Hitherto philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways. The point however is to change it.   Karl Marx
Economic & Philosophic Science Review
Subscriptions - £20 p. a. [P&P Bulletin Publications.  PO Box 5O. London SW17 9NL) (Post Office Regd.)  
No 975 Tuesday Nov 17 1998                                                                                                                   10p

SLP mainstream politics overcomes factionalism. A return to 'left' opportunism around New Labour MPs and single-issue struggles thwarted. Trot "alliance" delusions again rejected. Carping individualism, sabotaging the SLP, is isolated. Egocentrics, masquerading as 'theorists', again proved wrong. Sectional divisiveness denounced. A workers movement needs politics from its party, not patronising. Defeatist mentalities are being left behind. Slander by single-issue extremists only reveals bourgeois culture's dumbing-down philistinism. Huge socialist-education programme needed. Blair's abuse of feminism wants challenging. The single-issue last gasp of 'reformism' is creating appalling damage and confusion. ALL the inhumanity under capitalist society will fester on in one way or another until the capitalist system itself is overthrown. PC self-righteousness is just an obstacle. The SLP can soar without its Trot handicap. Marxist science is what is required.

Opportunities for working-class politics in Britain are improving fast in the light of further setbacks to Trotskyite sectarianism around the SLP.

The failure of renewed attempts to disrupt the party development built upon the influence in the labour movement of the Scargill-led NUM, is highly encouraging.

Efforts to drag Socialist Labour back into the old swamp existence of fake-'lefts' around the struggle for socialism, have been routed by the increased consciousness of the anti-capitalist fight.

Renewed proposals for bogus "alliances" with every variety of petty-bourgeois individualism including maverick "left" Labour MPs, — but on their terms, — have been decisively rejected by SLP special congress.

The historic role of Socialist Labour in building a distinctive working-class PARTY-challenge to the bankrupt relationship between the Labour Government and the people, has been confidently confirmed by the Scargill leadership.

Factionalising elements in the SLP who came from the Trot-entryist traditions of Old Labour, have been roundly defeated.

Their inability to succeed in turning Socialist Labour towards a free-for-all "left-alliance" swamp arose out of the growing political maturity of the SLP and out of their own sectarian blindness to the proper role for Socialist Labour.

It makes no sense to treat the SLP as just another 'left' party or as a Labour Party mark II, just ripe for opportunist recruitment among by Trot sectarians. All the entryists who flocked in at the start made the same mistake.

The Scargill-NUM traditions on which the SLP has been built provide a tremendous unique opportunity to revive a genuine mass-movement for socialism in Britain, one that can wipe out all the cynicism, demoralisation, and confusion of the disasters which have overtaken revisionism and trade-union reformism, and one that can take the working class all the way to challenging capitalism for state power.

As a spin-off from and as living representatives of the best and highest achievements of working-class struggle in this country with a long conscious proud history, — the NUM origins of Socialist Labour make it impossible for any but the silliest minds to see it as "just another left party", as just a casual whim, as likely to quickly fold again (as dozens more whimsical 'left' parties have done).

And as well as not being treatable as just another part of the 'left' swamp, the SLP was likewise not to be treated as Labour Party mark II, a party of pretend 'socialism', a bourgeois-opportunist party for careerists, just to be entered.

Firstly, such an outcome would have made a mockery of everything that the great 1984-85 miners strike stood for which was a historic turning point in working-class political experience in Britain, at last beginning to make it plain that the whole record of the Labour Party, of parliamentary 'reformism', was of service to the capitalist state and not the socialist revolution.

The miners and their huge support and sympathy in the working class started out believing that a determined-enough fight for jobs and trade-union rights, while never guaranteed against Tory viciousness, would always eventually be able to rely on a resurgent TUC/Labour party for redress.

Gradually this expectation of ultimate acknowledgement and justice began to fade. The realisation began to dawn that the "secure stake in society" that supposedly had been won for the working class and trade-union rights by the "national compromise" of the post-war period of Labour & Tory governments, — was just an illusion, a giant confidence trick for securing class-collaboration (i.e. subservience to the 'rights' of private capitalists to exploit labour, to hire and fire workers, and to amass monopoly-imperialist fortunes which virtually become a law unto themselves, controlling the media and propaganda and vast sections of the economy, and having New Labour in their pockets ultimately.) 

Secondly, a Labour Party mark II would have been historically impossible anyway, whatever delusions in parliamentarianism might still have lingered on. Another epoch of the working class again being constantly betrayed by 'left'-promising comfortable 'parliamentary' representatives' (i.e. the ENTIRE range of careerist Labour MPs, including the supposedly 'principled lefts' (see below)) could never work, quite simply, because of untameable crisis-developments in world imperialism (see below, also).

Socialist Labour has to be seen as an enormously significant new phenomenon, albeit still only a potential, but a colossal potential if understood correctly. The Trot entryists have again fallen foul of their own egos, — just as always.

These talented individualists constantly make the subjective mistakes of idealism in theory (imposing their own ideas on the facts instead of letting factual reality govern their thinking), and of substituting themselves for the working class in questions of assessing a movement's progress in things like organisation, administration, mere styles of leadership, etc, etc.

And this is not an everyday business of "basically good comrades committing errors". This is a CLASS trend, — the attitudes and politics at petty-bourgeois individualism conflicting with mass-movement communist philosophy, where CORRECT leadership-understanding AND an instinct for class-solidarity are BOTH crucial.

The Trotskyite mentality, which is a longstanding phenomenon as old as the socialist movement itself, has NEVER been capable of EITHER, — and never will be. It is a class question.

On this occasion, as well as endlessly maligning the achievements of the SLP leadership and wishing to substitute themselves for the class-party organisation and administration, — the insistence has been on completely MISTAKEN perspectives, and pursued relentlessly wrong-headedly like all Trot manias.

To have separate sections on racial grounds in a workers party fighting for the socialist overthrow of the nationwide capitalist system which is destructively screwing up the life of the WHOLE country including the largely integrated factory and workplace population, — — is a LUDICROUS idea.

To pursue it relentlessly is either unhinged or plainly anti-working-class politics. 

This disruptive nonsense revealed its real reactionary depths in the proposal, sadly published in Socialist News, for the SLP to campaign for the state education system to be reorganised on apartheid lines, with separate schools for white children and separate schools for black children!!!

But these Trots' general political perspectives are even worse !!!!

The largest and most difficult shift in attitudes in the workers movement that has had to be tackled in the present period is to expose the philistine (i.e. anti-theory) feeblemindedness of supposedly 'left' groups who campaigned at the last election to "just get the Tories out".

This meant completely ignoring the far more important point that the burdens of capitalist crisis would be imposed far WORSE on the working class under a Blair government. It meant ignoring the CRUCIAL nature of the capitalist crisis, and ignoring the utterly treacherous rottenness of the New Labour stooges for the imperialist system, and it meant uselessly tail-ending not the most advanced thinking in the working class (where many workers were already grasping what wretched backwardness Labour 'reformism' had now inevitably sunk into.)

It is still a major struggle with many 'left' groups such as the CPB, IWA, NCP, TUC, CPBML, etc, to get them to acknowledge this profound but at the same time quite simple point.

Yet at the SLP special congress, the party was energetically urged to forget all that, to completely put the clock back, and to regard the alleged essence of the German electorate's decision in voting "to just get rid of Chancellor Kohl" as the acme of all political wisdom at the present time. But it is the exact OPPOSITE of political wisdom. It just prolongs dreadful BACKWARDNESS in the workers movement such as we are still grappling with in the ranks of the CPB, the Morning Star, etc, about New Labour.

And this misguided plea to welcome this Popular Front alleged aspect of the German election result (and surely the huge vote for the ex-communists in Eastern Germany was a far more important world-political lesson from the German hustings), was followed up by a recommendation to give Ken Livingstone an UNQUALIFIED welcome whenever he turns up in support of workers in struggle.

No thanks. Livingstone and all the rest of the careerist populists need telling that they should be denouncing the ENTIRE Labour Government programme which only has one really effective purpose in life and that is to prop up the capitalist system at all costs, and to act as an 'international' stooge for US imperialism which is in the process of inflicting some of the most vile, vicious, reactionary-fascist impositions on humankind ever known, — imminently on Iraq, permanently on the Palestinian nation, in the past on the whole of Indo-China, Korea, etc, etc, and in the future on just about anyone that the sick, panic-stricken arbitrariness of Washington feels like zapping.

Livingstone needs the working class, to continue his 'left' careerism. The working class does not need Livingstone to finally win socialist justice for itself, — or any other 'left' opportunist MP comfortably tucked up in Labour's ranks.

Let any 'lefts' support workers in struggle. But to keep the politics out of workers struggles is exactly the GREAT MISTAKE that all fake-'leftism' has ALWAYS made around workers struggles, which has always left them prey to Labour Party backwardness for far too long. And it has always been 'left' Labour MPs who have forever been the most important vehicle for keeping the working class, including workers in struggle, tied to Labourism.

Any meeting of workers in struggle which insists "no adverse mention of Labour Party politics because we have a Labour MP present who has come to help us" is a partial DISSERVICE to the broader and more profound interests of the working class, — including ultimately the general working class interest in the outcome of all struggles, — which is to look beyond temporary halfway house solutions which might suit a few workers locally for a brief while, — to outcomes if possible which challenge the whole ethos and development of capitalism's slump-strategy(which is to solve its problems at the expense of the working class through mass unemployment and poverty.)

It might be understandable, if misguided, if workers in struggle say they want no politics in their meetings.

But it is something infinitely more regrettable, and more trade-unionism-backward, when supposedly 'socialist' agitators effectively recommend workers in struggle to adopt exactly that line and just say 'thank you for coming' to Ken Livingstone, and nothing else.

Let Livingstone say 'No, to the privatisation of the London Underground' but let him also say 'No, to the entire Labour Government programme which is to prop up the slump-bringing capitalist system', and let him be publicly condemned, however politely, if he won't say it.

The interests of the working class as a whole in taking on and defeating this New Labour government in order to defeat the capitalist slump (and even worse than that, which will follow) is far greater than the interest of one trade which wants to preserve its jobs or its work-conditions.

Defeats on single issues will of course help defeat the Labour Government in general, eventually. But to defeat capitalism, something far, far vaster is being spoken of than merely an accumulation of single-issue trade-union victories, however many there are and however important.

To defeat capitalism, a complete POLITICAL REVOLUTION in the minds of the working class is what is being talked about.

And the sooner and more widespread that process could begin, the better, — well BEFORE the last election rather than waiting until 18 months after New Labour had begun to show its obviously anti-working-class pro-imperialist true colours; and in EVERY meeting where workers are gathered together in struggle, no matter for what purpose, all of which MUST suffer from the influence of the capitalist system in crisis which is what dominates New Labour and which is what must be understood by the ENTIRE working class. 

Another backward step put to Congress, both implicitly and explicitly by the various Trot elements working together both inside and outside the conference hall, (including one prominent CPGB member, still being protected by London SLP circles, who actually addressed the special congress with HIS party's programme) was to re-urge "alliance" politics on the SLP, which would have Socialist Labour deferring to "other 'left' parties" at elections, etc, — in other words full speed into the utterly useless 'left' swamp of endless criticism, permanent defeatism, and perpetual "everything is rotten" demoralisation,(which was Lenin's characterisation of Trotskyism.)

The "alliance" idea is a complete fraud. The 'left' swamp is the politics of incorrigible individualism, effectively of anarchism, — endless varieties (57 and counting) of conceited egos who simply don't understand the concept of ever being proved wrong by objective facts and who hate the idea of a workers state (the dictatorship of the proletariat, the only form of state power which can possibly replace capitalism which is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) as much as the Tory aristocracy do. 

Why doesn't the 'left' swamp produce its "alliance party" if it is such a good idea?? Because in reality, it is a complete joke. For genuine communists, there already is an alliance party, — the SLP itself. 

But these undisciplined petty-bourgeois personalities hate all leadership. Which is why they can only endlessly all PLAY at this 'unity' game, going round in ever-diminishing circles (in both senses), pretending to be engaged in 'rapprochement' and 'representational entry', etc, but admitting that a 'multanimous party' was the real aim, i.e. no party at all, just every man for himself,(just like the swamp has always been, with just the occasional collective guru-worship around the most ruthless ego involved, or the most successfully opportunistic, or the most relentlessly pessimistic, feeding everyone's defeatist paranoia.)

One more polished Trot delusion on display was a lecture to workers on now to get involved in the working class's struggles (go to the meeting, take your coat off, listen to what they have to say, help them get the drains unblocked, etc, etc).

What staggeringly patronising claptrap.!! The working class has been organising its own self-help since the working class began.!! Ordinary illiterate workers were most skilfully forming illegal trade-union organisations more than 200 years ago, and getting things done!! And in the face of the most appalling difficulties and the most brutal ruthless repression.

The whole joke on the SWP is that [they] just turn up to help workers go on strike (which they were already perfectly capable of managing on their own); help workers picket (which they were already perfectly capable of managing on their own); help workers write and produce leaflets about the dispute (which workers were already perfectly capable of managing on their own); and help workers make and hold banners (which they were already perfectly capable of managing on their own).

But what the SWP crucially DO do is merely tail-end the existing level of general POLITICAL consciousness of the workers involved.

And that is the one thing which it is absolutely criminal for outside 'socialist agitators' to come in and do. Who needs it? It is WORSE than useless.

The one thing that workers in struggle need from the broad socialist struggle outside is GENERAL POLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS of the wider national and international circumstances that they (and all other workers) are facing.

In other words, what should be CRUCIALLY brought in to workers from outside their struggle is PARTY political consciousness in the direction of the overthrow of ALL CAPITALISM, — permanently, — rather than just the temporary defeat of the rotten piecemeal acts of one boss.

But that crucial role for the SLP was the one vital thing that the lecture to the Congress on 'how to approach the working class' said nothing at all about.

Another major problem connected with Trotskyite influences (and beyond) is single-issue politics, — the last great stunt by reformism, — and the poison of 'political correctness' associated with it.

The SLP congress in December 1997 was denounced as 'racist' for being opposed to the black-nationalist nonsense of separate sections for the SLP. Any hostility to feminist extremism and the cry of "male chauvinism" goes up. Criticise the damaging influence of 'Gay Rights' political correctness as in the appalling Mark Trotter paedophile scandal in Hackney's 'left'-Labour council which tyrannised children's homes for 15 years until Trotter died of AIDS in 1995 after endless protection from PC 'homophobe' chanters, — and you will be jeered as a 'homophobe'.

This poisonous PC nonsense will stink round the neck of the SLP until the utter REACTIONARINESS of all these single-issue political mentalities, — including, and especially FEMINISM, but with 'Gay Rights' and Black Nationalism close behind, — is faced up to.

Their most pernicious influence is as 'reformist' diversions, pretending to lift the rotten double burdens of exploitation and discrimination which capitalism obviously places on any disadvantaged minority, — but in reality in the long run only possibly succeeding in MAKING MATTERS WORSE.

Male-chauvinist prejudice, homophobic prejudice, and racist prejudice are endemic rotten features widespread throughout capitalist society. No one can doubt their vile inhuman divisiveness and their latent potential for fascist aggressiveness to scar society right down into the kitchen of every home in the land, in all lands. 

Slowly, there is beginning to be agreement and understanding, which is to be welcomed, that these degrading features of society cannot possibly disappear until the capitalist system itself is got rid of (which is the tireless uncontrollable source of ALL insecurity, self-pity, vindictiveness, paranoia, bullying, and all other pathetic ego-tripping and self-justification afflicting every individual to a greater or less extent suffering the frustrations and alienation of capitalist society.)

Campaigns now for re-education, however, are equally obviously essential tactics for the socialist movement to challenge the whole of capitalist society with, including the working class which can be as backward as any on such issues where bourgeois cultural norms tend to dominate universally. Some piecemeal reforms will also make important human-rights progress too, such as ending the barbaric legislation of imprisonment for homosexual acts between consenting adults in private, and other rescindment of primitive laws of discrimination in all fields.

And self-empowerment through self-organisation by women, homosexuals, and Black & Asian (and other) ethnic minorities, and by the sensorily-impaired and other disabilities, etc, — all obviously can help swell the common tide of action and agitation against the inadequacies of capitalist society. And there is no reason at all for such single-issue organisations (in origin) not to plug into, valuably, the general socialist agitation of the SLP.

The problem lies with the self-righteous 'reformist' extremism that such organisations are prone to, and the confusing influence that their general political opportunism gives rise to when 'the cause' is placed higher than anything else in the political spectrum.

The Blair regime provides a deadly serious example of the problem, and the potential imminent slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq from bombers and missiles sent in by the New Labour parliamentary party (in part) should serve to sober anyone who thinks it frivolous to see any connection between the Blair regime and the question of feminism.

Feminism certainly did not create the Blair regime or win power for it, but it played a powerful part in New Labour propaganda while Blairism bit by bit was being put in place, (continuing the pattern already set by Kinnockism, etc).

It was a diversion, of course, having women-only lists and then getting more than 100 women Labour MPs elected, — not the real purpose for monopoly-imperialism turning temporarily to the Blair regime to provide a new stooge government.

But saying it was a diversion also says everything. Diversions are exactly what all 'New' 'reformist' tricks have been, ever since 'reformism' started, — just 'left' promise after 'left' promise, 'progressive' delusion after 'progressive' delusion, — all to keep the working class mesmerised while the capitalist system gets on with its work of consolidating its exploitation society and its world imperialist domination.

Feminism is not responsible for Blairism exploiting it as a diversion from the real historical role of the New Labour government; but, of course, feminism did not denounce this 'progressive' posturing either. On the contrary, feminism happily posed for the limelight as 'Blair's babes', — a sick deceptive soundbite that went round the planet, bogusly promising some marvellous 'new revolution' in politics.

And this sad fraud still goes on with prominent feminists sometimes imposing a harder line (in order to stay on message) than collective Blairism has insisted on, — such as in Clare Short ruthlessly denouncing the idea that the hurricane devastation of Central America might qualify poor countries like Nicaragua and Honduras to be let off their existing crippling debts to the West as a way of helping them out at a time of devastating natural emergency.

Clearly there can be no logical proof that Clare Short's feminism is responsible for or connected to her reactionary opportunism. But none the less, she is an aggressive feminist AND a reactionary. And what will eventually emerge as the most reactionary government by far in all modern British history, just happens to have won office with incomparably greater feminist support, and openly greater feminist ministerial representation, than any government in history.

Through its blissful association with reactionary New Labour and even more reactionary Clintonism, feminism can hardly avoid the charge of reactionary opportunism.

As long as a shallow froth of pretended recognition and advantage for women can be kept up around Blairism, there seems to be nothing that feminist opportunism will baulk against, — even on the brink of the outrageous pointless massacre of tens of thousands of Iraqi women and children just to suit some foul imperialist power-project or other.

And it is the single-issue self-righteousness which essentially makes for the reactionariness. There is nothing so arrogant as new-found 'political wisdom', — especially when it is based on the most shallow nonsense.

Feminism came in on the coat-tails of stalemated Cold-War anti-communism. If imperialism was 'bad' and communism was 'worse', then just blame 'all men' for the problems, and then stand back while women sort out a far kinder, more peaceful world.

As in Margaret Thatcher, and Madeleine Albright, and the current crop of 'Blair babes' who all want to bomb the guts out of the Iraqi people.

This essential feminist message is, of course, the most utter reactionary gibberish.

Even the claimed 'reforms' are of dubious value in the long run, — to men AND women. Divorce rights have been transformed out of all recognition for women, supposedly giving women 'rights' to equalise and curb men's nasty aggressiveness in marriage.

The result? More family breakdowns and disturbed children than ever, more unhappy women than ever, taking more drugs and alcohol than ever, and more unhappy men and absentee fathers than ever. And more women's violence against their children and their partners than ever, and now thought by some observers such as Erin Pizzey, the battered-wife founder of the Women's Refuge movement, to have overtaken male brutality as the immediate instigator of much domestic strife.

But, of course, it is neither 'male' nor 'female' frustrations which are the real cause of family breakdowns, but capitalist society's frustrations, caused by the rapidly increasing degeneracy of the capitalist system relative to the increasingly civilised requirements of both men AND women in modern society which the capitalist private-ownership system of exploitation, alienation, and atomisation cannot fail to be increasingly remote from.

Male chauvinism poses a huge and ugly obstacle still to be overcome in human relations generally as well as especially in the home. But capitalism is the real enemy, and feminism's historical role has disastrously been to obscure that fact, — the last of the great 'reformist' delusions and diversions.

Black nationalism and homosexual rights look no better from this aspect, and it is again a suspicious 'accident', to say the least, that this utterly reactionary phenomenon of Blairism has come into office with more Black Nationalist and Gay Rights parliamentary support, incomparably so, than any previous government in history. 

Once again, single-issue 'reformist' posturing equates to utter reactionariness by losing sight of the only thing that will seriously and deeply improve the happiness of Blacks, Gays, women, and of all doubly-exploited minorities under capitalism, — and, most importantly, of everyone else in society too (bearing in mind that it is precisely society's overall happiness which has the biggest bearing on the happiness of each individual, — mankind being so crucially a highly-integrated social animal), — namely, getting rid of capitalism itself as the ONLY priority, utterly unchallenged.

PC tyranny, based on single-issue extremist 'reformism', has played a catastrophic role in dumbing down general political consciousness in Britain to the point where the appalling shallow nonsense of Blairism could succeed. Never has such pointless self-confessed shallowness and ignorance as Blairism triumphed in British capitalism before. Its nearest historical precedent really is the mindlessness of the 'new order' Goebbels-Hitler propaganda politics of another completely fantasy 'socialist revolution' in Germany in the 1930s.

Self-righteous single issue extremism is based on far-out individualism, philosophically speaking, which is where it comes close to the fascist mentality, — as does being racist yourself but calling others racist as did the Black Sections to the SLP in general, at last December's Congress, — and as does shouting 'homophobe' just because one's own reactionary individualist politics has been exposed and defeated. It is akin to political terrorism, or like lighting a match in a crowded petrol station.

The close connection between Trot self-righteous individualism and single-issue political extremism of the nastiest kind, was made clear outside the conference hall at the end of the SLP special congress when an attempted physical provocation was made against a newly-elected NEC member, — a trivial incident but typical of the corruption of people that modern-day capitalist culture deliberately spreads — of in-yer-face self-centred aggressiveness coupled with a philistine contempt for any depth of meaning, thoughtful understanding, or rational ability to read complex arguments thoroughly and present equally reasoned counter-arguments to any matters not agreed with.

But for complete anti-theory philistines who are fully in tune with the modern politics of crass soundbites and purely opportunist manoeuvring, it is much easier to shout 'racist', or 'chauvinist', or 'homophobe', and then threaten violence.

The SLP's development has been VERY SERIOUSLY held back by these Trot individualists, entryists, and single-issue fanatics and their deliberately divisive and disruptive tactics, and their relentless defeatism, trying to persuade the party that the last thing the working class wants to hear about is socialism and the achievements of socialism.

As much as some prominent Trot campaigners on issues have brought the party some credit, elsewhere there has been widespread deliberate sabotaging of the SLP's appeal and actual obstruction of its work, badly clouding the message to the working class of what Socialist Labour is all about.

Sniping at the SLP has continued from outside the party too, and that may or may not now be added to; but such outside disruption is simply not to be compared to the enormous damage caused by internal obstructiveness and bitter factionalising, unleashed entirely by the Trots' arrogant self-righteousness and conceited individualism, — the influences of the petty bourgeoisie coming into the workers movement to disrupt it, and hold it back. Now the SLP can go forward faster than ever. Build Marxist-Leninist science. Royston Bull

World Socialist Review
(edited extracts from a variety of anti-imperialist struggles).

Speech given by President Fidel Castro Ruz, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, at the closing session of the 5th Congress of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, held at the International conference Center September 28, 1998, year of the 40th anniversary of the decisive battles of the war of liberation  (Extracts).

The report, as I've already said, in our opinion, was very well done, and it truly reflects the extraordinary efforts you are making, extraordinary and ever growing, extremely necessary efforts, which can be measured with data. Here they are. (HE SHOWS THE DOCUMENTS) I didn't even bring all of them with me, but we remember them and I'm nor going to repeat them either. It is enough to point out that an impressive new record has been set during this difficult year, with 570,000 blood donations, and almost all of the indices reflect improvement. I hope that this wasn't just because this is the year of the congress, and that, on the contrary, as a result of the congress, the indices will continue to improve. Some of them are already very difficult to improve upon. 

For example, this 91% participation rate in the CDRs among the population is an extremely high and encouraging index, and it makes this organization, indisputably, the most widespread in all the country, with more than seven million citizens, without including children, who are also involved in them, as well as in their own Pioneers' organization. The idea of children's CDRs is a lovely one, as a means of education and motivation.

This participation allows you to carry out even greater work within the organization, given that you have proposed to carry out work with ever higher quality, and to exercise an ever greater influence on the community. After everything we have seen, I do not doubt in the least that you will succeed.

You had old tasks, and now you have new tasks, and the new ones are strategic. The issues brought up regarding the development of patriotic and revolutionary values and the ideological battle are of tremendous importance; the fight against crime and the fight against illegal activity; your active participation in cooperation with the other forces in the country and in cooperation with the Ministry of the Interior and the National Revolutionary Police.

We discussed these subjects a great deal yesterday, and we agreed that we had to continue discussing them with the most steadfast determination to confront these difficulties and fight hard against them, using organization, intelligence, the most appropriate methods of control, pressure, persuasion and social influence; we discussed all of this here yesterday, and there is no need to repeat it. I am certain that all of you comrades across the country, the millions of members of the CDRs, who constitute the immense majority of the population, and the rest as well, and even a few delinquents will be happy, because they don't like to be robbed. They are going to be happy if there are fewer thefts, because they must also be victims of their own theft. There will be greater tranquillity for everyone. This is one of the things that most affects all citizens.

The struggle against illegal activity is vital, the battle for the survival of the Revolution and the defense of the Revolution, closely associated with the ideological battle, because the enemy, — as was already said — uses all of the means possible, and today they are concentrated against Cuba in this respect. 

Today, of course, relations between the United States and China are normal, and are going rather well. The United States has understood what China is, its enormous current power and, above all, its potential power in so many fields: scientific, economic, military and others. They have behaved more realistically with regard to China; in addition, it is a gigantic and growing market worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

Some of their spokespeople have said, with the greatest shamelessness in the world, that in regard to China it is worthwhile changing the policy of confrontation and trading with it, even though it is a socialist country, because it is an enormous market for exports, an enormous field for investments, with a skilled, disciplined and cheap work force. They know that they cannot do without all of that in the economic sphere; but they know, as well, that they cannot do without China in the political sphere.

Soon we will see Latin America and many other countries inundated with merchandise from what were once called the Asian tigers, which are now trying desperately to increase exports. That is, China not only constitutes an enormous market, and an enormous field for investment; China also holds major weight in the world economy, and it has steadfastly resisted the need the devaluate its currency, which has constituted a major contribution to the international economy. Although nobody, of course, can say for sure if this great sacrifice they are making now, beyond being proof of their responsibility and concern for world affairs, will have some result in the end. Perhaps it is a case of postponing the crisis a bit, avoiding a rapid and generalized conclusion, but one which, according to all the indicators, sooner or later will inevitably occur.

And so, there is no longer the same hostility, the blockade, the economic war against China; on tine contrary, there are substantial investments being made, considerable trade; I believe that the Chinese export much more than 50 billion dollars to the United States, if I'm not wrong, despite the fact that the yuan has not been devalued and despite the competition from the others.

When it comes to Cuba, everything is different. Well, they've prohibited Russia from continuing the construction of the nuclear power plant in Cienfuegos. In theory, the Russians have committed themselves to continue building it, but this will take time, a long time. Perhaps they have maintained cooperation and a few supplies for the maintenance of what has already been built, but it would be misguided to count on that in the future, in the long term, especially taking into account the terrible situation in Russia. In the meantime, they carry out their campaign against anything that resembles a nuclear power plant in Cuba, saying it is a danger to the United States. They can build a hundred of them on their own territory, but we can't build any, it's a worldwide issue, even if it is authorized by the International Atomic Energy Agency and has all the guarantees. That is why we have to look for other sources of energy. 

With Viet Nam, they have relations similar to those with China: investments. We are happy that the Vietnamese, who have fought so hard, who lost four million lives, not to mention the many left crippled and the other damage and human suffering, now have the opportunity to live in peace, to trade and develop, without renouncing their principles and socialist ideas.

ALMOST SINCE THE TIME THE UNITED STATES WAS FOUNDED, ITS FIRST POLITICAL LEADERS PROPOSED THE OCCUPATION OF CUBA

I mention this to show how everything, everything, everything is against Cuba, the United States' nearest neighbor,the ripe fruit they were hoping to pick, as they said a long, long time ago, but that never fell and will never fall from the tree. Because almost since the time that country was founded, its first political leaders proposed the matter of occupying Cuba, it was among their plans. Our ancestors stopped them, and we have the duty of making it impossible for them; up until now we have done it, and we will continue to do it. 

But all of the propaganda resources, all of the campaigns, all of the maneuvers, all of their lies and their ideological warfare are directed fundamentally towards Cuba.

This does not mean that they are not waging ideological warfare against China, that they are not trying to exercise influence in other ways; they don't attack it verbally, if possible, but instead they propagate U.S. culture, penetrate into all areas with their cultural influence, their consumerist habits, and other forms of penetration. They would like to introduce into China the style and concepts of consumer society, something which would be colossal insanity. But they cannot act in accordance with other principles, because these are the principles that guide a capitalist economy, and they are doing this in competition with other capitalist economies that are also powerful. They are introducing the consumerist model which is, as we have said on other occasions, completely unsustainable, and inconceivable for the billions of inhabitants on Earth.    .

They will also continue trying to subvert order in China. They will use subtler methods to try to impose the criteria, concepts, ideas and ways of Western societies on these countries. And they will use these measures on the Vietnamese as well.   

The hostility towards us means overthrowing the Revolution, the idea of it, destroying the Revolution, crushing the Revolution. And, like we were saying earlier, today they are fundamentally focusing on the programs they have announced, over and over again, for ideological warfare, through the famous Track Two, and economic warfare. Two things, ideological warfare and economic warfare, to asphyxiate the country economically, to try to strangle it, weaken it, create the optimal conditions for their rotten ideas to penetrate, or to create illusions to dupe the people who are not aware, as the young man who spoke today was aware, of the realities of/the world and the dominant system. This is why we must constantly go on explaining why they have what they have and on what basis they have what they have. One could also go so far as to ask how long the economic order they have imposed on the world can last.

They could be better off, the riches there could also be better distributed, more fairly distributed. They have accumulated the technology, science, industry, and all of the resources needed to produce in abundance.

The kind of society they have developed is ruinous for nature and it is ruinous for the world, given that they consume 25% of the world's energy annually, and they are the ones who have most polluted the air and the seas, the ones contributing the most to the changes in climate, the ones most resistant to taking measures. The Europeans, the Japanese, and all of the other countries are more willing to take measures related to the environment; those who govern the United States are the ones who put up the most resistance, they ones who are the least concerned by this. Nor can they be concerned, because their system does not allow them to be seriously concerned by this tragedy, because they work for capital, for profits, with anarchic laws that cannot be concerned about anything, neither the environment nor humankind, that is the result of the chaotic development they engender:

But it is a country where there shouldn't be 43 million people without guaranteed medical care; a country where there shouldn't be the inequalities that exist, the enormous differences in wealth, to the extent that some have fortunes of 50 billion dollars while others must sleep under bridges. This makes no sense, it is absolutely senseless, with all of the technical and material resources they have at their disposal, the productivity achieved in production and services. The manual farm labor of picking tomatoes and vegetables is work for immigrants from Mexico, Haiti, and other countries, it is not work for Americans. It is work for foreign immigrants, and everything else is done with machines.

It is essential to be aware of these realities so that no one can be fooled. We must not forget about imperialism, the imperialist system, — its origins in the developed capitalist system and where it leads the world. We must place the necessary emphasis on this subject, because it leads, inevitably, to huge disasters.

All of this forms part of the ideological battle, and putting the impossible dream into everyone's head.

There is a tremendous waste of resources of all kinds that could be put to better use at the service of humanity, instead of being squandered. They have introduced these habits into the countries of Latin America; they have invaded them. And that is why I hope that the Chinese do not renounce the bicycle, to which they owe so much.

In our case, we had to regress from the bus, and the 30,000 bus trips made daily, to the humble bicycle. We have bought millions of bicycles and are now manufacturing them. We have also had to adopt the famous "camel" buses and make the effort to withstand an extremely difficult situation in public transportation.

The United States talks about human rights, but it never talks about real human problems, the problems of the people who live in that hegemonic power itself and in the rest of the world. We, on the other hand, have always talked and continue to talk a great deal about humane things, and we do humane things that are a thousand times more humane than what those who dominate the world do for humankind.

They say that the law of the market is the one that will solve the problems of humanity, the sick, unemployment, poverty, hunger, the old people living alone, the abandoned children and all the rest, accompanied in its insane concept by the terrible selfishness engendered by these societies. These are themes which we must continue to emphasize, and they are related to the ideological battle which is so important, so fundamental, because these are the weapons with which they are attacking us hardest now. They have their military forces in reserve, but we do not know what they will do with them, because the world cannot be governed with nuclear weapons, it's impossible.

They have even had serious problems in a country as tiny as Somalia. By sticking their noses everywhere, they suffered a major setback there, a company was almost annihilated, and this created such problems in the United States that they had the wisdom to pull out their troops quickly.

They place their greatest hopes in the control they have over the mass media. They have great hopes in this, and they have enormous economic and technical resources to use for this purpose. We also talked about this during the congress.

These are issues that must be thought about, and that young people must think about seriously. One cannot be irresponsible in this era, because enormous problems for humanity are right around the corner.

Let me simply point out that within 50 years, humanity will have 10 billion inhabitants, and it cannot deal with the six billion it has today. Of these six billion, five billion live in underdevelopment and poverty, and only around one billion live in developed countries. And not all those who live in developed countries today receive the benefits of development. No, there is great inequality in the distribution of wealth in those developed nations, and millions, tens of millions of unemployed as well. There are problems of all kinds, but only one billion live there.

There are also wealthy people in the underdeveloped nations, and they have no problems. There is a percentage of the population that lives as if it lived in Europe, and from there down is where the tragedy is.

This is the reason for the enormous importance of this battle, and part of this battle in our country is the struggle against all illegal activities, I repeat, and all kinds of criminal activity.     

These things create uneasiness and anger, they corrupt and bring about the problems that you are aware of, that you have fought against, are fighting against, and propose to fight against with ever greater efforts, with ever more efficient methods, which include, to a very important extent, as I said, education, persuasion and prevention, in the general struggle that unites all forces, the major force that the Revolution has created to wage this struggle in these times.        •

World Socialist Review 
(edited extracts from a variety of anti-imperialist struggles.)

Cuban resolution approved by majority: 157 votes in favor, two against and 12 abstentions

UN report reflects criticisms of the blockade against Cuba

BY an overwhelming majority, the UN General Assembly approved a resolution demanding the lifting of the blockade of Cuba, maintained by the United States for almost 40 years.

The text was approved by 157 in favor, two against (the United States and Israel) and 12 abstentions. This is the seventh consecutive time that the UN has passed a resolution against the blockade. On each occasion, the voting has reflected the international community's majority rejection of Washington's Cuba policy.

On the first occasion, in November 1992, the resolution received 59 votes in favor, while in November 1997 it was supported by 143 member countries — in other words, 77% of UN members  —  while only the United States, Israel and Uzbekistan voted against it.

The Cuban resolution urges states in which coercive legislation and measures against the island are still being applied to take the necessary steps to repeal them or annul as rapidly as possible.

It additionally asks the secretary-general, in consultation with the relevant UN agencies, to draw up a report on the resolution's fulfillment in the light of the objectives and principles of the UN Charter and international law. 

UN REPORT REFLECTS CRITICISMS OF WASHINGTON'S POLICY

Just before the resolution was submitted to the General Assembly, a report to the UN membership containing numerous criticisms of that policy of pressure was made public by Kofi Annan, its secretary-general.

The document, prepared for the 54th Assembly session in response to the resolution on this issue adopted in November 1997, demonstrates international rejection of this U.S. measure and attempts to internationalize it.

According to news from New York, the report notes that at least 58 countries — including Britain in representation of the presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Union (EU), an observer (The Vatican) and seven of the UN system's agencies and bodies  — rejected that aggressive Washington policy, operative for almost 40 years.

The responses received highlight the rejection and condemnation of measures intended to further intensify the blockade of the island, such as the Helms-Burton Act, whose objective is to sanction third countries that establish any economic or commercial links with the Cuban government or business institutions on the island.

The "understanding" between the United States and the European Union in relation to their dispute over trade with Cuba is a major misunderstanding whose application "will open a Pandora's box" in international relations, according to various legal and international relations experts.

The dispute centers on the Helms-Burton Act, passed in the United States in 1996, which attempts to punish companies in third countries for doing business with Cuba related to former U.S. goods nationalized after the triumph of the Revolution in 1959.

Wayne Smith of the International Policy Center and a former diplomat in Havana, states that the act is in violation of international law, but that everyone wants to avoid a conflict between the United States and the European Union.

The EU had filed a complaint before the World Trade Organization concerning that legislation, but withdrew it in the wake of the understanding, reached on May 18 in London, after hurried negotiations with Washington.

Former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Lawrence Eagleburger have urged U.S. President Bill Clinton to convene a bipartisan commission responsible for making recommendations based on an "objective analysis" of Washington's Cuba policy.

Kissinger and Eagleburger are added to the list of those advocating such a commission, including Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci and former Senate leader Howard Baker, among others.

On behalf of the group, Eagleburger sent a message to Senator John Warner, who informed Clinton that a full review of the United States' Cuba policy was needed, given that none had taken place since 1969. He recommended that the commission should study issues such as the national and international consequences of the economic "embargo" against the island.   •

Robaina responds to U.S.

CUBA is not at all afraid of delving deeply into the subject of human rights, since it was precisely to save the lives of 11 million Cubans that it began its efforts in 1959, stated Foreign Minister Roberto Robaina.

Asked by Prensa Latina at the United Nations about his opinion concerning accusations in this regard, made in the U.S. representative's speech during the debate on the Cuban resolution against the blockade —  which was approved by 157 nations during the voting — Robaina said that he is not surprised that the United States is having more and more trouble finding arguments against the resolution.

"That's the reason they can't use the same hackneyed phrases they've been mouthing for so long," he added.

Recalling that Cuba has maintained a profound and serious dialog on this subject with many countries of the world, he called on Washington to be fair and use the same human rights standards for all countries, rather than applying discriminatory, selective and politicized criteria and mounting campaigns that are getting boring.

"We have said it over and over again: if the United States wants to talk about human rights, let's talk about all human rights.

"And we could begin with this very country [the United States], talking about the large number of humans without rights." •

THE VOTE BY COUNTRY

In favor:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua-Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso,  Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comores, Costa Rica, Côte d'lvoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua-New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Po-
land, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Is lands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname. Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo. Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Against: Israel, United States
Abstentions: El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Uzbekistan
Absent: Albania, Kuwait, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Oman, Palau
Ineligible to vote for lack of payment or other reason: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq, Kampuchea, Liberia, Republic of the Congo, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, Yugoslavia