THAILAND: DECISIVE BATTLE BETWEEN THE ‘REDS’ AND THE GOVERNMENT?

Thailand - eyewitness report

By the time this report was written, the tension had increased to a new level in the streets of Bangkok since the passsing of Wednesday night's ultimatum.

By a socialistworld.net reporter in Thailand, Friday 14/10

The protesters are preparing for the impending army intervention which, judging by the murderous fighting at the end of April, would mean preparing for a bloodbath. For more than two months, the red shirts opposition to the government of Abhisit Vejjajiva has been occupying the trade and financial district of Bangkok. They demand the dissolution of Parliament and call for immediate elections.

Context and history of the events:

In September 2006, the then Prime Minister, multibillionaire Thaksin Shinawatra, was toppled by a military coup. At the same time, he was condemned to two years of prison for conflict of interest and various financial skullduggeries. Since then, he lives in exile in Dubai, waiting for a triumphal coming-back to Thailand.

In Thailand, the support for Thaksin essentially comes from an important number of poor farmers from the rural areas (mainly from the North of the country and from the area surrounding Bangkok), as well as from a part of the poor working class from the cities. He was able to build this support via populist policies and thanks to several small measures in favour of the poorest, that were implemented when he was in power. In the meanwhile, he of course played the role that was expected from him as a capitalist oligarch by implementing neoliberal measures which created huge discontent, widespread amongst the workers in the cities.

By the end of 2008, the yellow shirt supporters of Abhisit (the current Prime Minister) occupied the government buildings and two airports, until the then government, accused of being in league with Thaksin, was dissolved. Abhisit's party then managed to raise enough support, including from pro-Thaksin MPs, in order to form a new government. Even if the army did not play any active role in these events, it is clear for many people that so many pro-Thaksin MPs becoming turncoats could only be due to threats from the military.

In the meantime, the red shirts were organizing their first important mobilization by gathering 50,000 supporters in one of Bangkok's biggest stadiums. The main group organizing the protesters is known as the «United Front for Democracy and against Dictatorship and this is supported by the Pheu Thai Party (Party For Thais) that linked to Thaksin.

On the other hand, Abhisit's party, the Democrat Party is supported by the PAD (People Alliance for Democracy) - the yellow-shirted - and they have their main base in the urban middle class, and some layers of the working class.

The current government is widely discredited and implements policies that reinforce the role of the monarchy and of the military on the political plane. More than 70% of the government members have not been elected.

The red shirts and the battles of 2009

Exactly one year ago, in April 2009, the red shirts occupied Bangkok's city centre for the first time. They were demanding Abhisit's immediate resignation and were supporting Thaksin, the opposition figure in exile. Pitched battles raged for several days between thousands of red shirts, mainly young people, and the state forces. A state of emergency was declared and paramilitary forces were deployed. The army charged with tanks and shot at the crowd using real bullets, killing two people and wounding hundreds. The Prime Minister's car was assaulted by a raging mob. An important summit gathering the elites of various surrounding countries also had to be cancelled given the scale of the mobilization. After several weeks, and facing an important repression, the red shirts leaders accepted to dismiss their troops, promising new actions if new elections were not called soon.

April 2010 : the red shirts are rising again

Almost exactly one year after the 2009 events, the red shirts gathered again and decided to occupy en masse one of the capital's economic hearts, the Bangkok district. Many demonstrations were organized by foot, by motorbike... Their most spectacular action happened several weeks ago, when they decided to march on the Parliament, forcing it to cancel its session and the MPs to run away. For several weeks, the government even had to take refuge and meet in a town outside Bangkok.

At the same time, many rallies are organized on a daily basis. The figures suggest about 100,000 to 150,000 people showing up daily in the occupied centre. The newspaper The Nation was explaining that: "More and more poor farmers have arrived and have joined the reds in order to express their anger about their feeling of having become social victims". This same newspaper was writing on its first page :"Poverty is Thailand's biggest enemy. At least 10 million from a total of 65 million people live lower than the poverty threshold. This layer of the population has almost no access to decent food, to healthcare or to an opportunity to reach education".

For the first time, in order to ease the climate, Abhisit was forced to organize parleys with the red shirts leaders. He produced a roadmap promising elections due on 14th of November, and a whole range of measures for the poor farmers. This tactic's main aim was to demobilize the protesters and gain some time. The red shirt leaders had on the other hand decided to maintain their occupation of the city centre and to demand the immediate dissolution of the Parliament.

Facing the protesters' determination, the army has already two times tried to invade and clear the occupied area. These attempts were met by a furious resistance by the red shirts, and caused dozens of deaths. During the last weeks, many big assaults have also taken place in Bangkok, which wounded and killed several people amongst the state forces. These attacks certainly are, according to the official media, due to the red hardcores. It is also very possible that these are due to yellow shirt (government) provocateurs who have also launched several violent actions against the reds during recent days.

One of the reds' main demands since these tragic incidents is the arrest of Defence Minister Suthep, for his responsibility in the murderous repression towards the end of April. The government has on its side toughened its rhetoric and warned warning that if the protesters had not left the Rajprasong centre by the 12th of May, water and electricity would be cut before a tough military offensive, probably in the following hours. This was when, since the end of April, the government was on the defensive, fearing the implosion of the armed forces between pro-government and pro-reds.

The red shirts leader Jatuporn Promphan, stated in The Nation on the 12th of May that they would not give way to the government ultimatum and that : "We are not afraid of such pressures. After so many protesters dying, nothing can stop the reds anymore".

The mood in the red entrenched camp, and the latest events

On Wednesday 12th of April, several hours before the end of the ultimatum, I had the opportunity to get into the occupied city centre, barricaded from every side by the opposition to the regime. This district, several square kilometers wide, is very seriously secured by the reds. Every entry to the area is blocked by huge barricades, preventing access to the rally and sleeping areas.

'Black guards', the protesters' security service, search every vehicle to prevent the entry of weapons or grenades. A huge podium, connected to loud-speakers in the whole district, welcomes the main red shirt leaders' speeches in an uninterrupted flow. A crowd of many people and families stands there or sleeps on the ground – their new homes. Food and water distribution, and all other basic commodities are provided everywhere in the huge encampment. Everywhere hang pictures of the demonstrations, images of the repression in April, and banners calling for the dissolution of the Parliament. The welcome by the rank-and-file activists is very warm, and there is a widespread willingness to explain the situation, in spite of the language barrier. When I ask her what she thinks about the current situation and about the government's ultimatum, a young 19 year old red explains to us that : "I have been here for two months. The army has already tried to evict us several times. Many people have already died. They talk about 20 dead, but for us, it has been more than 100. If the army comes back – and that will surely be the case in the coming days – I will fight against them". 

The Nation's columnist has been talking about important disagreements amongst the reds for a few days now. It is clear that the huge hopes that have been raised by this massive movement, which is being used by Thaksin and by his group of thugs to enhance their own political position, cannot be simply satisfied by a simple promise of getting new elections next November. Amongst the leaders, two wings have been sketched out during the last few days : one the one side, a 'moderate' wing who wants to accept the roadmap and demobilize the forces ; on the other hand, a 'hard' wing, gathered around the Pheu Thai party, the main political party behind the reds, which is opposed to the 'roadmap'. Amongst an ever-growing layer of the mobilized red supporters, doubts are surfacing about their leaders' honesty. One of these supporters was stating that : "Today, it is clear that to maintain a confrontational stance against the government would only soon turn this area into a bloodbath. I have tried many times to discuss with the leaders, to no avail. I feel that we cannot trust some of the leaders, and I even wonder if they really fight for democracy". A radio hoisted on the site was stating a short while earlier that " the rank-and-file are self-organizing and warning their leaders that they had better not forget them". Another protester was stating : "You could order now to the protesters, from the stage, that they should go back to their homes – I think their reaction would be to throw everything that they can reach at the person who would risk this. Some are even planning to march on the 11th Infantry Regiment and to arrest the Prime Minister before launching a popular uprising".

By the time I am writing these lines (Thursday 13/05), the army has locked the whole area and got the green light to open fire using real bullets. Dozens of tanks are gathered near the barricades. A state of emergency has been declared in 15 provinces of the country. Only several minutes ago, the main red shirt leader has been killed during an interview with a Japanese TV channel by an army sniper. Battles have flared in the surrounding area in order to keep the army at bay, already resulting in one dead – a 25 year old youth name Chartchai Chalao – and 20 seriously wounded people. The red leaders have also ordered their troops to be deployed on every barricade and to stand waiting for the army. The situation will very certainly worsen in the coming hours.

What prospects for the workers and the poor masses of Thailand ?

It is clear that the events in Thailand are the expression of a power struggle between Thaksin and the Abhisit government. This situation has certainly sharpened the already existing tensions between the rural and urban populations.

The Abhisit government is today clearly supported by the military and by the monarchy, with one purpose : prevent Thaksin and his clique from coming back to power. Thaksin's supporters have self-proclaimed themselves as mouthpieces of the country's poor masses, and are only using the anger and the frustration which exists in Thai society to their own advantage. These various leaders have today deliberately sharpened the tensions and the divisions between the rural poor and the urban workers and middle class.

Yet, the victims of the elites' greed are still the poor farmers, the working class and some other layers of society, whatever side they have now chosen. Corruption has reached a never-attained before level in the country. It is clear that in this situation, none of the leaders will denounce any of the causes of the problems suffered by the Thai people. Thailand is one of the worst-hit countries by the capitalist crisis, and both camps' leaders anyway agree about who will be the one to pay for it during the coming months and years: workers and the poorest in society.

It is thus today a real disaster that there exists no party with a programme starting from the needs of the poor farmers and of the workers, in order to channel the huge existing anger which is expressing itself in the streets of the country. We will not end poverty and oppression by trusting either the government or some corrupted billionaire.

The situation today is very unstable, and it is hard to know what is going to happen in the coming days. It is clear that the government has decided to test its strength, and this is now but a matter of hours. What will the reds' ability to resist be ? Will the dissensions amongst the military burst into the open ? What will be the scale of the slaughter that we are going to witness ?

Whatever happens, even if this is not the most likely, should the red shirts finally get the calling of new elections, the official commentators are expecting a victory of Thaksin's supporters' party. Should this happen, it is very likely that the yellow shirt coalition, supported by part of the military, would again take to the streets. This all means that it is very likely that the instability continues in the country.

Moreover, what we are now seeing happening in Thailand – a country that has already known 18 coups since the 1930s – is an indication of the instability which could develop on a wider scale throughout the whole of Asia as a reaction against the worsening of the crisis. For us, revolutionary socialists of the world, it is therefore even more important to understand the emergency in relation to the building of a mass political force in order to defend the interests of the workers and of the poor masses, as well as the need to organize the battle for a socialist society, the only alternative which could finally break with capitalist barbarism.

The Committee for a Workers' International demands:

• No to suppression of democratic rights and clamp-downs on the media

• Abolish any draconian law such as ISA (Internal Security Act) which suppresses the rights of the people

• No to the rule of generals and the rule of corrupt, millionaire politicians

• Total opposition to a military coup

• For a mass struggle to win full democratic rights, including workers' rights to organise, to protest, and to strike

• For independent, fighting, democratic unions and small farmers' organisations

• Trade union rights for the armed forces rank and file - win poor soldiers to the struggles of working people

• For the building of a mass workers' and poor farmers' party

• For a united struggle of workers, poor farmers, students and others oppressed by the system to overthrow the corrupt government

• For a genuine, representative Constituent Assembly

• Abolish the monarchy

• For a majority workers' and poor farmers' government

• Full rights for the oppressed Muslim population in the South of Thailand and all other minorities

• No to neo-liberal policies of privatisation and de-regulation

• Take into democratic public ownership the big business enterprises, major industries, large private land-holdings and banks

• For an economy planned to meet the needs of the working people and poor farmers, under the democratic control and management of elected committees from the working class and small farmers

• For a socialist Thailand, as part of a socialist confederation throughout South East Asia

 

A YEAR AFTER NAJIB TAKES OVER…

POLITICAL LANDSCAPE LITTLE CHANGED SINCE 2008 'TSUNAMI'

On 3 April, Najib Razak celebrated his one year as prime minister after succeeding from Abdullah Badawi. Since taking over, he has been entrusted to save the 'sinking ship' of UMNO (United Malay National Organisation) and BN (National Front) after the BN government under Abdullah was humiliated when it lost its two thirds majority in parliament for the first time since the 1969 election as well as losing four state governments to Pakatan Rakyat (PR-People's Coalition) in the 2008 general election.

When Najib came into power, he immediately devised the slogan, "One Malaysia: People First, Performance Now", to fortify his political standing as well as strengthening UMNO and BN. This slogan was supposed to address the racial inequalities by, "developing respect for one another and to learn to trust one another more...it is a formula for unity in diversity". Following this, he launched a series of policies of 'reform' to make "BN relevant to the multiracial society of Malaysia". Firstly, he introduced 'Key Performance Indicators' and later a 'Government Transformation Programme' in order "to improve government services and managements". Recently he announced the NEM (New Economic Model) "to strengthen the economy from the global economic uncertainty and to make sure Malaysia becomes a developed country".

A recent survey by the independent pollster, Merdeka Centre, showed that Najib's popularity rating has improved to 68% from around 40% when he was appointed as prime minister. With that, Najib proclaimed that his 'One Malaysia' multiracial unity concept and his policies to improve the economy are being supported by the people and the BN has been regaining the support they lost in the last general election. The victory of BN over Pakatan Rakyat in the by-election in the Hulu Selangor parliamentary seat on 25 April has been used as further evidence of increased support for Najib and his policies, especially since there he was "fighting a battle in a state controlled by the opposition". This shows that the Najib government is going all out to make sure they win comfortably in the next general election in two or three years' time.

However, the strengthened opposition of the Pakatan Rakyat - the coalitions of PKR (People's Justice Party), PAS (Malaysian Islamic Party) and DAP (Democratic Action Party) - under the leadership of Anwar Ibrahim is also campaigning to "save Malaysia", to bring to an end the BN rule that has lasted for more than half a century and to take over the running of the federal government in the next general election to establish a "better Malaysia".

Hulu Selangor bye-election

The Hulu Selangor by-election, the tenth by-election since the last general election, has been regarded as a referendum for both the BN and the PR. For the BN it was a gauge of the acceptance by people of Najib's policies over the last one year and for the PR it was to measure the support of the people for the PR-ruled Selangor state government's policies. Because of that both parties had gone desperately all-out to win the seat to boost their popularity among the masses in general.

This by-election has been labelled by the opposition as the, "dirtiest, [most] corrupt and expensive" by-election in which "character assassination, racism, bribery and brute force" were used by the BN camp to garner votes.

There is an irony in Malaysia that the ordinary people can only get any benefit from their state assemblymen or parliamentarians when he or she dies and causes a by-election. In this one, all types of 'goodies' and promises were ladled out by both sides to garner votes. However, with the BN having the upper-hand over the 'Three Ms' - 'Machinery, Media and Money' - they went all out to win this by-election. Even an unsolved land issue between settlers with the Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) – the government-linked plantation giant – that had been going on for a decade, was suddenly resolved when the prime minister, Najib, promised to compensate the one hundred settlers affected with RM50,000 each. The opposition accused the BN of having spent RM167million on projects in a 7 day campaigning period to win votes in Hulu Selangor which has around 60,000 inhabitants.

On the other hand, the Selangor's PR state government had also used its resources as well as its authority to garner votes. But as in the Bagan Pinang by election, people were seeing that the PR politicians' policies, programmes and approaches were not much different than the BN politicians'. Both parties appeared only sympathetic to the ordinary people during the election and did not care about their welfare and needs all this while. For instance, the plantation workers as well as the 'orang asli' (the indigenous people) in Hulu Selangor, are living in deplorable conditions, but their economic and social issues and their rights, that are discriminated against by big companies, have not been taken care of. In that case, people, especially the 'fence sitters', are keen to lean towards a party that can immediately solve certain problems or give better rewards or promises.

The thin majority of 1,725 gained by the BN in the by-election was not exactly because the people supported the Najib 'OneMalaysia' and NEM, but mainly because of the BN aggressively using its control of the '3Ms' to win. This victory will be used to boost BN's image and also to continually damage the reputation of Pakatan Rakyat, such as by triggering more defections from the PR camp into the BN.

Racial politics

This and the previous by-elections have also shown that UMNO and the BN have no other way but utilising their patronage and also racial sentiments to garner votes. Yet it was for this that they were punished in the last general election. This shows that they are incapable of getting rid of their ingrained racial politics that they have maintained since independence in 1957.

UMNO as the dominant party in BN as usual used the idea of Malay special rights and Malay hegemony to maintain the support of especially the rural Malays while propagating the unity idea of 'OneMalaysia' among the non-Malays. The multiracial coalition appearance of the BN is still used to make sure it is supported by all races. But almost all its main coalition partners other than UMNO – the MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association), the MIC (Malaysian Indian Congress), Gerakan (Movement) and the PPP (People Progressive Party) – have not been able to regain the respective support of their races since the last general election. In that situation, UMNO has been the dominant player. As can be seen in the Hulu Selangor by-election, Najib himself had to go down to campaign, which is rare in any by-elections, to make sure of victory.

At the same time, since the start of the year, the racial/religious tensions have been heightened by a few politically-linked incidents related to racial/religious sentiments. The conservative and ultra-right wing group, Perkasa, has openly vowed to safeguard Malay rights and hegemony and this group is now backed by former PM, Mahatir Mohammad. It is also tacitly supported by UMNO to cater for the sentiments of some sections of Malays that see their economic rights being taken away by non-Malays. The government's unwillingness to disband this group, but at the same time propagating 'OneMalaysia', is seen as hypocritical.

At this juncture, Najib has slightly increased his popularity because of the hopes he has raised about building unity and meeting the needs of all regardless of race. On the other hand, the failure of PR to counter Najib's policies with clear alternatives has also given some space for Najib to manoeuvre. However, with racial prejudices and hypocrisy prevalent, this could be temporary as people realise that his 'OneMalaysia' and NEM are only another kind of political propaganda of the BN and that it cannot meet the social and economic needs of the ordinary people, regardless of race.

Reforms and democracy

Nevertheless the impact of the 'political tsunami' of the 2008 general election is still felt, especially among the urban population in West Malaysia. This is comprised of people of the working and middle class as well youth who are hoping for better living standards and to get rid of the impact of the neo-liberal attacks of of the BN government. They are also looking for change and to obtain the democratic rights that are being suppressed by the BN government. The anger and hatred towards the 'happy-go-lucky' attitude and the 'arrogance' of UMNO and the BN has pushed them to lend support for Pakatan Rakyat.

With the stimulus packages introduced to improve the economy, the Najib government has the advantage of using it to launch his 'reform' projects, such as improving infrastructure as well as public services to recapture the support of the people. Programmes such as OneMalaysia Clinics were launched in some areas to demonstrate that the BN government is caring for all people regardless of race and religion. But such reforms are very limited. However, the BN government has shown it is incapable of reforming his administration and its state tools such as the police and legal systems. The corruption and mismanagement of public funds are still rife. Meanwhile, the reforms it has made, such as to the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the University and College Act) (UACA) are very limited and still can be used to suppress the democratic rights of the people.

Recently, a PR leader lamented that, since taking over the government, Najib has been emulating some of the 'reforms' and economic agenda of Pakatan Rakyat such as 'freeing' the economy. After the last general election Anwar and the PR launched their Malaysian Economic Agenda as the alternative to the BN's economic policies, with the main agenda of "liberalising the economy and distributing wealth equally, regardless of race". This will be done, they say, by safeguarding the free market system and basically making the government administration better and more transparent. And now under pressure, Najib has had to emulate some of the PR reform agenda. How far he can go will depend on the country's economic performance in the coming period.

Meanwhile, the Pakatan Rakyat state governments which are propagating transparency and 'government for the people' have also introduced some welfare benefits and projects and are making the local councils more efficient to a certain extent than when they were under BN administration.

Although such reforms have benefited certain people, the majority still consider that their living standards have not improved much and even some see their situation getting worst. Issues such as high crime rates, inflation, illegal loans, the increasing cost of living and stagnating wages are continually hounding the ordinary people - the working class, middle class, poor farmers and fishermen as well the youth. This shows that the reforms propagated by both the BN and the PR have not fundamentally addressed the social and economic needs of these ordinary people. They have adjusted their policies to accommodate to the profit-orientation of the 'free' market system of capitalism.

Fight against capitalism

Although the stimulus packages have cushioned the economy to a certain extent for some periods, this cannot be the permanent solution for the Malaysian economy which is still very much export-oriented with a limited domestic market. The NEM was aimed at developing service and high-tech industries to make Malaysia a high income economy rather than being as currently, a middle income economy mainly based on manufacturing and commodities (oil, palm oil, rubber). This means that in recent times the government has been under pressure when the Foreign Direct Investment is not much coming to Malaysia but going to countries like China, Vietnam, Indonesia and others that offer far cheaper labour costs and reasonably good investment facilities. But, with the continuing global economic uncertainties and high competition for FDI among the region's countries, this would make the dream of a high income economy not possible.

The truth is that, at present, Malaysia still has to depend on being high income economies such as the US, Europe and Japan to at least maintain its middle income standing. This was clear when, a few weeks ago, Najib met Obama in the USA and also visited Japan to attract more FDI into Malaysia to counter poor investment by foreign companies. In the coming period, if the BN government cannot find ways of improving the economy, this could further provoke more social explosions on issues such as unemployment and inflation, as well as leading to tensions between the races due to an unequal distribution of wealth.

The PR state governments, as well the federal government of BN, are working under the dictates of the free market system of capitalism. Because of that, the reforms promised by the PR and their implementation in some of the state governments have been limited. Sometimes they succumb to the pressure of the business class and investors. Although the BN government says it is working to fulfill the needs of the people, in the background they are propagating the mantra of capitalism - to maximize the profits of national and international capitalists. The plan to introduce a Goods and Service Tax (GST), a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and to cut subsidies and public spending show the pressure of capitalism to further plunder the resources and labour of the working class and the poor in the country.

Genuine racial unity is not possible as long as the fundamental needs and the cultural and religious rights of all races are not equally fulfilled and respected. This will not be possible as long as the government bases its politics on fulfilling the profit needs of the elites, cronies and capitalists.

Capitalist democracy, as far as it is implemented by the BN, is used to safeguard the power and profit interests of the minority - the elites and capitalists. In a genuine democracy, the majority would participate in all planning and decision-making processes to determine that wealth and resources are equally distributed and shared according to people's needs. This requires a transformation from the current system to a system based on public ownership of the main industries, banks and land and planning of the economy to be democratically controlled and managed by elected representatives of the the majority - the working class and the ordinary people. In order to achieve this reality, we need an independent working class party that is also supported by youth and other oppressed layers in society. This party has to be clearly against the system of capitalism and armed with socialist policies to fight for democratic rights as well as the cultural, social and economic needs of the majority - the working class and others oppressed by the system - regardless of race and religion.

VOLCANOES, CHAOS AND THE CASE FOR SOCIALISM

No, we will not be able to control the eruption of volcanoes under socialism. But – we can make sure, that its effects will not lead to a chaotic situation such as we see now as a result of the eruption of a volcano in Iceland.

As an airline passenger, stranded in London and only being able to get home on my own, without any help from "my" airline or officials, one thing is very clear to me: privatization and "free competition" under capitalism lead to the catastrophic situation that tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people face all over Europe and beyond.

No international plan for help

As the transport systems are divided into national systems and, even further, into different competing companies, no international plan has been drawn up to help stranded passengers. The situation is that the overwhelming majority do not get any information from the airline they have paid a lot of money to for their tickets. People have to find out by themselves about the next steps to take or places to sleep.

In a nationalised integrated transport system, orientated to the needs of people, the situation could be handled much quicker and better. People would informed about the situation and the possibilities for alternative travel and accommodation. They would be picked up at the airports and brought to hotels quickly. It would be possible to make sure that those who have to travel get on their way as quickly as possible. But in today's capitalist system, it is those who manage to be stronger and quicker then others, and especially those who have more money, who find ways to travel – the others are just left alone.

With international planning to meet the needs of people and not profits, trains, buses and ferries could be coordinated much better then they are now. Extra wagons could be added to trains to make sure that all passengers find a place. Buses could bring people whose flights are cancelled together, either to places they can stay until their flight can take off or to the places they need to go. An international plan could make sure that the needs of people come before profits. That would mean that people and essential goods are transported before lorries carrying non-essential loads are. A nationalized transport system would mean no private companies suddenly increasing their prices to make extra profits and that stranded passengers are transported for no extra charge to their destinations.

Now, in the present crisis, passengers are totally left on their own. They do not know where to go, how to pay for the accommodation, for trains and other things.

Money is a big problem for a lot of people – it is not sure if they will get the money they have spent refunded. They have to pay out for accommodation or to continue their journey on their own. The airlines and the insurance companies will do everything possible to leave those extra costs with the passengers.

Already some airlines have explained that they will be in serious financial problems because of this volcanic eruption and that it might be necessary to bail them out through governments. This is another dirty trick of capitalist companies to use the situation for their own benefit. The crisis of the airline companies is not due to the eruption, although it definitely increases their problems, rather their problems are due to the general economic crisis.

For working people it is not only a question of the extra money passengers have had to spend being refunded. The likelihood is that this air transport crisis will produce a new wave of attacks on the wages and working conditions of the airline staff as well as an increase of flight prices in the next period. This must not be accepted by the staff and the unions, but fought against.

The current chaotic situation should be taken up by trade unions and socialists all over Europe. They should not only demand a stop to privatization, but also to go further. They should explain the need for nationalised transport systems, the need for the international planning of transportation, and the need for a different society – a socialist society where the needs of people are central, not profits.

Sonja Grusch, CWI Austria

THAILAND: RED SHIRT SUPPORTERS DEMAND NEW ELECTIONS

RED-SHIRT SUPPORTERS INVADE PARLIAMENT…THOUSANDS DEMAND DISSOLUTION AS POLITICAL CRISIS DEEPENS

The BBC World Service has reported that on Wednesday 7 April, "Thousands of Thai anti-government protesters - known as "red-shirts" – [have] marched on parliament, amid high political tension in Bangkok. The red-shirts forced MPs to call off a session and some breached security to enter parliament's grounds…"

For almost three weeks now, Bangkok streets have been overwhelmed by thousands of red-shirted supporters with a series of anti-government demonstrations and rallies. These are the largest and best organised ones since the 2006 'yellow-shirt' rallies that led to the ouster of former Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. Some estimate that between 100,000 and 150,000 people have demonstrated at the weekends to pressurise the Democrat-led coalition government of present Prime Minister Abhisit to call for new elections. This is the latest stage of the power struggle between Thaksin and the government. It has ratcheted up the tense relationship that exists between the rural population that generally supports Thaksin and the urban population that supports Abhisit and the 'Democrats'.

Democrat government under pressure

The red-shirts - formally known as the 'United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship' (UDD) – have accused Abhisit of coming to power illegitimately, with the backing of the military and the monarchy. Only new elections, they say, can "return the country to democracy". The red-shirts also launched a similar series of demonstrations from January to April last year and, at its peak, they stormed the venue of an Asian summit. Direct confrontation with the police ensued, leaving two people dead, but it was unsuccessful in pressuring Abhisit to call new elections.

Abhisit came to power in December 2008 when thousands of yellow-shirts backed by the monarchy and the military, staged a blockade at Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang airports. This led to the downfall of a government led by Thaksin's proxies. (Thaksin was in 'exile' in Dubai). Now in this conflict, once again, the Abhisit government is solidly backed by the monarchy, the military and the business community. They all have a common goal - to ensure that Thaksin as well as the opposition, Puea Thai Party that sympathises with him do not return to power. This is mainly to safeguard their wealth and power from being undermined by Thaksin's crony capitalism, as they experienced when he was in the government from 2001 to 2006.

The government has been forced to come into negotiations with the red shirt leaders to diffuse the tensions. Abhisit has proposed to dissolve parliament by the end of the year - one year ahead of schedule. This was basically to gain more time, to strengthen his position and that of the Democrat coalition government before facing the next election, by "fixing the economy, amending the constitution's election laws, approving a politically vital military reshuffle and passing the budget". Nevertheless UDD leaders have urged him to dissolve the parliament by April 12.

Last week, under pressure, the government announced a few populist measures for the rural poor such as canceling $1.3 billion worth of farmers' debts. This was a move obviously aimed at placating the protesters. However, two rounds of negotiations could not resolve the conflict. Realising that the rallies of the red-shirts have, to a certain extent, pressured the initially unperturbed Abhisit to negotiate and make certain concessions, the UDD leaders are utilising 'the first round success' to go all out and urge Abhisit to dissolve the parliament immediately.

More conflicts unfolding

Up to now, the demonstrations were peaceful, unlike the street battles seen in late 2008 and in April 2009. A dozen or so people were wounded over the weekend, including four soldiers, in the series of grenade attacks on government and army buildings. Most have been minor blasts that have not caused injuries. In the first two weeks the red shirts rallied around government and military buildings using tactics such as splashing their own blood on government buildings. But this did not much disrupt the government and business activities. It seems that the Abhisit regime is trying to buy time for a while with the hope that the protesters will go home when their enthusiasm and funding fade.

However, the protests have started to affect the tourism industries and have angered the people involved in them. Last Friday they themselves staged a demonstration in Bangkok to voice their dissatisfaction, saying: "The decline (in tourism) has reached a point where we risk losing visitors for the long-term".

Last Saturday, the red shirts has started to focus their rallies around the commercial centre and caused central roads in the capital to be blocked. Traffic halted and at least two of Thailand's biggest shopping malls were forced to close. The demonstration also prompted dozens of department stores and restaurants to close their doors to the public. On Monday, about 100 demonstrators briefly occupied the national election commission offices in Bangkok, to demand commissioners to take action against Democrat party irregularities in the last election. This and the small clash between the protesters and security forces on Tuesday at the demonstration site have further increased the tension between the protesters and the authorities.

The Thai finance minister estimated that around 10 billion baht ($312.5 million) could be lost if the protest was allowed to continue in the commercial centre for more than a week. The business class has started to worry about their profits and they insist on the government taking immediate action to resolve the conflict.

To date, both the protesters and the authorities have avoided the use of violence, but as the demonstration drags on a showdown seems likely like that in April last year. The government, with the help of the army and police, could employ stern actions against the demonstrators or utilise the ISA (Internal Security Act) that allows the prime minister to use the military to restore order if necessary, to suppress the conflict.

Nevertheless, if the red-shirts are successful in demanding new elections, it is most likely not going to change the political landscape either. In the case of new elections, it is expected that Abhisit's coalition would lose to the Puea Thai Party, the proxy for Thaksin. If this materialises, the same yellow-shirted alliance with the military and civilian elites that toppled Thaksin in 2006 and their allies in 2008 might again reject the outcome of an election that favours Thaksin's proxies and could launch their own rallies and demonstrations. That means instability would persist as long as the 'elite's war' continues.

Past political conflicts in Thailand have also shown that when the conflict becomes too intense, the military will step in to take over the government. Military coups have been staged 18 times since the advent of the constitutional monarchy in 1932. But for the time being, it has not be an option. The last military government which lasted for one year after a coup in 2006 failed to impress the local and multinational capitalists.

Another key question now, is the looming royal succession. King Bhumipol Adulyadej, the widely revered monarch, has reigned for six decades and has been an important source of legitimacy for the unelected government when the political conflict has become uncontrollable. He has been in hospital since last September and his successor, the crown prince, is widely disliked by the masses. It is believed that the alliance between the monarch, the army and the Bangkok elite is holding together only out of respect for the ailing king. If the king dies soon, this alliance could crumble. This could lead to another power struggle as the competing elites will attempt to fill the vacuum left by the king and his weak successor. This potentially could lead to more serious confrontations.

'Class war'?

Most of the red-shirts are poor farmers from rural areas in the north-east of Thailand where the former prime minister and business tycoon, Thaksin, still has popular support. He was overthrown through a military coup in 2006 and since then remains in exile. But, while the red-shirts are mainly poor farmers linked to some of Thaksin's political agenda, their reasons and aspirations for rallying in Bangkok are also due to the increasing gap between rich and poor. They accuse the government of "double standards that favour established Bangkok interests".

The UDD leaders and Thaksin have echoed these grievances and portrayed the demonstrations as, "A struggle between Thailand's impoverished, mainly rural masses -who benefited from Thaksin's policies of cheap health care and low-interest village loans and the Bangkok-based elite, insensitive to their plight". They are even proclaiming this conflict as 'class war'. It is clear that Thaksin and his proxies that have been isolated by the Democrat government are merely using the rural poor as their foot soldiers to achieve their goal to destabilise the Democrat government.

The same grievances also existed among the working and middle class people in Bangkok during the Thaksin laissez-faire regime; it hugely benefited multinationals and his own crony capitalists. The favourable economic climate in the early 2000s was used by Thaksin to realise his populist political agenda by fulfilling some of the long-term demands of the poor and landless farmers that had been neglected by previous governments including the Democrats. This is not consciously done to benefit them but for his own political survival in subsequent elections by gaining the support of the majority rural poor. At the same time, at behind the scenes he used this overwhelming support from the poor as a mask to accumulate billions of dollars for his family and his cronies.

Workers and poor farmers' party and socialist programme

It is obvious that the very nature of capitalism has created the ongoing political crisis in Thailand. It is a political clash between two elites to control the government and use this power to exploit the wealth of the country for the benefit of the crony capitalists aligned with them as well as the vultures of the multinational capitalism. The wealth disparities is growing in Thailand, in which the bottom 10% of the population only gets less than 2% of GDP, while the richest 10% gain up to 40% of GDP. This shows why the profit-oriented system of capitalism is supported by the elites in the main political parties and the army as well as the monarch.

They have been manoeuvring by dividing the poor farmers in rural areas from the working and middle class people in the urban centre, Bangkok. These manoeuvres are merely for their own political survival in power and to continuously accumulate wealth from the labour of the poor farmers and the working class. However, the poor farmers, the working class and others that have been oppressed in society for the benefit of these capitalists are now being burdened and alienated by the political crisis that has been created by these elites and capitalists.

In this situation, none of them will denounce the capitalist system that has exacerbated the class disparity and marginalised large segments of the population of poor farmers and the working class, politically, economically and socially. This shows that the red-shirted leaders are actually waging an 'elite war' for their own survival not 'class war' for the emancipation of the poor from the capitalist hegemony.

Capitalist 'democracy', created for the survival of the capitalists and their system, is also being undermined when the parties that lose an election cannot accept the outcome. It is crucial for workers and all exploited layers in society to defuse the tension between the rural poor and the urban working and middle class, but this will not be the agenda of the capitalist elites that prefer their 'divide and rule' political hegemony. In the coming period, a new movement that unites the working class, poor farmers, students and middle class is crucial to emancipate the working class and the poor farmers from the clutch of capitalism and its apologist of political elites. It needs to be based on struggle against capitalist domination that has marginalised large segments of the population.

The urbanisation and industrialisation of the 1990s pushed the rural population, especially the poor farmers, into struggles to gain their rights from the government. Notably, in 1997, a coalition of rural villagers and urban slum-dwellers from every region of Thailand staged a mass demonstration of over 25,000 people for 99 days in front of Government House in Bangkok to force the government to address their grievances, many of which involved large-scale development projects that affected their communities. At that time they came into a coalition called 'Assembly of the Poor' to fight for their rights. Ultimately this coalition ended up in NGO activism and was incapable of developing this movement politically. The fact that it did not link up the struggle of the poor farmers with that of the working class to challenge the system, left a vacuum that was opportunistically used by Thaksin to get into power.

The economic contribution of the majority of Thailand's people - the 60% rural population - is mainly through agricultural activities. This accounts for around 10% of Thai GDP. (Annual GDP per capita in Thailand is a mere $3,850.) Manufacturing, electronic and service industries - concentrated mainly in the urban centres such as Bangkok - account for 80% of GDP. This means that although in a minority, almost 40% of the working class of Thailand is playing the key role in contributing to Thailand's economy and generating the huge profits needed by the capitalist class. Although at present around 2% of workers are unionised and the laws are not favourable to them, workers' strikes and struggles are also occurring from time to time to fight against neo-liberal attacks and to demand their rights. For instance, last year in June, the railway workers in the State Railway of Thailand (SRT) labour union staged a strike to protest the restructuring of the railways organisation. This industrial action closed down rail services across Thailand and forced the government to negotiate.

Class war or class struggle in the understanding of socialists means the conflict between the working class and the capitalist class. Socialists work for emancipating the working class, and others oppressed under capitalism, through mobilizing their full force to establish a democratic socialist society – one which would utilise the wealth and resources of society for the needs of the majority through public ownership and democratic control and management. It would be a society without prejudices and oppression.

In order to realise these aspirations, the working class needs to initiate their own leadership and organisation that should be armed with socialist policies with the support of others that are oppressed by the system such as poor farmers, poor middle class layers, youths, students and others. On the other hand, such a party also needs to link the demand for democratic rights and reforms and for decent living standards to the need to transform the system. It would fight to establish a state that fulfilled the needs of workers and poor farmers and appeal for the support of the workers and poor in Southeast Asia and worldwide towards building a socialist society.

CWI demands:

• No to suppression of democratic rights and clamp-downs on the media

• Abolish any draconian law such as ISA (Internal Security Act) which suppresses the rights of the people

• No to the rule of generals and the rule of corrupt, millionaire politicians

• Total opposition to the military coup

• For a mass struggle to win full democratic rights, including workers' rights to organise, to protest, and to strike

• For independent, fighting, democratic unions and small farmers' organisations

• Trade union rights for the armed forces rank and file - win poor soldiers to the struggles of working people

• For the building of a mass workers' and poor farmers' party

• For a united struggle of workers, poor farmers, students and others oppressed by the system to overthrow the corrupt government

• For a genuine, representative Constituent Assembly

• Abolish the monarchy

• For a majority workers' and poor farmers' government

• Full rights for the oppressed Muslim population on the South of Thailand and all other minorities

• No to neo-liberal policies of privatisation and de-regulation

•Take into democratic public ownership the big business enterprises, major industries, large private land-holdings and banks

• For an economy planned to meet the needs of the working people and poor farmers, under the democratic control and management of elected committees from the working class and small farmers

• For a socialist Thailand, as part of a socialist federation throughout South East Asia

Ravichandren (CWI in Malaysia)

IRAQ: 7 YEARS ON…THE SLAUGHTER CONTINUES !

SEVEN YEARS ON, THE OCCUPATION HAS BEEN AN UNHERALDED DISASTER FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE

Whether it is current Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki or opposition leader, Iyad Allawi, that emerges triumphant from this month's elections, the outcome will be the same for the vast majority of ordinary Iraqi workers and their families – a further entrenchment of communal divisions, instability and poverty.

Seven years on, the occupation has been an unheralded disaster for the Iraqi people, with society becoming increasingly fractured along religious, sectarian and national lines to a level far removed from that which existed even under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. Tensions continue to simmer amongst the various national groupings with the Kurds in the North demanding increased autonomy with opposition from the Turkmen and Shias in the area. Turkey, just across the border, is concerned that any move towards full autonomy or independence by Iraq's Kurds could intensify demands for self-determination amongst the sizeable Kurdish minority within its own borders which it is repressing. In the rest of the country, the formerly dominant Sunni minority is becoming increasingly alienated to what it sees as Shia domination and causing a further fanning of the flames of sectarian attacks.

In fact, bombings have become so commonplace that they are rarely reported in the media anymore with estimates of between 10 – 15 attacks aimed at government officials or occupation forces occurring on a daily basis and a slew of car bombs and attacks occurring in the run up to the elections.

Despite having the world's fourth largest oil reserves, only 18% of Iraqis are happy with their supply of electricity, a reduction from 25% in 2005 according to the US Department of Defence. UNICEF estimates that 40% of children have no access to clean drinking water and access to sanitation is even lower.

At least four million people have been displaced from their homes, left living in squalor in refugee camps in Syria and Jordan or dwelling in the countless slums throughout the country. Over 60% of those that remained are living in houses that require "major rehabilitation" as a result of years of warfare and bombing.

And this is before we consider the vast destruction of human life. The number of documented civilian deaths as a direct result of the war is estimated at around 100,000 but even these figures are disputed as conservative. Some bodies such as the British medical journal, Lancet, have reported a much higher death toll with over 600,000 dead. Either way, wherever the true figure lies between these two estimates, it is nothing short of the wholesale slaughter of innocent Iraqi people.

In Fallujah, site of some of the heaviest resistance to the occupation, the brutal repression of the city has left a new scar. According to the BBC, the number of birth defects reported has seen a sharp rise. According to Dr. Ayman Qais, "Before 2003, I was seeing sporadic numbers of deformities in babies. Now the frequency of deformities has increased dramatically" with the use of Depleted Uranium and white phosphorous by coalition troops as the main suspects. This is despite the fact that Iraq had one of the most advanced healthcare systems in the region.

If this is the result of a "mission accomplished" as the banner behind George Bush stated as he declared an end to hostilities in May 2003, one dreads to consider what exactly an unaccomplished war looks like to the US ruling class.

However, as was said from the outset the war has benefited the multinationals and the vultures of world capitalism, especially the oil companies. While over a trillion dollars of US taxpayers' money has been squandered, the occupation has opened up massive profitable opportunities for big business, including the oil industry and the private military sector.

With the signing of Order 39, former chief executive of Iraq, Paul Bremer, did what no capitalist country has ever achieved – the complete privatisation of an economy. With a stroke of a pen, Bremer opened up Iraq's massive oil industry to foreign ownership. Today, 75% of this industry is controlled by the major multinationals with the right to repatriate 100% of profits. Just imagine what the investment of the huge revenues of this industry into schools, new homes, hospitals and jobs in a country where unemployment is as high as 70% in places would mean for Iraq, the birthplace of human civilisation. Instead, it is stolen from beneath the feet of ordinary people and used to line the pockets of Shell, Exxon and co.

Among the real winners of the occupation also, have been the private military contractors, with Blackwater (now called XE) the most infamous of them all. With mounting military casualties (4,379 to date) and a massive overstretching of military resources, the opportunity was ripe for the privatisers of war to offer their services. At its height, over 100,000 of these private warriors were stationed in Iraq, providing security and assistance to combat troops. Exempt from prosecution under Iraqi law, they have walked away unscathed from a slew of incidents involving the blatant murder of civilians. Between 2004 and 2007, Blackwater alone was paid nearly $1 billion for its services. This is the real face of the war on Iraq – a war subsidised by taxpayers and profited on by capitalism and one that the Irish government is complicit in, via the usage of Shannon Airport as a stopover point for the US military.

But despite the devastation, ordinary Iraqis are beginning to find their feet and fight back again. The formerly powerful trade unions of Iraq, butchered under the heel of Saddam, are beginning to flex their muscles again. At the beginning of this year, tremendous struggles of leather and textile workers took place with demands for significant wage increases. This a sign of a new era opening up for the people in Iraq, one where the fight to bring the huge natural resources of Iraq under the democratic control and ownership of the majority will see the vultures of the military and of capitalism consigned to history.

Joe Higgins MEP, CWI

 

 

HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

WOMEN AND SOCIALISM…A CENTURY OF STRUGGLE

At its very beginning, in the early 20th century, International Women's Day – the 8th of March - was a day of struggle for working women. Nowadays it has largely been hijacked by the capitalist establishment as a ceremonial and sometimes highly commercial affair. Much has happened over time, providing welcome proof that women's oppression can be fought and pushed back, but despite this, the oppression rooted in society continues. Indeed, in the past years many earlier conquests for women have been lost as a result of the crisis of capitalism.

"We did it!" exclaimed an editorial in The Economist magazine on 2 January 2010. In some way this business journal wants to celebrate that in 2010 women will account for half the labour force in the U.S. This does mark a step forward, but since when did "we" include The Economist? The rising proportion of women in the workforce is neither the result of increased welfare spending or greater male responsibility for household work. The US has the lowest level of investment in childcare and parental leave in the western world, and the state has not even signed the UN Declaration on Women's Rights. It is rather that the economic crisis has predominantly knocked out jobs in industries such as motor vehicles, so that male unemployment has risen to 11.2 percent while the female rate is 8.6 percent.

It is true that most of the new jobs in recent years have gone to women. In Europe, these account for six million of a total of eight million new jobs since the year 2000. But this reflects a form of increased exploitation of the working class as a whole. Most of these are insecure, part-time, temporary jobs involving unsocial working hours etc. that typically mean lower hourly rates of pay but more stress and illness. Capitalism has always made use of and had an interest in preserving sex discrimination, with low wages for women meaning more profits.

The last thing women's rights activists around the world can do for the 2010 International Women's Day is take a rest. The situation is very serious and the events of the last year call for an answer to the question: which way forward for women's struggle?

For the first time ever there are now over 1 billion people suffering malnutrition in the world, one in six of the human race. Women have for a long time accounted for 70 percent of the world's poor. The Asia-Pacific region has most of the world's hungry; 642 million people suffer from chronic malnutrition.

Women and girls hit first by crisis

The children's rights organisation, PLAN, identifies the following effects of the world economic crisis:

• Young women - millions of workers in the informal and export-related sectors - are the first to lose jobs. Seven out of ten workers sacked in the in the Philippines are women.
  
• The sums sent home by migrant workers – remittances – have fallen sharply and migration has been reduced. Women working in 'domestic service' abroad are returning home. The World Bank estimates that the flow of remittances to developing countries fell by 7.3 percent in 2009.
  
• Loan facilities from "micro-financing" and other projects, that were supposed to help women out of poverty by doing home-working, have decreased
  
• When the crisis hits parents' finances it is first and foremost girls who are taken from school and thrown into housework, domestic work or factories. Over 100 million girls are already working as child labourers worldwide (ILO).
  
• Infant mortality rates are increasing, and this affects girls more than boys. An estimated 50,000 more African infants died last year due to the crisis.
  
• More women and girls are trafficked and forced into the sex trade. This was the tragic outcome for many women who lost their jobs during the Asian crisis of 1997. The first "industry" to bounce back was the sex industry. In Jakarta, two to four times more women became sex-workers in the year after the crisis. Capitalism knows no boundaries when it comes to inventing new markets for its business. Everything is turned into "commodities", including bodies and emotions. A form of sex trafficking is the trade in brides. In some countries the drastic consequences of women's oppression mean that part of the female population has gone "missing" due to gender selective abortions. This is the case with the so-called one-child policy in China, where 118 boys are born to every 100 girls. 50,000 women from poorer provinces or countries are sold for marriage each year in China. More than 10,000 women are sold by families living in dire poverty in Vietnam for marriage or prostitution in China (See [link|http://www.pbs.org|www.pbs.org).
  

Whatever there is a shortage of, becomes a luxury under capitalism. Paradoxically, the phenomenon of polygamy is recurring among rich men. It happens that businessmen from Hong Kong, with constant trips to Guangdong take a second wife among that province's poor migrant workers.

Deadly toll of climate change

Women also suffer most from another major crisis which has developed as a direct result of capitalism – the climate crisis. Atmospheric warming as a result of 150 years of industrialisation, carbon emissions and pollution, will be an important theme for this year's 8 March demonstrations worldwide. According to the Women's Environment and Development Organisation, women and children run a fourteen times greater risk of dying from natural disasters than men. In the Asian tsunami of 2004, 70 to 80 percent of those who perished were women. After events like earthquakes and hurricanes, with few resources, poor women have less chance of getting aid or compensation and are at greater risk of subsequent infections when caring for the elderly and children.

Already global warming is causing a significant additional burden on women in the neo-colonial countries in particular. It is they who must walk farther and farther in search of drinking water. It is they who do much of the farm work which becomes more and more onerous in the areas affected by drought or floods.

On International Women's Day last year (2009), the militant women of the farm workers' network 'Via Campesina' expressed their anger against imperialism's deforestation and the threat to Brazil's biodiversity. In Brasilia, hundreds of women occupied the Department of Agriculture. In Rio Grande do Sul, 700 women occupied land belonging to the paper company, Votorantim Cellulose, and eucalyptus plantations were sabotaged. In other places, mining companies, sugar cane plantations, the paper multinational, Stora Enso, and large estates were occupied. In Espirito Santo thousands of women took over the harbour in Portocel and sabotaged a large amount of pulp exports. Deforestation is responsible for 20 percent of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions globally. The forests must be given protection immediately. But the failure of world leaders at the UN summit in Copenhagen means there is not even a binding agreement on measures to stop climate change.

Life under capitalism gets worse for working and poor women

For decades, the "solution" to oppression and poverty routinely served up by the world's politicians and economists has been more development of market-geared economies - more capitalism! If only the poor countries open their economies up to international capital, then in time they will reach the same living standards as in the West – such is the mantra of neo-liberalism. Nothing could be further from the truth.

With its crises, capitalism has condemned itself as a system. Global financial agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank, with a decisive role within the international capitalist system, have generally continued to demand deregulation and spending cuts in healthcare and education as conditions for providing loans to countries hit by the crisis. As if it was not deregulation that increased the exposure of these countries to the international financial crisis in the first place.

It is estimated that foreign investment in developing countries fell by a third last year. Similarly, continual reliance on market-based "solutions", such as the trade in carbon emission rights has only resulted in greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise. New attacks on already down-sized welfare systems mean that the crisis is hitting ordinary people even harder. In Ukraine, the IMF suspended its last loan payment in protest against the country's parliament deciding to raise the minimum wage by 25 per cent. In most countries of course "the minimum wage" means women's wages. In Latvia, the government has obeyed the dictates of the IMF and foreign creditors, with the result that the government sector wage bill has fallen by 40 percent, and half of the country's hospitals have been closed.

The biggest question for women in many parts of the world in the immediate future will be the struggle against truly historic cuts in welfare that governments are planning. Where they exist, publicly funded health care, elderly care, childcare, pensions, parental and sickness insurance, student grants etc., have all been very important reforms that have especially benefited working class women. Unpaid domestic work has partially been taken over by society, enabling women to take employment and become less economically dependent on men. But never before have the world's politicians been forced to adopt such massive rescue packages as last year, to save the capitalist financial system from collapse. The trillions of dollars in aid to the banks must eventually be paid back and, as long as capitalism remains, we can be sure the directors who caused the crisis will not be the ones to pay. Instead, the burden of payment will be placed on the shoulders of women, workers, the elderly, the young and the sick.

Any idea that capitalism as it develops leads to sexual equality is easily disproved by looking at the countries with 150-200 years of capitalist development. In Sweden, which ranks as one of the most equal countries and is considered to have a relatively well developed welfare sector (although this has been scaled back sharply over a period of more than two decades), women in full-time work do not earn more than 83 percent of men's wages. The labour market is extremely gender-segregated with women mostly in the public sector, where wage growth has been slowest. Sweden has the highest proportion of notified rapes per 100,000 inhabitants in Europe, and, together with Britain, tops the league for the lowest proportion of reported rapes that are prosecuted (only 13 per cent). These are clear examples of how apparently 'progressive' capitalist state perpetuates women's subordination.

Women's oppression

The oppression of women has its origin in class society which has existed for well over 5,000 years. There was a long drawn-out change from primitive communism under which land, tools, homes, were held in common by everyone to private ownership. The 'monogamous' family developed as a surplus developed in society that could be appropriated. Personal wealth, however meagre at first, needed to be protected from 'outsiders'. The family became an institution for men to control property and exercise power in society. The word "family" comes from the Latin "familia", and means "the whole number of slaves belonging to one master." In China, under the emperors, for example, the binding of women's feet was a common practise among the families of the privileged. As the proverb explained, this was "not to make them as beautiful as a curved bow, but to restrain women when they leave the home."

Capitalism is also a class society that has developed and continually adapted the oppression of women to suit its needs and the demands of modern production. In today's family, male dominance is still manifested. Women account for the vast majority of unpaid housework. This covers emotional labour - the care of children, the old, partners – and involves arduous tasks such as cooking, cleaning, laundry. The four walls of the home are often an arena for men's violence against women. Amnesty International has estimated that still at least one in three women worldwide are beaten, forced into sex, or exposed to abuse during their lifetime.

The dominance of the male in the home has long been used as a mechanism for instilling in women and children the idea of submission to authority. It has been challenged and changes have taken place in many countries but it still runs through much of society. Girls and boys have generally been brought up differently because of social pressure and surroundings. This even became a business idea of modern capitalism when the department store was born in the 19th century, and the bourgeois ideal of womanhood was created, with women made into objects. Fashion, beauty and advertising are mega industries that have a huge economic stake in perpetuating the idea that you are not a "real" woman without spending a considerable amount of time and money on "improving" your looks.

The male sex is still considered by most societies to be superior to the female, regardless of what anti-discrimination laws exist. A boy learns early in life to be proud of his gender, while a girl is supposed to hold herself back. A guy who is interested in typically "girly" things risks being called gay. Homosexuals understand early on that their sexual orientation can give them a lower status in society and make them vulnerable to attack. Around the world, words related to women and sex without love are used as swear words.

Sexual oppression haunts women in the world throughout their life and one of the most important requirements for women's struggle wherever it takes place is "the right of women to their own bodies." Rapists are driven by the idea that they are entitled to take a woman under their control. Although most men distance themselves from violent abuse, sexual harassment is something most women have experienced. When the proportion of women in the workplace falls , and when the pace of work increases, so trade unions report that sexual harassment also rises.

A woman's right to her own body also covers the right to abortion. World-wide, 70,000 women die every year as a result of unsafe abortions. 40 percent of the world's women live in countries where abortion rights are severely restricted. Even where abortion is legal, unsafe "backstreet" abortions continue to be carried out, for example in India, because, for many women, professional healthcare is too expensive. Free access to contraceptives and sanitary supplies are also important demands. In Uganda, many girls are forced to leave school when they reach the age of 13, because they cannot afford to buy menstrual products. Women are often held back psychologically not only by feelings such as fear of being raped, a sense of shame over their body, physical suffering during pregnancy and labour etc.. In rich and poor countries alike, they are often denied real sexual pleasure, which has an adverse effect on their health. (Genital mutilation through female circumcision, carried out in Europe, as well as Africa and elsewhere, is only the most gruesome illustration of this form of discrimination.)

Origins of International Women's Day

The decision to hold a yearly International Women's Day in order to strengthen the fight for all women to get the right to vote was taken in 1910. The call came from the Women's Conference of the Socialist 2nd International in Copenhagen that year, with 170 participants from 17 countries. The initiative came from Clara Zetkin who was active in the German and international labour movement. She had already for many years been the chief editor of the Socialist Women's Association's journal, Die Gleichheit (Equality), with a circulation of 112,000. She tirelessly campaigned for women to organise themselves. For male party colleagues she explained, "only in conjunction with the proletarian woman will socialism be victorious". Zetkin said that while socialists supported the bourgeois women's demands for justice, working women must organise themselves in their own organisations along class lines. This proved to be completely right. To win women's suffrage (the right to vote) required working class methods of struggle.

International Women's Day was originally known as "Working Women's Day", and was celebrated on a different date each year in the early spring. It was not until 1921 that the Communist International, once again on Zetkin's initiative, decided the date should be 8 March each year. This was also to pay due notice to the fact that the 1917 Russian Revolution had broken out on International Women's Day – 8 March (but 23 February according to the old Russian calendar). On that day, 90,000 women textile workers left the factories in a spontaneous strike for bread and peace, which then grew in scale and did not subside until the Czar was overthrown. The revolution continued and in the workers' and peasants' seizure of power in October 1917 gave a fantastic boost to workers and women around the world. Revolutionary Russia was the first country in the world to give men and women equal rights within the family, women's suffrage, the right to abortion, the right to civil (non-religious) marriage and divorce, the prohibition of sexual harassment, rights for LGBT people, and eight weeks maternity leave. The revolution introduced municipal childcare, laundries and public canteens even if the resources to maintain them were always too small.

Urgent struggle for socialism

The main lesson from the century that has passed since the first International Women's Day is that the pace of change is far too slow. We cannot afford to wait another 100 years. How many millions of women will be raped, will starve, or die from natural or climate-related disasters and wars in the meantime? The most important lesson from the past year is that we cannot have any confidence in an economic system that goes into crisis at regular intervals, and where many of the gains won through struggle are constantly being wiped out. We are not impressed that more women become directors or 'bigwigs', if this system, based on huge class differences and a majority living in poverty, continues.

Hence the need for a socialist programme for women's struggle, pointing in a revolutionary direction, for the overthrow of capitalism. In a democratic socialist society where ownership and control over the economy and state power is in the hands of the workers, the poor masses and the women, there would be ample resources to invest in effective measures that would transform women's lives. Alternative economic and social relations in a socialist society would lay the basis for eradicating sexism and rendering the idea of separate gender roles out-dated as women's oppression itself was brought to an end.

A revolution can only succeed if women are at the forefront. Last year, 2009, it was the women of Iran who were perhaps the most courageous fighters internationally. They have continued to be a large part of the mass protests against Ahmadinejad's dictatorial regime, even uncovering their heads and marching loudly in demonstrations of both sexes. Decades of anger against oppression is boiling up in Iran and the movement is far from over, but to overthrow the regime more class-based workers' struggle is needed.

Women make up at least half of the world's working class, and workers everywhere need new socialist parties, fighting trade unions and combative community movements involving working class women to take the struggle forward. We must never allow sexist attitudes among men to divide and weaken the struggle.

Despite the fact that one hundred years has passed and liberation has still not been achieved for women from their double oppression, it is inspiring that the revolutionary and socialist traditions of International Women's Day survive and continue to exercise an important influence in bringing together and strengthening those who are fighting capitalism and oppression in various parts of the world. This is needed, and is ultimately the road to victory.

Elin Gauffin, CWI