Socialist Party (Australia)

Federal Election: Major parties rejected

sp — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:24:03 +0000

SP Newsletter No.326

The August 21 Federal election has confirmed the inability of either Labor or the Coalition to convince a majority of Australian voters to support their right-wing policies. Neither party emerged with a clear mandate to govern.

Labor’s vote clearly suffered due to their inaction on climate change, scapegoating of refugees and support for discriminatory marriage laws, as well as the perceived ill-treatment of former PM Kevin Rudd. But the Liberal/National Coalition failed to convince people that they would be any better.

The majority of those who voted Labor in 2007, but not in 2010, either voted ‘informal’ or for the Greens this time around. This disillusionment in both Labor and the Coalition is an indication of a growing recognition that neither party represents the interests or values of workers and young people.

For the most part the ‘protest vote’ went to the Greens despite the ambiguity about what they actually stand for. What this points to, however, is an increasing layer of people searching for a left alternative.

The polarisation of the major parties from the needs and aspirations of ordinary people is predicated on the underlying economic instability and the need to pay back government debt. All parties - Labor, Liberal and the Greens alike - have gone to great lengths to stress the importance of achieving ‘stable government’, meaning a government capable of introducing unpopular, anti-worker austerity measures to bring the budget back into surplus. This will prove even more severe in the event of another economic downturn.

With a program of cuts to services and the shelving of desperately needed infrastructure projects on the horizon, it is clearly not enough to punish one big-business party by voting for the other, then vice-versa, in an unending cycle of disappointment and frustration. All this has led to is the continuation of pro-big business, pro-market, pro-wealthy governments attacking our rights and undermining our standards of living.

In order for workers and young people to advance our interests we need political representation of our own. Not just any alternative to Labor and Liberal, but a party unashamedly and unwaveringly on the side of ordinary people - not big-business! Only a new workers’ party, armed with a socialist program and consistently putting peoples’ needs before the pursuit of profit, can break the cycle of pro-capitalist governments loyally implementing the interests of the ruling elite.

However, this can not be achieved solely through the ballot box. The basis of a new party will come from the movements that will develop against big business and government attacks. An unstable minority government can be challenged by the coming together of people in our workplaces, schools and communities. Building this resistance is the initial step in the struggle for a socialist society where the needs of ordinary people are the priority and the wealth of society is democratically planned and used for the benefit of all.

Socialism 2010 - A weekend of discussion about a world in crisis

Venue: Trades Hall, 54 Victoria Street Carlton South, Victoria.

Friday October 1

7pm – Capitalist crisis and class struggle
Irish socialist Kevin McLoughlin will look at the effects of the economic crisis and perspectives for struggle internationally.

Saturday October 2

10am – 25 years of the Socialist Party
Stephen Jolly and Robyn Hohl will discuss the history and ideas of the Socialist Party in Australia.

1pm – Australia’s new minority government
Mel Gregson will look at the social, political and economic situation facing the new minority government. Can the relative quite last?

3.30pm – Recession and revolt in Greece
Anthony Main will look at the situation in Greece: The debt crisis, the general strikes and how people are fighting back.

7pm – SP State Election launch, Vote 1 Stephen Jolly for Richmond!
The Socialist Party will be joined by a range of community and trade union leaders to launch Stephen Jolly’s election campaign. (This function will be held at the British Crown Hotel on Smith St in Collingwood)

Sunday October 3

11am – 4pm
SP members will look at how we will build our organisation over the next year and discuss party business.

For more information or to arrange childcare or accommodation contact the SP National Office on 0396399111.

Upcoming SP meetings

The Melbourne Branch of the Socialist Party meets every Wednesday 7pm at Trades Hall on the corner of Lygon & Victoria Streets Carlton South.

Upcoming meetings include:

8/9 – SP Conference preparations
15/9 – Political crisis and floods in Pakistan
22/9 – Can a revolution be peaceful?

For more information or for details of meetings in other parts of Australia contact our National Office on 03 9639 9111.

News links:

South Africa: Public sector struggle continues
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4487

Brazil: Support the Plinio de Arruda Sampaio campaign!
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4489

Poland: 30th anniversary of Solidarnosc
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4484

Join the Socialist Party

If you agree with what you have read in our newsletter or on our website you should consider joining SP. The Socialist Party has branches in Melbourne, Sydney, Newcastle and Perth as well as members and supporters in all other states.

We are involved in trade union work and student work. We also run community, anti-war and environmental campaigns. But most of all we want to build a party that will fight to get rid of the capitalist system, the system that is at the root of all of these problems. We fight for socialism - a system that will bring an end to wars, poverty and environmental destruction. To join SP contact our National Office on 03 9639 9111 and we will send you a membership application form.

Subscribe to ‘The Socialist’ newspaper!

Support the Socialist Party by subscribing to our monthly newspaper ‘The Socialist’. Subscription rates are only $10 per year or $20 solidarity price. You will receive 11 copies per year delivered to your door every month. You will also receive our email newsletter every week and you will know that you are supporting an organisation that is at the fore of fighting against the capitalist system. To subscribe to ‘The Socialist’ contact our National Office on 03 9639 9111 and we will send you a subscription form.

Socialist Party contact details

Melbourne: Phone Anthony on 0396399111.
Sydney: Phone Gary on 0297287727.
Newcastle: Phone Samantha on 0249681545.
Adelaide: Phone David on 0883441474.
Perth: Phone John on 0894020728.
Rest of Australia: Phone our National Office on 0396399111.
Rest of the world: Phone our International Office on ++ 44 20 8988 8760.

The Socialist Party is the Australian section of the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI). The CWI is organised in over 40 countries across the world.

Neither big business party given mandate to govern

sp — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:45:52 +0000

SP Newsletter No.325

The Australian Federal election held on August 21 delivered a hung parliament – the first in 70 years. Neither the Labor Party led by Julia Gillard nor the Coalition led by Tony Abbott won the 76 seats required to form a government. The result is both a reflection of the lack of enthusiasm people have towards the two major parties and a reflection of the uncertain future that faces Australian capitalism.

With Labor sweeping to power in 2007, and Australia’s seeming avoidance of the worst of the economic crisis, many people are asking how Labor’s fortunes could have turned around so quickly.

At the time of writing Labor had won 71 seats in the House of Representatives with the Coalition also winning 71. Independents have won 4 seats while the Greens won their first lower house seat in Melbourne. With 3 seats still undecided horse trading is now underway to determine who can cobble together a minority government.

Labor punished

Big swings were recorded against the Labor Government particularly in the states of Queensland and New South Wales. Overall Labor’s primary vote fell more than 5% to 38% while the Coalition increased their vote slightly (1.9%) recording almost 44% of the first preference vote. The Greens polled the highest ever vote for a minor party with 11.5%. After preferences Labor leads slightly on a two party preferred basis.

In New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland (QLD) voters punished Labor partly because of deeply unpopular Labor State Governments. In both states these governments have embarked on privatisation programs. In NSW the government is seen as particularly corrupt. In Queensland voters were also clearly angered by what they saw as the undemocratic ousting of former Queensland based Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

Added to these regional factors was a mood of general disappointment with Federal Labor. Since 2007 the Labor government back flipped on a number of key election promises. They have refused to act on climate change, kept the vast majority of John Howard’s anti-worker laws and continued to scapegoat refugees.

At the same time most people have underlying concerns about the state of the economy. Despite what the major parties say, the economic situation is still very fragile. With the federal budget in deficit both Labor and the Coalition have maintained the need for austerity measures to “bring the budget back to surplus by 2013”. Many people correctly saw this as an attempt to make workers pay for the downturn, hence the “neither of the above” attitude expressed on election day.

Voter disillusionment was also shown in the high number of ‘informal’ and ‘donkey’ votes. Voting is compulsory in Australia so rather than staying home many people go to the polling booths and deliver a blank or ruined ballot paper. In this election more than 600,000 people voted informal – more than 5.3%. In working class electorates the result was even higher.

Swing to the Greens

The Greens were the only party to substantially increase their vote in this election. Almost 1.2 million people voted Green - an increase of 3.7% compared to 2007. In the upper house the party looks set to increase their number of Senators from five to nine, thereby holding the balance of power.

Most of the primary votes lost by Labor went to the Greens. Thousands of young people, sections of the middle class and even a layer of workers voted for the Greens on the basis that they presented a program that was to the left of the major parties.

They called for urgent action on climate change, a more humane refugee policy and an end to the ban on same-sex marriage. Even on industrial relations their policy was far superior to Labor’s and this helped them secure support from a few trade unions including the Victorian Electrical Trades Union.

While the Socialist Party has significant differences with the Greens, we view their election results in a positive light. It shows that important layers of the population are looking for a more progressive alternative to the major parties. The question that remains, however, is will the Greens be able to deliver?

Unfortunately the Greens do not have an economic or political alternative to the major parties. They support the capitalist system albeit with a friendlier face. Their failure to articulate an alternative to the profit-driven system means that when they get into positions of power they cave into the pressures of big business. This has been seen in Germany, Ireland, Tasmania and on several local councils across Australia.

While it looks certain that the Greens will have the balance of power in the Senate they are hampered by the fact that the two big parties share general agreement on most significant policy issues.

Big business anguish

Big business has expressed its disappointment with the election outcome through the pages of the capitalist press. They had hoped for a ‘stable government’ that could restore investor confidence by moving quickly towards implementing the austerity measures required to bring the budget back into surplus.

Given the fact that the two major parties and the Greens all agree on the need to be “responsible managers of the economy” it will still be possible for cuts to be delivered. The problem for big business is that the process is now much more complicated and if we do see another downturn in the economy the ability for the government to act decisively has been diminished. It is not ruled out that an early election could be called in an attempt to break any deadlocks that arise.

From the point of view of big business profits this is an unstable outcome for the Australian ruling class. However, this does not mean that ordinary people should be complacent. With the US still mired in recession, and with the sovereign debt crisis in Europe and China facing an uncertain future, it is still probable that the world economy will experience a double-dip recession.

While Australia was not hit with the full effects of the crisis in 2008, it is unlikely that will be the case a second time around. With the budget in deficit, and a potentially unpredictable parliament, it will be much more difficult for further stimulus measures to be introduced. Capitalist parties and Independents of all stripes will be forced to offload the economic problems onto working people.

New workers party needed

If nothing else this election has shown that the two major parties are really one and the same. During the campaign they both engaged in a race to the right - each trying to prove to big business that they would be the best defenders of the profit driven system. There is clearly a desperate need for a party that stands for the interests of ordinary people.

Workers and young people need to be prepared for the attacks that are on the agenda. Regardless of the make up of the government that gets cobbled together its main priority will be bringing the budget back to surplus. This will inevitably involve cuts in the areas of health, education and welfare. Mass struggles will be required to stop these attacks.

While the make up of the government is an important consideration, we need to remember that most important decisions in society are not made in parliament but in big business board rooms. Real power lies at the point of production and real change is achieved through the mass mobilisation of ordinary people.

Upcoming SP meetings

The Melbourne Branch of the Socialist Party meets every Wednesday 7pm at Trades Hall on the corner of Lygon & Victoria Streets Carlton South.

Upcoming meetings include:

1/9 – The life and politics of James Connolly
8/9 – SP National Conference preparations
15/9 – Political crisis and floods in Pakistan
22/9 – Can a revolution be peaceful?

For more information or for details of meetings in other parts of Australia contact our National Office on 03 9639 9111.

News links:

Chile: Miners found alive!
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4475

South Africa: Government threatens right to strike…
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4465

Hungary: Saying ‘NO’ to the IMF?
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4468

Join the Socialist Party

Subscribe to ‘The Socialist’ newspaper!

Socialist Party contact details

The Socialist Party is the Australian section of the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI). The CWI is organised in over 40 countries across the world.

New introduction to The Transitional Programme

sp — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 04:57:39 +0000

Trotsky’s key 1938 work shows rich application of the method of Marxism

On the 70th anniversary of the death of Leon Trotsky, on 21 August 1940, Peter Taaffe examines one of the great revolutionary key texts, ’The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth Intenational’, also known as the Transitional Programme, and its relevance today.

By Peter Taaffe, General Secretary of the Socialist Party (CWI England & Wales)

Here unfolds before us in all its richness the application of the method of Marxism to the historical tasks of the workers’ movement. It was written in 1938 in preparation for the Second World War and its revolutionary consequences for the working class worldwide. But the approach adopted – despite some of the demands not yet being fully applicable today in all situations – is very ‘modern’ and relevant to the struggles of the workers’ movements today.

While it is described as a ‘programme’, it is not strictly this. It does, in fact, combine programmatic demands of the most important kind with necessary comment, points on perspectives for capitalism and the labour movement which could have been written today. Take Trotsky’s characterisation of the capitalists in 1938 who were “tobogganing towards disaster with their eyes closed”. Is this not an apt description of the capitalists and their spokespersons and commentators who virtually, to a man and woman, hurtled towards the current economic crisis “with their eyes closed”?

Capitalists fall out over crisis

A few capitalist commentators, such as Nouriel Roubini, arrived empirically at the same conclusions as the Socialist Party and the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) that a serious crisis loomed. But they, alongside Marxists, were considered to be ‘anachronisms’ in the era of the neo-liberal paradigm. Capitalism – based on production for profit and not need – was the best system possible, described by Francis Fukuyama as the “End of History”. Now, faced with the greatest economic crisis for 70 years – the president of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, says it is the worst since the First World War – the capitalists swing violently from one ineffective short-term expedient to another.

Fearful of a repetition of the 1930s ‘Great Depression’, capitalist governments bailed out the banks and the financial system in a colossal exercise in ‘state capitalism’. This represented in the US, Britain and elsewhere de facto nationalisation of big sections of the banking sector. It was a state rescue of the debts of failed private financial moguls. This then became a burden on the state and, indirectly, on the masses, which is now being paid for with massive cuts, wage freezes and a rise in unemployment, with a tendency for this to become permanent. Already, the US has 30 million unemployed. Officially 10% of the labour force is out of work but taking into account those who have dropped out of work, forced into part-time from full-time jobs, it is twice that level. Europe exhibits the same tendency with an average of 9-10% unemployment across the continent. It is double that figure in Spain with 35% of the youth also unemployed and the situation is destined to become worse.

Frightened by the suddenness and depth of the crisis, the capitalists came together with emergency state measures. But again, as Trotsky explained: “Growing unemployment, in its turn, deepens the financial crisis of the state and undermines the unstable monetary systems.” Is this an almost perfect description of the crisis now unfolding over the so-called ‘sovereign debt’? The bloated state deficits of European, Japanese and American capitalism are, in the main, consequences of two factors: the rise of unemployment and the state taking over the private debts of the capitalists. Yet it is the working class that is called upon to pay the price for this.

Explosive events unfolding against cuts

But the masses, particularly the most advanced combative layer, are refusing to accept the diktats, in effect the dictatorship, of the capitalist ‘markets’. In Greece, six general strikes have taken place this year. The situation is compared, both by the representatives of the capitalists and of the more far-sighted sections of the workers’ organisations, particularly in the ranks of the Marxists, with the explosive, almost revolutionary situation that opened up in Argentina between 1999 and 2002. Greece is not an exception; Spain threatens to follow suit as does Portugal. France is not far behind as the parliamentary Bonapartist Sarkozy tries once more to savage the social gains of the French working class. The three governments in Spain, Greece and Portugal share one similar characteristic – they are ‘social democratic’. In reality, they are now capitalist parties but seek to distinguish themselves from the open right-wing parties as more ‘radical’ capitalist formations.

But all the governments of Europe, as well as Japan and the US, are under the same siege, the unbending pressure to cut the living standards of the working class as a precondition for restoring the economic health of the capitalists. In fact, the ‘cure’ threatens to aggravate the disease. Cuts are necessary in order to mollify the ‘markets’, a handful of bond traders who hold governments and whole peoples to ransom. Even the mighty economic powerhouse of Europe, Germany, has seen its government – led by Angela Merkel and her Christian Democrats in coalition with the right-wing Free Democrats – compelled to accede to this pressure with €80 billion cut. From being hailed only a matter of months ago as the Thatcher of Germany and Europe, she is now characterised by German magazine Spiegel as a “Trummerfrau, a reference to German women who cleared away the rubble after Second World War bombings. It painted a picture of a woman presiding over a government in ruins and used its title page to request the government in one word to ‘Aufhören!’, or stop.” [Guardian, 15 June 2010]

But no sooner has the savage policy of deflation and cutting state deficits been adopted than other voices from within the capitalist camp point to the deleterious consequences which would flow from that policy. For instance, David Blanchflower, ex-member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, says that the measures adopted by the new coalition government in Britain threaten an additional three quarters of a million unemployed. Obama, on behalf of US capitalism, took the unprecedented step of publicly differing from the European capitalists’ ‘cut, cut, cut’ policy. ‘Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad’. In Britain and in the world in which there is a deficiency of ‘demand’, the ‘solution’ preferred by the capitalists and their governments is to cut the incomes of the working class. The ‘ConDem’ coalition in Britain has introduced tax increases – an increase in Value Added Tax and direct taxes – a public-sector wage freeze, the savaging of the welfare state, etc. This will undoubtedly deepen the crisis.

Keynesians at odds with financial speculators

But the other path, urged by the pro-Keynesian camp of ‘benign neglect’ of the deficit, threatens a strike of capital, a refusal by the ‘bond wolf pack’ to buy state debt, a road already trodden by Greece. That country’s state debt has been reduced to the ratings level of junk bonds; flowing from this is national bankruptcy, defection or eviction from the euro area and an ever-greater spiral into poverty for Greece and its people. There is no easy road for capitalism from the blind alley that it faces.

Trotsky again described features present today when he declared: “Mankind’s productive forces stagnate. Already new inventions and improvements fail to raise the level of material wealth. Conjunctural crises under the conditions of the social crisis of the whole capitalist system inflict ever heavier deprivations and sufferings upon the masses.” A perfect description of the situation beginning to take shape in Britain and worldwide! But the understanding of this process on the part of the working masses, what Marxists call the ‘political consciousness’, the understanding of the working class, lags behind the real objective situation that exists. The tasks of Trotsky’s work were, through the programme sketched out and through the experiences of the masses, to help them to understand capitalism and therefore their real situation. The aim was to reach first of all the most politically-developed sections of the working class and then the mass of working people. It was no accident that this programme was advanced at the time it was.

History of the Transitional Programme

The Transitional Programme was written by Trotsky in 1938, in preparation for the coming world war and the social upheavals which would result from this. In the whole preceding period, and particularly after the victory of Hitlerite fascism in Germany, Trotsky had predicted the inevitability of the Second World War. Out of the ashes of this world conflagration would come an irresistible revolutionary uprising of the working class in the capitalist states against imperialist barbarism which would be paralleled by the revolt of the Russian workers against the monstrous regime of Stalinism. Trotsky anticipated that the revolutionary wave which would issue from the war would even put in the shade the revolutionary convulsions which followed the First World War and the victory of the working class in Russia in 1917. This in turn would shatter the old organisations of the working class – “not one stone upon another of the old Internationals would be left standing” – out of which would crystallise new mass revolutionary organisations and a new mass Fourth International. The Transitional Programme was conceived as the means of creating and arming mass organisations.

There were not a few, then and today, who dismissed this prognosis, together with the transitional programme, as an example of Trotsky’s ‘revolutionary exaggeration’. And yet Trotsky’s perspective was in one respect borne out to an even greater extent than even he could have foreseen. From 1943 to 1947 a revolutionary wave swept over Europe which threatened the rule of capital. The mere announcement that Mussolini had been replaced by Badoglio – Lucifer for Satan – by the Fascist Grand Council in 1943 was enough to bring millions of Italian workers out onto the streets. This opened the floodgates of revolution in Italy. Similarly, the French workers rose in Paris in 1944 to smash the Nazi occupation forces while the troops of American imperialism and de Gaulle’s ‘Free French’ were 50 miles from Paris. Fearing a new version of the Paris Commune, de Gaulle was rushed to Paris to be filmed by the news cameras, thus fostering the legend that he was the ‘liberator’ of the city. In Britain also, the conviction of workers, particularly the troops, to never again return to the mass unemployment and misery of the 1930s swept the Labour government to power in 1945.

In Africa, Asia and Latin America the colonial peoples set in motion a movement which resulted in the retreat of imperialism from at least direct domination of these areas. In Eastern Europe also, revolutionary uprisings followed the flight of the quisling capitalists – who had collaborated with the Nazi invaders – and the advance of the Red Army. But even the most revolutionary theory cannot anticipate all developments. Trotsky did not foresee, and indeed, could not foresee, that the social democratic and Stalinist leaders would be able, in the immediate aftermath of the war, to provide the necessary breathing space for capitalism to recover from the devastation.

Capitalism was saved in Western Europe by the social democratic and Stalinist leaders who entered capitalist governments and undertook to rescue the system from collapse. In Italy the Stalinists and socialists entered a series of popular front governments, even attempting to screen King Victor Emmanuel, Mussolini’s benefactor, from the anger of the masses. Their French cousins did the same, with ‘Communist’ ministers like Maurice Thorez sitting in the government that bombed Madagascar and re-occupied Indochina (later Vietnam), which in turn set in train the 30-year horror of the Vietnam war.

The social-democratic and Stalinist leaders laid the political preconditions for the recovery of capitalism from the devastation of the war. From 1947 onwards the conditions sketched out by Trotsky were thus not present, in the advanced capitalist world at least. Trotsky had spoken and written about the incapacity of capitalism to give large-scale or lasting reforms. The struggle for reforms, and even to defend the gains of the past, was bound up with the idea of socialist revolution, he maintained.

But the beginnings of the world upswing – the causes of which have been sketched out many times by the Marxists in Britain – allowed significant concessions to be granted to the working class. Twenty per cent of industry was nationalised in Britain; true, only those industries which had been ruined by the capitalists, who received lavish compensation into the bargain. The National Health Service, one of the most important reforms, was introduced, which put hospital and health care in reach of millions for the first time. Similar reforms were introduced in education, social services, housing, etc. Undoubtedly, the absolute living standards of the working class began to rise (one of the factors being a big increase in overtime working and women going out to work). Rather than undermining the reformist leadership of the mass workers’ organisations this led to a temporary consolidation of their position.

Today’s crisis and consciousness

Leon Trotsky also wrote during the 1930s’ crisis: “The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterised by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat.” However, the difference today and then is that it is not just a crisis of leadership that we face but also of organisation, or a lack of it of the working class, as well as a clear programme. This is a consequence of the move towards the right in the aftermath of the collapse of Stalinism in the early 1990s by the leadership of the workers’ parties – such as the Labour Party in Britain – and the trade union leadership. Socialism was relegated to the margins and even the class struggle was conjured away by the ‘miracle’ of the 1990s’ boom until its exhaustion in 2007. The present economic, social and political situation is unprecedented in its scope.

Never in history has the gap – the ‘scissors’ – between the objective situation of capitalism in crisis and the outlook of the working class, its absence of organisation, particularly political mass parties, been so evident. Given the relentless propaganda barrage, the reality of neo-liberal policies over 30 years and the absence of a political and economic alternative, it is inevitable that there is still, despite the severity of the crash, a residual acquiescence to the ‘market’, even amongst the working class. Many are stunned by the economic collapse. There is even a lingering view amongst many workers that the present crisis is temporary, that it will all be over soon and we can then return to the sunny, economic uplands. This is reinforced by right-wing, timid trade union leaders who seek to hold back the legitimate class anger of workers. Therefore, while demanding a democratic, socialist planned economy, as a crowning idea in the programme of socialists and Marxists, it is necessary to put forward fighting transitional demands in the current situation. This is vital if the confidence of the working class is to be built for the trials ahead.

In pre-1914 social democracy, such an approach – the transitional method – was considered unnecessary. Its programme was divided between a maximum programme, the idea of socialism, and a minimum day-to-day programme. That decisively changed with the onset of the First World War which led to the revolutionary explosions in Russia and the mass struggles and revolutionary waves which detonated in the aftermath of the 1917 revolution throughout Europe and the world. In this changed situation, the struggle for basic reforms and even the defence of past gains came up directly against the limits of the system of capitalism itself. The Bolsheviks therefore formulated a transitional programme as a bridge – taking into account the day-to-day demands of the working class – proceeding from the existing level of consciousness to the idea of the socialist revolution. This was necessary even during the Russian revolution because of the differing and changing outlooks of the different sections of the working class. This was summed up in Lenin’s wonderful pamphlet, ‘The Threatening Catastrophe and How to Avoid It’. Following in Lenin’s footsteps, Trotsky formulated for the revolutionary Fourth International the Transitional Programme: ‘The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International’.

But today, even in France, which with Greece is still politically in the vanguard of the workers’ movement in Europe, there are important differences in the outlook of the French working class between 1968 and now. Paradoxically, the economic situation is far worse for capitalism today than it was in 1968 when the greatest general strike in history took place against the background of a continuing boom. Then, there was a broad socialist and even a revolutionary consciousness amongst workers and students. Given what has transpired in the last three decades combined with the capitulation of the leaders of the workers’ organisations to capitalism, the mood is initially bound to lag behind that of 1968. There is a mixed outlook and political confusion.

There is, undoubtedly, generalised bitter class hatred throughout the advanced capitalist countries for those who are seen as the main authors of the present economic catastrophe, namely the financiers and bankers. Semi-public trials have unfolded in the British parliament and US Congress. But this has not as yet developed into a broad, pronounced anti-capitalist consciousness. It is therefore necessary to take up the partial demands of the working class both at the level of wages and conditions but also involving governmental action or inaction. The capitalists have allowed the state to step in to rescue them through massive bailouts. They can accept state rescue, so long as it is then run completely along capitalist lines and with the prospect of returning the ‘nationalised’ industries in the future to the very same private interests which ruined them in the first place.

Consequently, even the demand for nationalisation is not as popular as in previous periods. However, through experience, this idea has gained support in Greece as the banks, financiers and bond markets are seen as having brought the country to its knees. But experience of partial nationalisation in Britain and de facto in the US has perhaps temporarily alienated mass public opinion. The boards of these partially nationalised companies remain unreconstructedly capitalist in character, for example the payment of large bonuses to the top bankers who still continue to run them. There were no celebrations when the state stepped in similar to those which greeted the taking over of the mines in 1948 by the Labour government of the time, with the flying of red flags and big hopes of a better future for the working class. Northern Rock’s state takeover was ‘celebrated’ with increased repossessions of homes, the sacking of thousands of workers and lavish bonuses for the capitalist crew who remain in charge of this and other banks. This is a form of state capitalism, not a step in the direction of socialism, as advocated by even reformist socialists in the Labour Party in the past.

The need for democratic planning

Yet the ‘market’ offers no real alternative to the state sector as the current ConDem coalition in its vicious 2010 ‘emergency’ Budget seems to think. In Britain in 1999, for instance, two thirds of jobs created were not in the much-vaunted ‘entrepreneurial’ private sphere but in the state sector. That remains the case today. This itself is an expression of the bankruptcy of capitalism. Moreover, the structures in private industry are not at all an example of the ‘meritocracy’ beloved of the upholders of the market. So convulsive have been the effects of the crisis that more and more capitalist writers have revealed the real character of the ‘private sector’, of the conditions and management which are such an intrinsic part of neo-liberalism. One writer in the Observer compared the structure of big business – including British Telecom, which the previous New Labour government, it has been leaked, had contingency plans to renationalise in the event of its collapse – to more of a mirror image of Stalinism than a prettified picture of an ideal capitalist firm. They are “zombie-like…and [had a] strategic similarity” with Stalinism. [‘Inside every chief exec, there’s a Soviet planner’, Simon Caulkin, The Observer, 15 February 2009.]

Rather rudely, he also declared of management: “With their faces towards the [chief executive officer] and their arses towards the customer” most managers are more concerned with earnings targets than producing a worthwhile product. The world’s most efficient, conventionally managed corporation, General Electric, “spends 40% – that is, $60 billion – of its revenues on administration and overheads… The managers of large western corporations have much more in common with the apparatchiks of the command economies than is recognised”. How much cheaper and efficient it would be to take over these firms, establish a system of workers’ control and management, and install a socialist planned economy!

Bridging the gap

The need for a transitional programme in this era arises from the mixed consciousness of working-class people. This consciousness will be shaken and changed by the march of events. But the development of a rounded-out socialist consciousness, firstly of the most politically developed layers and then of the mass of the working class, can also be enormously facilitated by a transitional approach and programme. This provides a bridge from the consciousness of working people today to the idea of socialist change. Sectarians have no need for such a bridge because they have no intention of passing over from the study, armchair or sideline to engage with the working class and, together with it, helping to change consciousness and increasing identification with socialism.

We have entered an entirely new period for the working class of Britain, Europe and the world. Obama in the US and Brown’s New Labour government managed to put a partial cushion under capitalism through the stimulus programmes. But this in turn, as we have now seen, has created a new problem: ‘sovereign debt’. The world economy will consequently experience anaemic growth with the stubborn maintenance of mass unemployment. This, like fatty tissue in the body, is a symptom of a declining organism. Capitalism, however, will not disappear from the scene of history automatically. It is necessary to forge a powerful mass weapon which can provide the helping hand for this failed system to make way for socialism.

Without such an approach, there is the danger that it will not be immediately evident to working people, even faced with economic catastrophe, that socialism is the alternative. Indeed, because a mass socialist alternative and party has not yet been established, the far right has been able to occupy the political vacuum in a number of countries in Europe. It is necessary to combat the far right but also to skilfully use events to make the case for socialism to working-class people.

In the car industry, for instance, where wages were slashed at the beginning of the crisis due to mass layoffs and short-time working, there was an instinctive understanding by workers that there was ‘no market’ for their present products. But, given the high technique and skill that exists, it would take very little to convert the car industry, faced with massive overproduction and a glut, to the production of useful goods, including green, environmentally-friendly vehicles. These are urgently needed for the world’s population, in the context of a sustainable, environmentally-friendly transport system. Such a switch in production was achieved at the outbreak of the Second World War – in this case from peaceful production to products for war. It would be much easier today to switch production to environmentally friendly and useful goods.

The gap between the increasingly worsening objective situation and the consciousness of the working class will close in the next period. Events – and explosive events at that – will help to ensure this. On the edge of an abyss, the mass of workers will confront the capitalist system – sometimes without a clear idea of what can be put in its place. The journey to a socialist and revolutionary consciousness can, however, be shortened considerably if the working class embraces the transitional method and a transitional programme linking day-to-day struggles with the idea of socialism.

Demands flow from the ‘collective experience’ of the working class

The opponents of Marxism picture transitional demands as ‘impossible’, as ‘utopian’, ‘lacking in realism as to what can be achieved’ etc. The first thing to note is that the transitional demands elaborated by Trotsky have been raised by the working class at one time or another in the course of their struggles. He pointed out in discussions with his American followers: “I want to emphasise that it is not one man’s invention, that it comes from long collective experience.”

Trotsky anticipated the argument that the demands he outlined were ‘utopian’ when he wrote: “‘Realisability’ or ‘unrealisability’ is in the given instance a question of the relationship of forces, which can be decided only by the struggle”. He elaborated further: “Revolutionaries always consider that the reforms and acquisitions are only a by-product of the revolutionary struggle. If we say that we will only demand what they can give… the ruling class will only give one-tenth or none of what we demand. The more extended and militant the spirit of the workers, the more is demanded and won.”

This is the approach which Militant (now the Socialist Party) used in the successful mass battle in Liverpool between 1983 and 1987, and also in the epic poll tax battle. In both instances, the Thatcher government was defeated. In the poll tax struggle, 18 million people refused to pay the tax which defeated it and consigned Thatcher herself to the scrapheap.

It is not excluded that under certain conditions some transitional demands can be achieved by the working class. Thus in Germany in 1918 and in Spain in 1936 the proletariat won, for a time, the eight-hour day. Today it is possible that the 35-hour week without loss of pay can be won by the working class in Britain and Europe if it throws its full weight into the struggle. In these conditions the bourgeoisie can retreat under the onslaught of the masses and grant concessions. But these gains would invariably be of a temporary character unless the working class uses its power to effect socialist change. The French workers won the 35-hour week and yet the Sarkozy government has, in effect, taken it back. We do not counterpose transitional demands to the day-to-day struggles of the working class. On the contrary, we are the best fighters for these demands. But unlike the reformists, we point out the limitations of these gains on the basis of capitalism: “By means of the struggle, no matter what the immediate practical successes may be, the workers will come to understand the necessity of liquidating capitalist slavery.”

Take the demand for massively increased state expenditure to soak up unemployment. In the past, this was a cornerstone of the programme of the main left-reformist current within the labour movement in Britain. The Marxists also inscribe on their banner the demand for a useful programme of public works on hospitals, housing, schools, etc. Capitalist governments are moving in the opposite direction today. All the past gains of the ‘welfare state’ itself face their greatest threat for 60-70 years. But the reformists created the illusion that such a programme was entirely possible within the framework of capitalism. The Marxists, on the other hand, while energetically fighting for this demand, stress to the working class that this cannot be fully met and sustained by a system racked by crisis. Increased state expenditure can be financed either through taxes on the capitalists or on workers and the middle class. If it is through the former method then the capitalists will not have the necessary wherewithal to invest and will go on a “strike of capital” which will result in factory closures and a consequent rise in unemployment. What is gained on the swings will be lost on the roundabout. If it is by the second method then it will mean a cut in the market with the same result. If on the other hand, it is covered by the government resorting to the printing press by printing pound notes – which they did at the onset of this crisis – without the backing of increased production of goods, then it will eventually lead to a rise in inflation which will also have the same effect as the other methods. Thus what is given with one hand will be taken back by the other: “Every serious demand of the proletariat and even every serious demand of the petit-bourgeoisie inevitably reaches beyond the limits of capitalist property relations and the bourgeois state.”

Democratic demands

Marxists fight for even the most partial, reformist demands of the working class as well as those of a democratic character. One example of this arose over the mass revulsion of the fraudulent use of parliamentary expenses in Britain in 2009. The Socialist Party intervened in the ferocious debate which arose with clear demands for greater democracy, including for parliament, for the British people. We wrote:

“The Socialist Party stands for the establishment of a democratic socialist society and a democratic workers’ state managed and controlled at all levels by working-class people.” But we recognised that the mass of the British people accept and support the concept of democracy, including parliament, in a general sense. We have in Britain a capitalist democracy, in which the working class can say what they like - and even this is attacked by the ’surveillance society’ - so long as the big capitalists and their political representatives make the real decisions.”

We argued: “The answer to the present undemocratic situation is not to do away with representative institutions like parliament but to introduce a more generous democracy, an expansion of the means of involving the mass of the people in the formulation and implementation of decisions with direct control over their representatives. This would mean in the first instance in Britain the abolition of the House of Lords (read ’frauds’) and the monarchy. These institutions have been kept in reserve not for decorative or historical reasons but as possible weapons to use against a radical parliament and government in the future that threatened the power of big business.”

We called for “a single assembly… which would combine legislative and executive powers. This should be elected by a widening of the electoral franchise, particularly by drawing in young people by giving them the vote at 16. Electing MPs for four or five years on bloated salaries inevitably leads to the situation that has presently scandalised the British people… Elections conducted every two years would be an advantage over the present five-year period. Yet even a shorter term for parliament, even for a year - like the Chartists’ demand in the nineteenth century - would not overcome the glaring absence of day-to-day control over parliamentary representatives which this crisis has revealed. A big step forward would be MPs elected through democratically convened and elected local assemblies, constantly subject to the scrutiny and, if necessary, the immediate recall by their constituents who elect them…

“MPs should also receive no more than the average wage of a skilled worker. It is significant that this demand, which has formed a central plank in the programme of the Socialist Party (up to now, for the labour movement but now relevant for MPs as a whole), is now finding an echo in sections of the capitalist press.”

The demand for a ‘general strike’

A current problem for the labour movement today is ultra-leftism, a scourge of the workers’ movements in many countries in Europe and internationally. In Greece there are 40 ‘left organisations’, 15 of them ‘quite large’, and which have had a bad effect on mass demonstrations on the urge for unity amongst workers, etc. There are also anarchist and semi-anarchist moods. Lenin himself pointed out that ultra-leftism, sectarianism, is a product in the main of the opportunism of the leaders of the mass workers’ parties. The complete desertion of these leaders to the side of the capitalists has reinforced the impatience of a layer of young people – largely middle class but even including some sections of working-class youth – who have swung over to the ideas of anarchism or semi-anarchism. The legacy of Stalinism and bureaucratic ex-social democracy repelled these layers from seeking an organised expression for their discontent in political parties. But ultra-left methods remain an impediment to reaching the working class and mobilising it in action.

Linked to this is the issue of the general strike. Because of the scale of the attacks on a continent-wide level, a general strike is now implicit in practically every country in Europe. But ultra-left groups can pose the question of an immediate unlimited general strike. When in Britain between 1970 and 1974 an unlimited general strike was raised within the labour movement, we pointed out, however, that a general strike posed the issue of power before the working class. A painstaking accounting of all the conditions for the success of such a strike needs to be undertaken before putting forward such a slogan. A small section of workers was demanding an unlimited general strike – without understanding all the consequences – but the mass of the working class was clearly not ready for such a slogan. The demand that best corresponded to the feelings of workers for action against the Tory government at that stage was a one-day general strike. Following the jailing of the ‘Pentonville Five’ dockers’ leaders in 1972, the threat of such action was even raised by the TUC. A 24-hour stoppage of work accompanied by demonstrations, meetings and explanation would have marked an enormous step forward for the working class. It would have allowed it to feel its power as a class and prepared it for the next stage of the struggle. It would also have had tremendous consequences for class relations and resonated powerfully within the labour movement. The General Council made the call only when there was no possibility of it being carried out (due to the assurances from the government that the dockers would be released).

Factory committees and the shop stewards movement

In formulating this programme, Trotsky gave particular attention to the crucial issue of the trade unions and their connection with ‘factory committees’. Trotsky did point to the possible development of factory committees as organs of struggle which could embrace those workers, particularly the most oppressed strata, whom the trade unions were normally unable to attract. But it is wrong to just repeat Trotsky’s phrases by rote without understanding his method and without moreover recognising at each stage the changes which have taken place since the transitional programme was first written. Trotsky wrote: “Trade unions, even the most powerful, embrace no more than 20 to 25% of the working class, and that predominantly the most skilled and better paid layers.” Yet the membership of the trade unions in Britain in the post-war boom reached more than 12 million, which was over 50% of the labour force.

Alongside strengthening of the official apparatus of the trade unions developed the shop stewards, numbering about 250,000 in Britain, and the stewards’ combine committees. What were these if not the ‘factory committees’ mentioned by Trotsky in the transitional programme? Trotsky wrote: “From the moment that the committee makes it appearance, a factual dual power is established in the factory”. The development of the shop stewards’ movement in Britain and in other advanced capitalist countries undoubtedly led, if not to the “factual dual power” which Trotsky speaks of, then to the elements of dual power in the factories. The workers through these organisations exercised the right to veto management decisions sometimes controlling the right of hiring and firing, the amount of overtime worked, canteen facilities, etc. And yet hidebound sectarian grouplets counterposed their mythical ‘factory committees’ to the already existing shop steward committees. With the weakening of the trade unions in the last 20 years – membership stands at only 27% at the moment in Britain – ‘factory committees’ could be thrown up, particularly when sudden explosive events take place. In the Vestas occupation in the Isle of Wight, most workers were initially not in a union. Therefore, they improvised their own ‘factory committee’. If the struggle had succeeded in keeping the factory open, then this would have probably been an episode towards strengthening unions inside the factory.

Workers’ control and management

Another issue which led to a one-sided approach was the demands for workers’ control and workers’ management. In the past, these issues were widely discussed in the British labour movement and will be in the future. The slogan of workers’ control over production relates particularly and in general to the same period as the creation of ‘soviets’. Special conditions therefore have to exist in a pre-revolutionary period for such slogans to take on flesh under capitalism. Workers’ control is a transitional measure under the conditions of intense class war and is conceivable, on a big scale, only as a bridge to the revolutionary nationalisation of industry. Workers’ management, on the other hand, in general proceeds from above after the working class has taken power. How to use these slogans is a question of understanding the situation, the rhythm of events and, especially, the mood and consciousness of the working class at each stage.

Unfortunately, some approached this question in an extremely one-sided manner in the past. Served up were one or two transitional demands – on workers’ control for instance – and it was argued that this was all that was necessary at that stage in the workers’ movement. Any attempt to put forward general demands for society and the economy as a whole – such as nationalisation – were denounced as ‘abstract’. Forgotten was the simple truth propounded by Trotsky in the Transitional Programme that the demands are a ‘bridge’ to the general programme of socialism. This programme ultimately leads to the idea of the working class taking over the big monopolies, expropriating the capitalists, with compensation on the basis of proven need.

Involved here is the need to have an ear and an understanding of the mood of the working class at each stage and coming forward with appropriate slogans at the right time. Take, for instance, the example of Germany in the period before Hitler came to power. A left group, the ‘Brandlerites’, accused the Left Opposition, the adherents of Trotsky, of ‘pinching’ the slogan of control over production. This was after the Marxists had criticised the Brandlerites for putting forward this demand earlier when the situation did not warrant it. The slogan of control over industry was first issued on a wide scale by the Bolshevik party in 1917. In Petrograd, responsibility over the entire campaign in this sphere, as well as in others, was placed in the hands of the soviets. Later, in a period of heightened class tension, when Trotsky and his followers put this forward, he was accused of taking over the Brandlerites’ slogan! He countered by giving the example of a woodpecker who would peck away at the bark of an oak tree year in, year out. Then a woodman came along and chopped down the tree with his axe. The woodpecker then accuses the woodman of criminally plagiarising the methods of the woodpecker! Linked to the idea of workers’ control is the demand for the ‘opening of the books’ of capitalist forms for inspection by committees of workers involving consumers as well. In effect, workers’ control is linked to the period of dual power in industry which is also usually linked to the transitional period from the capitalist regime to the working class taking power. It is undoubtedly a key stage in the development of the workers’ movement and is a period through which the mass of the working class will pass at a certain stage.

Nationalisation

A central demand of the Socialist Party is nationalisation of the monopolies (about 150 which control the vast majority of the economy) under workers’ management and control and with compensation to those in proven need. There is no contradiction in putting forward a general programme of this character alongside of the other transitional demands e.g. the demand for the 35-hour week, a useful programme of public works to end unemployment and the nationalisation of individual firms and industries which declare redundancies. The programme has to take account of the fact that there are different layers of the working class at different stages of development.

A vital task of the Marxists is to generalise the experience of the working class. This now becomes more possible because of the enormous concentration and centralisation of capital into huge monopolies and their growing together with the state machine which have been taken to enormous lengths. This invests almost every particular and sectional struggle of the workers with a general character. The struggle for wage increases comes up against the resistance of the government itself as the actions of the ‘ConDem’ coalition in freezing public-sector wages for two years show. This in turn raises the need for a general solution to the problems of the working class and this then poses the need for a socialist re-organisation of society.

It is over seventy years since the transitional programme was first written by Trotsky. Throughout this period the main task of the Marxists has been to defend its central ideas and method of approach against both opportunist reformist ideas and their mirror image in the shape of the ultra-lefts. That does not mean to say that the demands outlined in the transitional programme would be formulated in exactly the same way today, as when it was first written. The call for the 35-hour week expresses the same sentiment as the slogan “the sliding scale of hours”. The latter would seem abstract to most workers in Britain today while the struggle for 35 hours (and an even shorter working week) can be enthusiastically taken up by the working class in answer to growing unemployment. Trotsky always stressed the need to express Marxist ideas and slogans in the language of the working class itself.

His sensitive approach to different sections of the working class, sometimes in different countries, was shown in his discussion with his American followers. He pointed out that – even in the 1930s – given the political backwardness of most American workers, to baldly proclaim the need for ‘socialism’ would be considered by most as an ‘alien’ idea imported from Europe! The idea however of a sliding scale of wages – to take account of inflation – and a sliding scale of hours – to mop up unemployment – were seen as reasonable, even ‘American’! It could be more easily embraced by American workers even though it proposes ‘socialist’ methods of organising work and society! Doctrinaire sectarianism in ideas and language is entirely alien to Marxism. It is therefore necessary to express transitional demands in such a way that can be understood and fought for by the working class.

It will also be necessary to incorporate into the programme many demands which the working class itself throws up in the course of the struggle. It is also vital to give a more concrete expression to some of the demands raised by Trotsky. He raised at one stage the demand for workers’ participation in the management in the nationalised industries. At present, privatisation is the norm. But under the whip of the crisis, capitalist governments will be compelled to renationalise industries. We must have a democratic programme for this. In the conditions which obtain in Britain now this is best expressed by the call for a majority of workers’ representatives on the boards of the nationalised industries with all representatives elected and subject to recall. These representatives should have the task of tearing away the veil and showing to the mass of workers the way nationalised industry has been used as a milch-cow by the monopolies. This in turn will in turn lay the basis for the taking into state ownership of these ‘private’ industries.

Demands to defend the environment

A vital issue confronting the working class, indeed humankind as a whole, is the environment. Trotsky did not deal directly with the issue in the Transitional Programme but did so elsewhere. Some environmentalists argue that Marx did not deal with it either. This is not true; in Marxism in Today’s World, we commented:

“First of all, it is a very important issue and is crucial, especially for the new generation and for the whole of humankind. But it is not true that Marx, Engels Lenin and Trotsky never spoke about the environment; they did. In the third volume of Capital, Marx makes the point: ‘From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the globe. They are only its possessors… and, like [good heads of families] they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition.’ We must pass the world on to the next generation in a better state than we found it. Trotsky spoke in a similar vein in works like Radio, Science and Technique. The Bolsheviks were very interested in the harmonisation between the productive forces and the environment.

Unprecedented crisis

We face an unprecedented situation today. The kind of development of the productive forces under capitalism in an unplanned way means that the majority of humankind will have to challenge this system on the question of the environment alone in order to prevent an unstoppable decline. A leading Chinese environmentalist has said that for China to reach the living standards of the US will need the resources of four worlds! Do we conclude from this that the Chinese people will never reach the living standards of the American people today and that they are condemned forever to backwardness? It would be wrong to say this. We can, however, have sustainable growth and we can avoid the crimes that have been committed against the environment by capitalism and Stalinism.

The present crisis – to be more accurate, a series of crises – can only be resolved by the re-arming of the working class with new mass, socialist organisations, a Marxist programme and leadership. The mighty events which are opening up in all parts of the globe will provide many opportunities for realising this. It will not be achieved in one day or by one act. But through defeats as well as victories the proletariat will increasingly look to those who can provide the programmatic means of banishing capitalist barbarism from the planet. Trotsky’s transitional programme and method will play a vital role in the accomplishment of this task.

Peter Taaffe
June 2010

Review - Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism

sp — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 01:13:24 +0000

By Jacinta Chavulak, Socialist Party

In her book Living Dolls, Natasha Walter paints a horrifying picture of Britain’s sex culture. The book explores the modern reality of sex in our everyday lives and explains that sexism is worse now than ever before.

Walter begins her book by examining children’s toys. She looks at the difference between girls and boys toys and explains how toys sexualise people from a young age. Bratz, Barbie dolls and make up sets are all examined in detail.

In the first chapter ‘Dolls’, Walter briefly explores the 1970’s feminist movement and the aims behind it. She looks at the difference between the women’s free love movement of then and the hypersexual culture which exists today. Women’s liberation was a key issue in the 1970s, now the focus is on how women appear to men.

Walter argues that that the sexualisation of our culture is not helping to liberate women. It is further embedding women into society as mere sex objects. From here we are thrown into a whirlpool of facts, experiences, real-life horror stories and a lot of scientific analysis of behaviour and history. Walter states her points well with good evidence to back up her claims.

Sex is being marketed by big business as something that is liberating. But those at the heads of companies such as Hustler, Playboy and Girls Gone Wild are all men. At the same time the products of these companies are predominately aimed at men. The chapter on pornography clearly illustrates this.

Another argument which flows throughout her book is that of nature versus nurture. Walter correctly argues that material conditions shape people’s views and attitudes. For example women aren’t born with a gene that determines their apparent love of pink. The reason the colour is associated with women is because people are taught to become partial to it from a young age.

In the second half of the book ‘The New Determinism’, Walter breaks down the differences between men and women. She explores the idea that women are better carers but not better mathematicians. She traces these differences back to what children are encouraged and reinforced to be, rather than some talents that are biologically determined.

Modern feminism encourages a certain boldness and confidence, which is a positive thing. It is when this confidence is coupled with an over sexualisation of ones self for the sake of others where the lines between feminism and objectification become blurred.

There is however one major weakness of the book. While lots of her analysis is good, disappointingly Walter fails to outline a viable way to change the situation. In her final chapter she tries to end on a positive note by showing some initiatives that are being taken by women.

These include notable efforts such as the establishment of women refuge centres. She also puts forward the idea of websites and sticker campaigns. While stickers and websites can help raise awareness about women’s issues they do not fundamentally undermine the source of women’s oppression which is the capitalist system.

Walter fails to note that it is profit that lies behind this huge industry. As long as the profit motive exists women will continue to be exploited as sexual objects and divided from men. The only way to remove the profit motive is to change the system of capitalism. Only a socialist society based on human need and equality would create a material basis to put an end to sexism and discrimination.

While the book fails to point a way forward, it does provide some very good information about the issues facing young women. These facts and figures can be used to both combat sexism and strengthen campaigns for women’s rights. The task of socialists however is to go further and to link the oppression of women under capitalism to the need to fight for fundamental change.

Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism
By Natasha Walter
288pp, Virago Press Ltd

See also the following reviews by Christine Thomas and Laura Fitzgerald.

Population: Should we blame big Australia or big business?

sp — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:01:10 +0000

SP Newsletter No.324

Since taking over as PM from Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard has back tracked on a number of Labor policies. One such reversal has been the rejection of Rudd’s ‘Big Australia’ policy, which was intended to allow the nations population to grow to 35 million by 2050. Gillard stands for “not a big Australia, a sustainable Australia” or so her TV ads tell us.

Despite participating in the initial drafting of this policy, Gillard and other Labor ministers are now arguing that a rethink is required to determine if the country can sustainably support this growth in population. Gillard said we want “a population that our environment, our water, our soil, our roads and freeways, our busses, our trains and our services can sustain.”

While the Socialist Party definitely supports programs designed to make Australia more sustainable, we think that blaming population growth for environmental destruction and the lack of services is an often used political diversion. You can’t blame newly arrived migrants for a failure to invest in renewable technology or public services by the government and big business.

More significant than population size in gobbling up and wasting resources are the methods of production utilised by big business and the state. It is these methods that determine the efficiency and availability of services such as public transport, water and housing. For example, the overcrowding on public transport in major cities is the result of systematic underinvestment by both ALP and Liberal governments, backed by the road and oil lobby who are simply concerned with making profits.

Regardless of whether Australia’s population stays at 22 million, or increases to 35 million, the impact on the environment will depend on which methods of energy generation and natural resource management are used.

An environmentally sustainable energy and resource sector would be able to provide for more people than the existing destructive and wasteful system. Unfortunately big business and their representatives in government are more interested in burning fossil fuels for profit than investing in renewable technology.

Far from being a well planned and thought out decision, the reversal of the ‘Big Australia’ policy seems to be based more on an electoral strategy than on practical need. Gillard understands that in the context of an economic downturn many workers are concerned about job prospects, housing affordability and a lack of services. In the lead up to the election it’s far easier to blame immigration than to take on the big businesses that are funding the ALP election campaign.

Rather than fighting amongst ourselves over the scraps that are on offer, workers and young people would be better off fighting for more jobs, homes and services for all. The mega profits that big businesses make show that Australia has more than enough wealth and resources to go around. The problem is the way it is distributed.

It is very hard to control what you don’t own. As opposed to key industries and services being owned by private profiteers, we campaign for public ownership and democratic control. If major sectors of the economy were in public hands we could begin to implement a plan to produce things on the basis of need rather than profit. We could increase investment in areas like public housing, public transport, health and education therefore massively increasing services and creating jobs.

Instead of blaming population growth and a big Australia for all our problems, socialists lay the blame where it really belongs – on big business and the system that puts profits before all else.

Upcoming SP meetings

The Melbourne Branch of the Socialist Party meets every Wednesday 7pm at Trades Hall on the corner of Lygon & Victoria Streets Carlton South.

Upcoming meetings include:

25/8 – Federal election debrief
1/9 – The life and politics of James Connolly
8/9 – Can a revolution be peaceful?
15/9 – Political crisis and floods in Pakistan

For more information or for details of meetings in other parts of Australia contact our National Office on 03 9639 9111.

News links:

History: 70th anniversary of the assassination of Leon Trotsky
http://socialistworld.net/doc/4451

Britain: Forecasts of fragile economic growth…
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4455

Pakistan: Eye-witness accounts reveal humanitarian disaster in aftermath of floods
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4456

Join the Socialist Party

Subscribe to ‘The Socialist’ newspaper!

Socialist Party contact details

The Socialist Party is the Australian section of the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI). The CWI is organised in over 40 countries across the world.

Why I joined the Socialist Party

sp — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 23:49:22 +0000

I developed an interest in politics and in social and environmental justice while at school. I think socialism has a unique way of making sense of the world. It doesn’t ignore the class divide in society, exposing the real distribution of wealth, oppression of capitalism and the power of the unity of all working people to change this exploitative system.

By Jas Shepherd, Socialist Party Melbourne

The governments of wealthy countries who have the capability and responsibility to change towards renewable energy continue to support, expand and protect the fossil fuel industries! I think this insane contradiction demonstrates the increased need and urgency today for people to take action.

I joined the Socialist Party because I agree with the way they operate building for social change. The internal workings are open and democratic and the regular meetings encourage discussion and debate of history and theory that helps to expand and challenge my understanding of the world, which I think is important for developing direction.

But most importantly this is coupled with active involvement in current campaigns at an international, national and local level. This advances the struggle by building solidarity to fight for a system that provides for the needs of people and the environment.

Report from the 2010 CWI World School

sp — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 01:48:21 +0000

Class struggles on the rise

Over 400 people attended the annual World School organised by the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) in Belgium between July 11 & 16. Kirk Leonard and Jacinta Chavulak attended from Australia. They joined delegations from across Europe, Russia, Central Asia, India, the US, Quebec and the Middle East.

The 2010 school took place against the background of capitalist governments throughout the world taking savage measures against the working class to cut the huge rise in budget deficits following the collapse of the world banking system in 2008-09. The first discussion at the school was on the World Capitalist Crisis and the Class Struggle in Europe, it was introduced by Peter Taaffe from the CWI International Secretariat.

By Kevin Parslow, Socialist Party

Peter explained that capitalism is beset with crises everywhere. US imperialism has been enmeshed in the unwinnable war in Afghanistan now for 10 years, longer than its intervention in Vietnam. In Iraq, there is an uneasy ’peace’ and sectarian civil war could reignite, leading to the division of the country.

Similarly, the inevitable despoliation of the planet will occur if capitalism is left in control. The BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is the latest demonstration of complete irresponsibility and lust for profit. We have already had the ‘war for oil’; now water disputes are numerous, including in Central Asia and Latin America. The Copenhagen Summit on climate change was an absolute failure.

But Peter pointed out that capitalism’s greatest incapacity is shown in the state of the world economy, which is ultimately the most important factor shaping all other issues in society. Only a matter of months ago the capitalists internationally defended their fiscal stimulus plans. But in a dizzying switch at the Toronto G20 summit, a majority of the capitalist leaders swung over to ‘austerity’! Obama was isolated, which is a sign of weakness in that he could not impose US capitalism’s will, despite it still having the biggest economy in the world.

EU drum beat of austerity

European capitalism marches – at the moment – to the drumbeat of those favouring ’austerity’. But the road of austerity will enormously compound the economic crisis. The economic ‘recovery’ was mainly due to restocking. There is now a ’sovereign debt crisis’ because government debt soared due to the state bail-out of the banks and the rise of unemployment and welfare payments.

Peter concurred with American Keynesian economist Paul Krugman, when Krugman said that the crisis would be more like the depression of the late 19th century, which was a drawn-out economic stagnation, than the 1930s crisis. Keynesianism cannot solve the problems of capitalism in the long term because eventually either the working class pays through increased taxes and inflation or the capitalists go on an investment ’strike’, if they are made to pay. One commentator claimed that Keynesianism was ‘dead’ following the G20 summit. But further stimulus packages may be necessary to rescue the system, particularly if there is a tsunami of mass protests.

Germany has had some increase in exports but the rest of the de-industrialised world, particularly the rest of Europe, will not be as lucky. China is now facing a slowdown due to overheating and a property collapse. There has been over-investment and massive surplus capacity. China’s decision to revalue its currency, the renminbi, has seen a miserly rise (0.77%) so far and is not having the desired effect of cutting China’s trade surplus with the US.

Even if there is some economic revival in Germany, it will not be noticed by the masses because of the increase in unemployment, accumulated losses in income and the fall in living standards. Millions of workers in Europe now are on worse conditions than existed before crisis, with the general enforcement of neo-liberal policies.

Britain’s new coalition government leads the way in attacking workers’ conditions. Brutal cuts plans will cut redundancy payments to civil servants and the whole public sector faces a reduction in pension entitlements. There is a European-wide assault on pensions. In France, President Sarkozy wants to raise the pension age to 62 by 2018.

Peter pointed out that Greece is now seen as the weakest link in the chain of European capitalism. The European capitalists see Greece as a ‘stress test’ of the ability of the working class to resist. There has been an unprecedented propaganda barrage of lies. Workers have responded with six general strikes.

General strikes or general strike possibilities are rooted in the situation in many countries of Europe, said Peter. France has had two public-sector strikes in the last month against pension attacks. We have also seen similar strike action in Italy, Spain and Portugal, with a pronounced shift towards the left in Spain, in particular, but also in some workers’ organisations in Portugal. The trade union leaders are desperately trying to apply the brakes to fracture resistance.

Peter also dealt briefly with the crises in other parts of the world. In the Middle East there is no possibility of agreement between Israel and Palestine. Obama will largely not act due to the ‘proximity’ of the midterm elections in the US. The whole of the Middle East is affected by the economic crisis; Egypt especially is in a catastrophic position and is on the brink of big social movements.

What we have seen in China, with strikes and protests for better pay and against terrible working and social conditions, is an echo of the stirrings of workers in Russia in 1896. Workers in China today are raising the need for independent unions.

Under capitalism the terrible prospect of “all against all” is raised. This is graphically illustrated by the nightmare of Mexico and the drug wars which have enveloped a section of society. The only way to avoid this is if the working class measures up to the tasks of history, embraces struggle, socialism and revolutionary ideas, and then carries through the transformation of society. But if you do not have correct theory you will have no guide to action.

CWI analysis

The CWI analysis has been clearer than any other tendencies particularly over the last 12 months. We participated in workers’ struggles more audaciously and effectively than any others. Our comrades are prepared to make tremendous sacrifices for great historic aims. The working class will come to socialist ideas through its experiences of class struggles, of defeats and victories. The CWI must be prepared to grow, organise and to win the forces needed for shaping this century in the direction of socialism.

A common feature of contributions in the discussion was governments’ cuts and what is being done to fight them by the working class and the different sections of the CWI. Another theme was the anger and uncertainty building up amongst millions of people internationally who have seen a dramatic drop in living standards. Many comrades from Europe, the US, Asia and Australia illustrated vividly the situations in their countries. The world is on the verge of further explosions, in one country after another and the CWI will be prepared to intervene in the mighty events to come.

Further reports can be read here:
Building new workers’ parties and the tasks of socialists
Spreading socialist ideas around the globe
CWI summer school 2010 - opening video

SP campaign wins LGBTI books for Yarra’s libraries!

sp — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:08:07 +0000

SP Newsletter No.323

Several months ago the Socialist Party began a campaign to get Yarra City Council to stock books and magazines of interest to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) community in its libraries.

Often the local library is the only safe space for young people who are coming out. At school and even in the home LGBTI youth can face bullying and social pressure to adhere to a so-called norm. The Socialist Party website reported in May that:

“Recent studies have shown that up to one in five young LGBTI people have experienced homophobic bullying. Up to 16 per cent have been assaulted because of their sexuality. Young people who are bullied or assaulted often feel isolated and become depressed. They have lower levels of self-esteem which often leads to poor education results or high drop out rates.

“Of those who are victims of assault, 60 per cent have consequently considered harming themselves. Rates of self-harm and suicide are up to eight times higher than for heterosexual teens.

“Suicide is actually the leading cause of death among young LGBTI people. The majority of LGBTI suicides take place at age 20 or younger, with nearly one-third occurring before the age of 17.”

In the libraries, young people exploring their sexuality can read and discover that they are not alone. They can improve their knowledge of health issues and find links to useful organisations and support groups.

For a Council that claims to be progressive and LGBTI-friendly, it was a disgrace that the libraries did not have a budget for LGBTI-specific literature. Even the conservative Port Philip Council puts funds aside to purchase LGBTI books.

Yarra Socialist Party Councillor Stephen Jolly called for the 2010-11 Council budget to include money for such literature. He appealed to residents to lobby the other councillors and to send in submissions to the Council to support this call. The Melbourne Leader followed our campaign and published a front page article on the issue.

Submissions were received from several people including fiction writer, Tom Cho. Tom wrote: “I support Cllr Stephen Jolly’s proposal…when I was younger, I sought out queer books in libraries”.

Chistros Tsiolkas, world famous author of ‘The Slap’ and ‘Loaded’, wrote “I remember how crucial it was discovering literature in the libraries that talked directly to me as a youth about my sexuality and my identity…I still recall the excitement and joy I felt coming across James Baldwin’s Giovanni’s Room in the library and realizing not only was I not alone, there was a way out of self-loathing and despair.”

The June budget included an amendment to put extra resources into the libraries to buy LGBTI literature. This small step forward was the result of our campaign and the active involvement of local LGBTI residents and their supporters. Well done to all concerned.

Attend the rallies for same-sex marriage rights

The Socialist Party urges all of our supporters to attend the rallies for same-sex marriage rights that are taking place this weekend. With neither of the major parties supporting this demand for equal rights, it is important that we put the issue on the agenda in the lead up to the Federal election. Actions are taking place in all major cities.

Melbourne: Saturday August 14, 1pm State Library
Sydney: Saturday August 14, 1pm Sydney Town Hall
Canberra: Saturday August 14, 1pm Petrie Plaza, Civic
Perth: Saturday August 14, 1pm Forrest Place
Brisbane: Saturday August 14, 1pm Queens Park
Adelaide: Saturday August 14, 1pm Parliament House
Hobart: Saturday August 14, 1pm Parliament House
Darwin: Saturday August 14, 1pm Parliament House

Rallies for refugee rights

The Socialist Party is also supporting several refugee rights rallies that are taking place this weekend. If you are in Melbourne, Canberra or Brisbane please come along and protest against the major parties scapegoating refugees. Demand jobs, homes and services for all!

Melbourne: Friday August 13, 5.30pm State Library
Canberra: Saturday August 14, 11am Petrie Plaza, Civic
Brisbane: Friday August 20, 5.30pm Brisbane Square

Upcoming SP meetings

The Melbourne Branch of the Socialist Party meets every Wednesday 7pm at Trades Hall on the corner of Lygon & Victoria Streets Carlton South.

Upcoming meetings include:

18/8 – The politics of the Greens
25/8 – Federal election debrief
1/9 – The life and politics of James Connolly
8/9 – Can a revolution be peaceful?

For more information or for details of meetings in other parts of Australia contact our National Office on 03 9639 9111.

News links:

Russia: Socialists brutally attacked after environment protest
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4438

South Africa: 1.3 million public servants in one-day warning strike
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4446

US: Police Murder of Oscar Grant Exposes Injustice System
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4435

Join the Socialist Party

Subscribe to ‘The Socialist’ newspaper!

Socialist Party contact details

The Socialist Party is the Australian section of the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI). The CWI is organised in over 40 countries across the world.

Healthcare: The system is sick and needs to be treated

sp — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 01:06:31 +0000

Registered Nurse and Sydney Socialist Party member Ger Hughes looks at Labor’s healthcare reforms and outlines a socialist solution to the crisis in healthcare.

The Australian public health system is in crisis. Common occurrences are long surgical waiting lists, run down infrastructure, low staff morale and overcrowded emergency departments and wards.

The condition that the Australian public health system finds itself in has been caused by decades of under-investment and neglect by successive State and Federal governments. This has been combined with the promotion of private healthcare as an alternative to the public system.

Earlier this year former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Health Minister Nicola Roxon spent a considerable amount of time visiting hospital wards and health centres around the country. They were drumming up support for their proposed healthcare reforms. These visits were no more than a cynical public relations exercise rather than an effort to find out what was at the root of the problems within the health sector.

Even before the reforms were officially announced there appeared to be disagreement within the Labor Party ranks. Nicola Roxon indicated that she wanted tax increases to fund the reforms but the Labor State Premiers, led by Victoria’s John Brumby, were demanding more health dollars from the federal pot.

When the reforms were announced they were broadly welcomed by those in the health sector as a sign that the Labor Government was at least putting some thought in to health policy. But if you look beyond the rhetoric there is next to nothing in these reforms to address the serious problems facing the sector.

Much was made by the federal government of the plan to take over 60% of the funding of public hospitals and 100% of the funding of non-hospital public health services. The major source of this funding was to be derived from the dedication of one third of GST revenue which was to be set aside for healthcare. What was not so publically announced was the fact that there was to be no new funding for health until 2014 at the earliest!

Starved of money

Dr. John Deeble, who is a co-architect of Medicare, has declared this arrangement as completely inadequate stating that “the growth in funding is extremely slow and the public health service has been starved of money”.

Immediately following the announcement of the reforms there began a fierce round of horse trading with all the State Premiers angling for individual deals to secure their support for the reforms. So far, all of the State Premiers except for the West Australian Liberal Premier Colin Barnett have signed up to the deal.

The language of the proposed reforms talks about “retaking control of services from bureaucracies and handing it back to local hospital networks”. Doctors, nurses and others in health have been calling for this for decades, the detail of how these changes will be implemented and funded is sketchy to say the least. How, or if, they will work in practice remains to be seen.

The question of who controls healthcare is crucial. Decisions about what services should and shouldn’t be provided must not be made by those with financial incentives but by democratically elected representatives of the staff, patients and the community as a whole. Only in this way would decisions reflect genuine needs.

The proposed local hospital networks are to be comprised of 1 to 4 hospitals in urban areas with more in rural areas. The Labor reform plan is very short on details such as how planning will occur for tertiary services such as oncology or cardiac surgery. Strategic planning of these types of services is essential to ensure that they are delivered in the best possible way.

Increased bureaucracy

Labor’s reforms outline no strategic plan and are totally bereft of detail. In New South Wales (NSW) for example the proposed changes to local hospital networks will push the administration of the hospitals back to a structure which existed up until 2005. This will create 25 bureaucracies where currently only 8 exist. Effectively what this means is that the much needed funding that the health sector requires will be funnelled off to unnecessary layers of bureaucracy.

Contained within the plan for the federal government to provide 60% of hospital funding are restrictive conditions which the hospital networks must adhere to. These involve prescriptive standards on waiting list times, nosocomial (hospital acquired) infections and medical errors to name but a few.

These standards are punitive and promote practice which has at its core the achievement of these targets rather than concentrating on providing the best care possible. An example of the punitive nature of these targets is seen when we look at the waiting list issue.

Surgical waiting lists are sometimes adversely affected by the fact that there is often difficulty securing a bed for the patient following their surgery. These beds are often already occupied by other patients causing the surgeries to be postponed thus lengthening the waiting lists.

Beds are often occupied by people who need care but do not need to be in a hospital bed. This occurs because of a critical lack of sub-acute, rehabilitation and aged care beds. The provision of these types of beds is already the responsibility of the federal government and until the provision of this type of bed is improved the setting of targets is pointless.

Lack of proper planning

Australians use their public hospital more than Europeans and at double the rate that Canadians do. This can be attributed to the lack of access to GP and primary healthcare services. Many people with complex and chronic conditions end up in the hospital system when they could receive more appropriate treatment in a community setting.

The document released by the federal government ‘A National Health and Hospitals Network for Australia’ has the audacity to recognise this fact but offers no solution to the problem. It is irresponsible to signal the need for such fundamental reforms without indicating how that reform is to be achieved.

Best practice for the treatment of chronic and complex patients involves the use of a range of integrated services which would include nurse practitioners, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists along with other allied health and complementary therapists. The government has not said that these types of services will be included in the funding model.

Private profiteers

The absence of these services from the non-hospital public health service serves as an illustration of the disparity between public and privately insured patients. The private health care multi-nationals in conjunction with government policy have created an image among the public that in order to receive good health care you need to have private health care insurance.

With regard to the proliferation of private insurance in healthcare the reality is that if a person requires urgent care they normally receive it very quickly in the public system. However those with non-urgent conditions are increasingly choosing not wait and are using the private system to access care in a more timely fashion.

This leads to the development of a two tiered health care system where those with the ability to pay can improve their health outcomes purely due to their ability to pay. Some areas of health care such as mental health and dentistry have been completely ignored by the proposed reforms.

The reforms are entirely too hospital focused at the expense of a primary health care approach. Whatever way they are approached the reforms do nothing to address the root cause of the problems in the Australian health system, that is that it is grossly underfunded and has been for many years. Any reform of the service must first address this neglect before any real change can be expected.

A real solution

So what is the solution to the problems of the Australian public health service? Firstly we must recognise that the system is sick and needs to be treated. The system is more sick if you are Aboriginal, homeless, mentally ill, a refugee without Medicare or if you are simply elderly and poor.

The public healthcare system is staffed by dedicated individuals who work tirelessly to provide the best service they can to the people they come in contact with. Their ability to provide that service is stymied by the chronic underfunding and degrading of the service by governments both state and federal.

Healthcare should be a right not a commodity to be traded for profit. Healthcare, wherever it is accessed, should be free at the point of contact. Private healthcare has at its epicentre the pursuit of profit first and foremost. As a result the private healthcare industry cherry picks the areas of activity it becomes involved in. Private healthcare does not as a rule get involved in long term chronic illness preferring to concentrate on the short term complication free areas that can be time limited and produce the most profit most quickly.

The private healthcare industry should be absorbed into the public system creating a single tier system which is fair and equitable. We need a massive boost to healthcare funding. The focus should be on primary healthcare with an emphasis on preventative healthcare.

The pharmaceutical industry produces enormous profits for the multi-national corporations that operate them. Most of their profits come from governments who pay inflated prices for products. This industry should be taken into public ownership and under democratic control and made to work for outcomes rather than profits.

These are not ideological notions. These policies and more would be achievable if the health system was run on a not for profit basis. The Socialist Party supports the establishment of a properly funded, comprehensive and equitable public health system which is free at the point of contact and run for the benefit of the end users.

Labor’s healthcare reforms do not provide for such a service. Rather, they will deepen the crisis in healthcare and further increase the divide between rich and poor by driving more and more people into the hands of the private health insurance profiteers.

If we really want to provide decent healthcare to all we have to not only campaign for real reforms in the here and now but we need to extend that fight to one for a complete change in the way society is run - the fight for a socialist world where people’s health needs are put before profit.

The Socialist Party says:

- End and reverse privatisation in the health sector
- Medical advice, treatment, investigations, management, administration, cleaning, catering and all other health services should not be run for profit
- For all hospital services and buildings to be under public ownership
- Rebuild the health system as a publicly funded service free at the point of use
- The health sector should be run and planned by democratic committees that include representatives of health professionals and the local community. The health system should be run and planned nationally by health workers and a government that puts people’s needs before private profit.
- Nationalise the pharmaceutical and medical supply industries under workers and community control and management. Integrate these services into a democratically controlled health system. Plan their resources to provide needed treatments.
- Fight for a socialist world to end poverty and inequality - the biggest killers and causes of ill-health

Australia’s first female PM: A win for women?

sp — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:28:14 +0000

SP Newsletter No.322

On June 24th Australia inherited its first ever female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. Some have hailed this as a great achievement in the struggle for women’s rights, regardless of the fact that Australian voters had no participation in the event.

While her ascension can be attributed to male factional leaders within the Labor Party, Gillard is undoubtedly a beneficiary of the movements of women around the world that have fought long and hard for equal rights.

This movement argues for women to be judged on their merits, not their gender. In this tradition, it’s only appropriate to hold Gillard to this standard. So, what merit does Gillard have when it comes to the major issues facing women?

When is comes to working women, Gillard has proven she is no friend of workers. She stared down the Australian Education Union in the female dominated education sector during an industrial dispute earlier this year, and has paid mere lip service to the Australian Services Union’s gender pay-parity campaign. As Workplace Relations Minister Gillard implemented the Fair Work Act, legislation that incorporated the worst elements of the much despised WorkChoices legislation of the Howard era.

On the question of childcare, Labor recently reneged on its 2007 election promise to build 260 new childcare centers. The opportunity arose in 2008 with the collapse of ABC Learning, which represented 25 per cent of childcare services in Australia, to bring childcare into public ownership.

Yet the Labor Government has protected the private profiteering of the industry, rather than bringing childcare into public hands democratically run by workers and parents in the interests of families and the community. According to a recent report, 72 per cent of childcare centers in Melbourne cannot accommodate any more children, making childcare unavailable to many families.

For Indigenous women, the Labor-backed NT Intervention has stripped them of the right to control their own lives. Women’s centers have been closed down, basic healthcare remains inaccessible and childcare facilities have been reduced, yet the NT Intervention will continue under Gillard’s reign.

In fact, Labor’s policy of blaming the victim for their social disadvantage has been extended under Gillard’s leadership. Welfare quarantining has now spread to non-Indigenous welfare recipients, including many single mothers receiving income support.
Gillard’s plan for refugee women is to demonise them, traumatise them, and lock them up wherever they cannot access their full rights under international law.

In regards to same-sex attracted women, Gillard has pledged her commitment to continue to deny them the right to marry.

With these new and continuing attacks on working women, single mothers, Indigenous women, lesbians and refugees, it’s impossible to see how the coming to power of Australia’s first female PM is a win for women.

Despite the fact that the three top positions in the Australian government- Head of State, Governor-General and Prime Minister- are all currently held by women, women’s oppression continues on many fronts.

The unfortunate fact is that social equality won’t come through the ballot box. Representatives of the major political parties, whether Labor or Liberal, male or female, do not represent the interests of ordinary people. Gillard’s policy shifts since becoming PM have been designed to appease big business and divert attention away from real attacks on people’s living standards in the context of economic instability.

What women need is not a female PM dedicated to the continuation of attacks against women as workers, mothers, lovers or ethnic minorities, but a movement of women and men demanding equality in every aspect of our lives.

The fight for equality is the fight for a society where the needs of all are met, regardless of gender, race, nationality, sexual preference or religion. The struggle for women’s rights is the struggle for socialism.

Upcoming SP meetings

The Melbourne Branch of the Socialist Party meets every Wednesday 7pm at Trades Hall on the corner of Lygon & Victoria Streets Carlton South.

Upcoming meetings include:

11/8 – Report from CWI world school
18/8 – The politics of the Greens
25/8 – Federal election debrief

For more information or for details of meetings in other parts of Australia contact our National Office on 03 9639 9111.

News links:

Textile workers: Protests in Bangladesh and Cambodia
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4428

China: Thousands join protests for Cantonese language
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4424

Britain: Youth and students - organise to fight for a future
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4421

Join the Socialist Party

Subscribe to ‘The Socialist’ newspaper!

Socialist Party contact details

The Socialist Party is the Australian section of the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI). The CWI is organised in over 40 countries across the world.