally supported, or abstained on, the UN decision, to distance themselves from what is taking place.

The longer this situation continues, the more questioning and opposition will develop. Already many workers, youth and others are disgusted by the hypocrisy of governments proclaiming their willingness to defend Libyans while doing nothing when civilians are shot down in Bahrain and the Yemen. The western powers’ silence on Saudi Arabian backing for the Bahraini elite’s bloody repression confirms, in the eyes of many, that what they wish for in Libya is for that oil rich country to also become a client state.

Revolutionaries in Libya may think that this UN decision will help them, but they are mistaken. The growing jockeying for positions and tensions between the main attacking powers reveal the naked economic and political calculations that lay behind the imperialist powers’ decision. It is not a lifeline that could ‘save’ the revolution against Gaddafi. The major imperialist powers decided that they wanted now to exploit the revolution, gain control over its leadership and thus try to replace Gaddafi with a more reliable (for them and their interests) regime. And they hoped that this demonstration of their military power would warn the Arab masses not to go “too far” in their revolutions.

But almost immediately it has become clear that the imperialist powers hope of a quick victory is disappearing. On the one hand, the forces around Gaddafi for the moment appear to be holding firm while the rebel forces seem unable to advance around the Gulf of Sirte, let alone towards Tripoli.

This is the background to the growing tensions between the attacking powers, especially the arguments over who is controlling the operation, whether or not NATO should be involved and over what their overall aim should be. Some fear that they may get involved in a ground war, or that the country could break up. All of which is aggravated by the rivalries and competition between the attacking powers. At the same time, as being divided over what to do, the imperialist powers are fearful of the effects of their intervention both in Libya and throughout the Arab world.

The stalling of the revolution is symbolised by the weakness of the self-appointed leadership of the “Interim Transitional National Council” (ITNC) which is dominated by recent defectors from Gaddafi and pro-capitalist elements. This body seems incapable of appealing to the masses in western Libya and is increasingly relying on the imperialist powers for aid. What has been missing is independent organisations of Libyan workers and youth that could give a clear direction to the revolution in order to win democratic rights, end corruption and secure for the mass of Libyans democratic control over, and benefit from, the country’s resources.

Faced with a rapid eastwards advance of Gaddafi’s forces, many in eastern Libya seized hold of the idea of a “no-fly zone” to help stem this tide, but this is not the way to defend and extend a genuine revolution in the working masses’ interests. We have seen false hopes in the power of intervention many times before, for example, in 1969, in Northern Ireland, where some on the Left thought that the British army would protect Catholics and provide a “breathing space”. While the intervention in Libya initially beat back an attack on Benghazi, it is clear that the attacking powers, with their growing calls for Gaddafi’s removal, are already starting to try to shape the character of any post-Gaddafi Libya. For the ruling classes in the US, Britain, France and elsewhere, their goal is a pliant country open to exploitation.

The regime was able to mount a counter-attack because the uprising’s initial drive towards the west, where two-thirds of Libyans live, was not based on a clear revolutionary appeal to the working masses. Despite mass support in the east there was no organised mass movement, built upon popular, democratic committees that could offer a clear programme to win support from the mass of the western population and rank and file soldiers whilst waging a revolutionary war. This gave Gaddafi an opportunity to regroup.

The growth in support for a no-fly zone was a reversal of the sentiment expressed in the English language posters put up in Benghazi in February declaring, ‘No to Foreign Intervention – Libyans can do it by themselves!’. This followed the wonderful examples of Tunisia and Egypt where sustained mass action completely undermined totalitarian regimes. The Libyan opposition masses were confident that their momentum would secure victory. But, at least partly due to the character of the opposition’s leadership, Gaddafi was able to retain a grip in Tripoli, the largest city of nearly 1.8 million. The combination of this relative stabilisation of the regime and its counter-offensive led to a change in attitude amongst the opposition towards foreign intervention that allowed the largely pro-Western ITNC to overcome youth opposition to asking the West for aid.

However, despite the Gaddafi regime’s blood-curdling words, it is not at all certain that its relatively small forces could have launched an all-out assault on Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city, with over a million living in its environs. A mass defence of the city would have blunted the attack of Gaddafi’s relatively small forces, especially if combined with an appeal to those forces to join the revolution. But to do this successfully the revolution would have to be clearly seen as standing for political freedom and offering a way forward for Libyan society. But the ITNC is incapable of doing this and there was no independent movement of workers and youth who could give such a lead. Now, if a stalemate develops and Gaddafi remains in power in Tripoli, it could mean a de facto breakup that goes back to the separate entities that existed before Italy first created Libya after 1912 and Britain recreated it in the late 1940s.

Aspirations of the revolution

But, whatever effects this no-fly zone and military intervention has, any trust placed in either the UN or the imperialist powers threatens to undermine all the genuine hopes and aspirations of the revolution that began in February. This is because the powers that have decided this are no friends of the Libyan masses. Until recently they were quite happy to deal with, and pander to, the murderous Gaddafi clique in order to maintain a partnership, especially in oil and gas. Indeed, the day after the UN took its decision, the Murdoch-owned ‘Wall Street Journal’ lamented that, “the close partnership between the Libyan leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s intelligence service and the CIA has been severed” (March 18, 2011). The ‘Journal’ reported that, “according to a senior US official,” this was “especially productive” - something confirmed by secret US material published on Wikileaks.

Now, having lost Mubarak and Ben Ali, imperialism is trying to take advantage of the popular uprising in Libya to both refurbish its “democratic” image while working to help install a more “reliable” regime in Libya, or at least a part of Libya. North Africa and the Middle East, with its oil and strategic location, are of tremendous importance to the imperialist powers. Libya with its oil reserves - the largest in Africa and ninth largest in the world - is a special prize as its low population and its geography make it easier to exploit.

However the attackers’ propaganda actually again reveals the absolute hypocrisy of the main imperialist powers that have shamelessly supported repressive dictatorial regimes throughout the Middle East. There was not even a hint of a “no fly zone” or “protecting civilians” during the Israeli government’s 2008/9 attack on Gaza; instead their lips were sealed. For millions in the Middle East, the US and British reaction to the attack on Gaza, alongside the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, are the measures by which the intentions of these powers are judged.

Now, at the very same time that these powers were deciding the no-fly zone, they did absolutely nothing to practically prevent Saudi Arabia and their Gulf allies’ increasingly brutal suppression of the majority of the Bahraini population and attempt to foment sectarianism. Within 12 hours of the UN decision, the forces of the major powers’ Yemeni ally shot dead at least 40 protesters in the capital, Sanaa. The UN was only able to take its decision on Libya because the Arab League supported a no-fly zone. Yet, despite sometimes having to dimly reflect popular opinion, this body is in no way representative of the Arab masses. It is a collection of mainly reactionary autocrats who themselves rule by repression, as seen most recently in Bahrain and Yemen. The imperialist powers are very clear about not upsetting these rulers. British ministers, for example, speak about the need for “freedom of expression” in the Middle East, trying not to mention the word “democracy”.

The “concern” of Cameron and Sarkozy for Libya is at least partly motivated by domestic unpopularity and the hope that a foreign success will strengthen their standing. Cameron clearly hopes for a boost similar to that which Thatcher enjoyed after her victory in the 1983 Falklands/Malvinas War, but Thatcher achieved a quick military victory and simply a no-fly zone will not produce a similar military victory. Sarkozy, after the disaster of his Tunisia policy that led to the resignation of his Foreign Minister, needs a “success” to lift his low poll ratings as next year’s presidential election looms closer. After originally opposing the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, Sarkozy now suddenly “supports” the Libyan opposition and recognises it as the legitimate government, probably with an eye to it helping French companies get their hands on Libyan oil and gas.

Despite the imperialist powers’ rapprochement with Gaddafi after 9/11, he remained an unreliable ally. Throughout his nearly 42 years in power Gaddafi’s policies have zig-zagged, sometimes violently. In 1971 he helped the then Sudanese dictator Nimeiry crush a coup led by leftist officers that took place in reaction to the earlier suppression of the left, including the banning of the one million member Sudanese Communist Party. Six years later, Gaddafi proclaimed a “people’s revolution” and changed the country’s official name from the Libyan Arab Republic to the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah. But despite this change in name, and the formation of so-called “revolutionary committees”, this was not genuine democratic socialism or a move towards it. The Libyan working people and youth were not running their country. Gaddafi remained in control, something underlined by the increasingly prominent role that many of his children played in the regime.

Gaddafi’s first reaction to this year’s dramatic revolutionary events was to side with the dictatorial, corrupt autocrats. Just after Ben Ali fled from Tunisia, Gaddafi told Tunisians that they had “suffered a great loss” because “there is none better than Ben Ali to govern”. Perhaps revealing how he viewed his own future, Gaddafi added that he had hoped that Ben Ali would rule “for life”.

Nevertheless it cannot be ignored that, since 1969, on the basis of a large oil income and a small population, there has been a big improvement in most Libyans’ lives, especially in education and health. This is something which at least partly explains why Gaddafi still has some basis of support amongst the population. Even while there is growing opposition to the Gaddafi clique, especially amongst Libya’s overwhelmingly young, educated and urban population, there is also a fear of who might replace him and opposition to anything that smells of foreign rule. Libyans know the second line of the US Marine Corps Hymn, “to the shores of Tripoli”, referring to an earlier, 1803 intervention. The revolutionaries’ widespread use of the old monarchy’s flag was bound to alienate those who do not want to return to the past and was used by Gaddafi to justify his rule. Additionally, flying this old flag risks alienating Libyans from the west of the country as the former king came from the east and had no historic roots in the area around Tripoli.

But these factors are not a complete explanation of why Gaddafi was able to stabilise his position before the Western intervention and, at least temporarily, sections of the Libyan military kept fighting. While there was a popular uprising in eastern Libya, Gaddafi was able to maintain his positions in the west, where two-thirds of the population live, despite large protests in Tripoli and uprisings in Misrata, Zuwarah and a few other areas. This was a result both of the way in which the revolution unfolded and of Libya’s history.

Role of the Working Class

Unlike Egypt and Tunisia the working class in Libya has not, so far, begun to play an independent role in the revolution. Furthermore many workers in Libya are migrants who have fled the country in recent weeks.

The absence of a national focal point which, for example, the Tunisian UGTT trade union federation provided (despite its pro-Ben Ali national leadership), complicated the situation in Libya. The huge revolutionary enthusiasm of the population has not, so far, been given an organised expression. The largely self-appointed “National Council” that has emerged in Benghazi is a combination of elements from the old regime and more pro-imperialist elements. For example the Council’s foreign spokesman, Mahmoud Jibril, the former head of Gaddafi’s National Economic Development Board, was described by the US Ambassador in November 2009 as a “serious interlocutor who ‘gets’ the US perspective” i.e. someone the US can work with.

It is easy for Gaddafi to present these type of people as threats to Libyans’ living standards and as agents of foreign powers. At the same time the effect of this propaganda will be limited due to a steady worsening of the population’s living standards and continued over 20% unemployment since the end of the 1980s oil boom and, particularly, after the start of privatisation back in 2003. Now, in addition to anti-imperialist rhetoric, Gaddafi has made concessions to maintain support. Each family has been given the equivalent of $450. Some public sector workers have been given 150% wage increases and taxes and customs duties on food have been abolished. But these steps do not wipe away all that has happened over the past years. Furthermore they do not answer the demands for real democratic rights or end to the growing frustration of Libya’s youthful population - with an average age of 24 - against the regime’s corruption and suffocating grip.

Gaddafi’s use of the threat of imperialist intervention to divide the country did gather some support. Now it may gain more backing if the air attacks continue and widen out to civilian targets, as happened in Serbia in 1999, and if the country does actually become divided. Gaddafi’s promise that, “If needs be, we will open all the arsenals”, indicates that he can attempt to rest on anti-colonial feelings or simply try to threaten imperialism that it is “me or chaos”. Gaddafi will try to make sure he or his family keeps hold of the reins of power, but an impending defeat could persuade more of his top officials to jump ship and join the INTC.

Internationally, tens upon tens of millions of people have followed and been inspired by the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East. Already these revolutions have inspired protests against the effects of the capitalist crisis in many countries. Because of this, and Gaddafi’s advance on Benghazi, there was popular support in some countries for the “no fly zone”, but this is already starting to be questioned as the bombing continues. Even the leaders of the Arab League are trying to back away from being too closely associated with what is happening.

How to aid the revolution?

But what then can be done to genuinely help the Libyan revolution internationally? Firstly, there can be no support for the “no fly zone” and military intervention. It is not in the interests of the Libyan people. On its own the “no fly zone” will not automatically lead to the overthrow of Gaddafi. In fact, like Saddam Hussein, he could entrench his position for a time in those parts of the country his regime controls, so long as the intervention did not go onto the offensive.

However the growing unofficial Western calls for ‘regime change’ show that sections of the imperialist powers are looking to use their intervention to create a client regime that will, they hope, extinguish the fires of revolution, at least in Libya. This is why the support by some Lefts for this intervention is mistaken and dangerous. Such support poses the danger not just of the revolution being derailed but also of being cut off from those Libyans who, while not fully supporting Gaddafi, genuinely wish to fight colonialism and imperialism.

The imminent attack on Benghazi clearly panicked a section of the Left internationally, ranging from the members of the GUE/NGL group in the European Parliament, Die LINKE in Germany, the Left Bloc in Portugal, to some of the followers of the late Ernest Mandel in the ‘Fourth International’ (FI) and other smaller groupings. A Swedish ‘FI’ member, Andreas Malm, argued that if the right-wing Swedish government sent military aircraft, “they – in fact – (would) put themselves on the side of the revolution”. A small British grouping, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, argues that, “Socialists either address this, real life-and-death question or they are irrelevant poseurs” and “to oppose – that is, demonstrate against, and make a serious effort to prevent – the limited military action against Gaddafi, is to tell the rebels in Benghazi ‘you’re on your own’”.

But those on the Left who argue that “there is no realistic alternative” to stop Gaddafi’s attacks are precisely ignoring what happened in Tunisia and Egypt, namely that a determined mass movement of the working masses and youth can overthrow a dictatorship. Support for the imperialists’ intervention works against building such a movement and furthermore gives a propaganda gift to Gaddafi.

It is true that the intervention has received popular backing in eastern Libya. The same was true when British troops went onto the streets of Northern Ireland in 1969 and when the Indian army moved into Sri Lanka in 1987. The CWI, while understanding these sentiments, also understood that they would not last, and argued not simply against the military interventions but for a positive programme to build a working class-led movement that could provide a socialist way out of the crisis.

After a delay, the leadership of the ‘Fourth International’ distanced themselves from their members, especially in Sweden and France, supporting the UN decision and declared that the ‘FI’ opposed the military intervention in Libya. However the ‘FI’ leaders did not give any indication of what, apart from solidarity and giving practical aid, needed to be done in Libya to defend the revolution from Gaddafi’s clique, imperialist intervention and the pro-capitalist elements seeking to limit the revolution from within.

Of course, opposition to this imperialist attack and practical solidarity with the Libyan workers and youth needs to be urgently organised. Trade unions internationally need to block the export of Libyan oil and gas. Bank workers should organise the freezing of all the Gaddafi regime’s financial assets.

A revolutionary programme

However, the fate of the revolution will be decided inside Libya itself. Its victory requires a programme that can cut across tribal and regional divisions and unite the mass of the population against the Gaddafi clique and in the struggle for a better future.

There can be no support for the imperialist intervention, despite its UN colouring. The Libyan working masses and youth should show no trust whatsoever in the so-called democratic powers. They need to always remember that up until a few weeks ago the US, Britain, France etc. were friends of Gaddafi and are still friends and allies of dictators and rotten regimes across the Arab world.

A programme for the Libyan revolution that will genuinely benefit the mass of the population would be based on winning and defending real democratic rights, an end to corruption and privilege, the safeguarding and further development of the social gains made since the discovery of oil, opposition to any form of re-colonisation and for a democratically controlled, publicly owned economy planned to use the country’s resources for the future.

The creation of an independent movement of Libyan workers, poor and youth that could implement such a real revolutionary transformation of the country is the only way to thwart the imperialists’ plans, end dictatorship and transform the lives of the mass of the people.

Robert Bechert, Committee for a Workers’ International

ADAKAH ‘FITRAH MANUSIA’ PENGHALANG KEPADA SOSIALISMA?

2011-03-29T19:27:00.001-07:00

Dunia semakin kucar-kacir. Peperangan, kemiskinan dan penindasan telah menjadi sebahagian daripada kehidupan kepada berbillion manusia di seluruh pelusuk dunia. Malahan, 80% daripada jumlah populasi -5.4 billion- berpendapatan harian di bawah 10 dolar. Sekarang, dunia benar-benar dilanda krisis dan in dipersetujui sendiri oleh ketua Bank Dunia sendiri yang mengatakan " krisis ini akan menyebabkan bencana kemanusiaan dan pembangunan, dan angka kebuluran kronik dijangka menjangkau lebih 1 billion tahun ini". Peperangan di Timur Tengah, pencemaran alam sekitar dan masalah ekonomi yang semakin meruncing adalah contoh terkini krisis-krisis yang sedang melanda kemanusiaan sekarang.

Asas kepada penderitaan ini adalah sistem ekonomi, sosial dan politik kapitalisma. Sistem kapitalisma telah memberi ruang kepada syarikat-syarikat multi-nasional untuk mengukuhkan sistem persaingan yang tidak sihat yang mana syarikat-syarikat tersebut hanya menumpukan kepada keuntungan jangka pendek, persaingan kuasa, dan perebutan sumber; tanpa menghiraukan hak dan kebajikan pekerja dan rakyat biasa.

Golongan korporat dan negara imperialis mungkin telah mengambil alih dunia. Namun jutaan telah bangkit ; rakyat yang ditindas dari Lubnan ke Iraq, dari Venezuela ke Mexico bangkit melawan. Sejak bermulanya gerakan menentang krisis ekonomi antarabangsa di kalangan pekerja dan anak-anak muda di dalam negara kapitalis yang lebih maju, penentangan terhadap penindasan ke atas taraf hidup mereka telah menampakkan kemarahan secara menyeluruh.

Kebanyakan mereka yang terlibat dalam pergelutan ini sedang mencari alternatif sebagai ganti kepada kesengsaraan akibat kapitalisma, dan terutamanya di Amerika Latin, kebanyakkan mereka sudah bermula tertumpu ke arah sosialisma. Walaubagaimanapun, pihak-pihak tertentu akan berhujah bahawasanya sosialisma ini tidak relevan di mana ianya menentang 'fitrah (sifat semulajadi) manusia'. Artikel ini sedikit sebanyak mencuba untuk menjawab beberapa persoalan mengenai sosialisma.

Bukankah wang motivasi terbaik untuk manusia? Tidakkah inovasi dan kerja yang bersungguh-sungguh akan dihalang oleh sosialisma?

Dalam dunia realiti, kapitalisma sebenarnya yang menghadkan motivasi dan kreativiti majoriti golongan 'kelas pekerja'. Tiada apa yang lebih menghilangkan semangat daripada dipaksa melakukan perkara yang sama untuk jangka masa 8-12 jam sehari semata-mata untuk menjelaskan bil dan perbelanjaan kita.

Sosialis Amerika, Eugene Debs pernah berkata: "Manusia tidak terkongkong kerana kerja, melainkan penghambaan yang wujud di dalam kerja. Kebanyakan individu yang bekerja di bawah suatu majikan adalah semata-mata kerana paksaan; pekerjaan yang diselesaikan sedemikian mempunyai unsur penghambaan."

Setelah 40 jam atau mungkin lebih daripada itu berkerja dengan minda yang lesu ditambah dengan tekanan hidup yang lain, pekerja tidak mempunyai masa untuk membangunkan daya kemahiran yang kreatif dan memperkukuhkan bakat mereka. Lebih dahsyat lagi; di bawah sistem kapitalisma, pekerja tidak digalakkan untuk merekacipta ciptaan-ciptaan yang dapat memudahkan dan mempraktikkan kaedah kerja yang lebih efisien dan selamat. Dalam persaingan ekonomi yang semakin sengit, produktiviti buruh yang agak tinggi telah menyebabkan pemberhentian kerja dan eksploitasi tenaga kerja yang lebih ekstrem. Ironinya, walapun sistem sedemikian menjanakan keuntungan yang besar tetapi taraf hidup pekerja pula semakin merosot.

Manakala apabila para pekerja secara kolektif memiliki dan mengurus sendiri tempat kerja mereka dalam suasana ekonomi sosialis yang demokratik berbanding dengan hanya menerima arahan daripada seorang bos, pekerja akan lebih bermotivasi. Setiap inovasi terbaru bermakna waktu kerja yang kurang atau taraf hidup yang lebih tinggi.

Dan jika semua pekerjaan memberi pendapatan, faedah pekerjaan dan keselamatan yang sewajarnya, masyarakat akan meneruskan karier yang mereka seronok dengannya daripada memilih pekerjaan yang hanya menjamin ekonomi yang stabil, dan situasi sebegini akan menggalakkan peningkatan produktiviti pekerja.

Bukankah masyarakat terlalu tamak dan mementingkan diri sendiri, dan bolehkah sifat sedemikian menjadikan sosialisma satu sistem yang praktikal?

Ada perbezaan di antara kepentingan diri dan minat diri. Pada realitinya, manusia akan mengambil berat tentang minat diri masing-masing, dan perjuangan sosialisma adalah sejajar dengan naluri manusia yang sedemikian. Para sosialis berjuang untuk gaji minimum yang setimpal dengan kehidupan seharian, hak kesihatan, hak pendidikan awam, perumahan selesa yang mampu dimiliki oleh semua dan program-program yang lain yang akan meningkatkan taraf hidup majoriti secara drastik.

Sejarah pergerakan kesatuan sekerja telah mengajar bagaimana golongan pekerja sendiri mempunyai kuasa untuk memperbaiki kehidupan mereka apabila mereka bertindak secara kolektif daripada berusaha sedaya-upaya untuk berjaya sebagai seorang individu di dalam sistem yang membelenggu kita.

Ironinya, intelektual-intelektual pro-kapitalis yang mencanangkan bahawa, masyarakat adalah terlalu 'tamak' untuk menrealisasikan sosialisma, pada masa yang sama berpaling tadah untuk mendesak pekerja untuk 'mendisiplinkan diri demi kepentingan bersama' apabila majikan mahu merendahkan gaji pekerja, memberhentikan kerja atau, menghentikan program-program sosial.

Minat bukan satu-satunya perkara yang mendorong kita. Lihat pada mereka yang melakukan kerja suka rela. Menurut Biro Statistik Buruh, dianggarkan 65 juta rakyat Amerika melakukan kerja suka rela pada tahun 2005. Sejurus selepas Taufan Katrina, golongan individu dariapda seluruh negara Amerika telah menderma sebanyak $4.25 billion untuk membantu mangsa bencana manakala golongan korporat hanya menderma sebanyak $400 juta (Charity Navigator, 8/8/06). Angka ini telah menunjukkan pengorbanan yang besar dan solidariti golongan pekerja mampu melakukan apa sahaja.

Adakah sosialisma ini akan menghasilkan pemerintahan diktator seperti Rusia?

Pemerintahan kuku besi birokratik yang kejam di Rusia, China, Eropah Timur dan tempat lain adalah hasil penyelewengan kepada sistem demokratik sosialisma yang tulen. Pada masa yang sama, adalah amat penting bagi sosialis masa kini untuk mengkaji pengalaman Revolusi Rusia untuk memahami mengapa revolusi sosialis 1917 tersebut menjurus kepada birokrasi dengan melihat fator-faktor dan keadaan-keadaan tertentu pada masa tersebut. Birokrasi sama sekali bukannya satu fitrah manusia.

Revolusi Rusia 1917 adalah kali pertama golongan pekerja menggulingkan kapitalis dan memulakan komuniti sosialis yang baru. Kesatuan Soviet pada awalnya merupakan kerajaan yang paling demokrasi dalam sejarah dunia. Pekerja biasa dan petani menjalankan kehidupan dengan penuh demokrasi melalui 'majlis pekerja' (digelar soviet). Ia merupakan negara pertama dalam dunia yang memberi hak samarata kepada wanita, termasuk hak untuk mengundi dan pengguguran.

Pemimpin Bolsheviks (Parti yang mengemudi revolusi Rusia), Lenin dan Trotsky, kerap menjelaskan bahawa adalah mustahil untuk membina sosialisma di satu negara dengan sendirinya, terutama di dalam negara yang mundur dan separa feudal seperti di Rusia. Mereka menegaskan Revolusi Rusia hanya akan berterusan jika ianya tersebar ke negara-negara kapitalis yang lebih maju dari segi ekonomi di Eropah Barat.

Kuasa imperialis utama sendiri telah mengenal pasti yang Revolusi Rusia bukan hanya menggugat Rusia malah kapitalisma seluruh dunia. Mereka kemudian melangkah ke hadapan bersengkongkol dengan kapitalis dan tuan tanah di Rusia, untuk melancarkan pertumpahan darah untuk menjatuhkan kerajaan Soviet. 21 negara, termasuk Amerika Syarikat, Perancis dan Britain, menceroboh Rusia untuk menjatuhkan revolusi sosialis tersebut.

Kemenangan Bolsheviks dalam perang saudara adalah satu gelombang baru revolusi di serata Eropah dan dunia, didorong oleh Revolusi Rusia dan saranan Bolsheviks kepada golongan pekerja untuk bangkit menentang Perang Dunia Pertama. Kebangkitan Revolusi di Jerman dan sekitar Eropah telah mengakhiri peperangan dan memaksa golongan pemerintah seluruh dunia untuk memanggil balik tentera mereka dari Rusia untuk mengelakkan masalah yang lebih besar di negara mereka.

Malangnya, semua revolusi itu tidak berjaya melumpuhkan kapitalisma. Ini kerana tidak ada parti revolusi yang jelas seperti di Rusia yang mampu mengetuai revolusi sosialis ke titik penyudahan. Sebaliknya, parti kelas pekerja di Eropah yang didominasi oleh pemimpin-pemimpin reformis telah memainkan peranan penting dalam usaha menyelamatkan kapitalisma.

Jadi, semasa Kesatuan Soviet menentang cubaan menjatuhkan revolusi, ianya tetap terpencil dari segi ekonomi. Perang saudara di Rusia telah mengakibatkan negara tersebut menjadi tidak terurus dengan rakyat yang kepenatan, tiada pekerjaan dan kebuluran. Ini telah membuka ruang kepada kebangkitan elemen konservatif dan birokratik. Sistem birokrasi yang berpusat pada Stalin, memperoleh kuasa sendiri sekitar 1920an dan 1930an dan seterusnya melenyapkan hak demokrasi yang sebelum ini berada dalam genggaman golongan pekerja Rusia.

Malangnya, revolusi-revolusi yang seterusnya di negara neo-kolonial dan Eropah yang semakin berkembang telah merujuk kepada Rusia di bawah Stalin sebagai model. Kesannya, kerajaan Soviet ketika itu berjaya membawa masuk model Stalinisma ke China, Eropah Timur dan beberapa tempat lain.

Adakah kapitalisma ini sebahagian dari fitrah manusia?

Kelas pemerintah mungkin sudah berjaya meyakinkan kita yang kapitalisma atau kelas dalam masyarakat itu satu fitrah dalam kehidupan manusia. Sedangkan biologi mengesahkan sesetengah aspek dalam tingkah laku, fitrah manusia bukanlah sesuatu yang kekal, tidak berubah atau yang secara ajaibnya jatuh dari langit. Bagaimana kita berkelakuan dan bagaimana kita menghubungkaitkan dunia dengan perkara lain, berkembang dengan tindak balas masyarakat terhadap keadaan material yang berubah-ubah dan kaitannya dengan alam semula jadi.

Untuk berjuta-juta tahun, manusia telah hidup secara sama-rata, nomad (berpindah-randah) serta mengamalkan sistem 'memburu dan menghimpun'. Makanan, tempat berlindung dan semua keperluan untuk meneruskan hidup dikongsi secara sama-rata di dalam masyarakat. Semasa zaman pasca revolusi pertanian, kaum-kaum nomad ini sudah menetap di satu kawasan dan mula bercucuk tanam lalu lebihan hasil yang membawa kekayaan telah mengizinkan kemunculan kelas pemerintah pertama dalam sejarah.

Pelbagai kelas pemerintah sejak itu dan kini telah mendakwa ianya adalah 'fitrah manusia' bagi seorang manusia memiliki seorang manusia lain sebagai hamba dan sejurus itu muncul seorang raja agung yang dilantik Tuhan untuk memerintah orang lain. Hari ini, manusia sendiri akan menafikan semua ini kerana ianya tidak masuk akal.

Dengan mengadaptasi teknologi moden untuk manfaat kepada semua, sosialisma mampu membina asas material kepada budaya manusia untuk berubah kepada gaya hidup yang paling asas. Sebagai ganti kepada masyarakat yang memberi ganjaran yang paling tamak dan kejam, masyarakat sosialis akan membangunkan satu budaya baru yang berasaskan kesama-rataan dan keadilan.

Semua keputusan akan ditentukan secara demokrasi; bukan dengan cara mengundi parti kapitalis atau parti lain setiap lima tahun tetapi bersandarkan golongan pekerja yang biasa membuat keputusan melalui perjumpaan secara besar-besaran dan pilihanraya secara terus. Mereka yang ada kuasa seperti pengurus dan wakil-wakil awam, akan dipilih, dan mereka tertakluk kepada suara majoriti pada bila-bila masa jika diperlukan, dan yang paling penting mereka akan dibayar gaji purata yang diperolehi oleh golongan-golongan yang mereka wakili.

Memendekkan waktu kerja dalam seminggu, berkongsi pekerjaan dengan golongan penganggur, dan menyiapkan segala keperluan asasi akan memberi ruang kepada wanita mahupun lelaki untuk mengambil alih kawalan hidup mereka sendiri dan mencapai kreativiti dan hasil intelektual yang sewajarnya, yang mana mampu membebaskan kongkongan kreativiti yang berlaku dalam sistem kapitalisma.

KONTROVERSI NOVEL INTERLOK: ‘MEMBUKA PEKUNG DI DADA’ SISTEM POLITIK MALAYSIA

2011-03-29T07:56:00.000-07:00

Interlok, novel karya sasterawan negara Abdullah Hussain yang dikeluarkan pada tahun 1970an, telah menimbulkan kontroversi apabila kerajaan mengumumkan bahawa novel tersebut akan digunapakai sebagai buku teks sastera untuk pengajian Bahasa Malaysia Tingkatan Lima. Kerajaan menjustifikasi bahawa novel tersebut akan meningkatkan kesedaran perpaduan kaum di kalangan pelajar berlandaskan konsep 1Malaysia kerana ia “menyatakan realiti masyarakat Malaysia sebelum merdeka” dan “mesej yang disampaikan boleh memotivasi pelajar, ibubapa dan masyarakat berbilang kaum”.

Manakala, beberapa parti-parti politik dan NGO kaum India pula menekan kerajaan supaya “mengharamkan buku tersebut serta menarik balik penggunaan buku tersebut di sekolah”. Mereka mempertikaikan bahawa buku tersebut menghina serta memutarbelitkan beberapa fakta mengenai kaum India. Manakala, golongan sasterawan seperti PENA (Persatuan Penulis Nasional Malaysia) dan beberapa NGO Melayu pula berhujah bahawa “rakyat Malaysia harus matang untuk menerima realiti”, dan mengusulkan kepada kerajaan supaya mengekalkan buku tersebut.

Pertikaian yang ditimbulkan oleh Parti-Parti Politik dan NGO India pula telah menyemarakkan kemarahan di kalangan segolongan masyarakat India yang menganggap kerajaan cuba memperkecil-kecilkan kaum minoriti India dengan tidak mengambil kira sentimen kaum tersebut. Baru-baru ini sebelum pilihanraya kecil Tenang, kerajaan telah mengumumkan bahawa beberapa kenyataan yang menjadi kontroversi di dalam novel tersebut, akan diubahsuai. Walaubagaimana kenyataan kerajaan tersebut masih tidak menenangkan kontroversi Interlok.

Kandungan Interlok

Interlok dikarang dengan menggunakan konsep novel. Novel dalam pengertian umumnya adalah jenis karangan panjang yang menggambarkan tokoh-tokoh rekaan yang mengalami rangkaian peristiwa yang berkaitan satu sama lain di suatu tempat dan waktu dalam bentuk yang ringkas, dan ianya tidak semestinya mengambarkan fakta sejarah. Pengarang Interlok menceritakan bagaimana Seman, Maniam dan Cing Huat melalui penderitaan hidup sebelum kemerdekaan negara dalam situasi sosial masing-masing dan bagaimana mereka bergabung bersama untuk mencapai kemerdekaan. Pengarang Interlok juga mempertengahkan sifat-sifat kerjasama, tanggungjawap, tolenrasi dan perpaduan kaum di kalangan masyarakat berbilang kaum. Namun demikian, novel tersebut samasekali tidak mengupas kepincangan kelas dan hipokrasi politik pemerintah yang wujud di dalam masyarakat ketika zaman tersebut yang merupakan faktor-faktor utama yang memainkan peranan dalam struktur sosial masyarakat.

Justeru itu dengan menyembunyikan eksploitasi dan hipokrasi kelas pemerintah pada masa itu, novel ini nampaknya telah disunting oleh pihak kerajaan sebagai Edisi Pelajar semata-mata untuk mempertengahkan nilai-nilai nasionalisma atau patriotisma untuk mengkaitkan dengan konsep 1Malaysia. Pada zaman penjajah, ramai petani Melayu hidup dalam kemiskinan akibat diskriminasi oleh pemilik-pemilik tanah. Manakala, pekerja Cina dan pekerja India yang masing-masing berkerja di lombong serta di ladang digaji dengan upah yang amat rendah dan dipaksa berkerja dalam persekitaran kerja yang teruk oleh pemilik-pemilik lombong dan ladang. Penjajah British telah menggariskan ekonomi dan politik negara berlandaskan kepada kehendak pemilik-pemilik tanah, lombong dan ladang untuk membangunkan sistem kapitalisma di negara ini. Walaupun, kemerdekaan mengubah pemerintah, iaitu daripada penjajah British kepada Kerajaan Perikatan, tetapi politik dan ekonomi negara telah terus dikongkong oleh pemilik-pemilik tanah, lombong dan ladang, dan kemudiannya oleh pemilik industri yang mana telah mencorakkan keadaan sosial negara ini. Manakala kerajaan Perikatan dan seterusnya Barisan Nasional mempergunakan politik perkauman ‘pecah dan perintah’ yang dipergunakan oleh British untuk meneruskan kesinambungan kapitalisma di Malaysia. Pergolakan kelas yang berlaku di antara golongan kelas kapitalis dan kelas pekerja/petani langsung tidak dibincangkan di dalam novel ini untuk mempertengahkan keadaan sosial masyarakat Melayu, Cina dan India pada zaman tersebut.

Hipokrasi Kerajaan

Di dalam satu sistem demokrasi tulen, seseorang pengarang akan diberikan hak untuk meluahkan pandangan daripada perspektif beliau dan pada masa yang sama masyarakat juga akan diberikan hak untuk mengkritik dan meluahkan pandangan terhadap inti yang cuba dipertengahkan. Sebelum ini banyak buku atau karya-karya lain seperti karya kartunis Zunar tidak dibenarkan untuk diterbitkan kerana ianya ditulis untuk mengkritik polisi-polisi kerajaan. Persoalannya, mengapa kumpulan-kumpulan yang mahukan “kematangan” tidak langsung bersuara ke atas tindakan kerajaan tersebut yang jelas berat sebelah.

Salah satu isu yang dipergunakan oleh parti-parti politik dan NGO India adalah isu kasta dalam Interlok. Tetapi, ironinya selama ini parti-parti politik seperti MIC, IPF dan golongan peniaga-peniaga India telah lama mempergunakan kasta untuk kepentingan politik dan perniagaan mereka. Jelasnya, dari dulu hingga sekarang struktur kasta dalam masyarakat hanya memanfaatkan golongan pemerintah dan kapitalis. Manakala, HINDRAF yang menyatakan memperjuangkan hak kelas pekerja India, nampaknya mengapi-apikan sentimen kaum India yang hanya akan melebarkan prasangka perkauman. Adalah tidak dinafikan bahawa, masyarakat India terutamanya kelas pekerja masih dalam kemiskinan dengan berbagai masalah sosial dan ekonomi. Tetapi, kelas pekerja India harus bergabung dengan kelas pekerja Melayu dan Cina yang juga berdepan dengan masalah-masalah sosial dan ekonomi sedemikian, dan juga dengan golongan tertindas yang lain untuk memperjuangkan hak-hak sosial dan ekonomi untuk kesejahteraan bersama.

Kontroversi Interlok juga sekali lagi menunjukkan bahawa masyarakat berbilang kaum di Malaysia masih hidup dalam berbagai prasangka dan sentimen di antara satu sama lain. Prasangka perkauman ini dipergunakan dan disemarakkan oleh parti-parti politik kerajaan mahupun pembangkang untuk kepentingan politik masing-masing tanpa mengariskan langkah-langkah penyelesaikan ke atas jurang ekonomi dan sosial yang masih bermaharajalela dalam masyarakat kita yang terus melebarkan prasangka tersebut.

Kontroversi ini juga menunjukkan bahawa ciri-ciri perpaduan dan tolenrasi kaum di kalangan masyarakat dan generasi sekarang tidak dapat dibina hanya dengan retorik 1Malaysia atau dengan memperkenalkan novel Interlok, tanpa isu-isu asas sosial dan ekonomi tidak diselesaikan secara adil dan saksama. Politik kerajaan BN mahupun pembangkang yang masih di bawah kongkongan kapitalisma tidak akan berupaya untuk menyelesaikan isu-isu tersebut.

Perjuangan kelas

Sifat hormat-menghormati, tolenrasi, kerjasama, tolong-menolong dan sifat-sifat murni yang lain di kalangan masyarakat kita yang berbagai kaum, agama, bahasa dan budaya hanya boleh dicapai jika mereka diberikan hak demokrasi yang sama serta kekayaan negara dipergunakan untuk pembangunan keperluan dan kebajikan semua golongan masyarakat sama ada majoriti atau minoriti tanpa sebarang prasangka. Ini tidak boleh dilakukan oleh parti-parti politik yang berlandaskan kepada kelas kapitalis dan bersifat perkauman yang tidak mempunyai agenda untuk menyelesaikan isu-isu sosial dan ekonomi masyarakat Malaysia. Interlok sekali lagi ‘membuka pekung di dada’ sistem kapitalisma negara ini yang terus mempergunakan perkauman untuk terus ‘pecah dan perintah’ masyarakat Malaysia. Hanya melalui pengukuhan kelas pekerja dan golongan tentindas yang lain, satu sistem demokrasi tulen dapat dibina untuk kesejahteraan setiap lapisan masyarakat tanpa sebarang prasangka perkauman. Ini seterusnya akan mencetuskan dan membina sebuah masyarakat yang matang yang mana boleh mengkritik atau berhujah tanpa sebarang sentimen atau prasangka di antara satu sama lain.

PELAJAR DAN KELAS PEKERJA BERSATULAH !

2011-03-29T07:50:00.000-07:00

Protes besar-besaran para pelajar di Britain pada bulan November tahun lalu akibat kenaikan yuran pengajian tiga kali ganda dan pemansuhan elaun pendidikan untuk pelajar miskin, serta perjuangan-perjuangan untuk hak pelajar di negara-negara lain telah diikuti dengan penuh semangat oleh segolongan para pelajar di Malaysia yang dahagakan kebebasan dan demokrasi untuk pelajar. Ada di antara mereka memperolehi inspirasi daripada perjuangan-perjuangan pelajar tersebut, berikhtiar untuk memperjuangkan hak-hak demokrasi pelajar dengan menyatukan kekuatan pelajar di Malaysia. Slogan ‘Kuasa Pelajar’ juga diutarakan untuk menghubungkaitkan dengan pengalaman gerakan pelajar 1960an di Malaysia. Analisis ini bertujuan untuk melihat beberapa inisiatif dan membincangkan perspektif untuk perjuangan hak pelajar dan juga peranan mereka di dalam membawa perubahan dalam masyarakat.

HAK-HAK PELAJAR

Di Malaysia, penglibatan pelajar Institusi Pengajian Tinggi di dalam politik negara diharamkan semenjak kerajaan memperkenalkan AUKU di awal tahun 1970-an. Keadaan ini telah membantutkan hak-hak demokrasi pelajar untuk secara terbuka membincangkan, menyertai atau melibatkan diri di dalam politik negara. Malahan pelajar yang mengkritik dasar kerajaan BN dan polisi-polisi pentadbiran universiti atau melibatkan diri di dalam kegiatan parti-parti politik pembangkang atau NGO sering diancam dengan AUKU. Pada tahun lalu, empat orang pelajar UKM dikenakan tindakan disiplin hanya kerana menyertai kempen pilihanraya kecil di Hulu Selangor.

Sementara itu, beberapa golongan pelajar secara tidak langsung telah memberikan sokongan kepada parti-parti pembangkang dalam Pakatan Rakyat sebagai respon untuk mengecam kongkongan kerajaan terhadap hak-hak demokrasi pelajar serta isu-isu demokrasi dan kemanusian yang lain di dalam masyarakat. Sejak Pilihanraya Umum 2008, kebanyakan pelajar daripada golongan tersebut telah menonjolkan diri mereka sebagai kumpulan Pro-mahasiswa untuk membangkang golongan pelajar yang pro-kerajaan dan juga polisi pentadbiran universiti. Mereka juga menubuhkan blok alternatif kepada kumpulan Aspirasi yang pro-kerajaan untuk bertanding di dalam pilihan raya kampus untuk pemilihan wakil pelajar ke Majlis Perwakilan Pelajar. Kumpulan sebegini juga wujud di beberapa Institusi Penggajian Tinggi atau Kolej swasta tetapi tidak menonjol sangat seperti di Institusi Pengajian Tinggi awam.

Pada masa yang sama, polisi-polisi sistem pendidikan negara semakin hari semakin menjurus kepada kehendak sistem pasaran bebas untuk memenuhi matlamat dan keperluan untuk memaksimakan keuntungan industri dan pelabur. Ini sekaligus telah menekan pengurusan universiti untuk lebih mefokus kepada matlamat menghasilkan graduan yang boleh dipasarkan untuk memenuhi keperluan kapitalis-kapitalis nasional dan antarabangsa daripada membentuk pengetahuan atau idea baru untuk meningkatkan keperluan dan hak-hak demokrasi masyarakat untuk pembangunan ekonomi dan penglibatan sosial yang menyeluruh untuk manfaat dan kepentingan masyarakat bersama tanpa batasan kaum, agama dan jantina.

PERJUANGAN PELAJAR

Semenjak penubuhan universiti awam yang pertama di awal tahun 1950-an, pelajar telah pun mula memperjuangkan autonomi bagi Intitusi Pengajian Tinggi serta melaungkan hak-hak demokrasi dan kebebasan untuk pelajar. Pada 1960-an pelajar Universiti Malaya yang telah menubuhkan Kesatuan Pelajar Universiti Malaya (KPUM) untuk memperjuangkan kepentingan dan hak pelajar. Pada era tersebut KPUM memiliki surat khabar sendiri sebagai organ propaganda pelajar dan juga melancarkan demonstrasi dan protes untuk mempertengahkan tuntutan pelajar. KPUM juga telah menjadi landasan untuk membincangkan serta memobilisasi pelajar untuk menyampaikan pendirian pelajar ke atas isu-isu tempatan dan antarabangsa. Antara isu-isu tempatan yang menonjol pada ketika itu sehingga pelajar memobilisasi untuk menyatakan sokongan adalah seperti, pemberontakan para petani Teluk Gong untuk hak tanah di Selangor, pengusiran paksa petani di Tasek Utara, Johor dan protes besar-besaran petani di Baling, Kedah menentang kemiskinan. Peristiwa-peristiwa antarabangsa seperti Perang Vietnam dan pencerobohan Rusia di negara Czechoslovakia juga telah meradikalkan serta memberikan semangat berjuang kepada para pelajar. Pada era tersebut juga berbagai idea dibincangkan dan diperdebatkan, termasuk idea-idea kiri yang ditonjolkan melalui pembentukan Kelab Sosialis di Universiti Malaya. Pada pilihanraya umum tahun 1969 pula, KPUM telah melancarkan kempen pilihanraya dengan manifesto sendiri untuk menyokong hak-hak demokrasi, reformasi pendidikan dan juga isu-isu pekerja, petani dan pelajar yang mana telah mendapat sokongan luar biasa dari rakyat biasa berbilang kaum ketika itu.

Peningkatan ketidakpuasan sosial dan ekonomi pada ketika itu juga telah menaikkan kemarahan rakyat biasa, dan ini telah melemahkan sokongan kepada parti Perikatan yang berkuasa pada masa itu. Peningkatan penglibatan pelajar ke dalam politik, dan, ke dalam isu-isu petani dan pekerja, telah meningkatkan tekanan kerajaan terhadap kesatuan pelajar dan pemimpin pelajar. Pemimpin-pemimpin pelajar juga ditahan di bawah Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) untuk membantutkan penradikalan para pelajar. Kerajaan juga memperkenalkan AUKU untuk menghalang penglibatan pelajar di dalam politik dan mengasingkan mereka daripada pelbagai isu-isu sosial dan politik di dalam masyarakat. Selain era 1960-an, pelajar dan anak muda juga telah melibatkan diri di dalam konflik sosial, ekonomi dan politik negara, termasuk gerakan reformasi pada tahun 1997-98 terhadap rejim autokratik Mahathir dan juga ketika tsunami politik Pilihanraya umum 2008.

Pengalaman gerakan pelajar ketika era 1960an dan juga di awal 1970-an serta pengalaman-pengalaman lain menunjukkan bahawa, para pelajar boleh memainkan peranan bukan hanya mengutarakan isu-isu pelajar, tetapi juga masalah politik, sosial dan ekonomi yang lain untuk membawa perubahan dalam masyarakat. Pada masa kebelakangan ini, banyak inisiatif telah diusahakan untuk mengorganisasi pelajar dan anak muda. Diantaranya, usaha SMM (Solidariti Mahasiswa Malaysia) dan PMN (Perhimpunan Mahasiswa Negara) untuk membawa berbagai kumpulan pelajar untuk mengutarakan isu-isu pelajar dan anak muda. Baru-baru ini PMN telah mengumpulkan kira-kira tiga ratus pelajar daripada Institusi Pengajian Tinggi Tempatan dan Swasta untuk membincangkan hak-hak dan kebebasan pelajar.

Pada masa yang sama, berbagai pesoalan telah diungkit dan dibahas tentang peranan pelajar dalam membina masyarakat. Di antara persoalan-persoalan tersebut adalah : Haruskah pelajar campurtangan dalam politik untuk mempertengahkan hak-hak dan kebebasan pelajar ? ; Bolehkah ‘Kuasa Pelajar’ mengubah masyarakat itu dengan sendirinya tanpa dikaitkan dengan kelas pekerja dan masyarakat tertindas yang lain? Adakah perjuangan pelajar berhubungkait dengan hegemoni kapitalisma?

PENINDASAN HAK-HAK PELAJAR DAN KAPITALISMA

Isu-isu seperti hak/demokrasi pelajar, kebebasan pendidikan dan autonomi universiti adalah di antara isu-isu yang biasa dipertengahkan oleh para pelajar di Malaysia. Namun isu-isu tersebut amat berkaitan dengan dasar-dasar yang dirumuskan oleh kerajaan yang berkuasa semata-mata untuk melindungi kepentingan politik mereka. Selama ini, tindakan-tindakan kerajaan BN telah banyak menguntungkan sistem pasaran bebas kapitalisma melalui pengubalan dasar dan undang-undang atas nama ‘kestabilan’ untuk melindungi keperluan dan kuasa kelas kapitalis. Dengan kata lain, kelas kapitalis mempergunakan kerajaan sebagai alat perantara untuk mempertahankan hegemoninya.

Di Malaysia, dalam banyak situasi pelajar telah berjuang untuk memperolehi hak-hak mereka dengan berkonfrontasi dengan kerajaan yang berkuasa. Sementara itu, kerajaan pula menundukkan gerakan sedemikian dengan mempergunakan ancaman AUKU atau ISA terhadap pelajar. Ini menjelaskan bahawa kerajaan gentar apabila pelajar mula mempertengahkan hak mereka, gerakan pelajar atau anak muda tersebut mampu menular kepada golongan masyarakat lain sekaligus meradikalkan mereka sehingga boleh mencabar kredibiliti kerajaan seperti yang kita lihat di Egypt baru-baru ini. Sebab itulah kerajaan terus menerus mengkongkong hak-hak pelajar untuk bebas mengorganisasi untuk mempertengahkan pelbagai isu, dan seterusnya mengasingkan pelajar dari massa dengan menggunakan undang-undang seperti AUKU. Ini juga bertujuan untuk memastikan para pelajar hanya menumpukan pengajian mereka untuk membolehkan mereka menjadi seorang pekerja yang taat kepada sistem kapitalisma yang berlandaskan keuntungan maksima selepas mereka memperolehi ijazah daripada kolej atau universiti.

Pada masa yang sama, banyak isu-isu sosial dan ekonomi menghantui rakyat biasa akibat dasar dan undang-undang yang dipertengahkan oleh kerajaan untuk memperkukuhkan sistem pasaran bebas. Hak dan keperluan kelas pekerja, petani, nelayan, kaum pribumi dan lain-lain telah diperjudikan oleh kerajaan semata-mata untuk kerakusan kuasa dan keuntungan kelas kapitalis tempatan dan antarabangsa.

Kebelakangan ini, ada usaha-usaha untuk mengorganisasi pelajar sebagai ‘Kuasa Pelajar’ tanpa menghubungkaitkan dengan kelas pekerja dan masyarakat tertindas yang lain. Inisiatif sedemikian boleh menjadi landasan permulaan untuk membahas pelbagai isu termasuk bagaimana menyatukan warga pelajar tetapi pada masa yang sama adalah penting untuk mengkaitkan perjuangan pelajar dengan perjuangan kelas pekerja dan masyarakt tertindas yang lain terhadap simptom-simptom sistem kapitalisma serta membina kesedaran kelas untuk bertindak secara kolektif sebagai kuasa alternatif untuk merubah sistem kapitalisma.

GABUNGAN KELAS PEKERJA DENGAN PELAJAR, ANAK MUDA DAN GOLONGAN TERTINDAS YANG LAIN UNTUK MEMBINA SOSIALISMA

Sistem kapitalis mampu bertahan akibat kuasa buruh kelas pekerja yang menjanakan keuntungan. Di Malaysia, hak-hak dan keperluan kelas pekerja telah terus-menerus ditekan untuk memastikan sistem yang berdasarkan keuntungan ini berjalan lancar atas dasar ‘kestabilan’. Dengan kekuatan ekonomi yang dimiliki oleh kelas pekerja, hanya mereka dengan sokongan anak muda dan golongan tertindas yang lain mampu mengubah sistem ini kepada sebuah sistem yang berlandaskan kepada demokratik sosialisma yang memberi keutamaan untuk mengorganisasi masyarakat bagi memenuhi hak dan keperluan kelas pekerja dan golongan tertindas yang lain yang didiskriminasi di bawah sistem ini. Oleh kerana itu, untuk mencapai perubahan sejati dalam masyarakat, para pelajar dan golongan tertindas yang lain, harus bergabung dengan kelas pekerja.

Namun, pada tahap ini, warga pekerja di Malaysia tanpa kepimpinan kesatuan sekerja dan juga kepimpinan politik massa yang berlandaskan kelas pekerja untuk mengemudi perjuangan sosial, ekonomi dan politik. Dalam keadaan sedemikian, kepimpinan para pelajar dan anak muda yang mempunyai kesedaran kelas boleh memainkan peranan dalam mendorong dalam pemantapan perjuangan kelas pekerja dengan menghubungkaitkan perjuangan pelajar/anak muda dan golongan tertindas yang lain di dalam masyarakat dengan perjuangan kelas. Ini boleh menjadi landasan awal untuk membina sebuah kekuatan politik massa kelas pekerja dan anak muda sebagai alternatif kepada politik parti-parti pro-kapitalis dan reaksioner dalam kerajaan BN dan juga dalam gabungan pembangkang Pakatan Rakyat. Untuk melaksanakan inisiatif tersebut, pelajar dan anak muda juga harus dilengkapi dengan perspektif yang berlandaskan kepada sosialisma untuk membina kesedaran kelas tanpa sebarang sentimen perkauman dan agama yang sempit. Hanya dengan pendekatan sedemikian, rakyat biasa daripada pelbagai bangsa dan agama boleh digabungkan untuk matlamat membina kuasa kelas pekerja dan anak muda.

Malaysia sedang menuju ke suatu era yang penuh dengan ketidakpastian ekonomi dan politik yang boleh mencorakkan pencapaian sosial negara ini. Dalam tahun-tahun yang akan datang, lebih banyak beban akan dilemparkan ke atas bahu kelas pekerja, pelajar dan anak muda memandangkan keadaan sosial dan ekonomi yang semakin merosot. Justeru itu, perjuangan pelajar dan anak muda harus dihubungkaitkan dengan kelas pekerja sebagai titik permulaan untuk membina sebuah kuasa kelas pekerja dan golongan tertindas yang lain di dalam masyarakat ke arah mengubah sistem kapitalis ke sistem yang berlandaskan kepada demokratik sosialisma.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY 2011: WHY WE HAVE TO ORGANISE AND FIGHT BACK

2011-03-06T17:38:00.001-08:00

In recent months, millions of women worldwide have risen up to resist the devastating effect that the economic crisis is having on their lives.

Hundreds of thousands of super-exploited textile and other workers in Bangladesh, China, Cambodia and elsewhere have participated in a wave of strikes for higher wages which spread rapidly from one Asian country to another. Millions of women workers have taken part in general strikes in France, Spain, Greece and Portugal, and in the huge protests against public sector attacks which have swept across Europe. Young women have been in the front-line of a new generation of fighters in significant student movements against cuts and fee rises - in Britain, Italy and elsewhere. And, of course, tens of thousands of women have participated in the marvellous movements in Egypt and Tunisia for democratic and social rights and an end to dictatorial regimes.

There is likely to be an intensification of these struggles in the coming months, especially in those countries where the austerity axe is falling the hardest. We have no choice but to fight. Over the last 40 years the lives of women in the developed capitalist countries have undergone important social transformations. Inequality, discrimination and oppression have not been eradicated, but important changes laid the basis for the idea to take root that significant progress was being made and would continue in the future and even that equality was within women's grasp.

The situation in the neo-colonial countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East has clearly been very different. But even there, globalisation and the economic and social changes it has engendered - particularly the drawing of increasing numbers of young women out of the home and into the workforce - was meant to hold out the hope that things could gradually get better for women everywhere.

Now the world economic crisis and its aftermath, threaten to push many of those gains which have been made rapidly into reverse. This would entail a severe worsening of life for women in the developed countries and a nightmare for women in the neo-colonial world.

The crisis is starkly revealing what the CWI has always argued - the incompatibility of capitalism and genuine women's rights, whichever part of the globe we live in. Exploitation and oppression are at the heart of the capitalist system, where profit and competition reign supreme. Only through a struggle against that system and for a socialist alternative will we be able to go forward.

Why we have to organise and fight back

Women and work

In recent decades the growing influx of women into the workforce has been a global phenomenon. In some countries there are now more women than men in work. While women's wages everywhere are on average lower than those of men, this process has nevertheless led to more economic independence for women and a transformation in their outlook and that of society generally.

In its initial phase, the economic crisis had a mixed effect on women's employment. Where job losses were mainly concentrated in manufacturing and construction, such as in the USA, male workers were most severely hit. Where the service sector was in the firing line, which was the case in Britain, women bore the brunt of redundancy and unemployment. Now that a jobs bloodbath is being created in the public sector in many countries it will be overwhelmingly women who will suffer the most. According to surveys released in Britain, where half a million public sector workers are expected to be sacked in the next few years, 75% of the pain of public sector cuts will be experienced by women. This is because they make up the majority of workers in the public sector - the teachers, nurses and local government workers whose jobs are under threat. At the same time women will be disproportionately affected as services and benefits are slashed.

Economic independence

Rising unemployment and benefit cuts will mean growing poverty for working-class and some middle-class women, especially for single parents. Where unemployed women manage to find alternative work it is likely to be low paid, casualised and precarious with reduced or non-existent sickness, holiday, pension, maternity and other rights. Wages and working conditions are being severely attacked in both the public and private sectors.

This will increase the financial dependence of women on individual men and could have a negative effect on personal relations. In the preceeding period, paid work, state benefits and public housing have afforded some women a degree of economic independence which has meant that unlike previous generations, they have been able to leave unhappy or abusive relationships. Since the beginning of the economic crisis, there has been a decrease in the rate of divorce in some countries (and up to three quarters of divorces are normally initiated by women). This is a sign that leaving a relationship is becoming more difficult and that some women, as in the past, are being forced, through economic constraints, to stay with partners against their will.

Education

Increased access to higher education has been one of the key factors fuelling changes in women's lives and outlook. Now, for the first time in the developed capitalist countries, the next generation of young women face a future bleaker than that of their mothers. The commercialistaion of higher education, draconian cuts to education budgets and hikes in fees will make it much harder for young women to go to university and achieve a good quality education in the hope of improving their prospects of a decent life. Even when they do manage to get a university qualification, the dire employment situation means that many will be forced into temporary, low paid work and a life of insecurity and exploitation.

Publicly funded services

Despite big changes in some women's lives, they still continue to be the main carers for children and other family members. As the neo-liberal axe falls on nurseries, elderly people's homes and other social services, it is normally women who have to pick up the pieces. This will mean even more women forced to give up work. It will make it harder for unemployed women to get back into the workforce and will increase the double burden related to caring for home and family for those who still have a job. Cuts and privatisation will lead to a fall in the quality of services and a deterioration in the wages and conditions of the workers who provide them.

Violence against women

One in five women will experience violence from partners or ex-partners at some time in their lives. In the advanced capitalist countries one in seven will be raped. In some parts of the world, the brutal mass rape of women has become a lethal weapon of war. The growing international trade of women for sex is fuelled by poverty and will be exacerbated by the current economic crisis.

Violence against women has its roots in the traditional idea (still prevalent in many societies) that women are the property of men. It is reinforced by the still unequal economic relationship between men and women and the way in which capitalism itself is based on private property, inequalities of wealth and power. Frequently violence is used by capitalism to defend its interests (as the textile workers in Asia and students in Europe have experienced first hand). Poverty and unemployment do not cause domestic violence. It takes place equally across all social groups and classes. But these factors can be a trigger for violence in the home and the economic crisis can make it more likely.

In many countries attitudes towards violence against women have radically improved over the last three decades. Progressive laws have been passed regarding domestic violence and there is a general acknowledgement that it is a serious crime which must be tackled. But the drastic cuts to public sector services could undermine much of the progress which has been made. Attacks on childcare, refuges for women and other services will make it more difficult for women to escape violence in the home (where most abuse takes place) while cuts in transport, street lighting etc. will mean that women are less safe outside. Funding for rape crisis centres and support for women who have been abused are also under threat.

Reproductive rights

In the last decade or so 19 countries have liberalised their abortion laws but millions still live in countries where abortion is illegal or severely restricted. Worldwide around 20 million illegal abortions take place every year resulting in the deaths of 70,000 women and the maiming of millions more.

In some countries ideological attacks on abortion continue and need to be countered. But in many countries it will be cuts in health and other services which threaten this right. Cutbacks will also mean less access to infertility treatment, and further closures and reductions in clinics offering advice on contraception and sexual health, with young women being particularly affected.

Sexuality and sexism

Millions of women worldwide suffer terrible constraints on their sexuality, including the barbaric practice of genital mutilation. In many of the advanced capitalist countries social attitudes towards sexuality and personal relationships have undoubtedly progressed. Generally women have felt more liberated, freed from many of the moral, social and religious constraints of the past. But under capitalism sexual liberation becomes distorted by the pursuit of profit and existing inequalities. The capitalist system turns everything into a commodity, including women's bodies - whether for sale directly in the sex industry or indirectly through their use in advertising and selling products. It promotes particular images of women which are limiting, stereotypical and often damaging. This objectification of women reinforces backward attitudes, including violence, and as a consequence undermines women in the wider struggle for economic and social rights.

Fighting back

The huge protests and strikes which women have been involved in recently show that destroying those gains which have been won will not take place without a fight. The struggle of the textile workers in Asia and the Middle East have demonstrated that even the most exploited women workers are prepared to fight back.

There will not be a linear rolling back of women's rights. The significant changes in social attitudes that have taken place, especially in the more developed capitalist countries, cannot be easily reversed. Women (and many men) are not going to accept that a woman's place is back in the home and not in the workforce. Women will fight tenaciously to defend the economic and social gains which have been made.

There will inevitably be attempts to revive old prejudices in order to undermine those struggles, to drive a wedge between men and women, especially in the workplace. Any attempts at dividing and weakening workers on gender lines has to be vigorously combated because a successful struggle to defend and extend women's rights is possible only if it is an anti-capitalist struggle, involving a united working class.

Socialism

Based on competition and the ruthless search for profits capitalism creates exploitation, poverty, oppression, violence, war and environmental degradation. It is a rotten system which limits and destroys the lives of workers and young people with women doubly oppressed and restricted because of their gender. Women therefore have a particular interest in fighting for an alternative to the capitalist system.

A socialist alternative would be based on public not private ownership of production, on democratic control by producers and consumers and not a rich elite, where need not profit would determine what is produced, and where unequal and hierarchical relations of wealth and power would be replaced by cooperation, equality and mutual respect both nationally and internationally.

Life could be so much different for everyone but especially for women. A democratically planned economy would release resources to ensure a decent income and economic independence for everyone. Publicly provided quality services such as childcare, healthcare, education, housing, transport etc. would give women real choice over every aspect of their lives. A society based on equality and cooperation would lay the basis for an end to all forms of sexism and violence against women; women would finally be truly liberated.

Committee for a Worker' International

PARTI-PARTI POLITIK MENGATUR LANGKAH UNTUK MENGHADAPI PILIHANRAYA UMUM KE-13

2011-03-02T20:06:00.001-08:00

Kuasa politik alternatif bebas yang berlandaskan sosialisma harus dibina untuk mengemudi perjuangan hak dan keperluan kelas pekerja, anak muda dan golongan tertindas yang lain !

Parti-parti politik arus utama di negara kita telah mula mengatur langkah untuk menghadapi pilihanraya umum ke-13 yang dijangka akan diumumkan pada pertengahan tahun 2011 atau awal tahun 2012. Nampaknya, sekali lagi keadaan ekonomi negara dan kesannya terhadap keadaan sosial akan menjadi penentu kepada pemenang tampuk pemerintahan Kerajaan Persekutuan- apakah Barisan Nasional dapat mengekalkan kuasanya atau apakah Pakatan Rakyat boleh menamatkan pemerintahan hampir 54 tahun BN dan mencapai harapannya untuk mengambil alih tampuk pemerintahan kerajaan persekutuan.

Namun demikian, selama hampir tiga tahun sejak pilihan raya umum ke-12, rakyat biasa, terutamanya warga kelas pekerja tidak dapat melihat kewujudan perbezaan politik yang jelas di kalangan parti-parti politik yang ada selain bersaing dengan retorik-retorik politik masing-masing. Rakyat biasa juga tidak yakin bagaimana ahli parlimen atau ADUN kawasan mereka dapat meningkatkan taraf kehidupan rakyat yang semakin dibebankan dengan berbagai kesengsaraan hidup, dan sangsi hak dan keperluan mereka yang telah dijanjikan oleh ahli-ahli politik ketika pilihanraya umum 2008 dapat ditunaikan.

Sebahagian besar isu-isu sosial, demokrasi dan hak minoriti yang telah mencetuskan kemarahan rakyat pada tahun 2008, sehingga menyebabkan kekalahan teruk kepada Barisan, masih ketara lagi. Manakala Pakatan pula tidak memberikan penyelesaian alternatif yang meyakinkan selain menyalahkan perlaksanaan polisi dan kuasa undang-undang oleh kerajaan Barisan. Sementara Barisan pula telah mempergunakan kelemahan Pakatan dengan mengadaptasikan beberapa agenda Pakatan itu sendiri untuk memenuhi kehendak politiknya atas nama pembaharuan polisi ekonomi dan pentadbiran kerajaan. Namun demikian, pada ketika ini BN mempunyai kelebihan untuk mengekalkan kuasa dengan kekuatannya dalam kewangan, jentera plihanraya dan kawalan media. Namun, adalah dijangkakan bahawa Pakatan akan mencuba sedaya upaya untuk menandingi kekebalan Barisan, terutama di negeri-negeri yang sedang diperintah oleh Pakatan, seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh pilihanraya kecil Hulu Selangor, di mana mereka menggunakan jentera kerajaan negeri untuk melawan kekuatan jentera dan kewangan Barisan.

Ekonomi Negara tidak menentu dengan kegawatan ekonomi dunia

Kerajaan Malaysia amat resah dengan kegawatan ekonomi dunia yang telah tercetus mulai 2008, yang telah melanda Amerika Syarikat dan seterusnya Eropah, sehingga seorang menteri kabinet meramalkan Malaysia berkemungkinan besar akan menghadapi krisis ekonomi ala Greek yang membankrapkan negara tersebut jika kerajaan tidak mengambil langkah untuk menstrukturkan semula ekonomi negara yang amat bergantung kepada eksport. Dengan Amerika sebagai rakan dagangan utama Malaysia, pertumbuhan KDNK (Keluaran Dalam Negara Kasar) pada tahun 2008 dan 2009 telah menyusut kepada 4.7% dan -1.7%. Ini sekali gus menghancurkan Wawasan 2020 yang dirumuskan pada tahun 1991 dengan jangkaan bahawa Malaysia akan menjadi negara maju pada tahun 2020 dengan pertumbuhan KDNK tahunan sebanyak 7% untuk jangka masa 30 tahun. Bahkan, sebelum ini pada tahun 1997, krisis kewangan Asia telah pun menghancurkan Wawasan kerajaan tersebut untuk terus menerus menjadi 'harimau ekonomi' di rantau Asia. Krisis tersebut juga telah mencetuskan gerakan reformasi yang telah menggoncang kerajaan autokratik Mahathir ketika itu. Sejak itu, pertumbuhan ekonomi Malaysia tidak berupaya untuk mencapai keadaan sebelum 1997.

Namun, adalah tidak dapat dinafikan kesan pakej perangsang sebanyak RM60 bilion yang telah disuntik ke dalam ekonomi dalam masa dua tahun terakhir, yang mana sedikit sebanyak telah mendorong aktiviti ekonomi dalam negara. Dengan pakej perangsang tersebut dan peningkatan perdagangan dengan negara China (yang merupakan rakan perdagangan utama pada ketika ini) dan pasaran serantau yang lain, setakat ini Malaysia telah mengelakkan impak yang lebih teruk ke atas ekonominya. Pertumbuhan KDNK 2010 dijangka sekitar 6-7%. Pembangunan ekonomi negara setakat ini telah membantu kerajaan Barisan di bawah pimpinan Najib sedikit sebanyak untuk meningkatkan reputasinya selepas tsunami politik Pilihanraya Umum ke-12 di mana BN kehilangan majoriti dua pertiga di parlimen serta kalah di beberapa negeri seperti Selangor dan Pulau Pinang selepas hampir 40 tahun. Najib ingin memanfaatkan pertumbuhan KDNK tersebut serta konflik politik dalaman parti-parti pembangkang untuk memperkasakan kuasa politik dan kerajaan BN dengan memanggil pilihanraya awal, meskipun Barisan boleh terus memerintah sehingga Mac 2013.

Baru-baru ini, Najib menegaskan bahawa Malaysia akan menjadi negara maju pada tahun 2020 dengan ekonomi berpendapatan tinggi dengan pencapaian KDNK negara meningkat tiga kali ganda kepada 550 bilion dolar Amerika pada 2020. Najib juga memperkenalkan Program Mentransformasikan Ekonomi untuk menarik pelaburan bernilai 444 billion dolar Amerika. Tetapi, ketidakpastian yang sedang melanda ekonomi dunia boleh menjadikan impian tersebut satu lagi retorik politik untuk mengaburi risiko sebenar yang sedang dihadapi oleh ekonomi negara.

Pada masa kini, Malaysia sedang menghadapi persaingan hebat untuk menarik pelaburan asing, dan laporan-laporan ekonomi menunjukkan pelaburan 2009 turun mendadak sehingga 81% berbanding dengan tahun 2008. Pada tahun 2009 Malaysia adalah satu-satunya negara di Asia Tenggara yang mencatat pelaburan negatif. Untuk pertama kalinya dalam sejarah, Malaysia memperolehi pelaburan kurang daripada Filipina, dan ini adalah disebabkan terutamanya kehilangan pelaburan kepada negara-negara seperti China dan Vietnam yang menawarkan tenaga buruh yang jauh lebih murah. Bahkan Singapura, yang hampir 500 kali lebih kecil saiznya daripada Malaysia dan dengan kekurangan sumber alam dijangka akan mengambil tempat Malaysia sebagai ekonomi ketiga terbesar di Asia Tenggara selepas Indonesia dan Thailand. Prestasi dan halatuju ekonomi yang tidak memberangsangkan ini melemparkan keraguan mengenai apakah Model Ekonomi Baru, Rancangan Malaysia ke-10 , Program Mentransformasikan Kerajaan dan Program Mentransformasikan Ekonomi yang direka sebagai perancangan untuk membentuk Malaysia sebagai ekonomi berpendapatan tinggi selepas Pilihan raya Umum ke-12, dapat dicapai.

Manakala kekurangan pekerja berkemahiran tinggi, serta kemampuan penyelidikan dan pembangunan teknologi tinggi yang tidak mencukupi juga telah membantutkan kemasukan pelaburan yang berdasarkan kepada industri teknologi tinggi atau bio-teknologi. Malaysia hanya ada di antara 300 hingga 400 pekerja dengan kemahiran sains dan teknologi untuk setiap 100000 orang, berbanding dengan 3000 orang di negara-negara yang telah berganjak daripada negara pendapatan menengah ke negara berpendapatan tinggi. Tambahan pula, kapitalis-kapitalis tempatan juga nampaknya tidak tertarik untuk melabur di Malaysia dengan keadaan ekonomi negara yang tidak memberangsangkan sedang menuju ke negara-negara jiran yang lain untuk mengaut keuntungan berlipat ganda. Manakala, kerajaan pula berharapan dengan penglibatan lebih besar daripada sektor swasta, pasaran dalam negara dapat diperkuatkan untuk mengurangkan impak ekonomi dunia terhadap negara. Tetapi pada masa kini pelaburan sektor swasta hanyalah sekitar 10% daripada KDNK berbanding dengan 30% pada 1990-an. Sementara itu, kerajaan juga telah mengumumkan projek-projek mega seperti pembinaan Menara Warisan 100 tingkat di tengah Kuala Lumpur, serta projek Transit Aliran Pantas (MRT) di Lembah Kelang, yang merupakan projek infrastruktur berbillion ringgit untuk merangsang pasaran dalam negara.

Dengan pertumbuhan KDNK yang munasabah dan kadar faedah sebanyak 2.75%, peredaran modal asing telah mengalir ke dalam pasaran bon dan saham di Malaysia untuk mengaut keuntungan tinggi. Keadaan ini telah sedikit sebanyak telah mengimbangi kesan penyusutan pelaburan asing di dalam negara. Fenomena ini juga telah mengakibatkan peningkatan mendadak nilai ringgit terhadap nilai dolar Amerika. Jika fenomena ini berlanjutan, ia boleh mengakibatkan gelembung aset dalam mata wang, sektor pembinaan dan pasaran saham serta inflasi yang agak tinggi. Ini boleh menjurus kepada krisis dalam ekonomi dan sistem kewangan negara seperti yang dialami ketika Krisis Kewangan Asia 1997. Sementara itu, peningkatan nilai ringgit boleh menyebabkan penyusutan nilai eksport serta kehilangan daya saing dan kehilangan pekerjaan di sektor yang bergantung kepada ekspot. Setakat ini kerajaan masih tidak mengenakan kawalan modal yang khusus seperti yang telah dilaksanakan oleh negara-negara membangun seperti China, Indonesia, Thailand, Brazil dan Korea Selatan untuk membendung kerakusan pemodal yang berniat untuk mengaut keuntungan maksima. Ini berkemungkinan besar kerana kerajaan ingin mempergunakan aliran masuk modal ke pasaran bon dan saham untuk menunjukkan perestasi ekonomi yang munasabah kepada rakyat untuk menghadapi pilihanraya umum akan datang.

Namun begitu, ini tidak bermakna Malaysia dengan sepenuhnya telah mengelakkan kesan daripada krisis ekonomi global. Ekonomi global masih tenat daripada kemelesetan besar 2008-2009, dan menurut beberapa ahli ekonomi keadaan tersebut mungkin boleh menjadi lebih teruk. Keadaan ini mungkin akan berlanjutan untuk suatu masa yang lama sebelum mencapai kestabilan. Manakala, kerajaan Malaysia pula cuba mengubah dari satu dasar ke dasar yang lain akibat ketidakpastian dalam ekonomi global dan peningkatan persaingan di antara ekonomi-ekonomi serantau serta negara-negara ekonomi utama seperti Amerika Syarikat dan China. Nampaknya, satu lagi krisis ekonomi seperti krisis kewangan 1997 boleh berulang di rantau ini jika fenomena ini terus berlanjutan atau menjadi lebih buruk di masa yang akan datang.

Ini bermakna, fenomena ekonomi yang tidak menentu yang sedang dilalui oleh Malaysia adalah akibat krisis yang sedang dilalui oleh sistem pasaran bebas kapitalisma di dunia pada masa kini. Kerakusan untuk keuntungan maksima dengan berbagai aktiviti-aktiviti ekonomi yang tidak bertanggungjawap oleh kapitalis-kapitalis antarabangsa telah menjunamkan sistem kapitalis di dalam krisis ekonomi 2008-2009 yang dianggap paling buruk selepas 80 tahun. Ini menegaskan perlunya sistem ekonomi terancang sosialis sebagai alternatif kepada sistem pasaran bebas kapitalisma. Sistem ekonomi terancang sosialis mengutamakan keperluan majoriti warga kelas pekerja, anak muda dan golongan tertindas yang lain berlandaskan demokrasi dan penglibatan sepenuhnya golongan-golongan tersebut dalam perancangan, pengurusan dan kawalan aktiviti ekonomi dan keperluan sosial secara adil dan saksama.

Ketidakpuasan Sosial semakin bertambah

Sejak 2008, kerajaan di bawah tekanan daripada kapitalisma untuk mengurangkan defisit di dalam ekonomi, membendung inflasi dan menghapuskan subsidi ke atas barangan terkawal, serta mempertingkatkan liberalisasi terutama di sektor perkhidmatan untuk menarik pelaburan dari sektor swasta dan syarikat multinasional. Untuk matlamat tersebut, kerajaan telah merancang untuk menyelaraskan undang-undang buruh, memotong subsidi dan memperkenalkan Cukai Barangan dan Perkhidmatan (GST), serta mengurangkan perbelanjaan kerajaan dan pentadbiran dengan menggalakkan 'Inisiatif Awam Swasta' (istilah lain untuk penswastaan) khususnya dalam pendidikan awam dan perkhidmatan kesihatan, yang bertujuan untuk mempergiatkan ekonomi pasaran bebas untuk kepentingan kapitalis nasional dan antarabangsa.

Sebagai permulaan, tahun ini kerajaan telah mengurangkan subsidi terhadap petrol, gula dan gas meskipun ianya masih tidak dilaksanakan sepenuhnya, serta menunda perlaksanaan GST dan penyelarasan undang-undang buruh, takut tindakan tersebut akan menaikkan kemarahan rakyat biasa sehingga memberikan impak teruk dalam Pilihanraya Umum yang akan datang. Namun begitu, ramai berangapan bahawa kerajaan di bawah tekanan kapitalisma, akan melaksanakan perancangan tersebut dengan pemotongan perbelanjawan awam dan mengatur langkah-langkah penjimatan yang lain dengan memotong subsidi dan perbelanjaan prasarana untuk rakyat biasa selepas memenangi pilihan raya umum ke-13, jika ekonomi global terus tenat. Langkah-langkah ini akan menambahkan lagi beban kewangan kepada 75% penduduk yang berpendapatan kurang daripada RM3000 sebulan serta 25% daripada penduduk yang memperoleh kurang daripada RM1000 sebulan, yang kebanyakannya merupakan kelas pekerja dan kelas menengah. Tindakan tersebut juga akan terus meningkatkan jurang antara kaya dan miskin di Malaysia, memandangkan pada masa kini jurang kaya-miskin di Malaysia adalah yang terburuk di kalangan negara-negara Asia Tenggara, iaitu dengan kata lain yang kaya semakin kaya, yang miskin semakin miskin. Kerakusan sistem kapitalisma untuk keuntungan maksima, akan memangsakan keperluan dan hak sosial warga kelas pekerja dan anak muda dengan semakin melebarkan beban kehidupan mereka.

Dengan apa jua cara, Barisan dan UMNO bertekad untuk terus berkuasa

UMNO terus menerus medominasi Barisan yang masih berkonsepkan kepada parti-parti perkauman untuk mendapat sokongan rakyat. Semenjak kekalahan teruk parti-parti MCA, MIC dan Gerakan dalam pilihanraya umum ke-12, UMNO telah bertindak untuk memperkukuhkan sokongan rakyat berbangsa Melayu, bahkan juga telah mengatur langkah untuk mendapatkan semula sokongan rakyat berbangsa Cina dan India yang kebanyakannya telah mengundi pembangkang. Untuk mengekalkan serta mendapatkan sokongan rakyat berbangsa Melayu, mereka secara tidak langsung mempergunakan PERKASA (kumpulan ultra-kanan yang berlandaskan Ketuanan Melayu) untuk meningkatkan sokongan rakyat Melayu. Manakala, untuk mendapatkan kembali sokongan rakyat Cina dan India mereka mempergunakan propaganda SatuMalaysia.

UMNO masih menikmati sokongan terutama daripada golongan konservatif di luar bandar dan beberapa golongan kelas menengah yang amat bergantung kepada hak-hak istimewa serta faedah yang diberikan oleh kerajaan kepada mereka. Walaupun kerajaan telah meliberalisasi sekitar 27 perkhidmatan sub-sektor dengan menghapuskan 30% ekuiti bumiputera, ini tidak banyak menjejaskan Pengusaha Kecil dan Sederhana (SME) daripada lapisan ini, kerana mereka masih mengecapi perlindungan lain dan insentif yang direka untuk melindungi kepentingan dan hak-hak mereka. Ini terutamanya adalah untuk terus mempertahankan sokongan kaum Melayu kepada UMNO. PERKASA, yang telah disokong oleh Mahathir dan pemimpin –pemimpin UMNO yang lain, dianjurkan untuk melindungi hak-hak keistimewaan kaum Melayu. Tindakan ini adalah bertujuan untuk memperkuatkan sokongan kaum Melayu kepada UMNO dengan merangsangkan sentimen dan hak-hak keistimewaan kaum Melayu.

Najib mencuba untuk mendapatkan semula sokongan kaum Cina dan India dengan propaganda SatuMalaysia tetapi ternyata ini menjadi kontra-produktif apabila PERKASA menyerang hak kaum Cina dan India. Ramai beranggapan propaganda SatuMalaysia hanyalah satu lagi retorik politik kerajaan untuk memenangi pilihanraya akan datang dan tidak akan berupaya untuk menyatukan rakyat selagi isu-isu asas keperluan sosial dan ekonomi tidak diselesaikan dengan adil dan saksama. Ini jelas dengan, kecurigaan dan ketidakpuasan di antara kaum yang masih wujud akibat diskriminasi hak sosial, ekonomi dan budaya yang masih ketara akibat kerakusan sistem kapitalisma yang dipelopori oleh kerajaan Barisan. Maka, apabila keadaan sosial dan ekonomi menjadi lebih parah, berkemungkinan kecurigaan dan ketidakpuasan tersebut boleh menjurus kepada ketegangan perkauman sehingga meletuskan rusuhan kaum.

Malcolm X, pejuang hak minoriti kulit hitam 1960an di Amerika Syarikat yang menentang dasar perkauman dan imperialis kerajaan Amerika Syarikat, pernah berkata, "anda tidak boleh mempertahankan kapitalisma tanpa perkauman". Frasa ini amat secocok dalam kaitannya dengan pendekatan politik BN yang menggunakan perkauman sebagai alat untuk mempertahankan dan memelihara sistem kapitalis di negara ini.

Pakatan Rakyat cakap tak serupa bikin

Dengan mempergunakan pertumbuhan ekonomi yang munasabah pada ketika ini, serta kelemahan perspektif dan konflik politik dalaman Pakatan Rakyat yang menimbulkan kesangsian di kalangan rakyat sama ada mereka boleh menerajui alternatif yang jelas dan meyakinkan, BN akan cuba memantapkan sokongan kepada kerajaan Najib dengan kekuatan kewangan, jentera pilihanraya dan media arus perdana yang dimilikinya.

Pertaruhan kuasa dalam parti, khususnya di dalam PKR dan DAP, sedikit sebanyak telah memberikan gambaran negatif di kalangan rakyat terhadap kredibiliti Pakatan Rakyat. Ramai beranggapan politik mereka tidak banyak berbeza dengan politik Barisan selain bermain-main dengan berbagai retorik politik untuk mengaburkan rakyat. Sejak pilihan raya umum yang lalu, Pakatan Rakyat juga gagal untuk mengutarakan penyelesaian alternatif yang jelas dan menyakinkan sebagai alternatif kepada dasar ekonomi dan sosial serta agenda politik Barisan selain tunduk kepada agenda sistem pasaran bebas kapitalisma. Ini sedikit sebanyak telah meruntuhkan kredibiliti mereka terutama di kalangan kelas pekerja dan anak muda yang mencari alternatif penyelesaian kepada diskriminasi sosial, ekonomi dan hak demokrasi yang masih ketara. Malahan, Pakatan Rakyat masih wujud hanya untuk menghadapi pilihan raya umum seterusnya, dalam usaha untuk mengalahkan BN dan mengambilalih kerajaan Persekutuan. Mereka juga bergantung kepada populariti yang masih ada pada Anwar Ibrahim, dan gambaran bahawa Anwar akan menjadi perdana menteri jika Pakatan menang. Namun, perbicaraan kes liwat yang dijangka selesai dipertengahan tahun ini, boleh digunakan oleh kerajaan BN untuk melemahkan keaktifan politik Anwar. Manakala, jika kerajaan memutuskan untuk memasukkan Anwar semula ke dalam penjara, kemarahan di kalangan penyokong Anwar boleh meluap semula dan ketegangan politik tersebut akan dipergunakan oleh Pakatan untuk menyemarakkan kemarahan rakyat terhadap kerajaan BN.

Pada masa yang sama, Pakatan juga telah mula merangka langkah untuk memperkuatkan parti masing-masing untuk menghadapi pilihan raya umum ke-13 dan telah mula menaburkan berbagai janji kepada rakyat untuk mencipta situasi seperti yang telah diwujudkan sebelum pilihanraya 2008 dengan agenda kebajikan rakyat serta kempen untuk ketelusan pilihanraya dan hak-hak demokrasi. Baru-baru ini mereka melancarkan Program 100 Hari Pakatan Rakyat yang menyelitikan program social dan ekonomi selepas 100 hari Kerajaan Persekutuan Pakatan. Namun demikian, kekuatan jentera pilihanraya Pakatan di Sabah dan Sarawak masih jauh ketinggalan berbanding dengan kekuatan BN, walaupun ketidakpuasan sosial dan ekonomi amat ketara di kalangan berbagai masyarakat yang hidup di negeri-negeri tersebut. Namun, jika keretakan di kalangan parti-parti yang berkuasa di Sabah dan Sarawak menular maka ianya boleh memberikan laluan kepada Pakatan untuk mendapatkan sokongan mereka apabila Pakatan dapat menunjukkan ianya berupaya untuk membentuk kerajaan Persekutuan.

Manakala PSM, dengan aktivisma, terus menerus menyokong Pakatan untuk mengalahkan Barisan, meskipun politik Pakatan menjurus untuk menyokong sistem Pasaran bebas dan kapitalisma. Walaupun mereka jelas menyokong Pakatan, oleh kerana mereka bukan di dalam gabungan Pakatan Rakyat, beberapa pemimpin dan penyokong Pakatan tidak akan memberikan laluan mudah kepada PSM untuk bertanding satu lawan satu. Akibatnya, PSM akan bersaing untuk mempertahankan kerusi yang ditandingi oleh mereka atas tiket PKR pada plihanraya ke 12 atau untuk bertanding di kawasan baru dengan menggunakan logo mereka sendiri, yang boleh mencetuskan lebih banyak konflik dengan Pakatan. PSM akan mempergunakan kenalan rapat mereka dalam Pakatan untuk mengelakkan pertandingan tiga penjuru tetapi persaingan juga akan wujud di antara parti-parti Pakatan sendiri yang boleh mengasingkan PSM.

Manakala beberapa pemimpin kesatuan sekerja MTUC, pula menyokong Pakatan dengan harapan bahawa akan ada lebih banyak hak dan ruang demokrasi termasuk hak kesatuan sekerja dan hak pekerja di bawah pemerintahan Pakatan, tanpa mempersoalkan politik pro- kapitalisma dan pasaran bebas Pakatan yang mengeksploitasi pekerja.

Pengalaman di negara-negara jiran seperti Indonesia dan Filipina dengan jelas membuktikan bahawa, penukaran satu kerajaan pro-kapitalis kepada kerajaan pro-kapitalis yang baru tidak akan menyelesaikan isu-isu asas ekonomi dan sosial kelas pekerja dan anak muda selagi parti-parti pemerintah terus menerajui sistem kapitalisma. Justeru itu, parti atau organisasi yang berlandaskan kepada kelas pekerja haruslah bertindak bebas daripada pengaruh parti-parti politik pro-kapitalis untuk memperkukuhkan kesatuan sekerja dan politik kelas pekerja.

'Kuasa Ketiga'-dua kali tiga juga !

Kegagalan PSM dan pemimpin kesatuan pekerja untuk mengutarakan perspektif untuk membina organisasi kelas pekerja yang bebas dan jelas dengan sokongan dari anak muda, pelajar dan golongan tertindas yang lain, telah menimbulkan kekeliruan terhadap sifat 'kuasa ketiga' yang harus dibentuk dan dibina sebagai alternatif kepada parti-parti pro-kapitalis.

Zahid Ibrahim, yang kalah dalam pertandingan naib presiden PKR, telah mengundurkan diri dari parti tersebut dengan melontarkan tuduhan penyelewengan besar-besaran dalam parti tersebut, telah memulakan parti baru – KITA (Kesejahteraan Insan Tanah Air). Zahid menyamakan partinya 'kuasa ketiga' seakan-akan Parti Liberal Demokrat di United Kingdom. Ironinya, pada masa kini Parti Liberal Demokrat dan Parti Konservatif yang membentuk kerajaan pada pilihanraya umum lalu sedang bertubi-tubi menyerang faedah dan hak kelas pekerja, anak muda dan pelajar dengan sewenang-wenangnya untuk menyelamatkan golongan kapitalisma negara tersebut daripada krisis ekonomi.

Selain itu, Parti Hak Asasi Manusia (parti serpihan daripada HINDRAF) dan Gerakan Kebebasan Sivil Malaysia (MCLM) yang tidak berpuas hati dengan politik Pakatan, kini mencadangkan untuk membina kuasa ketiga. Manakala Jeffrey Kitingan yang keluar daripada PKR pula melancarkan Barisan Borneo Bersatu untuk keadilan dan hak rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak.

Beberapa kumpulan dan serpihan yang lain dari Pakatan boleh bergabung bersama atas nama 'kuasa ketiga' untuk bertanding pilihanraya akan datang di bawah logo mereka sendiri tapi nampaknya mereka akan cuba berunding dengan Pakatan untuk pertandingan satu lawan satu. Tetapi, pertandingan tiga penjuru tidak dapat dielakkan jika tiada kompromi di antara Pakatan dan parti-parti 'kuasa ketiga' tersebut dan ini boleh menguntungkan BN.

Pada masa kini, golongan anak muda yang tidak puas hati dengan politik Pakatan dan mencari alternatif jelas akan cuba mengorientasikan sokongan mereka ke arah 'kuasa ketiga' tersebut, tetapi mereka akan segera dikecewakan dengan politik 'kuasa ketiga' tersebut yang tidak jauh berbeza daripada politik Pakatan atau aktivisma politik ala NGO.

Perlunya untuk membangunkan kuasa politik Kelas Pekerja

Polisi neo-liberalisma dan polisi pro-kapitalis yang dipelopori oleh BN terus-menerus memudaratkan taraf hidup dan hak-hak demokrasi kelas pekerja, kelas menengah, pelajar dan golongan tertindas yang lain. Manakala Pakatan, yang juga mendokong pasaran bebas dan sistem kapitalis, tidak banyak berbeza dalam dasar ekonomi dan penyelesaian politik untuk kelas pekerja dan anak muda berbanding dengan BN. Sementara itu, parti-parti 'kuasa ketiga' hanya dibentuk sebagai respon ketidakpuasan dengan kepimpinan dan dasar Pakatan, daripada mengedepankan alternatif kepada agenda pro-pasaran BN dan Pakatan. Fenomena politik negara menunjukkan bahawa dasar parti-parti tersebut tidak mengutarakan perspektif jelas untuk penyelesaian kepada hak-hak ekonomi atau sosial golongan kelas pekerja dan anak muda tetapi hanyalah retorik politik untuk mencapai agenda politik masing-masing tanpa mempertikaikan sistem kapitalisma. Justeru itu, sebuah organisasi politik kelas pekerja yang bebas untuk mewakili aspirasi dan keperluan kelas pekerja dan anak muda amat perlu dibina sebagai alternatif kepada parti-parti politik pro-kapitalisma sebagai langkah untuk membina alternatif politik massa untuk kelas pekerja dan anak muda.

Tempoh sebelum dan sesudah pilihanraya umum yang akan datang akan menyaksikan semakin ramai anak muda dan kelas pekerja menjauhkan diri dari polisi reaksioner dan oportunis yang dipelopori oleh parti-parti arus utama. Mereka akan mencari idea-idea alternatif termasuk idea-idea sosialis untuk penyelesaian isu-isu sosial, ekonomi dan demokrasi. Pembentukan entiti politik baru yang diterajui oleh golongan tersebut boleh muncul dalam tempoh masa ini. Malaysia sedang bergerak ke suatu era penting di mana ketidakpastian ekonomi dan politik semakin meningkat, dan ini seterusnya akan memperkuatkan keperluan untuk membina kuasa kelas pekerja massa dengan idea-idea sosialis.