[page 9]
Will Blair create an openly capitalist party? Labour after Clause Four Has the abandonment of Clause Four fundamentally altered the character of the Labour Party as the mass 'political expression' of the British working class? If a qualitative change has not yet taken place, will this not inevitably be the case in the future? Moreover, if such a development should come to pass, does this not pose the need in Britain for the creation of a new mass socialist force, the ground for which must be prepared now? Peter Taaffe examines the questions posed by the outcome of the Labour Party special conference. 8 • Labour
[page 10]
N ADVANCE OF the conference some commentators were clear about what was happening: "What we shall see this afternoon is the collapse of Labour as the party of organised labour" (Martin Kettle, The Guardian, 29 April 1995). Not just at the conference itself, with the crushing majorities for the right wing, but in the days that followed, the Labour leadership did everything to prove Martin Kettle right.
Blair indicated that the union vote at party conferences would probably be reduced to 50% before the general election. In fact this has already been agreed in principle. Privately Blair and his entourage of 'gilded youth' have flagged their intention of eliminating completely organised trade union influence in the party.
Alongside of this is the open embrace of the 'market, of capitalism. This was brazenly expressed by shadow chancellor Gordon Brown in the Evening Standard on the eve of the special conference. In language worthy of any Tory leader, Brown wrote: "The Labour Party is now the party of law and order in Britain... The Labour Party is now the party of modern business and industry in Britain... For the first time... the Labour Party has set down its commitment to a market economy, to living with the rigours of competition, and to nurture enterprise... now with our clear statement of aims, no-one can ever again question our commitment to a healthy and successful private sector, or to competition and enterprise"
Brown went further after the abandonment of Clause Four: "A Labour government will be very tough on public spending... takeovers can be very healthy for the economy, they can be a spur to inefficient management". . It's no wonder then that the Financial Times jeeringly comments about "Labour's love of the market... Even a year ago, it would have been unthinkable for Gordon Brown, the shadow chancellor, to give the speech he delivered yesterday". This has to be taken together with Blair's opposition to such a basic question as the re-nationalisation of utilities. On this issue the Labour leadership are more conservative than some on the right in France. One of Chirac's leading advisors, prior to the presidential elections, supported in an interview in the Financial Times the re-nationalisation of water. The timorous Labour leadership are not even prepared to promise re-nationalisation of the railways, if the government should proceed with privatisation. The present evolution of the Labour right in Britain is a guarantee of corruption on the scale of Spain or France in the event of them coming to power.
The terror of promising anything before coming to power is taken to absurd lengths. When the recent financial crisis involving derivatives broke, so terrified were Labour's economic spokespersons of seeming to threaten action against the 'market', that they refused to appear on television to discuss the issue. This resulted in Dave Nellist, ex-Labour MP and Militant Labour spokesperson, appearing on a Newsnight programme and very effectively presenting the socialist case on the issue. Notwithstanding this, Labour's membership, according to Blair, has increased by 100,000 over the last twelve months, standing now at something like 320,000. Half of the present membership, according to Gordon Brown in the Evening Standard, has joined since 1992. This actually shows the rapid turnover in Labour Party membership, with workers leaving in disgust at the policies of the right and being replaced by a largely petit-bourgeois 'Blair levy'. These new members, overwhelmingly middle class in origin, manipulated by loaded postal ballots, have been the raw mass used to still the voice of the few socialist workers left in the Labour Party.
ABOUR ENJOYS A 50% to 30% lead over the Tories amongst the so-called A-B groups. This general support is paralleled by a layer of petit-bourgeois joining the party. A high proportion of careerists will have been drawn in, attracted by the lure of office, which would follow on the heels of a Labour victory. Similar developments have taken place in Labour and Socialist parties in In Spain, for instance, the 'membership' of PSOE includes 40,000 state office holders, who have benefited from an extended period of PSOE government. With this has come inevitable corruption which has plagued not just PSOE, but the French, Belgian, Italian and other Socialist Parties.
The party leaders, and a big part of the ranks also, once having abandonned the great historical aim of socialism, have adapted themselves completely to capitalism. It was therefore only a matter of time before the leadership of these organisations drew the conclusion that they also, alongside the bourgeois politicians, should poke their snouts into the state feeding trough. If you accept capitalism, why not accept the moral code of that system, or the lack of it, and look after 'number one'?
The tendency towards careerism, inherent in all reformist organisations, was given a finished expression in the past in the phrase of a former left Labour MP: "I believe in the emancipation of the working class one by one, beginning with myself". If now the 'emancipation of the working class' is abandoned, the shackles will come off and then it is a scramble for each individual minister and party member to look after themselves first. The present evolution of the Labour right in Britain is a guarantee of corruption on the scale of Spain or France in the event of them coming to power. Such a tendency will be reinforced by the determination of the leadership to free themselves even more from the irksome control of a conscious and organised rank and file in the trade unions. It is true, as Lenin argued, that the Labour Party through its pro-capitalist leadership has always been a 'bourgeois' party. This has been pointed to in the past by every stripe of ultra-left sectarian in Britain as evidence that the Labour Party was a 'write-off'. However Lenin also emphasised that this was just one side of the Labour Party: through its trade union base in particular, it was also a working class party. From this source would come a limitless supply of workers who would more in and transform the party. Militant in the past based itself on this perspective.
Up to a point the British Labour Party was 'unique' in its Labour •
[page 11]
origins and in its relationship to the trade unions. The French and German parties had different origins without the same organic link between the unions and the mass party. The British Labour Party from its inception was to all intents and purposes a 'trade union' party. This proved to be a powerful impediment to the capitalists exercising decisive influence over the direction of the party. In office it was subject to the pressure of the unions and therefore could potentially endanger the interests of capitalism. It is for this reason that from its inception the bourgeoisie have attempted to break the link with the unions as well as remorselessly attacking Clause Four.
In 1931 the Labour government was broken because the trade unions refused to accept the draconian retrenchment policy of MacDonald. The bourgeoisie therefore opted to split the Labour Party with the formation of MacDonald's 'National Government'. In 1969 the Wilson government's attempt to introduce anti-trade union legislation, In Place of Strife, was defeated by colossal trade union presure exerted on the Labour cabinet.
Both the capitalists and their right-wing echoes in the labour movement learn from history, as do Marxists. What if a left Labour government, led by the likes of Tony Benn, had come to power in Britain? Then the pressure of the working class through the unions could have pushed that government in the direction of challenging capitalism, as with Allende in Chile from 1970-73. It is for this reason that the ruling class have ceaselessly campaigned to break the Labour Party officially from the long-term aim of 'socialism' and to destroy the trade union link with Labour. They wish to establish a version of the US Democratic Party in Britain. Now they have succeeded in removing Clause Four.
HE DEFEAT OF Clause Four is a setback for the general struggle for socialism. Developments in Britain and internationally, as well as the internal decomposition of the Labour Party, have allowed the Labour right to succeed. The collapse of Stalinism and the ideological campaign against socialism which followed from this, the world economic upswing of the 1980s, the purging of Militant and others on the left from the Labour Party, have all contributed to the right's victory. Jack Straw, writing in The Independent, gives a glimpse of some of the reasons why Gaitskell's attempt to eliminate Clause Four failed in 1959: "Partly he failed because many party members were still mesmerised by the alleged economic success of the Soviet Union. Speaking against Gaitskell's project, Aneurin Bevan said, 'I am a socialist. I believe in public ownership. The challenge is going to come from Russia... not from the United States, West Germany, (or) France'" The collapse of the planned economies, due to the crimes of the Stalinist elite, was utilised by the capitalist class to conduct its ideological offensive against socialism. This in turn has allowed the right to conduct its offensive against Clause Four and the trade union link.
Blair is quite conscious of the fact that his government will face opposition from the unions. This is why he must proceed quickly to further weaken their voice within the Labour Party, at the national conference and through changes in the composition of the National Executive 10 • Labour Committee, by stuffing it with right-wing local government representatives.
Will the union leaders accept further attacks on their influence? Will they swallow a fundamental alteration in the structures of the Labour Party? Some of the union leaders complained in the aftermath of April 29 about the 'Blair juggernaut' which rolled over them and the left at the special conference. However, it is likely that, while still complaining loudly about the methods of the right, they will accede to the right's proposals.
It can be objected that Britain is 'different. But to emphasise at this stage the 'uniqueness' of the British Labour Party, given the developments of the past period, is an expression of 'British exceptionalism'.
Is it possible, in the light of these developments, that the Labour Party could end up in the same position as PSOE in Spain? Here is a party that was reborn in the 1970s as a 'Marxist' party. However, the Gonzales leadership has gone so far to the right that the socialist trade union federation, the UGT, some time ago detached itself and even refused to advocate a vote for PSOE in recent elections. PSOE still retains a residual electoral support particularly among older workers, although even that must have been severely shaken by the revelations of Gonzales's involvement with the state death squads against the Basque ETA terrorist organisation.
PSOE is probably already a 'bourgeois' party. It is not excluded that it could suffer the fate of the Italian Socialist Party which collapsed under the stench of corruption scandals. One thing is clear: it is unlikely that the movement of the working class, particularly in the initial phases, would be channelled through PSOE in the future. It is possible that the United Left (IU) will grow, developing into the main workers' party. It is also possible that the UGT could fuse into this organisation or on the other hand move in the direction of creating another socialist party. Similar developments are possible in other countries. In Belgium the Socialist Party (SP) in Flanders, because of the corruption involving SP ministers, has lost some ground to the racist Vlaams Blok. Similar trends showing the increasing 'bourgeoisification' of the social democracy, and the consequent desertion of significant layers of workers and youth, are evident elsewhere.
In the French presidential elections most workers will have voted for the Socialist Party candidate, Jospin, 'holding their noses'. However, there was a significant section, reflected in the 1.6m votes for Lutte Ouvrière and the 2.6m votes for the Communist Party in the first round of the elections, who were looking for a socialist and revolutionary alternative. Many of these workers consciously abstained in the second round, unable to bring themselves to vote for a candidate, Jospin, who personified the betrayals of the Socialist Party in the period from 1981 until the right's victory in 1993.
Throughout Europe there is now a significant section of
[page 12]
workers and youth alienated from 'all politicians', but with a big layer looking for a socialist alternative. This has been reflected in Italy in the fortunes of the Refoundation Communist party (RC) with a 6% vote in the 1994 general election and 8.4% in this year's regional elections. It can be objected that Britain is 'different'. Of course there are differences, in origins, traditions and in the rhythm of the movement, between the workers' movement in different countries in Europe. But to emphasise at this Blair has even dumped Kinnock's red rose.
stage the 'uniqueness' of the British Labour Party, given the developments of the past period, is an expression of British exceptionalism'.
This philosophy, much in vogue amongst bourgeois strategists in the past, could have a certain credibility at a time when British capitalism was a pre-eminent world economic power. But the shattering of British capitalism's previously privileged position means that Britain now displays all the same tensions, only in a more aggravated form, as the other countries of Western Europe. So also the labour movement in Britain is affected by the same trends evident throughout the workers' movement of Europe. The 1980s saw a certain layering of the proletariat as well as a marked shift towards the right of the leadership of the main workers' organisation. This went hand in hand with the weakening of the left within these organisations. Changes are taking place, or rather are now in the process of doing so, which raise questions about the character of the Labour Party. All indications show that the Labour leadership is pushing in the direction of creating an openly liberal' bourgeois party.
HE FACT THAT Labour enjoys considerable electoral support is not the only, or even the decisive factor, in determining its relationship with the working class. Marxism has nothing in common with impressionism - a superficial view of temporary and empirical facts - but takes an all-rounded, dialectical view of processes. The abandonment of Clause Four and the weakening of the links with the unions are not developments of secondary importance. Yet even more decisive is the consciousness of the working class, or significant layers of the working class, towards the 'traditional' organisations.
The links with the unions could be broken in the future but this and the abandonment of Clause Four would not in and of themselves signify a decisive break in the link between the party and its working class base. After all the Socialist Party in France or the Social Democracy in Germany do not have these features. Yet Marxists still characterised these organisations at bottom as workers' organisations, because of their working class base and the consciousness of the working class. However, workers in both France and Germany are beginning to undergo a transformation in how they view these organisations. significant layers of workers, particularly In Britain amongst the youth and in the inner-city areas, no longer automatically look towards the Labour Party as 'their' party. They perceive the Labour Party leaders, both nationally and particularly on a local level, as merely 'another party', incapable of offering any solution to their problems. This has gone to such an extent that bourgeois comment?tors, like Andrew Marr in The Independent, have warre: the Labour leaders of going too far. He approre: :::= direction which Blair has taken: "Labour's interna. = ".: confirms that its new supporters remain serious! **.=: about a revival of union militancy in the future. !..:=: :: it is essential for New Labour to be unequire:; ...= side of users and taxpayers - more consumer: 3*:: = than workers' party"
At the same time, he warns, "Blair can dump the an =s but not the poor... Labour cannot, should not, must ::
break with the millions of lower-paid and unemployed peo- Labour • 11
[page 13]
ple who have partly looked to the trade union movement for their salvation. Someone must speak for them. Labour is not simply the party of Middle England and cannot ever be. There is another country, lower Britain, and it is a frightened and angry place". Significantly he adds that: "If Labour in power fails to offer it leadership and hope then... lower Britain would eventually turn elsewhere, perhaps to a period of militant syndicalism, perhaps to political dissent of a different kind".
By 'militant syndicalism' and 'political dissent' Marr is hinting that 'lower Britain' can be attracted by left and Marxist ideas. Yet a Blair Labour government is bound to disappoint the millions of poor, in the inner-cities in particular, if it remains within the framework of capitalism. And the fact that it will do so and therefore expects opposition is shown precisely in the fear by the right that trade union opposition will materialise very quickly after the coming to power of a Labour government.
It is for this reason that Blair is supporting Dromey in the Transport and General Workers Union general secretary elections against Bill Morris ('industrial de-selection'). This is a bid for that union to be placed in 'safe' hands, whose leadership will not articulate the future opposition to a right-wing Labour government.
OTWITHSTANDING EVERYTHING ABOVE is it still not possible for the trade unions to enter the Labour Party and transform it in a leftward direction under the next Labour government? One could not rule out such a development. But there are powerful obstacles now set in place by the right wing which make such a process difficult, if not unlikely. The idea, mechanically repeated by some, that following a Blair-led Labour government the revolt of the working class will be automatically translated into a mass left current within the Labour Party, ignores the changes in the structures of the party and its relationship to the working class. It also flies in face of recent historical experience. Left oppositions have grown usually as a reflex to the defeat of Labour in a general election. This was the case in the 1970- 74 period which saw the emergence of Benn as a left leader for the first time following the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders occupation. Of course there had been signs of an emerging left-wing during the Labour government of 1964-70 but this only took on a significant form in the period of 1970-74. There was also some left opposition, although of a muted character, throughout the period of the 1974-79 Labour government. But a huge left-wing opposition only developed following the defeat of 1979.
In addition the channels which previously existed to change the Labour Party in a leftward direction have been dammed up by the right-wing's 'reforms'. In the past a resolution from a local Labour Party could become, through a conference discussion and debate, the policy of the party nationally. Indeed a resolution initiated from a ward in the Liverpool Wavertree constituency which opposed the five per cent limit on wages, was accepted at the 1978 Labour Party conference. This resolution, moved by a Militant supporter, gave the signal to Ford and other workers which in turn led to strikes and the 'Winter of Discontent'. In other words the initiative at a ward in a local Labour Party helped to break the wages policy of the Labour gov- 12 • Labour ernment at that time and open the floodgates of industrial discontent.
Would working class opposition, inevitable under a Blairled Labour government, now be channelled through the Labour Party? Or is it more likely to result in a split from the Labour Party? Militant Labour supports the coming to power of a Labour government, not because there will be a fundamental change in the policies pursued by that government compared to the Tories, but because it would lift the yoke of 16 years of Tory rule off the backs of the working class. It would release the pent-up frustrations which have built-up over this period. Moreover it would test out in action, and thus expose, Blair and the right-wing, which in turn would prepare the ground for the acceptance of genuine socialist and Marxist ideas in a mass form. Would working class opposition, inevitable under a Blair-led Labour government, now be channelled through the Labour Party?
Most politically advanced workers entertain few illusions as to what a Labour government will mean. At best they hope for a more favourable, less hostile, framework within which to struggle. But they are already conscious, or halfconscious, of the fact that it will be down to the strength and combativity of workers in action, and not the actions of a Labour government, if the Tory attacks of the past are to be reversed and new conquests made. The issue of the minimum wage and the shorter working week, as well as the general issues of low pay, trade union rights etc, will quickly surface with pressure on Labour to take action. However, a Blair-led government will be like the present Social Democratic government in Sweden which from day one of its election victory last year has carried through vicious counter-reforms.
This could bring a Labour government into rapid conflict with the trade unions and the working class generally. But is it likely that workers will move into and begin to transform the party? It is more likely that the growing opposition will be reflected in demands for the unions to break with the increasingly bourgeois Labour Party leaders. While a certain movement back can not be ruled out completely, it is unlikely that a mass left wing will crystallise in the Labour Party following a Labour victory. It is more likely that some unions, under the pressure of their members, will demand disaffiliation from the Labour Party. This could be the precursor to a split.
THE PRESENT LABOUR left leadership, who more and more rely on a policy of inertia, will not take the initiative in such a development. A mass movement from below will have to develop before they will be pushed into action. Tony Benn and Arthur Scargill have both indicated that it is necessary to 'continue the struggle for socialism' within the Labour Party, despite the overwhelming victories for the right. Rodney Bickerstaff has also complained loudly about the 'treatment' dished out to trade union leaders, protesting that they can hardly keep up with the 'rear lights of the Blair juggernaut' as it rush-
[page 14]
Militant Labour's press launch. Left to right: Tommy Sheridan, Hannah Sell, Frances Curran and Peter Taffe. es to the right. And yet none of these leaders have called on, or are capable of organising, the tens and hundreds of thousands of workers from the unions to flood in and reclaim the Labour Party.
It is doubtful whether at this stage there are a significant layer of leftward-moving workers within the unions who would respond to this call, given the quiescence of left reformism in the whole preceding period. However, on the basis of big events, a radical, socialist mass wave will develop in the unions. Then the question will be posed point blank: either to use the trade unions to enter the Labour Party and brutally push out the bourgeois elements, or to put a minus against the present organisation of the Labour Party and commence to create a new mass socialist political party.
Already The Economist has commented that while Blair was claiming overwhelming support for his ditching of Clause Four, in January a Gallup poll showed that 37% were "broadly in agreement" with the words of Clause Four. They went onto say that this showed that there was a space, quite a significant one, for a new socialist party in Britain.
The triumph of the right on all fronts within the Labour Party poses stark choices for the left within the unions and within the labour movement generally. For the foreseeable future the Labour Party on a day-to-day basis will not be a viable weapon for the British working class. When it comes to an election the mass of workers will polarise behind Labour, hoping against hope that a Blair-led Labour government would begin to change the situation. But while a few minimal measures may be introduced, these will be outweighed by counter-reforms, with the likelihood of increased attacks on workers in the public sector in particular. The whole position of British and world capitalism deems that any government in power must take back the conquests of the past. In this situation Militant Labour Militant Labour Labour 1,000,000 e with ON NHS WAITING LISTS liners 513 HOSPITALS April CLOSED it just doesn't add up CHANGE THE i call one malaila appeals to all those who continue to struggle for socialism to consider joining its ranks. It will continue to offer a socialist, fighting alternative on all fronts in which working people struggle. At the same time, unlike the sects who, in the words of Marx, "emphasise their own shibboleth rather than what they have in common with the movement", Militant Labour will fight for the creation of the widest possible mass socialist force in Britain. If the trade unions conclude that it is necessary to fill out the Labour Party at a future date in an attempt to transform it, Militant Labour would give the maximum possible support. However, as suggested earlier, the channels for pursuing this no longer exist, at least in the form that they did in the past. It therefore can not be ruled out that the demand will grow for a new mass socialist force in Britain. Militant Labour is interested in the widest possible organisation of the British working class and would support all steps in this direction. One thing is clear: April 29 marks a turning point in the history of the labour movement. Sometimes history raises a party to its full height, the better to concentrate the forces of disintegration and opposition to this same party. In 1906 the Liberal Party scored its greatest electoral triumph, but this was the high water mark of Liberalism. Tested in action it began to disintegrate, never again to recapture the position it then held. Blair's Labour Party could be swept into power with a huge electoral majority on the tide of bitter class hatred of the Tory government. However, the inevitable disappointment of the hopes of millions, by a government which remains within the framework of diseased British capitalism, will conjure up forces which will shatter the grip of the right wing on the labour movement in Britain. Militant Labour is destined to grow as a big pole of attraction for leftward-moving workers. We will also participate in any movement which can create a mass socialist force in Britain and begin to transform the lives of the British working class.
I'VE JOINED Mithtam Labour IVE Militant Labour Milit JOIN "I'm a nurse and although Tv boon a Labour supporter, tag leadership HERE wase't milita enought Theyre not fightine t workers in the workplacer or telepnone veterine 24.HOUR HOT INE klant in ficht haako Labour 13
[page 15]
Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Liberation - What's socialism got to do with it?
More than 100,000 people will participate in Lesbian and Gay Pride in June. This reflects the huge confidence that has been built within the lesbian, gay and bisexual community over the past two decades. Here Helen Redwood looks at some of the strategic issues facing lesbian and gay activists, and especially the views of leading OutRage! spokesperson Peter Tatchell.
(BERATIUI N THE SURFACE it seems that we've 'never had it so good': increased media coverage from TV soaps, relatively sympathetic reporting of newspapers like The Guardian, the higher profile of lesbian, gay and bisexual celebrities, a massive expansion of the gay scene, the lesbian and gay press, businesses and services, all testify to this new confidence and changed public attitudes. This has courts. Leading OutRage!
even been reflected in the spokesperson Peter Tatchell reports a reduction in convictions of gay men for consensual homosexual acts by 75% in the past few years.
What lies behind these advances? Where will the struggle for lesbian, gay and bisexual equality go now? How can we achieve real and lasting liberation?
When 4,000 of New York's lesbian, gay and bisexual community took to the streets in 1969 and fought back in a running street battle against police harassment that lasted several days, they probably didn't realise they were making history. This action, the famous Stonewall uprising, broke the mould of years of silently borne repression, of the closet, of shame and self-hatred. But the timing, one year after the momentous events of 1968, wasn't accidental. It was born of a revolutionary wave which was sweeping the world from wars of liberation in Africa and Latin America, to workers' uprisings in France and Czechoslovakia, to the black civil rights movement in the USA and 'black power', to the women's liberation movement.
This revolutionary mood inspired the lesbian, gay and bisexual community no less: a new consciousness was born, of 'gay pride' and 'coming out'. And vitally this new movement began to re-draw the links between the movements for socialism and sexual liberation, identifying the roots of gay oppression in the class system itself, for example in the Manifesto of the Gay Liberation Front. This continued and developed throughout the 1970s and in the first half of the 1980s. Lesbian and gay issues were Gay Liberation Front, 1970.
14 • Lesbian and gay liberation
[page 16]
forced onto the agenda of the left-wing movement which developed within the Labour Party and trade unions, many of which adopted policies in favour of gay rights and developed self-organised groups.
Paradoxically however there have since been major changes in the way that lesbian and gay activists relate to the left and the labour movement, and how much they see any perspective in those movements for advancing their interests. This is connected with the shift to the right in the leadership of the labour movement, with the ideological effects of events like the collapse of Stalinism on the credibility of socialism and, so far as the lesbian and gay communities are concerned, with major differences in how lesbian and gay oppression is experienced by middle class and working class people.
These factors in turn have propelled to the forefront lesgay campaigning groups like OutRage! and bian and Stonewall; the first concentrating on direct action and dramatic stunts, the other focusing on lobbying across the party spectrum.
Lesbians and gays of course have no reason to have the slightest confidence in Tony Blair's 'New' Labour to advance their interests. Tony Blair proclaims himself 'gay friendly' but allows Labour MPs to vote against an equal age of consent for gay sex, including front bench spokesperson David Blunkett. (If these MPs had just abstained then the vote would have been won). His enthusiasm for competing with the Tories to be 'the party of the family' and his trenchant defence of the two-parent heterosexual family is hardly 'gay friendly'.
But if the Labour Party has abdicated from the struggle then so too have the trade union leaders. What campaign was carried out to win an equal age of consent? What was done about trade union sponsored MPs who voted against an equal age of consent? What has been done to seriously tackle discriminatory employers? Nothing whatever. This abdication from struggle has therefore left a vacuum, into which have stepped the direct actionists of groups like OutRage! and Lesbian Avengers, and the respectable lobbyists of Stonewall.
Lesbians and gays of course have no reason to have the slightest confidence in Tony Blair's 'New' Labour to advance their interests.
Leading OutRage! spokesperson Peter Tatchell spells out the frustration with 'straight' organisations, including the official labour movement:
nowhere in terms of getting the straight establishment institutions to address the question of lesbians and gay men. Nearly all the improvements in the lives of homosexual men and women have been due to institutions that we have created for ourselves such as lesbian and gay switchboards, social centres, employment and legal advice centres, AIDS and bereavement helplines. Faced with the intransigence of many straight social institutions the lesbian and gay community should welcome heterosexual allies but never be dependent upon them... we have to rely first and foremost on our own self-help efforts". On the other hand, the more 'respectable' lobbying organisation Stonewall enjoys the support particularly of the rich and famous, but also sections of the community who believe that 'wining and dining' those in positions of power and influence provides at least some way forward. In a recent newsletter Stonewall claims considerable progress on a number of small legal reforms. But when it comes to key issues like the age of consent, their lobbying and cross-party campaign failed, in part because it relied on the opportunistic support of Tory MPs like Edwina Currie, who had previously been happy to vote for the homophobic Section 28. And what's really changed in the day-to-day lives of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals as a result of all this? The gay-bashing continues. Headteacher Jane Brown is still being pursued by Hackney Council over a matter which has been linked to her sexuality. Lesbian and gay workers still face the sack if they come out; and gay teenagers are still made to feel like criminals and deviants because of the discriminatory age of consent. Respectable lobbying and petitioning of those in power doesn't shift the social and political relationship of forces in society - the very forces which underpin sexual oppression. MOREOVER, A GULF of class-interests lies between rich and working class lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Rich lesbians and gay men do suffer the • general repression of sexuality, but they have much more ability to escape it's brutal reality than do working class lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. They do not have the same worry of losing their livelihood because of their sexuality, they can escape into the world of cafe bars, exclusive clubs and a wealthy lesbian and gay social circle. They do not live on estates where you have to be careful about your sexuality not becoming common knowledge to avoid the insults from kids as you walk through, to avoid the bricks through your windows, and the painting on your walls, to avoid your children being victimised at school. The idea of a uniformity of interests between all lesbians, gay men and bisexuals also lies behind the idea of the 'pink pound'. In the last few years, spotting a new 'niche market', small and big businesses have suddenly become 'gay friendly. This will undoubtedly have a knock-on effect on attitudes generally. But the extent to which the exploitation of what Peter Tatchell calls "queer spending power to pressure business to adopt pro-gay policies" is highly debatable given that the majority of lesbian, gays and bisexuals are working class and suffering the same mass unemployment and falling living standards affecting other workers. Even supposing Stonewall were successful in persuading enough MPs to vote through anti-discriminatory legislation, would that really stop prejudice and discrimination? Has the Race Relations Act stopped racism? Has the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts wiped out sexism and the oppression of women? Far more than legislation is needed. This is where the direct action groups step in. Their agenda is not just legal reform, but as Peter Tatchell says: "Change in the law is not the same as ending homophobia - that's why OutRage!'s central focus is a cultural revolution in social attitudes towards homosexuality... the end goal for OutRage! is not equality; we want queer emancipation" And their strategy is to "put homophobics on the spot by publicly exposing and embarrassing them"
Lesbian and gay liberation • 15
[page 17]
Chr Percuss Hate Your Gay Son'
OURAGE!
(ridinina OVINGEN OutRage! activists take to the streets.
But just how far has the 'in your face' campaign of OutRage! been the motive force behind a quite marked shift towards more acceptance of homosexuality? Will these shifts in attitudes continue and be permanent? According to Peter Tatchell "nearly all our advances have been won through extra parliamentary protest and grass roots community activism". The change in attitudes is "largely due to a combination of individual lesbians and gay men coming out and challenging prejudice of those they come into contact with.
"The other big impetus for change has been the growing public visibility of lesbian and gay issues which have been brought about partly through media reportage of lesbian and gay social events and political protests. In the longer term even negative coverage helps soften public opinion the more people hear about and discuss gay issues, the more they get used to them; that makes them less unusual and threatening"
But is this sufficient explanation? Would it have been possible to make the progress referred to above to the same extent if not for wider social factors? HESE CHANGES IN public attitudes towards homosexuality have not been forced by an obvious mass movement, but because of a massive shift to the left in social attitudes in the 1980s on abortion, on trade unions, on divorce, on women's rights and so on. That's not the whole story of course. Prejudice and discrimination don't evaporate without being challenged - no gains would have been made but for the self-organisation of the lesbian, gay and bisexual community, but the biggest opportunities come at times of mass upheaval. The most positive and comprehensive resolution in support of lesbian and gay rights was passed at the 1985 Labour Party conference against the background of the miners strike. Significantly this resolution went through with the backing of the NUM, not least because of the concrete solidarity built during the miners strike through 'Lesbians and gays support the miners'.
But we need to go further than this. We need to look at what underpins prejudice in society and consider under what conditions prejudice rises and falls. Tory attacks on the gay community over the last 15 years are not out of the 16 • Lesbian and gay liberation Stop m 71 Your Hate Your QUIT Papal Gas Sons Bullshit WIRAGE!
VATICAN PREJUDICE STIRS UP ANTI-GAY HATE blue, but are directly linked to the war of ideas they have been conducting to justify the dismantling of the welfare state and all the other attacks on working class living standards.
Part of this campaign has been to promote the traditional nuclear family as being the bedrock of society without which life as we know it will disintegrate. In promoting the ideology of the family, they have attacked other ways of living, including single parents and same sex relationships. that alongside this campaign the Little surprise then Tories attempted to issue guidelines banning lesbians and gay men from fostering and adoption, and enacted legislation which re-classified everyday contact between consenting gay men as serious sex offences.
But beyond the fight for immediate reforms, and to throw back Tory attacks, we need to debate out a long-term strategy for lesbian, gay and bisexual liberation. In doing so, it is necessary to analyse the basic social structures of sexual oppression, in particular the family as it exists under capitalism. Can we achieve lesbian, gay and bisexual liberation without changing the system?
Peter Tatchell's view is that: "Capitalism does rest very heavily on the model of the heterosexual family. However, though it would be very difficult, it would not be impossible for capitalist society to restructure itself around an alternative model.
"One of the remarkable features of capitalism has been it's adaptability - instead of refusing to change and therefore risk revolutionary insurrection, capitalism has usually and somewhat reluctantly preferred to make concessions rather than oppose social reform and risk provoking it's overthrow".
Peter is forthright in setting out the strategic consequences of his views. "Although socialists ought to be committed to lesbian and gay liberation because of their general commitment to end social injustice, there's no necessary correlation between the goal of socialism and queer emancipation. There's no automatic link between the economic basis of society and it's ideological and cultural institutions; if state ownership of the means of production automatically ended homophobia then all those countries which abolished private property should have been the most progay - in fact they tended to be most violently anti-gay". He
[page 18]
therefore concludes that the struggle for lesbian, gay and bisexual liberation "does not need to be linked to the strug. gle for socialism".
THY IS THE fight for lesbian, gay and bisexual liberation intimately linked to the fight for socialism? How should we reply to Peter Tatchell's correct point that societies in which capitalist rule was overthrown, ie in Stalinist states like Russia, eastern Europe and China, did not uproot homophobia and sexual repression?
First, as Peter Tatchell points out, the oppression of lesbians, gays and bisexuals is linked to the existing family system, and thus to women's oppression. The existing family form has a vital function under capitalism, as the site for every aspect of the reproduction of labour power - from rearing children to the mundane tasks of 'domestic labour' such as preparing food, washing clothes etc. It also has a central ideological and cultural role as an instrument of repression and social control. In theory, capitalist social relations - the profit system - could exist without this family structure. But it would mean an enormous upheaval: it implies a transformation of relations between the sexes, it would mean a socialisation of existing domestic labour. In other words, if the existing bedrock of the nuclear family were destroyed, it would imply an enormous transfer of economic resources to working people and away from profits, as more of the tasks of child care and the other functions of the family were provided by society as a whole. Peter Tatchell is surely one-sided to describe the family as an ideological and cultural institution' separate and apart from capitalism's economic base. Of course it is an ideological and cultural institution, but it is not simply that. Now, there are indeed contemporary complications to the bare bones of this argument. While relying on the nuclear family, modern capitalism has, through the massive entry of women in the workforce, partially undermined it. More and more children are brought up by single parents and lesbian and gay couples, more people live in oneperson households and there is dramatically more space for sexual relations outside marriage. These changes have not, of course, brought about the kind of socialisation of child-care and domestic labour which could radically change the overall structure of the existing family system indeed such provision, especially for single mothers, is fiercely contested by capitalist political forces. In other words, it is far too simple to say that capitalism could dispense with the present family setup: it would require social and economic changes of literally revolutionary proportions. A capitalism which revolutionised the family structure would be a capitalism which liberated women: the logic of Peter's argument is that not only lesbian and gay liberation has no necessary connection with the overthrow of capitalism, but neither does women's liberation. We come back to this argument below.
There is another factor which has to enter any reasonable calculations about capitalism and the family. We are talking not about capitalism as an abstraction, but the real crisis-ridden system which exists. If capitalism were able to develop harmoniously for the next 50 years, developing a massive welfare state and universal prosperity, then maybe major transformations in the family system, including the socialisation of domestic labour and childcare, could occur. Such an imaginary prosperous capitalism could solve many other social conflicts, and indeed a good part of the historical justification for socialism would disappear. But it won't happen: capitalism will remain crisis-ridden, conflict-ridden and repressive. It will not create the social and economic space for ending lesbian and gay oppression, any more than it will create the space for ending racism. The second aspect of the interconnection of socialist struggle with the fight for sexual liberation is the simple strategic one. Peter argues that socialists should support the fight for lesbian and gay liberation because of their commitment to human emancipation and social justice. And, with the exception of a few Neanderthals, so they will. But where will the forces necessary for earth-shaking changes of revolutionary proportions come from? Who has the social weight? Only the working class, the overwhelming majority in society, can make such a decisive breakthrough.
After 1917 capitalist rule was overthrown in a series of countries, and with the exception of some progressive measures taken during the early Bolshevik regime, they did not liberate lesbians and gays - far from it. At one level of course we can point out that these were not socialist societies, but Stalinist, repressive caricatures of socialism. That is true, but doesn't deal with a crucial point. A democratic socialist system would create a society based on social solidarity and egalitarianism: it would unleash tremendous creative energies in every walk of life. But to imagine that it would immediately transform all social relations and attitudes is utopian and unmaterialist. Uprooting sexism and homophobia would be a prolonged task, but one made more straightforward by the destruction of sexual oppression's material roots. Democratic socialism is a necessary precondition for the destruction of sexual oppression, precisely because, as we have argued, it would break the economic and ideological constraints which reinforce the nuclear family as the 'normal' form of family organisation, creating a new diversity and range of choices for how people develop their sexual and kinship relations. Peter Tatchell's argument could be extended on a series of issues, even if he personally does not accept such an extension. Is racism connected with capitalism? Reactionary nationalism and ethnic conflicts? The destruction of the environment? And is it just a coincidence that all these things exist within a system based on individual greed, privilege and hierarchy?
Lesbians, gays and bisexuals need to link our battles against day-to-day discrimination with the battles facing the working class as a whole. Direct action can highlight prejudice but cannot substitute for the main task of taking our campaigns into the unions, workplaces and communities, showing how prejudice and discrimination breaks the unity we need to combat the attacks on living standards by the bosses and their government, and is therefore against the interests of all working class people. It means that we need to link the struggle for real sexual liberation to the task, as we argue in our pamphlet Out, Proud and Militant, of "rebuilding a strong labour movement, which will unite the struggles of all oppressed sections into one struggle - to take power away from the rich and to give it to ordinary working class people"
Lesbian and gay liberation • 17
[page 19]
Mexican crisis, Subcommandante Marcos and the Zapatistas Subcommondante Marcos (masked) with PRD leader Cuauhtemoc Cardenas. Sixty thousand Mexican troops, together with US and Argentinian 'advisors', are besieging the guerrillas of the Zapatista National Liberation Front (EZLN) in the Mexican state of Chiapas. Unable to hunt down and crush the guerrillas, they are wrecking the peasants' villages, destroying their tools and poisoning water supplies all part of a strategy to break the peasants from the Zapatistas.
Tony Saunois looks at this historic rebellion.
18 • Mexico HEN FORMER MEXICAN President Carlos Salinas W attended the 1993 ceremony to sign the NAFTA free trade agreement, he joked - in a reference to neighbouring countries like El Salvador and Nicaragua - that, in Mexico, 'there are no guerrillas'. A few months later on 1 January 1994, to the surprise of Salinas and the world, a peasant guerrilla uprising broke out in the southern state of Chiapas.
When the young peasant fighters took over the town of San Cristobal, to the stunned bemusement of American tourists, they sarcastically daubed 'hay no guerrillas' (there are no guerrillas) on the walls. The peasant uprising was even a shock to the Mexican left which had no clue that for ten years radical activists, with the help of the local Catholic church, had been preparing armed struggle. So why did revolt, in the form of an armed struggle, break out in Chiapas? The Mayan Indians who live in Chiapas are the poorest section of Mexican society - a country where 66% of the population live below the poverty line. In Chiapas 33% of households have no electricity, 59% no sewers and 41% no running water. According to EZLN leader Subcommandante Marcos, Mexico is divided into • three: the penthouse (the upper class), the ground floor
[page 20]
(the mass of poor workers and peasants) and the basement (the Mayan Indians). The Mayan peasants want land, clean water and decent prices for their agricultural produce. But with Mexico joining NAFTA, small producers will be crushed by US-dominated agri-business. Marcos calls NAFTA a 'death certificate' for the Mayan peasants. When Salinas came to power in the 1980s with his free trade and privatisation policies, there were just two Mexican billionaires. By the time he left office 26 more had made their fortunes. At the same time the average wage for industrial workers in real terms fell by 40%, and minimum wage levels by a staggering 58%. Overall wage labour costs as a percentage of GDP fell from 36% to 22%, an enormous reduction in national wealth going to the workers and peasants.
Launching their armed struggle, the Zapatistas faced grave difficulties. Limited to one corner of the country, the EZLN has no illusions about a military overthrow of the state. Marcos says: "The balance on the battlefield is not a good guide: if it was, then the events of January 1994 would not have taken place... from a military point of view the EZLN is absurd. What makes it tangible is the claims it upholds"
The Zapatistas rising did however detonate a nationwide political crisis. While the ruling party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), was re-elected in fraudulent elections in August 1994, with a new president Ernesto Zedillo, his party and government have staggered from crisis to crisis - in large part because of the effects of the Zapatistas.
'Telenovelas' - TV soap operas - are very popular in Mexico. None of them however could depict more outrageous melodrama than has engulfed Mexico's ruling elite in real life, tearing back the veil on massive ruling class corruption and in-fighting. Since the beginning of 1994 the PRI has been shaken by an extraordinary series of events. These included the assassination of the PRI's presidential candidate Luis Colosio in March 1994; the murder of the PRI's general secretary Jose Ruis Massieu; the gunning down of a Roman Catholic cardinal and the killing of PRI officials in Chiapas. Following these bizarre events, open warfare broke out in the leadership of the PRI with claim and counter-claim of murder and corruption, culminating with the outgoing president Salinas going into exile. OTHING COULD BE more symbolic than Salinas' exile. He was hotly tipped to be the first chair of the new World Trade Organisation - as a 'thank you' from international capitalism for his privatisation and free market policies, and also symbolic of Mexico's new-found international status. Instead it has all ended in ignominy and collapse.
The gangsterism among the PRI's rulers originates in the near terminal crisis of that party's rule. The PRI has ruled Mexico since 1929, with a political base running all the way from big business to the trade union bureaucracy. Now economic collapse has shattered the PRI's unit!: Mexico was at the forefront of the 1980s Latin American economic 'reform' programme. Trade barriers were brought down and privatisation mania broke out. Foreign capital poured in, much of it to Mexico, to buy up state industries at knock-down prices and to carry out speculation on the booming stock markets. Of $55bn going into Latin America in 1993, $25bn (45%) was destined for Mexico.
However, far from economically transforming Mexico into a 'first world' nation, the capital influx was speculative - aimed at making a quick kill. Just as such speculative capital could flood in, it could just as spectacularly flood out, which is exactly what happened in December 1994 when the peso collapsed.
The source of this collapse was the anti-inflation policy of the Salinas government. The peso was kept at an artificially high rate to keep down the price of imports. However, this built up an enormous balance of payments deficit - $28bn in 1994 - which in turn undermined the currency.
But the economic collapse of December 1994 was also caused by the government's failure to deal with the Zapatistas' uprising.
Limited to one corner of the country, the EZLN has no illusions about a military overthrow of the state.
The initial fighting lasted 12 days; on 12 January 1994, after some savage fighting during which Mexican government troops assassinated guerrilla prisoners, a ceasefire was signed. The ceasefire was a first victory for the EZLN: the mass outpouring of popular protest against the savagery of government troops prevented the Salinas government from going in for the kill. The guerrillas were able to stabilise their political and military base: to survive as a permanent challenge to the legitimacy of the PRI government.
Marcos was absolutely forthright: Mexico needed the Zapatistas because the Mexican opposition had failed: "I am talking about the whole spectrum - the far left, the left and those sections of the centre who declare themselves in favour of democratic change". The EZLN took the initiative to help form the CND (the National Democratic Convention), uniting opposition bodies from all over the country. Mass demonstrations throughout Mexico rallied support for the EZLN.
On-again, off-again negotiations continued throughout 1994. However after the August elections which brought Zedillo to power, the EZLN leaders decided that the gov. ernment was not serious about negotiations. They gave a November deadline for substantial concessions to be made, and when it passed resumed armed actions. This led directly to the collapse of the peso last December: the government of a country which claims it is going 'from the third world to the first' cannot be seen to permit the existence of armed guerrillas for nearly a year.
Mexico's stock market has been temporarily stabilised by the injection of a $50bn US loan. But the loan conc: tions are draconian. Interest payments will take a huse part of the Mexican government's annual budget. In addition a massive austerity package has been intr:duced. Prices of basic commodities - food, transport. *= rents - are going through the roof. Hundreds of tact?=: have closed; hundreds of thousands have been made .=...dant as the economy collapses into a dire s...: .:= Mexico • 19
[page 21]
PR PRI President Zedillo.
Business Coordinating Council says that 200-250,000 workers were made redundant in the two months after the crisis erupted, equivalent to one per cent of the total workforce of 26 million. More is to follow with an estimated further 750,000 jobs to be lost by the end of 1995. HERE WAS OBVIOUSLY a further, unannounced, 'condition' in the package: the US insisted that the variant of the 'strategic hamlet' approach. Some peasants have fled with the guerrillas into the forest. Those who haven't have their villages economically wrecked by government soldiers, with their US advisors. With tools destroyed and water supplies poisoned, they are forced to rely on government handouts: this helps to break their independence and break down their links with the guerrillas. Some villagers have been bribed or coerced into forming village 'defence' brigades, with arms supplied by the army. The Mexican government is digging in for a long fight, with the aim of exterminating the guerrillas. However, as the Vietnam war and other guerrilla strug gles have shown, trying to crush rural guerrilla insurgency solely with military means has little chance of working where political conditions favour the insurgents. The Zapatistas are not a foreign army, they are political insurgents with deep roots in the local community and mass support throughout Mexico and beyond. As we went to press, it was announced that after three days of new negotiations, the Mexican government had actually agreed to the EZLN re-occupying some of the ground it evacuated after the government's offensive!
Since January 1994, world media attention has been himself. The on Subcommandante Marcos focused Mexican government devised a series of ludicrous stories about who Marcos really was, until, finally they hit on one which is probably true, and the most mundane of the lot: Marcos is 37-year old Rafael Sebastian Guillen Vincente, a university lecturer from the city of Tampico. Like thousands of his generation. Marcos grew up in the period of guerilla struggle in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala. By the early 1990s, with the election defeat of the Sandinistas, the near-crushing of the Guatemalan guerrillas and the peace deal in El Salvador, it looked as if the region had been 'stabilised' in the interests of the US and 20 • Mexico their NAFTA deal. The Zapatistas have changed all that. It is possible that the Mexican government may now just be able to slow the recession and avoid a total collapse. This will in part depend on developments in the world economy. It is however a far cry from Mexico "joining the first world'.
The rise in base interest rates to nearly 90%, with mortgage and credit rates reaching an incredible 150%, has particularly hit the middle class. During the boom years middle class Mexicans accumulated massive debt with the banks, repayment of which at the new interest rates is proving impossible. Thousands are facing evictions and repossession of houses and goods.
Confronted with this crisis an explosion is currently taking place amongst the middle class. A new protest organisation has flourished called El Barzon (The Yoke). It claims 500,000 members throughout Mexico. Thousands have participated in its demonstrations. Lawyers, accountants, shopkeepers, businessmen - large and small - reportedly joined its protests in Mexico City against the high interest rates. On one day 100 anti-government demonstrations took place in Mexico City.
El Barzon has even organised the occupation of banks by customers. On one day 800 banks were taken over around the country. Protestors called on customers to refuse to pay mortgages and credit card bills. Significantly they also demanded that the government should do the same and not pay the foreign debt.
UBCOMMANDANTE MARCOS, a revolutionary but not a Marxist, has like Che Guevara become a symbol of the struggle in the minds of workers, peasants and especially young people. The EZLN, and especially Marcos, have articulated the feelings of the masses and the demand for change.
To secure the overthrow of capitalism and replace it with a socialist alternative, the working class in the cities has the decisive and the leading role in the revolution. Its strength and cohesion as a class, because of its position in industry and the workplace, means that through it a system of workers' democracy can be established as the alternative to capitalist rule. This, as the experience of the Russian revolution demonstrated, is even the case where the proletariat is in a minority in society. With a correct programme and astute tactics it can win big layers of the urban middle class and the majority of poor peasants behind its banner.
In Mexico the working class has the decisive role to play in the future development of the revolution. Seventy three per cent of the Mexican population lives in the cities. Of the total workforce 31% are employed in industry, 47% in the service sector and 22% in the agricultural sector. While defending the leading role of the working class Marxists also support the conducting of peasant war in the countryside. The method of struggle for the peasants will not be exactly the same as the industrial workers in the cities. Land seizures and the throwing up of a peasant army are part of the methods of peasant struggle. While the working class and the movement in the cities is decisive, this does not mean the revolution will necessarily start with them. The struggles of the peasantry and land workers in the countryside can give an important impetus to the
[page 22]
movement in the cities, in the absence of a fighting leadership at the head of the workers movement. Contained within the uprising in Chiapas are the economic and social demands for land and 'democracy', but also for an end to the oppression of the indigenous peoples. This is a factor present in many upheavals in Latin America, especially Peru, Bolivia and the central American states. In the state of Oaxaca 4,000 Indians occupied government buildings demanding more land, public works projects and suspension of all debts to the banks. As Time magazine commented in February 1994: "Here and there in central and southern Mexico, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor peasants and Indians, went on strike and protested in other ways, in almost every case citing the Zapatista National Liberation Army's surprise rising last month as their inspiration. 'We are not Zapatistas, but the poverty is the same. The land must be for the peasants, not the caciques (landowners)' said Juan Garcia, one of the men who took over Teopisca town hall".
In Mexico the working class has the decisive role to play in the future development of the revolution.
The struggle of the Zapatistas in Chiapas, and the struggles of other groups in other states in Mexico, are likely to continue, with inevitable defeats as well as advances, both militarily socially. The decisive question, however, and which has developed during 1995, is the sweep and scale of the movement in the cities, especially Mexico City. On May Day this year four million people, including one million in the capital itself, participated in anti-government demonstrations - just as the government announced that it had agreed in negotiations with the EZLN to let them re-occupy part of that land from which the army had driven them. Reflecting the movement of workers which has begun, opposition groupings are developing in many of the official unions. Some independent unions have also been established. It is a measure of the pressure building up that the electricians union, the SME, refused to sign the national agreements which the government has recently put togeth- For the ruling class an historical point of departure has opened in Mexico. Lying behind the scandals and murders of representatives of the PRI is a major division and split. Zedillo represents a 'reformist' wing which understands that it is not possible to continue to rule in the same old way. At the same time the 'Dinosaurs' have a strong presence in the PRI and are fighting to maintain their position. It is quite possible that this will eventually result in an open split in the PRI. Zedillo and the 'reformist' wing have already taken the unprecedented step of holding talks with the populist opposition party, the PRD (Democratic Revolutionary Party) led by Cuauhtemoc Cardenas. In the congress the PRD, in return, does not demand the resignation of the president and fresh elections. They justify this by saying the removal of Zedillo would mean a strengthening of the right wing. Despite the hesitancy of the PRD leadership, however, new elections could be called, especially if the mass movement develops further in the next period. A tentative framework is being prepared for a coalition government which could include the PRD. This unprecedented step in Mexico's post-revolutionary history may be forced upon the ruling class as a means of trying to hold back the mass movement. The first steps in a new mass movement inevitably focus on the demand for democracy. In a country like Mexico, ruled as a virtual one-party state for so long, democratic aspirations are of decisive importance. However to end the misery and poverty of the masses and ensure a lasting democracy poses the need for the overthrow of capitalism. The EZLN at this stage is clearly reflecting the aspirations and demands of the masses. It is, however, not advocating a clear alternative. Its specific demands are limited and it is mistakenly advocating a 'national government of transition' - a proposal which would entail alliances with sections of the ruling class.
Such a policy, as has been seen throughout Latin America, cannot lead to a lasting victory for the exploited masses. For this the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement with a socialist regime of workers' democracy is necessary. The capitalist class cannot be relied upon to conduct a real struggle against imperialism nor play any progressive role.
Alliances with them in government will only used to derail the mass movement.
The recent upheavals mark the beginning of a new process of the Mexican revolution. It is part of a new wave of struggle which is currently unfolding throughout Latin America. The free market model lies shattered on the floor. It is up to the working class and exploited layers of Mexican society to build a new 'model' which can encompass the whole Latin American continent.
Special offer:
Zapatista Subcommander Marcos T-shirts £8 each One size fits all.
Cheques/POs (payable to "Militant) 3/13 Heps ad London E9 5HB • 21 Mexico
[page 23]