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 50 London SW17 9NL] [Post Office Regd]  
No 0979 December 15th 1998                                                                                                                                 10p 

Review closing for two weeks.

Workers-state supporters and anti-communists are on opposite sides of the class barricades. Agreement on world political and philosophical perspectives is the only basis for lasting unity in action. The long negative influences of Cold-War cynicism will only give way to a renewed communist spirit in the working class when a party of leadership starts to take on all bourgeois ideological confusion and routs it. Trotskyite misunderstanding of history is an immediately damaging threat to working class interests, e.g. on Ireland. Trot economic muddleheadedness is even more reactionary. 'No more Bolshevism' complacency is criminally disastrous misleadership. If the anti-communist prejudice within every 'reformist' illusion is not tackled, the fight against slump-crisis will be much harder.

People who don't really see eye-to-eye about the world political scene today and how we have arrived here, and how the world must move on, are fundamentally split, as the early history of the SLP has shown, as well as the laughably fractious Socialist Alliances which back-stabbingly fall apart as fast as they are formed.

Grave divisions are fragmenting the Socialist Party (formerly Militant) which has now lost its whole Merseyside Region as well as its Scottish national sector. Numerous anti-communist sectarian groups have entered the SLP and then left again, and recent months posed the biggest splits of all.

An uneasy alliance of people with diametrically opposed views about the world remains an uneasy alliance, no matter how much they have deliberately compromised for practical purposes.

Sectarian defeatism which thinks socialism is a dirty word, scorns 'cranky Marxism', and is delighted that the world's first workers states (the Soviet Union and East Europe) were "swept away along with the Berlin Wall", is a petty-bourgeois CLASS attitude which will not change.

It is thin soil on which confidence can grow of being able to stand side-by-side at all the barricades ahead which will include far more testing decisions than merely whether to defer to 'left' Labour MPs or 'left' Alliances, or whether in the past to have capitulated to bogus 'democracy' intimidation for ballot demands which would be dominated by the pro-capitalist propaganda and media monopolies, — going all the way to the most complex future questions of workers statehood and the colossal revolutionary implications involved in that. 

Far from confidence of standing side-by-side at such future barricades, the expectation must be of ending up on the opposite sides of the barricades, — as has happened to the overwhelming majority of fake-'lefts' at every overthrow of capitalism so far in history, ending up opposing a workers state and backing the bourgeois 'democracy' fraud instead, — i.e. the counter-revolution.

The speed of the 'free world' economic collapse, which will quickly start shattering all illusions in 'democracy', sends an urgent warning to all workers parties: Get in shape soon or you will quickly demonstrate your inadequacy to deal with a revolutionary crisis.

A confident and dependable party spirit is obviously indispensable for such a major undertaking as the overthrow of capitalism.

The traditions for this in most Western countries have been destroyed by the seemingly never-ending post-war boom in world imperialism since 1945.

The mentality for proper communist comradeship has been undermined by more than 50 years of triumphant 'reformist' political opportunism and by the anarchic aggressiveness resulting from rampant consumerism.

People have been able to get by for too long by being unapologetic individualists, for it not to have a marked effect on attitudes towards socialism and the class struggle.

But the position is not remotely as difficult as it might seem in the eyes of now widespread defeatism.

The anti-theory shallowness of the defeatists (e.g. most Trotskyite sectarian attitudes) ignores the reality of the collapsing capitalist system and therefore ignores the reality of class-solidarity and combativeness being constantly re-born by conditions of injustice, exploitation, and ultimately degradation.

And in some ways people are more sophisticated now than ever before in their familiarity with the vast field of modern communications and with the massive expansion of modern travel, labour techniques, job relocation, family breakdown, etc, (although the accompanying all-round destructiveness is also, of course, what helps make capitalism no longer tolerable for civilisation).

And the rapid changes in present-day commercial culture (music scene, fashion, TV cults, entertainment attractions, etc) have a similar effect although tending to the negative because of the frequently abysmal and dumbed-down contents.

But to build the working class fightback against capitalist decadence and decay, a party of working class leadership has to be built.

And to build that new party of leadership, the recreation of a confident and dependable 'party spirit' is an essential requirement, and the obstacles to it must be overcome.

Solidarity in successful party struggle 'in the field' is one obvious priceless binding agent. A workers party, active along the right lines, stands a chance of becoming a winning party.

But the solidarity in action can only ultimately depend on broad theoretical agreement, which is easily the most important factor of all in party building.

And the indisputable key to getting ideological agreement in a party is one thing and one thing only, a CORRECT analysis of ALL political phenomena from the point of view of building the surest and quickest route to proletarian revolutionary triumph, the only possible basis for constructing a truly new socialist society.

To get there, it must be a party that is able to discuss EVERYTHING, — everything that is in the headlines, everything that people are discussing, everything that is used to brainwash the public into anti-communism and counter-revolutionary nationalism.

A party that wants to earn the trust of all working people as the future party of leadership, to be followed all the way to the very bold confident step of abolishing capitalism and building a workers state in Britain, the only way a socialist society can be constructed, —  must be able to demonstrate that it can handle EVERY question of life and the community and philosophy BETTER THAN all the spokesmen and women of a thousand brands of bourgeois ideology (including fake-'left' petty-bourgeois ideology like Trotskyism) all combined.

A workers party will never prove that by just running away from discussing difficult questions just because Trot counter-revolutionaries and other single-issue 'reformist' fanatics are out stirring up censorship lynch-mobs.

It will never prove it by allowing endless reactionary disruption by anti-communist factionalists who want to totally mislead the WHOLE CLASS struggle (to jointly overthrow capitalism) into the sterile and racist divisiveness of separate schools for black children and separate schools for white children, separate sections in the party for black workers, etc, etc. Debate is necessary, but once a debate has been comprehensively won by a majority of the party, then the party has to decide what is the CORRECT line, and then move on.

It will never prove itself the total answer to ALL bourgeois ideology unless it constantly encourages the continuous developments required in the party's original (and inevitably time-dated) tactics & programmatic starting points. 

The immediate political composition of capitalist society and the broadest workers movement are changing all the time: Workers need constantly to be able to analyse everything that is going on around them, including in the labour movement around fake-'left' or anarchist trends.

It will never convincingly demonstrate its seriousness until it is prepared to accept its own mistakes, or mistakes committed in its name (over Ireland, e.g., or the extent of the economic crisis, etc), and correct them publicly.

Trotskyite articles on Ireland, e.g. have appeared in Socialist News which simply ignore, slightingly, one of the most colossal triumphs of anti-imperialist national liberation struggle of all time.

Negative references to the joke imperialist 'New World Order' supposedly imposing a settlement on Ireland in favour of the Union-Jack waving colonial fascists and one which IRA/Sinn Féin did not want but were powerless to prevent (SN 12) are just hopelessly WRONG and have the effect of the supposedly anti-imperialist SLP actually HARMING the anti-imperialist struggle there by spreading this biased anti-Irish propaganda to demoralise the heroic fight by Sinn Féin/IRA and demoralise its supporters in Britain.

And even though one strongly pro-Sinn Féin article was printed, nothing has been done in a tiny party like the SLP to keep this debate alive and ongoing so that the party is up-to-date on this issue and cementing better relations with Sinn Féin all the time, one of the most outstanding anti-imperialist parties on earth at the present time, and one with some of the greatest potential for becoming a ruling party (in all-Ireland) with more socialist content and intentions than any current ruling party in the West.

Now all of this may still be some distance away, but the May/June 1998 SN stance was entirely in the wrong direction. It lazily adopted the widespread Trot-defeatist cynicism which has insisted (Weekly Worker and elsewhere) that the imperialist order was imposing a settlement on IRA/Sinn Féin which the Republicans hated but were capitulating to, — abandoning the armed struggle and allowing Adams & Co to pursue opportunist bourgeois political careers.

For the gist of this defeatist nonsense to have appeared in Socialist News is a tragedy, especially if it remains uncorrected.

And if it is to lead the working class in Britain, the SLP must become a party which can reach conclusions and take a stand in the further interests of the international defeat of the imperialist system, of which Blair's is the stooge representative government in Britain.

The Trots are wrong. Only the EPS Review has come remotely near the truth, and has printed it loudly and clearly throughout. The national liberation struggle has not remotely been abandoned, and the IRA is nowhere near capitulating.

It has offered a peace ceasefire so that a completely new Ireland can be put in place, — the Good Friday Agreement for cross-border bodies to begin adopting most of the government of all-Ireland.

When that de facto obliteration of the old colonial 'Northern Ireland' tyranny is complete, including a completely new police force, etc, not run by anti-Irish colonial fascists, — the national liberation movement will begin to stand down its armed struggle, simultaneously with all non-Irish arms being taken out of the struggle meaning the British Army, the sectarian RUC, and the criminal gangs of 'loyalist' fascist gunmen.

But the IRA has made it clear this week that there will be no de-commissioning until the British imperialist Unionists who wish to remain Ireland-dwellers (Trimble & Co) have started to actually implement and accept the new all-Ireland structure for that much-wronged land.

It is British imperialism which has been defeated, — by an undefeatable armed national liberation struggle — NOT the IRA/Sinn Féin.

So far, the EPS Review has been astonishingly accurate in its Marxist analysis going back 20 years, even being far more farsighted (and at book length) in 1982 and 1985 in seeing imperialism's DEFEAT (longterm political defeat) in the outcome of the hunger strikes and the Anglo-Irish Treaty when Sinn Féin itself which initially could only see both events as a setback for the national liberation struggle (only much later changing its mind, to some extent).

Now, — to repeat once again (and it will be repeated a million times in the future), — none of this is related in order to prove who were the clever-dicks and who were the duffers around the British labour movement or the SLP.

The point is to argue that without a deliberate struggle for Marxist theory, any workers party will be immeasurably poorer.

The same happened over the world capitalist economic crisis which the December 1997 Congress was told "may not come to Britain" solely because Trotspeak wished to undermine "cranky Marxism" and is also philosophically confused by imperialism's collapse because it puts Trot treachery to the Soviet workers state in such a bad light. (If the entire consumer glitz and high wage earning 'democracy' of the 'free world' collapses in fascist-slump degradation, what then becomes of all the Revisionist and Trot imbecilities about the workers states "being on the wrong path"? Basically, they were on the correct planned development path of slow-but-steady growth and product innovation (hampered by the need to meet colossal armed defence bills) and bureaucratic-but-equitable distribution and justice. By comparison with the ex-Soviet region's present plight, worsening all the time, it was almost a socialist paradise, as renewed communist revolutionary struggle will demonstrate, shortly forthcoming.)

Obviously, the EPS Review is not now the only source of struggle for advanced theory and understanding of how the world situation is developing which places the crisis of imperialism at the centre of its thinking, (or its posturing in the case of petty-bourgeois opportunist sources like the Trots); but the notion that "they were bound to be right some day, going on about the crisis for so long" which is how the Weekly Worker immediately tries to justify its own rotten past record, — (as the EPSR predicted would happen), — won't wash.

Firstly, the Marxist scientific understanding of imperialist crisis as the dominant driving force basically stimulating all other developments in this crisis epoch and as colouring the understanding of ALL other phenomena in world society, — is a very different question from merely now bringing in the general international economic worries as an occasionally influential factor in how politics is developing, which is how everyone else makes the crisis a 'central feature'.

Secondly, a huge part of the effect of discovering the influence of imperialist crisis on world events is as much looking back on past events with hindsight as looking forward to what will come as a result of world slump and market crashes.

And here, all the glib opportunists now parading their grasp of how important this economic crisis is, begin to fall down horribly.

Take the partisans of the 'imperialist new world order' for example, explaining how the Irish national-liberation struggle was "forced to submit", or Saddam Hussein, or the Palestinians, or the South African national liberation struggle, etc, etc.

There is now a lot of non-submission going on; and the Marxist (EPSR) perception that the imperialist international economic system was deep in crisis from a long way back, as the Review consistently pointed out to everyone, proves that the imperialist bourgeoisie (led by the US ruling class) was the very OPPOSITE of coolly in charge of everything, controlling every development, — and super-confident about getting everything else right too. NOTHING was being got right, and Washington has all the time been being undermined by its own certain knowledge that the economic crisis was already well out of control.

With hindsight, it can now be seen that US imperialism has bludgeoned its way around the world with anything but confidence that it 'knew what it was doing' and that 'everyone else would be wildly impressed and subservient to this American know-how of solving every problem under the sun.'

American imperialism has been acting in clumsy despair and confusion for much of the time, and riddled with ruling class self-doubt back home. The bizarre 'impeach Clinton' phenomenon is largely explained by this debilitating fear that everything is going wrong at the end of the 'American century'.

And it truly is. The other hopeless weakness in the line that 'we are all aware of the crisis now, thank you Marxists' is that capitalism's new-found critics still have not a clue, and do not want to have one, about exactly what are the revolutionary POLITICAL implications of the market system's impending collapse.

All their old anti-communist rubbish about 'glad to get rid of that terrible Berlin Wall and those awful workers states' is going to come flooding back up the system to stifle these treacherous opportunists in their own nonsense.

Raw proletarian power will eventually be taking over everywhere which will make even Ceaucescu's arbitrary regime look like a haven of peace, good sense, and enlightenment by comparison.

Many outsiders may not like it in one sense. Trots will quickly find excuses for solidarity with 'bourgeois democracy' in denouncing it all. Genuine communist revolutionaries will agree with Marxist science that such proletarian dictatorship is the only way forward, and therefore is the most glorious potential advance for civilisation imaginable.

How rugged the struggle becomes in West Europe is not yet clear, but it is at least obvious that scores of 'miners ballot' incidents will be replayed in Britain, for example, but with much more hanging on the collective determination and strength of the working class than even the important strike to prevent coal industry destruction, — and with much more class-war bitterness and violence (from the state, etc) than even that titanic battle.

But above all, more and more complex questions of all class inter-relationships, 'democracy', the state, and revolution are going to be involved, as utter slump degradation pulls capitalist society to shreds.

Obviously the working-class party could take all this in its stride. But far better would it be for a party of leadership to start intensively educating itself in these matters mow, and not deliberately go in the wrong direction by complacent nonsense about 'the crisis not coming to Britain' and anti-communist hysteria about "we don't need a super-Bolshevik party here", etc, especially when presented not as a contribution to rational discussion but as the rabid invective for a censorship witch-hunt.

As mentioned, one priceless advantage of fullscale world capitalist crisis once again becoming the central driving force of the whole planet's political developments is that the real significance for history of the workers states' achievements in the 20th century and their eventual liquidation by Revisionist (anti-Marxist) confusion, can begin to be reassessed.

As the last Review spelt out in graphic detail using capitalist press own admissions about how catastrophically things had gone in the former Soviet Union (and almost everywhere else in East Europe too) after the workers state (proletarian dictatorship) was deliberately broken up, — the USSR's bureaucratic, steady, stolid, and sometimes brilliant progress may look one thing when compared to the glitz and glamour of the seemingly endlessly booming West (especially on Bond St, 5th Avenue, or the Champs Elysée) but looks something completely different when devastating slump and degradation has started to return to haunt the cream of the 'free-world' existence (itself always a fraud to start with since it was only ever based on appalling exploitation, poverty, and fascist injustice over much of the Third World).

Bureaucratic revisionist dolts they may have been running East Europe, but for the vast majority of the population, however political frustrated (and economically too) they may have felt themselves to be, — the reality was that they flourished healthily and lived in far more secure, equitable, educated, and culturally literate societies than certainly they have got now with the return of 'mafia capitalism'. (When or where has it ever been different, other than in appearance only in just a tiny few West European societies)?

Ordinary working-class people could never have enjoyed anywhere under capitalism even in boom times such healthy perspectives and social justice as Soviet life boasted.

Such newly-opening perspectives as these on the former workers states will plunge all past anti-communist propaganda into absolute crisis, including the whole sweep of political opportunism (from fake-'lefts' of all kinds (Trots, etc) to bourgeois-academic anti-communism (the press and TV, university departments and colleges, films and book publishing, etc)).

That entire anti-communist culture needs totally humiliating and destroying. They will continue to argue that 'yes, capitalist slump is getting nasty, but the old East Europe was still far worse', etc, to cover their backsides.

But rapidly deteriorating Western-society degeneracy and fascist slump will quickly make that observation irrelevant, and the ultimate degradation of renewed inter-imperialist war (a continuation of World Wars I and II) will make it even more disgracefully false and inappropriate. Communist revolution will eventually take over and do the rest.

All the time that still-generally-unrouted anti-communist culture carries on hanging round the workers movement, it will spread nothing but bogus theory, defeatist demoralisation, factional disruption, and witch-hunting slander. It is a class question of petty-bourgeois individualism and conceited opportunism. Down with it, and build Leninism.

EDITORIAL CHANGE

The reactionary influence still on the workers movement from decades of anti-communism, sometimes cloaked under a variety of self-righteous posturing around single-issue 'reformist' campaigning, has made SLP vice president Royston Bull's temporary withdrawal from the editorship unavoidable.

Defeated Trot anti-communists around the SLP have staged a monstrous campaign of personal vilification and slander, including strike threats and other blackmail attempts, to try to rescue their factional positions within the party.

This factionalising had long been on the skids anyway inside the SLP because of its disruptiveness and its hopelessly wrong politics (see main article), — but it decided to lash out with this farcical witch-hunt hysteria after losing out at the November Congress elections.

Their real hatred is the EPSR's uncompromising fight for full-blooded Marxist-Leninist communist philosophy for the past 20 years which has completely trounced Revisionist and Trotskyite nonsense on every major issue in the world (see main article and previous 978 issues).

At their London SLP Region strike meeting, Heron blurted it all out, going incandescent about "cranky Marxism" and adding "this trend was swept away by the collapse of the Berlin Wall and all those countries" in the most vicious McCarthyite manner, wanting the same thing to happen to the EPS Review (see main article and last week's EPSR).

The Heronites borrowed the "lets play the homophobe card" tactic from another group of defeated Trotskyite entryists at the CPGB whose Weekly Worker personal vilification campaign has run non-stop as a cover for the fact that the EPSR's Marxist-Leninist science has repeatedly trounced these Trots on every major world issue and philosophical question, from their complete misunderstanding of the Irish national-liberation struggle, the disappearance of the USSR, the SLP phenomenon, etc (see main article and last 3 years EPS Review) to the reactionary influences of self-righteous bourgeois individualism which afflict much single issue campaigning with reformist illusions.

It is the anti-revolutionary prejudice inherent in reformist illusions which persuades these anti-communist Trot opportunists to a giant posture for Gay Rights or feminism, e.g., as the way to try to regain ground by besmirching the EPS Review's name.

They previously peddled Black Nationalism for similarly manipulative reasons, denouncing the whole SLP as 'racist' when it refused to go along with their blatant opportunist manoeuvre for two extra seats for Trots on the SLP executive.

Because of its anti-communist and anti-revolutionary prejudices born inevitably out of the sour decades of all-round Cold War cynicism, much of the individualist and reformist-illusion philosophy of this single-issue campaigning era continues to breed nothing but cynicism towards the renewed perspectives now for the revolutionary overthrow of the whole capitalist system (the only real way that things will ever be properly reformed).

(It is at this point of political anti-communist cynicism that the Trots develop such sudden enthusiasm for Gay Rights campaigning, falsely accusing the EPS Review of 'homophobia').

But their real target is precisely the Review's unparalleled analysis (going back step-by-step for 20 years)of the inevitability of eventual catastrophic imperialist economic crisis which has obviously informed the entire Marxist-Leninist exposure and denunciation of Revisionism's and Trotskyism s miserable capitulation to imperialist 'New World Order' nonsense (see main story) and their cowardly treachery to the workers states.

The Trots hate the EPSR's crisis analysis (denounced by Heron as 'cranky Marxism', and 'pointlessly wanting to recreate a super Bolshevik party' (see last week's EPSR) because it has been relentlessly stalking their anti-communist and anti-workers-state treachery.

If it has always been known (to Marxism) that imperialism was inevitably heading for the most destructive, devastating, and degenerate slump and fascist warmongering crisis in all history, making the degradation of World Wars I and II (the results of the previous great imperialist crises) look like child's play, — then the vicious Trot and Revisionist cynicism (towards the now obviously heroic achievements of the workers states) is at last fully seen for the disgusting opportunist philistinism that it always was.

The venom which superficially they seem to be putting into their Gay Rights defence against non-existent 'homophobia' in the EPSR's fight for a complete Marxist-Leninist revolutionary, (not reformist) philosophy, — is really fuelled by this hate-filled demoralised panic among the Trots that their whole life's fake-'left' anti-communist manoeuvring is suddenly turning to dust, — just when they had been thinking about triumphant careerist political ambitions in the aftermath of the supposed 'collapse' (a completely phony analysis, — it was sabotaged; see past EPSRs and many, many forthcoming Reviews) of the Soviet Union, which they assumed had proved Trotskyism right after all. Not so. Just the opposite, in fact.

But far from weakening the EPSR, this hysterical campaign of personal vilification and attempted censorship (trying to get the EPSR closed down is closer to fascist bookburning than to the Marxist tradition of written polemics against philosophical positions thought to be incorrect or disagreeable) will quickly discover that the Review's 20-year fight for Marxist-Leninist science has produced a theoretically competent communist cadre-strength which will continue to slaughter Trotskyite nonsense both inside and outside the SLP.

They tried physical violence outside the Manchester Congress hall, and aggressive threats at the London Region meeting, and now they have had a shameful mini-success in joining the SLP's name to anti-Marxist censorship temporarily.

But as this Review issue explains, the attempt to stop discussion of every aspect of capitalist society and bourgeois ideology facing the working class is both sterile and futile.

The galloping fascist hysteria which now feels free to express political pique at losing office by hurling slanderous vilification at opponents (anti-semite; gas-chamber-Nazi; gay-basher; misogynist; racist; and even paedophile, has been just the milder abuse from Heron supporters) may have been got away with temporarily, in the ideological confusion not yet clarified by stronger and more widespread Marxist-Leninist revolutionary understanding. 

But the new spirit of communism within the working class will eventually know how to deal with this crap and it will not be by swallowing it.

The Review's position is for TOTAL class war on the enemies of the working class and, unlike the bourgeois press (Trot muddleheads included), was for kicking the POLITICALLY odious reactionary Ron Davies AND his rotten government as hard as possible on every issue. That included his totally bogus 'family man' opportunist self-presentation, and the government's monstrous LIES (for whatever reason) about "a sudden lapse of judgement". 

Just not true, as the EPSR alone pointed out from the detailed police and MI5 records of Davies's lavatorial cruising. And shouting 'homophobe' at all this, on Davies's behalf, must be some kind of congenital insanity, but certainly can have nothing to do with a class-war wish to utterly destroy the ruling class and their New Labour stooge government.

Now by all means let the EPSR's view on this question be a matter for broader discussion in the workers movement. It was front-page news for nearly 10 days in the mass-audience capitalist press and television.

But just assuming the fake-'left' swamp must all be right in their 'defend Ron Davies' attitude, keeping the faith with all Gay Rights campaigning regardless of its political orientation, is capitulation to 'reformist' political hysteria. 

Fake-'left' solidarity with Clinton, the head fascist of US imperialist aggression (Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Palestine (via endless Zionist imperialist tyranny)), etc, etc, because of his slick 'progressive' posturing domestically, — is equally naïve treachery to the basic class war requirements of anti-imperialism. 

Overthrow him for his creepy sexual opportunism and exploitation, and split and humiliate the American ruling establishment at the same time. The whole world of poverty is laughing at Clinton. It is class treachery to defend him and not to join in the ridicule.

The fake-'left' has never been right on anything else. Why is their self-righteous defence of petty bourgeois 'individual rights' so sacrosanct now?? A workers party should try to give a lead to the working class over all such politically prominent moralising upheavals, not let fascist hysteria from defeated Trot anti-communists try to use single issue 'reformist' fanaticism to close down the EPS Review for trying to start a Marxist debate on such emotive issues.

But the SLP has responded by totally ignoring the moral controversy in its own paper; by spiking an article on the American ruling class moral and political crisis over Clinton; by giving no other lead to the working class as to what attitude the working class party takes to such moralising upheavals; and by letting fascist hysteria try to close down the EPS Review for publishing a Marxist attitude to such matters.

A more enlightened communist spirit is gradually gaining ground, however. The EPSR, which has published independently for nearly 20 years and will carry on doing so, will continue to promote and spread that communist spirit as far and wide as possible throughout the whole international working class.

It has its own remit for commenting on the whole British labour movement (as part of its commentary on the whole world political and philosophical scene), as it has been doing for nearly 20 years in the interests of Marxist scientific understanding in general, and as it is doing in this article.

It has an unmatched record for combative communist analysis of every world event for the last 20 years from a position of support for world revolutionary (anti-imperialist) struggle, — as shown for example in its massive contributions in understanding the Irish struggle (see main story), and must continue this work no matter what outrageous censorial political pressure is put on past prominent contributors. S.J.

Northern (and southern) jobs slaughter is down to capitalist crisis. Mistaken calls for "import controls" won't ease the pain but help reaction divert angry workers from socialist revolt and building the SLP

The BBC's Panorama documentary on the massacre of jobs in the North of the country clearly comes in nervous response to fears that these communities could explode in revolt at being callously decimated by the world capitalist crisis.

Naturally, the biased BBC report went out of its way to find "ordinary responses" among factory workers to the mass lay-offs, rather than the most sophisticated socialist-minded response by workers, as might be found within the ranks of the SLP.

Nevertheless, the families interviewed were full of contempt for the New Labour government, with one sacked plant foreman saying that "Blair opens his mouth and a load of crap comes out." Even the BBC would have been aware of the contrast with the footage of Tony Blair at the Guildhall in black tie and tails, "explaining" vicar-like why there's nothing the government can do about the global market forces destroying people's livelihoods.

This stinking New Labour government is asking for trouble, and the petty bourgeois media knows it.

But their job is not to enlighten and assist the socialist revolution to end the hire-and-fire exploitation system, their job is to cover their backsides by feigning serious coverage of the historically disastrous effects of the economic depression, but also to twist workers' minds towards safe reactionary "solutions".

Hence the prominence given to businessmen explaining that recession would only last a while; that interest rates were the sole problem, and to the worker who started wondering whether "protecting our industries from foreign competitors" would put things to rights.

The thinking, of course, is not a million miles from "British jobs for British workers" and is a total DISASTER as far as the socialist interests of the working class are concerned. Import controls UNDER CAPITALISM will only ever be part of a tit-for-tat spiral of protectionism that would wipe out jobs all around the world at a faster rate than ever before.

For any "left" voices to start lulling workers into falling for this non-solution to crisis is beyond a sick joke. As each country — from Asia, to Europe, to the US itself — falls victim to economic damage from international trade war, so the pressure from all manner of corporations will mount for "special protection" or anti-dumping measures or extra tariffs on foreign goods etc.

Half the Democratic party in the US leans this way already, as do the utterly anti-communist US trade unions. No genuine socialist ever wants to get involved in weighing in with this lethal nonsense which will just soap the rope for right-wing confusion in the working class, along divisive chauvinistic lines, without slowing the job losses at all.

The Panorama programme was strikingly useful for giving a sense of the pain, anger and bitterness being inflicted on ordinary people by slump-crisis. Most of all, it was striking that people were looking for ANSWERS: why are we forced to live in such soul destroying, hire-and-fire exploitation conditions?

For example, the Textilian workers in Sunderland who lost jobs after years of working at the factory, then found new jobs with another company, only for this one to collapse within weeks. 

Or the Fujitsu ultra-modern factory workers, who had been full of enthusiasm for working in a white-hot technology area — a modern workplace, opened by the Queen, and in Tony Blair's own constituency only to be laid off in their thousands when it was closed down after two years operation.

It is utterly treacherous to tell these workers that there is some sort of class collaborating solution to mass unemployment crisis UNDER CAPITALISM, where workers "can save their jobs by protecting 'their' industry through import controls".  

This is a REACTIONARY LIE.

Import controls are the reactionary demagogy of corporate-populist politicians, like Tony Benn and the rightwing US trade unions. They will "cure" no ills, but lethally dangerously attempt to bind workers to their own national bourgeoisie.

The angry workers of Sunderland and elsewhere are ready to KICK OVER the entire hire-and-fire capitalist system and build a workers state. Fake 'socialist' explanations that won't talk revolution are worse than useless to them. And where there is a "conflict" with workers, not yet sure that this is required, then genuine proletarian socialists have to have the guts and the trained ability to talk them through it.

NO to import controls! NO to reactionary nationalist diversions!

Fight for the abolition of capitalism. Build Leninism. Build the SLP.

Chris Barratt

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

Time for defeated British imperialism to crush the veto of its decadent local colonists in Ireland.

THE Ulster Unionist Party, already in breach of the Good Friday Agreement, has so far successfully frustrated the establishment of an Executive in the Six Counties and an all-Ireland Ministerial Council.

This week they turned their attention to the issue of the release of political prisoners, and the creation of an acceptable police force, both vital ingredients of the Agreement, and began what seems to be the beginning of a concerted attempt to have progress on these issues frustrated too.

As pointed out by Sinn Féin Chairperson Mitchel McLaughlin the unionists are clearly involved in a "programmatic attempt to dismantle the Agreement" itself.

It seems to be only a matter of time until the unionists attempt to prevent any progress on the issues of equality and the Irish language, provisions for which are contained in the Agreement.

It is the responsibility of all the political representatives of the Irish people and both the British and Irish governments to ensure that the express wishes of the people are not trampled underfoot by those who want to bring down the Agreement and prevent political progress and that such attempts are exposed and confounded. .

It was therefore annoying to hear Séamus Mallon in his address to the SDLP annual conference attempt to equate Sinn Féin with the UUP in terms of attitudes to the Good Friday Agreement. He decried the placing of sectoral party interests before those of the wider community and lumped Sinn Féin in with the UUP in putting "party before the agreement".

Nothing could be further from the truth and Mallon knows it. Sinn Féin has consistently attempted to uphold the Agreement and to see that all of its provisions are adhered too. The pursuit of this course of action has resulted in what has been described here before as collateral damage. Sinn Féin has met all of its requirements under the Agreement and seeks to have its provisions brought into reality. In contrast the unionists are in breach of the Agreement and are actively attempting to destroy it.

The antics of unionists in trying to re-write and overturn what they already agreed comes as no surprise to republicans. This rearguard reaction is central to the nature and practice of unionism over many decades.

For political unionism to accept full equality for Irish nationalists would signal the end of the Northern Ireland state as we know it. Unionism's raison d'être has been the maintenance of that state in all it's sectarian, gerrymandered, and undemocratic glory. They are not prepared now to voluntarily forgo that task.

But the refusal to establish the Executive and the all-Ireland Ministerial Council and the associated implementation bodies has put the future of the Agreement in serious doubt. The Peace process cannot stand still ― it either goes forward or it eventually starts going backwards. This should be a matter of deep concern to everyone. Above all it should be a matter of concern to the Irish and British governments.

Unionism's successes so far in stimying the wishes of the people is leading to a growing sense of despair and disillusionment. Faith in the Agreement is being steadily eroded. Urgent action is required.

The challenge once again is to dispense with the unionist veto. That veto has been one of the factor's in Irish politics which has sustained the conflict over the years and the removal of which is central to conflict resolution. In the past, both recent and distant, British government's gave way to it and we have all had to live with the consequences of such an appeasement policy.

The current impasse around the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement has been created by the mentality within unionism which is refusing to change and which wants to impose a veto over political change.

The British and 26-County governments must not allow the unionist veto to prevail over the implementation of the agreement. To do so would be to fly in the face of the expressed wishes of the people of Ireland who voted for the agreement in overwhelming numbers. It is time now that they intervened directly.

The British and Irish governments and all of the political parties including Ulster Unionists themselves know that Unionist arguments around decommissioning do not equate with the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

The choice they have to make is whether they will keep their word and implement what they signed up to or whether they will allow the process to collapse.

For David Trimble, this means abandoning attempts to turn back the clock. As it seems he is as yet unwilling to do so the impetus must come from others.

Tony Blair cannot allow the Agreement to fail. He must force the pace of political change in the Six Counties, tackle the causes .of conflict and render redundant the unionist veto.

Bertie Ahem must stand full-square in defence of nationalist interests at a time when they are under direct attack. Nationalist unity around the issues which have been so hardly fought in recent years is now essential so that what has been achieved is not lost by default.

As has been stated here before it is now time to bring to bear on the entire process the influence and direct involvement of all those forces which were so crucial to securing the Agreement itself last April and that includes the US administration. 

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

Gerry Adams reports back to Republican News from Washington on imperialist colonist attempt to play the Orange card yet again.

Last Thursday, at two o'clock Ian the morning, as Mr Blair was leaving Stormont he told me; "There will be agreement on the departments and bodies by this evening."

"Don't be too sure," I cautioned him; "The unionists won't close on this in your absence."

THIS TIME I came to the United States with some reluctance due to the behaviour of UUP leader and First Minister designate David Trimble.

Last week he reneged on a deal to put the peace process back on course. This week he and I, and the rest of the party leaders are in the United States to receive peace prizes. But the process has to be about delivering peace, not pocketing peace prizes. Mr Trimble doesn't seem to realise that. The rest of us do.

John Hume, for example, is a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. I wish him well. I also wish David Trimble well. But I hope he rises to the honour being bestowed upon him. His behaviour last week shows he has a long way to go.

Last week, having agreed in principle on ten departments for the new executive in the North of Ireland and having agreed in principle on some of the all-Ireland implementation and policy making bodies in intense discussions involving the British Prime Minister, the SDLP, Sinn Féin and the Irish government, Mr Trimble back-pedalled.

The discussions took place up at Stormont. Mr Blair flew in to be personally involved. The Taoiseach Bertie Ahern was at the end of the phone. For the previous five or six weeks his government had engaged with the rest of us to get a broad sense of what was required on the issues under discussion.

Those of us who engaged positively were concerned to agree the departments and implementation bodies so that the two governments could pass legislation in time to keep the process in tune with the second deadline for February.

Due to the success of the unionist delaying tactics, one deadline has been missed already. That was for 31 October when all the institutions were to be in shadow formation. That is, the Assembly, the Executive, the Council of Ministers, the All-Ireland bodies, the Civic Forum and so on. Power is to be given to these institutions in February. All of this was agreed on Good Friday.

Last Thursday, at two o'clock in the morning, as Mr Blair was leaving Stormont he told me; "There will be agreement on the departments and bodies by this evening."

"Don't be too sure," I cautioned him; 'The unionists won't close on this in your absence."

I left Stormont at 2.30am. I was back at nine o'clock. By noon, after a series of meetings with Dublin, the British Secretary of State and with the SDLP it was clear that my fears were well founded. The deal was being undone.

At 2.30pm I met Mr Trimble. He conceded that "there was agreement in principle on ten departments." But he declared that he couldn't go above six All-Ireland bodies. It was obvious that he wanted to dump the more substantive ones ― as well as the Irish language and an Equality Department. The inward investment element was also out. But even though this is not acceptable to Sinn Féin that was not the problem.

The problem was, according to Mr Trimble, that it would take a lot more time to sort out the matters he was prepared to close on. He couldn't rush. There was no hurry. And he was too busy.

And there you have it. Forced to negotiate because the British Prime Minister was present, the unionists made some, not enough, but some progress. Freed up from that imperative by Mr Blair's absence, the unionists unravelled the progress. Tony Blair was said to be livid. So was Bertie Ahem. David Trimble was relaxed. He had seen off a British Prime Minister. He had stopped a Taoiseach, who planned to travel north to close the deal, from doing so. He had frustrated the SDLP. Mr Trimble was playing a blinder. I told him so. But he wasn't making peace. I told him that also.

John Taylor, UUP deputy leader, suggested that everyone take a holiday. On Friday Mr Trimble did just that. The rest of his team took Mr Taylor's advice and followed Mr Trimble's example. There wasn't one of them to be seen about the place.

On Monday morning I spoke by phone to Mr Blair. On Friday I had a meeting with Mr Ahem. I put it to them that the unionist veto was being used. That Mr Trimble was playing a long, slow hand. That the two govemments have to step in. Decisively! They have to get the process back on course before Christmas. Martin McGuinness met Mr Blair on Wednesday. He will lead a team into talks with the Irish government. We will engage again with the SDLP.

I had a 50-minute meeting this week with President Clinton and Hillary Clinton. I said to the President as I said to the Taoiseach a few days ago and when I spoke to the Prime Minister in London by telephone that the deal that was done last week and then undone by the unionists needs to be put together again. That the Equality department needs to be in it, that the inward investment element that was taken out must be put back in. The Irish language implementation body must be included. And all of this must be and can be agreed before Christmas.

President Clinton is very focused, he's very up to date on what happened last week. He understands the need to make peace urgently and I think he appreciates that the entire agreement needs to be implemented and that the quicker that's done, the better for the future and for the promotion of the peace process. I think it was a very good meeting, a very constructive meeting and a very focused meeting.

The Good Friday Agreement, as the day tells us, was at Easter. It's now Christmas. That's a long time in terms of putting together commitments which were made at that time and which are clearly within the gift of the parties to deliver upon. My view is that the unionists are tactically engaging and that what we saw last week was a cameo presentation of what's been happening since last Friday. From their point of view they want to dilute, they want to stretch, they want to hollow out the core, the substance. It's all renegotiation all the time. And I think if you spoke to all the participants other than the UUP (and even though the governments have to put a positive spin on it) they would have to admit the same thing. That there is a renegotiation ongoing in perpetuity on issues which we thought were settled on Good Friday.

I raised the decommissioning issue in my meeting with the President and pointed up the mechanism within the Good Friday Agreement as the means that we agreed to resolve that problem. And that mechanism has not been used. We're involved in it, General de Chastelain is doing his best, but all of the parties aren't involved in it.

It's interesting that when I met with David Trimble last week in Belfast, in a 40-minute conversation, he never even mentioned the issue of decommissioning. That gives you a sense of what this is about. It's about implementing all aspects of the agreement within the time frames agreed. Already one deadline has been missed. We're heading to miss another deadline. The responsibility for that lies with those who are protracting the process and not keeping their commitments.

And that means that we who are in political leadership keeping the promises that we made.

But it takes everyone to play his part David Trimble has to face up to his responsibilities. And Mr Blair has to tell him so.