POST-ELECTION COVERAGE LESSONS FROM QUEBECTARIQ ALI ON VENEZUELA SCOTTISH SOCIALISM

A SOCIALIST PROJECT REVIEW $2 AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2004

Left Electoralism?

On Thursday June 17, more than one-hundred Toronto socialists gathered toshare perspectives on the strengths andweaknesses of parliamentary democracy,voting, and the NDP in Canada.

Herman Rosenfeld of the Socialist Projectaddressed to the political limitations of theNDP as a genuine working class party andcommented on the historic failure ofsocial-democratic parties as vehicles forradical social change.

Sima Zerihi of the New Socialist Grouppointing out how electoral politics and theLayton-inspired NDP could function asforces of marginalization and co-optation.She argued that we need to focus onbuilding an anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic working class movement.

Though Abbi Bakan of the InternationalSocialists called for a pragmatic andstrategic vote for the NDP, she wasmindful of the limits of electoral politicsand social-democratic parties.

Corven Russel, a writer for Rabble.ca andagent of the NDP-amalgamated NewPolitics Initiative, argued that we needmore dialogue between groups on the Leftand new theories of politics.

Miguel Figueroa, leader of the CommunistParty of Canada, advised the forum’sparticipants to focus their attacks, not oneach other and the NDP, but on the realenemies of the day: the Conservative partyand neo-liberalism. Figueroa observed thatmany committed socialists’ strategicallyvote for the social-democratic NDP ratherthan the Communist Party of Canada,which is clear about its revolutionaryinterests.

Socialist History ProjectLaunched

Last month, www.socialisthistory.ca wasunveiled. The website provides a chance toread previously inaccessable materialsdocumenting socialist history in Canada. The Socialist History Project is headedby Ian Angus, the author of CanadianBolsheviks, a look at the early Communist

Party of Canada. While the websiteprovides documents and essays from thatearly period (and before), there is agenerous selection from subsequentdecades.

The website is devoted to “documentingthe revolutionary socialist tradition inCanada.” “We aim to publish three typesof material,” Angus says. “First,statements, reports and articles on keypolitical issues and trends, written byrevolutionary socialists over the pastcentury. Second, essays by historians aboutthe revolutionary left. And third,reminiscences and memoirs byparticipants in the socialist movement.”

Angus believes that the material he’smaking available, “is important not just tohistorians and archivists, but to the newgeneration of radicalizing youth.”

Out & About

Interview with Tariq Ali

Venezuela:Changing theWorld by TakingPowerBy: Claudia Jardim and Jonah Gindin

ariq Ali is a veteran politicalactivist, filmmaker, and author ofnumerous books, both fiction and

non-fiction. He was born in Lahore,Pakistan, and now lives and worksLondon, England where he is an editor ofthe British journal New Left Review. Hismost recent political texts include TheClash of Fundamentalisms (Verso, 2002)and Bush in Babylon: Recolonizing Iraq(Verso, 2003). Claudia Jardim and JonahGindin talked with him during a recent tripof his to Caracas, where he participated in

the presentation of a statement ofsolidarity from numerous Brazilianintellectuals.

How do you explain the explosion insocial movements against neoliberalism inLatin America?

I think the reason for this is that LatinAmerica was used as a laboratory by theUnited States for a long, long time.Everything the US wanted wasexperimented in Latin America first. Whenthey wanted military—on the political

level—when they wanted to crush popularmovements by unleashing militarydictatorships they did it in Latin Americafirst: Brazil, Argentina, Chile; three of themost brutal dictatorships we have seen.Then, after the collapse of the communistenemy, they relaxed on the political frontbut they got Latin America in a gripeconomically, and they said ‘this is the onlyway forward.’ We can summarize it likethis: the laboratory of the American Empireis the first to rebel against the Empire. Somany many different and interestingprocesses are happening in Latin Americaand I think where the left is weak is in itsinability to bring these together and torefound the Latin American left.

What began to happen in LatinAmerica is a process of de-industrialization;foreign investments coming in. In the mostclassic examples were Chile underPinochet, then Brazil under Cardoso andArgentina under successive governments.They de-industrialized the country, theythought that the country could function in abubble—an economic bubble created by a(Continued on page 17)

2

Interview with Tariq Ali - Venezuela: 2Changing the World by Taking PowerClaudia Jardim and Jonah Gindin

Now that the Federal Election is Over... 4Lessons and ChallengesBryan Evans

The 2004 Election and the Left: 5Some Lessons from QuebecRichard Fidler

NDP Electioneering in Ottawa 7Kevin Skerrett

The Scottish Socialist Party: 9A Report on the 2004 Annual ConferenceErnie Tate and Jess MacKenzie

Two Marches: Anti-War Organizing in Toronto 11Peter Graham

A Review of Yousef Karsh’s Industrial Portraits 13Chris Roberts

A Review of The Corporation 14Greg Albo

A Debate on Cultural Policy at the Gladstone Hotel 15Carol Conde

Rethinking the Labour Movement 16Socialist Project Labour Committee

RELAY Relay, A Socialist Project Review, intends to act as a forum forconveying and debating current issues of importance to the Left inOntario, Canada and from around the world. Contributions to the re-laying of the foundations for a viable socialist politics are welcomedby the editorial committee.

August /September

Issue #1e

3

Editors:Peter GrahamTanner Mirrlees

Advisory Board:Greg AlboCarol CondeBryan EvansMatt FodorSamantha FodorJess MacKenzieErnie TateCarlos Torres

Subscribeto Relay$15 for an annualsubscription of six issues

Please send chequespayable to SocialistProject:

PO Box 85Station EToronto, OntarioM6H 4E1

About Socialist Project

At a meeting in Toronto in the fall of 2000, some 750 activists responded to a call to “rebuild the left” by developing a structuredmovement against capitalism. This call for a new political formation that would be “more than a movement, less than a party” wassimilar to other initiatives in Canada and around the world that have been undertaken as the traditional organizations of thepolitical left have waned.

The call was based on the understanding that the discovery and creation of a new kind of left politics is not going to be easy. It wasin this spirit that, when the first Toronto initiative faltered, a group of independent socialists continued to meet with other activistsacross Ontario to try learn from the experience and find a way forward. The group asked hard questions about how radicallydifferent from that first initiative a new political formation of the left would need to be. They exchanged ideas and assessments ofthe political situation in Canada and the world, both to focus debate and to arrive at areas of political agreement.Out of this process, the Socialist Project was launched as a new political formation of the Canadian left.

n the immediate aftermath ofJune 28th, what has emerged is awidely held view, most directly

stated on the editorial pages ofToronto’s ‘eye weekly’ magazine, thatthis election resulted in ‘a really strongvote for social democracy’. In essencethis boils down to a view where the com-bined votes for the NDP, the BQ and theGreens is seen to represent a significantprogressive bloc. The Liberals, in turn,have been pushed to retrieve their socialprogressive/social democratic values asa result. There is a qualitatively impor-tant lesson in this tactical shift to a pro-gressive social liberalism. Martin andthe Liberals, for their part, have emergedas the defenders of Canadian values – es-sentially code for diversity and socialprograms.The Liberal deathbed retrieval of socialliberalism was nothing more than vulgaropportunism but it was an opportunismin response to a measurable loss of sup-port to the NDP. In the final days of thecampaign Martin appealed, perhapspleaded would be more accurate, to vot-ers leaning toward the New Democrats,arguing that only the Liberals could de-feat the Conservatives and thus protectsocial programs. By all accounts itseems to have worked. The Liberal suc-cess within this context and the Conser-vative failure to ‘unite the right’, definedas having failed to win a level of popularsupport equal to the combined votes ofAlliance and PC’s, provides a ratherstark contrast to the dynamic of the de-bate in the United States.As for the NDP, BQ and the Greens wesee simply various accommodations withthe neoliberal orthodoxy. No one pro-gram suggested a rupture with capital-ism. While the tactics employed by the

Liberals in the final weeks of the cam-paign appealed, and were designed so, tothose who were discomforted to somelesser or greater degree with the projectof dismantling anything of a public na-ture, the actual policy prescriptions of allthe parties displayed a consensus of thepolitical establishment in accepting ne-oliberal hegemony.The New Democrats, as the official so-cial democratic party, provide the clear-est example of this. It was not simply theearly attempts to attract progressive Lib-erals to run under the party label but thereal or apparent abandonment of themost ‘radical’ propositions coming fromthat party. Such propositions as the abro-gation of NAFTA and withdrawal fromNATO, but in addition the shameless si-lence of Canada’s ‘labour party’ on fun-damental workers’ issues such as theprotection of pensions and collectivebargaining. All this while the businesspages of papers throughout the worldspeak of a pension crisis – which ofcourse will be resolved on the backs ofworkers. Did anyone note how quicklythe New Democrats abandoned their callfor an inheritance tax? The NDP contin-ues to move away from ‘labourism’ as itconstructs a what it clearly wishes to bea new political alliance of urban socialliberals advocating responsible businessinvestment practices. Apart from Laytonhimself, the new alliance strategy failed.What the NDP did benefit from was aresurgence of class-based voting in re-gional pockets of the country. NDPgains largely tended to be in seats andregions where there is a tradition ofworking class support for the ‘labourparty’. In the north-end of Winnipeg,Windsor, Hamilton, and northern On-tario New Democrats won seats or were

competitive for the first time in someyears. With a bit more momentum anddifferent political and organizationalstrategies and tactics it was entirely pos-sible for this to have been a very dra-matic night for the NDP.The reality is that it must have been avery bitter night for the architects of thenew alliance strategy. Why was this so?There is a lesson in wins in Timmins-James Bay and Sault Ste. Marie andlosses in Trinity-Spadina and Beaches-Woodbine. The strategy of new al-liances, it would appear, was not built ona very reliable political base. Sarah Pol-ley may be very cool but her public en-dorsement of Olivia Chow did not resultin much that is tangible. Perhaps withmuch less flash, Winnipeg’s north enddelivered seats to the NDP. DowntownToronto, save one, did not. Despite thepost-modern make-over the NDP as amulti-class party, workers appear tohave in some significant numbers re-turned to supporting the NewDemocrats. More may well have beenpossible but that would have meant a dif-ferent strategy. In this respect the poli-tics of the new alliance strategy requiresmore investigation. On the face it, thestrategy was in part meant to include thesocial movements. Yet, beyond thehealth coalitions, neither presence norsupport appear to have been generated.Further notables stemming from election2004 include a record low voter turnoutof 60% speaks volumes. In comparativeterms this puts Canadian voter turnouttoward the bottom of the scale of‘wealthy’ countries besting only theUnited States. That 40% choose not toparticipate even in the most minimalfashion reflects a deepening alienationwith not just the political system but the

4

participate even in the most minimalfashion reflects a deepening alienation withnot just the political system but thepolitical economy as a whole. While wemust await the hard number crunching ofwho voted and who didn’t it doesn’trequire a lot of data to know that the mostmarginalized are much less likely to vote.However, there is a growing pattern ofnon-participation among all income,occupational and social groups. It cannotgo without noting that all political partiesfailed to mobilize the most disenchanted.Why? The simple answer is that threedecades of neoliberal restructuring hasbuilt a lived reality for most where stateintervention and provision of public goodsis dramatically diminished andconsequently less relevant in daily terms. Itis a casual but still interesting observationto note that in those countries where thereis a robust and legitimate public sectorvoter participations tends toward thehigher end.

In this country region is a complexdimension of life which intersects withclass, linguistic and broadly defined socialand economic opportunities. This newparliament reflects rather dramatically thedeepening of divisions and polarizationalong these lines. None of the parties offersan analysis and vision to ameliorate letalone roll back this troubling scenario of asharply divided society. Instead, what aplurality of Canadian voters did was toopt to reinstate to government a partywhich in the final weeks of the electionspoke of vague Canadian values (??) anddeftly characterized the Conservatives asnot being in tune with these mainstreamvalues. Exactly how these values areapplied in policy terms remains to be seenbut their plastic quality provides muchroom to wiggle of which we will assuredlysee much in the next months.For the socialist Left the challenge is tofind the means both organizationally andideologically to build on the small

beachheads resulting from election 2004.Three significant developments are worthexploring further. First, the revival, thoughmodest, of working class support for theNew Democrats speaks to the potential fordeepening a class politics in this country.Second, a widely held, though uncertainand contradictory rejection of the worstneoliberalism can offer points to thepossibility for building a movement whichquestions neoliberalism rather than seeksan accommodation with it. And third, thepossibility that this parliament will placeon the policy agenda some important issuessuch as rebuilding and reinvesting in publicgoods and services, urban infrastructure,sustainable economic development and arejection of militarism. This will providethe socialist Left with greater credibility inadvancing a vision of real transformation.However, to even test this hypothesis willrequire a great deal of work and creativityon our part.

few thoughts on the June 28 federalelection, focused on the Quebecresults and their implications for theleft in the Rest of Canada.

1. The sovereignty movement is here tostay.

This was the fourth consecutive federalelection in which the Bloc Québécois hasemerged as the dominant party inFrancophone Quebec. And the sixthconsecutive election in which the federalLiberals, Canada’s “natural governingparty”, failed to win a plurality let alone amajority among Quebec’s Francophonevoters. The Bloc received 300,000 morevotes than it got in 2000; rumours of itsimminent demise proved greatlyexaggerated.Quebec has produced nationalist splinterparties in the past: Henri Bourassa’s PartiNationaliste, the anticonscription BlocPopulaire in the 1940s, Réal Caouette’srural Créditistes. But none with thelongevity and popular support of the BlocQuébécois, not to mention the Partiquébécois. Throughout most of the 20thcentury, until the 1980s, Quebecers, as aminority people within Canada, tended tovote overwhelmingly with the party in

power in Ottawa. That was how they couldexert maximum influence within thefederal system of government, thereasoning went. Now, however, the mythof “French power” within the federalgovernment has been largely abandoned.One obvious explanation for this change intraditional voting patterns, of course, liesin the fallout from the unilateral patriationof the Constitution in 1982 and the failureto repair that error (Meech,Charlottetown). The roots go much deeper,however. During the Trudeau years, manyFrancophone Quebecers were able tooverlook his visceral hatred of Quebecnationalism because his governments,initially at least, offered some real hope ofimprovement in their status within Canada,through such things as the officiallanguages policy and repeated (albeitunsuccessful) attempts to develop a made-in-Canada constitution that would beacceptable to Quebec. But since the early1980s federalism — meaning now theconstitutional status quo — has been onthe defensive in Quebec. Federal politicsin Quebec now more closely resemble thealignments that have developed on theprovincial level since theQuiet Revolution of the1960s, the PQ and

now the BQ building on the ongoingstrength of the pro-sovereignty sentiment.Quebec’s alienation from the federalregime in the wake of the Meech debacletriggered the collapse of the Tories andnow, following the disclosures over the“sponsorship” campaign — with itscontemptuous approach to Quebecreferendum laws and Québécois politicalallegiances — has reduced the Liberals tominority government status.

2. Once again, NDP hopes of a Quebecbreakthrough are dashed.

The NDP’s vote in Quebec, whileincreasing by 95,000, remained well below10% of the total. And some of its bestscores were for candidates known for theirpro-sovereignty views, such as OmarAktouf (14%), a leader of the Union desforces progressistes (UFP). Until recently,Jack Layton and his Quebec adjutant PierreDucasse had banked their hopes for bigNDP gains on what they perceived aswaning support for sovereignty and with ita decline and eventual disappearance of theBloc — just as the PQ’s decline in the mid-1980s, when it dropped the sovereigntygoal and embraced the “beau risque”

The 2004 election and the Left: Some lessons from Quebecby Richard Fidler

5

strategy with the federal Tories, resulted ina brief surge in the provincial NDP’ssupport in Quebec. But when the PQreoriented toward sovereignty underJacques Parizeau, the Quebec NDPcollapsed; its remnants are now in thesovereigntist UFP.The Quebec national question has plaguedthe NDP from its inception. At its 1961founding convention, attended by some300 delegates from Quebec, the new partyadopted a position that recognized Quebecas a distinct “nation”. Even then this wascontroversial; Eugene Forsey, then theresearch director for the Canadian LabourCongress, quit the party on the floor of theconvention over that nod to reality. Withina few years, faced with the chauvinism ofthe party’s federal leadership and some keymembers, mainly Anglophone, inMontreal, most of the party’s supporters inQuebec had left, first to form the PartiSocialiste du Québec, then to join the PartiQuébécois or one of the groupusculesfurther to the left. Since then, with thenotable exception of some goodwill earnedby the party’s opposition to the WarMeasures occupation of Quebec in 1970,the NDP’s support in Quebec has beeninversely proportional to the fortunes of thesovereigntist movement.The party’s claim to support Quebec’s rightto self-determination has been constantlybelied by its practice. In 1982, in the faceof unanimous opposition from Quebec’sNational Assembly, the NDP parliamentarycaucus supported Trudeau’s reform of theConstitution with its Charter of Rightsspecifically designed to frustrate Quebeclegislation in defence of the Frenchlanguage. In 1992, the party campaignedfor the Charlottetown Accord, rejected bya majority of Quebec voters. And in 2000,its MPs voted with only two exceptions forthe Clarity Act, Parliament’s arrogantdeclaration that it – and it alone – woulddecide whether Quebec had a right tonegotiate its exit from Confederation.For a moment, during the recent campaign,it looked as if the federal NDP had finallygot it: in Baie Comeau, Pierre Ducasse athis side, Jack Layton denounced the ClarityAct. But Layton’s statement was promptlydenounced by both NDP provincialpremiers and leading members of hisparliamentary caucus. Layton quicklybacktracked: the Act was “ancient history”,it was time to move on. And its repeal wasnot included in Layton’s conditions forpossible support to a minority Liberal

government.The NDP’s 66-page platform had onesentence referring to the Quebec nationalquestion: it called for “recognizing thefundamental differences that constituteQuebec being a nation within Canada andworking with Quebec to obtain commonobjectives with equitable outcomes, withthe option of Quebec opting out of newfederal programs with compensation topursue common objectives and standardsin a provincial program.” The emphasisthroughout was on the need to enforce“common objectives and standards” —without even a hint of recognition thatmany of the planks in the platform arematters over which Quebec has or seeks

exclusive jurisdiction. Quebec was treatedas little more than a province like theothers, albeit one requiring perhaps a bitmore attention.The source of these deficiencies is clear.Social democrats have a fundamentallybenign and classless perspective on thecapitalist state, which they view as theprimary instrument and repository ofprogressive social policy. Quebec’snational demands, by threatening theintegrity of the central state, disrupt thisperspective, even though Quebec has inrecent decades enacted some of the moreprogressive legislation in Canada inasserting and occupying its jurisdiction.The NDP’s Canadian nationalismeffectively trumps Quebec nationalism andsubverts the party’s ability to relate toprogressive grassroots social movements

and activists in Quebec who are in mostcases supporters of a sovereign Quebec. Asthe NDP’s record amply shows, the party’sentire political culture is hostile to Quebecself-determination. It has more or lessconsistently tailed the Liberal conceptionof Canadian federalism.The NDP’s indifference, misunderstandingand sometimes downright opposition in theface of Québécois national demands andaspirations (recall Ed Broadbent’s spuriousclaim, just prior to the PQ’s 1976 electionvictory, that French-languagecommunication between Francophone aircrews and ground controllers jeopardizedair safety?) has tended to isolate it fromsome of the most dynamic and progressive

forces in Quebec society. And as a directresult, its lack of support in Quebec hasundermined its credibility throughoutCanada as a serious contender forgovernment in the Canadian state.

3. Strategic challenge for the left.

In English Canada, it is not just the NDP,of course, that identifies the defence andextension of social programs withpreserving and strengthening the Canadianstate. Virtually the entire left andprogressive milieu shares this perspectiveto various degrees, and often reveals aremarkable inability to relate to Québécoisconcerns.A notable example of the contradictorydynamics in the two nations occurred in the1988 struggle against the original Canada-

6

U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Theprocapitalist PQ favoured the Agreement:free trade, it argued would guarantee accessby a sovereign Quebec to the U.S. market,lessen Quebec’s dependence on Canadianmarkets and investments and limit theregulatory authority of the Canadian state.Quebec trade unions were sceptical andeven opposed to the deal. But nationalist-minded Quebec trade unionists and socialactivists were unable to relate to amovement against the deal that framed itscampaign as one in defence of “Canadiansovereignty” and even named its coalitionthe Pro-Canada (later Action Canada)network! When Quebec voters, under theinfluence of the still-pending Meech LakeAccord, helped to re-elect Mulroney’sTories, leftists in English Canada couldhardly contain their anger. It was thedefinitive breach for many who had foundit easy in the 1970s to sympathize with theradical manifestoes then being publishedby Quebec’s unions, which for the mostpart had not yet become overt supporters ofindependence. The divisions and hostility generated inthe1988 FTA fight graphically illustratedthe need for the left to develop a strategythat could encompass Quebec self-determination and independence withEnglish-Canadian workers’ concerns andinterests in a joint struggle directed againstthe common ruling class in the Canadianstate. The failure to develop suchconsciousness and solidarity — replicatedin both the major political confrontations(Meech, Charlottetown, the ’95referendum, the Clarity Bill) and theongoing issues over language rights or thefiscal imbalance that strongly favours thefederal government — is arguably thegreatest single weakness of the workingclass in both nations. Significant progress in developing suchongoing strategy and practice of solidaritywould do much to help the unions andgrassroots social movements in Quebec tosee and develop progressive class-basedoptions independently of the currentprocapitalist leadership of the nationalistmovement. In any event, it should be clearby now that there will be no anticapitalistparty with mass support in Quebec thatdoes not support Quebec independence. Developing such a strategy is not an

easy task, to be sure, but it is one that in myopinion the Socialist Project needs toaddress in the near future. Our founding Statement, a 4,500-worddocument, assigned virtually no strategicweight to the Quebec national question,simply stating that “acknowledgingQuebec’s right to self-determination...means being prepared to facilitatesovereignty-association.” The electionpamphlet, A Different Canada is Possible,acknowledged that “Quebec has a widerclaim to jurisdictional authority than otherprovinces” and urged the NDP to commititself to “bargaining in good faith for anew constitutional settlement”. The support for “sovereignty-association” or a “new constitutionalsettlement”, however, sits somewhatuneasily with the unconditional recognitionof Quebec’s right to self-determination.There is certainly no harm in holding outthe possibility of a federalist constitutionalarrangement that accommodates bothnations on an equal footing. But theformulations, as they stand, appear to putthe cart before the horse. What if Quebecdecides it does not want some form ofconstitutional “association” or “settlement”with Canada? A more strategically oriented approach,in my view, would build on the UFP’s callfor a democratically elected Quebecconstituent assembly to adopt a Quebecconstitution that would then be put to apopular vote. After all, it is Quebec anation that is denied recognition as a nationunder the Canadian Constitution, laws andcourts that has the right of self-determination, not Canada, an independentcountry. (For reasons that are unclear tome, the UFP section of our electionpamphlet omitted its call for a constituentassembly.) Unlike the NDP, socialists do not equatethe existing state structures withdemocracy, equality and progress. We haveevery interest in supporting the struggles ofthe Québécois for national independence ifthat is their choice. And we need to flesh out and implementa strategy that incorporates the right of self-determination in all its expressions. Itcannot be confined to the formal issue ofseparation or federation. It must includeday-to-day solidarity with the Québécoisfight against all manifestations of national

7

inequality and oppression, including theissue of language rights, repressivelegislation, inequitable tax policies, etc.The recent columns by UFP leaders inCanadian Dimension and the jointproduction of the election pamphlet withthe UFP comrades have been very positiveinitiatives toward beginning to develop thissolidarity between anticapitalist activists inboth nations.

NDPElectioneering

in OttawaBy Kevin Skerrett

s critical as we may be of the limitations ofelectoral politics, the shallow character ofmainstream media coverage of elections,and the compromises made by socialdemocratic parties and politicians,socialists tend to follow their content andresults very closely because they still tellus a lot about where our political culture is– and maybe where it’s going.In Ottawa, two ridings attracted most ofthe attention of those on the Left. OttawaCentre, a previous NDP seat, featuredformer leader Ed Broadbent challengingLiberal insider Richard Mahoney, a closeassociate and advisor to Paul Martin. Theother riding of particular interest wasOttawa South, where Monia Mazigh – thewife of Maher Arar – ran a high-profilecampaign for the NDP against DavidMcGuinty, the brother of Premier Dalton.Both of these campaigns merit somecomment.When Ed Broadbent announced hiscandidacy last November, the mainstreammedia made much of a tossed-off commenthe made about increasing social inequalityand “class war”. Unfortunately, hisrhetorical flourishes ended there, and oncenominated, his sloganeering changed. “Ibelieve in a market economy, but not amarket society,” he repeated, neverconsidering the possibility of any causallinkage from one to the other. Ed’s socialdemocracy is not unlike that of other“reformed” New Democrats, whovariously embrace market economics –and capitalism itself – but insist that they

– and capitalism itself – but insist thatthey can be tamed and humanized throughgovernment regulation. Much more surprising was the weaknessof Broadbent’s foreign policy commentary.On March 10th, the campaign’s officiallaunch was kicked off with a meeting thatattracted several hundred supporters. Hisspeech was notable for two things. First,he admitted to having supported the NATOwar on Yugoslavia. Second, in the courseof discussing the imminent threat of deeperintegration with US foreign policy, he didnot even acknowledge the fact that just 10days previous the Canadian governmenthad fallen into line in supporting the US-sponsored coup in Haiti, removing theelected President Aristide, and replacinghim with an unelected pro-US puppetregime. For a party, and a leader, that hadprevious been among Canada’s leadingcritics of NATO and US imperialism, itwas a serious signal of the continuingslippage of NDP foreign policy. Finally, Ed’s position at the wrong endof the party spectrum was cemented in themiddle of the campaign when he spokecritically of Jack Layton’s principledopposition to the Clarity Act that is sodespised by progressives – and most others– in Quebec. Following critical commentsfrom Layton about this undemocraticlegislation, a string of prominent NewDemocrats, including Premiers Doer andCalvert and former leadership candidateBill Blaikie, broke ranks with the leaderand challenged his position on the issue.Broadbent joined the pro-Clarity Actchorus, now clearly an entrenched group inthe caucus that does not recognize thecontradiction between the Party’spurported respect for Quebec’s self-determination and legislation that leavesdecision-making about the winningthreshold, and the formulation of thequestion itself, outside of Quebec. In the end, Broadbent’s positivereputation, profile and history allowed himto coast to a relatively easy victory, taking41% of the vote, as compared to 31% forMahoney, 19% for the Conservative, and7.5% for the Greens. In Ottawa South, there was no stronghistory for the NDP, with past electionsbringing between 3% and 7% of the vote.When Monia Mazigh announced hercandidacy, a ripple of interest sweptthrough the region, particularly amongfeminists activists. It was recognized that

in Mazigh, the NDP had gained anarticulate and high-profile woman ofcolour as a candidate, someone whoserecent success in campaigning for therelease of her husband, Maher Arar, hadbrought her – and the whole issue ofhuman rights and the complicity ofCanadian and US governments in torture –into the public spotlight. Unfortunately, Monia’s candidacy wasnot as straightforward as this. Before long,it became clear that while she was in aposition to be particularly heartfelt aboutthe racism and human rights abuses facedby immigrants, refugees, and Muslims inparticular, her religious convictions meantthat she would not be a champion forcertain rights that most on the Left – andmost in the NDP – take as a given. Sheadmitted that if legislation were to comeforward on the issue of same-sex marriageor abortion, she would abstain from a vote. This failure to champion the equalityrights of gays and lesbians and thereproductive rights of women is somethingthat the NDP has faced in the past, as whenthe party’s MPs have taken anti-choicepositions attributed to Christianaffiliations. But it is particularlydisappointing given that we are living in aperiod when Muslim communities, inCanada, the US, and parts of Europe, havebeen facing an intensified post-9/11backlash of racism, suspicion, and evenimprisonment. Canada’s anti-terrorismlegislation and repressive SecurityCertificate mechanism for detentionwithout due process or charge, have beenused to target Muslims more than anyother community. We on the Left, insideand outside the NDP, desperately need tobuild bridges with this community,overcome our own ignorance about Islam,and challenge our habitual hostility toreligion in order to effectively defendthose most targeted. Fortunately, not all Muslimcampaigners approached these issues thesame way. Another Muslim NDPcandidate, Itrath Sayed, running in Delta-Richmond East in BC, faced the samedilemma when she was attacked by otherMuslims for defending equal rights tomarriage. Apparently, she and her parentswere “effectively ex-communicated” fromher mosque in Richmond. She foughtback, writing an open letter that forcefullydefends the equality rights of allCanadians.

“My position is very clear. I support theprinciple that all human beings inCanada must be equal under Canadianlaw and have the same rights in Canada.Every single person.”

“In the last few years since 9/11, theMuslim community has watched, andlargely stood silent, while our civil rightshave been attacked, while wehave been targeted by CSIS, while we havedemonized in the media, while wehave had our personal lives invaded, whilemany of us have been arrested ordetained for questioning by police. Not tomention how one of us waskidnapped by the U.S. government with thecooperation of our own governmentand sent to a torture prison. There hasbeen fear and silence in ourcommunity.

“Muslims in Canada must be clear that wecan not demand our own equality inCanada, our own rights to be who we are,while also calling for the rightsof others to be restricted. If the principle ofequality under Canadian lawis compromised, it will be compromised forall minority communities.”

Despite these issues, and the fact that someprogressives refused to support hercampaign, Mazigh did very well in theelection, nearly doubling the NDP’svote total to some 13.7%. She enlivened acampaign in an otherwise quiteconservative riding, and attracted manyyoung women of colour into electoralpolitics. She managed to do all of thisoperating in her third language – no meanfeat – following an obviously gruelingyear. Hopefully, Monia Mazigh will stayinvolved in progressive politics, andfurther reflection will bring her to a pointwhere she can view equality rights in thesame way as Itrath Sayed. In any case, hercandidacy and the ensuing debate was areminder that activists and progressivesstill have work to do to figure out how webuild movements and organizations thatchallenge anti-Muslim bigotry while at thesame time challenging friends andcomrades with religious convictions toreject the partitioning of the human rightsagenda.

8

he sixth annual conference of theScottish Socialist Party – withabout 500 delegates in attendance

-- took place in the spring, in Edinburgh.For a small and relatively neworganization, a little over five years old,the SSP has been very successful. It nowhas 3500 members, up over 500 sincethe last conference. The SSP is a “multi-tendency” party, comprised of most ofthe left groups in Scotland who organizethemselves around their specificpolitical viewpoints in the party toconstitute themselves as “platforms.”During the conference, the “platforms”organized meetings in the eveningswhich were open to all delegates.In this report, we will not cover all thediscussions at the event but only touchon a few. The party is active in manycampaigns such as anti-war and anti-racist work; two of its major activitiesare campaigns for free school meals andagainst the council tax.The SSP is for “red-blooded socialism,rooted in the working class,” statedCatriona Grant, who chaired the firstday’s sessions. The party calls for anindependent socialist Scotland. It’s acombat socialist party, committed to theoverturn of capitalism. Popular supporthas increased – in some industrial areasit is only a percentage point or so behindthat of the official opposition, theScottish National Party (SNP). In therecent Scottish elections, it elected fivenew members, four of whom are women,in addition to re-electing TommySheridan, the national leader. Two SSPmunicipal councilors were also elected.The Party has added to these successesinside the union movement with its“Make the Break” campaign, which itlaunched in 1999, a political struggle tochallenge trade union financial supportfor Tony Blair’s New Labour. RichieVenton, the Party’s Industrial organizertold the delegates, “a rolling thunder ofdiscontent is growing in the unions. Weare no longer swimming against thestream, and the Rail, Maritime andTransport (RMT) union has added hugeauthority to our arguments.”“At this stage”, Venton said, “among themass of trade unionists, the predominant

trend is towards straight-forwarddisaffiliation from New Labour. Theyare more decisive and clear-cut thanmany of the more active core of theunions. This is especially prevalent inunions which have been in sharp conflictwith the government, like the FireBrigades Union (FBU). Whilst a hugelypositive step forward, disaffiliation fromLabour, if left in isolation, could leavethe unions in political limbo; wouldprobably often mean the tops of theunion carry on unofficial collaborationwith New Labour and could reinforce acertain anti-political party strain withintrade union ranks – born of the vileexperiences at the hand of New Labour.”Working class conditions continue todeteriorate in Scotland. Many delegatesreferred to new data which showedaverage longevity of the population insome areas has fallen to below 63 years,similar to Russia’s.Venton cautioned against expectingmass over-night affiliation to the SSP.It’s not an immediate prospect, he said,“but that must in no way act as a recipefor passivity…we help shape the future,not just speculate.”The RMT in Scotland have affiliated8000 members to the SSP, an action thatled Blair’s New Labour to expel theentire RMT. (This union is famous forbeing the first, over one hundred yearsago, to move behind the Labour Partywhen it was founded.) In February, indefiance of their National leadership,4000 postal workers in Edinburgh, Fife,

Central Scotland and the Bordersaffiliated, and later this year, the FBU,which was still battling to get a contract,will debate its affiliations. All theseunions helped finance the SSP’scampaign in the European elections.Tommy Sheridan opened the conferenceby paying tribute to the work of the partysince the previous conference andwarmly welcomed the new delegatesfrom the RMT, and CommunicationWorkers’ Union (CWU) and he urgedSSP members in the Firefighter’s andpublic service unions to step up theirdrive to “make the break” with NewLabour.A special delegation of striking nursery-nurses (day-care workers) was given arousing welcome, backed up by afinancial collection from the delegates asthe hat was passed around. Inappreciation, the nursery workers,organized and staffed a crèche for theevent. The SSP was active on thepicket-lines around the country insupport of the strike and its MSPs inparliament were extremely vocal in theircriticisms of the Labour-LiberalDemocrats government’s opposition to afair settlement for the nursery-nurses.On Saturday, Alan McCombesintroduced the Party’s “Draft Manifestofor the European Elections.” This was abig issue before the delegates. There waslots of discussion on the floor andin the corridors about the implications ofelecting even one member in theproportional representation system and

The Scottish Socialist Party: A Report on the 2004 Annual Conference

By Ernest Tate and Jess MacKenzie

9

who would be on the Party’s slate.“The SSP rejects the Union Jack –flag-waving anti-Europeanism of thexenophobic right. Socialism has alwaysbeen an international philosophy”, statesthe draft manifesto. In today’s world,“international socialism can no longer bederided as a utopian fantasy. The starryeyed dreamers of the 21st century are thosewho hide behind national walls and live inpermanent quarantine from the rest of theworld.” Our aim, “is to build socialismfrom below – a socialism based ondecentralization, diversity and voluntarycooperation between nations”, pointing outthat “there is nothing intrinsicallyinternationalist about a United Europe orinternationalist about the UnitedKingdom.” The philosophy underlying theE.U. is right wing, the manifesto says.As it turned out, even though the partymore than doubled its vote from theprevious European elections, obtaining5.2% of the votes cast, it failed to elect amember.The SSP, in contrast to the ScottishNational Party (SNP), which is the officialopposition in Scotland, is opposed toBritain adopting the euro as its currency. Itsays, “Scotland would effectively becomean economic prisoner, held under housearrest by the bankers of Frankfurt.” It“means submitting to yet another ‘one-size-fits-all’ monetary regime”.The rise of the SSP has shaken the SNP.Many of its members have joined, or are inthe process of joining, the SSP. The SNPis in a leadership crisis, partly as a result ofits failures in the last election when it losteight seats. Under pressure from the SSP,they recently abandoned their support forthe Council tax, (a form of poll tax), anissue which is front and centre of the SSP’severyday activity. According to TheTimes of London, a recent report to theSNP’s executive revealed membership hasdropped two-thirds in the past year, to6000, the lowest in a generation. At theconvention, Tommy Sheridan welcomed anew group of four ex-SNP members intothe party, one of whom came to theconference as an observer but left as anSSP member. Another was a member ofthe SNP’s trade union group. Delegatesvoted a former SNP-MSP, onto the SSP’sslate of candidates for the Europeanelections.The SSP’s position on independence wasthe subject of three motions placed beforethe delegates. The Party has been in

discussion over the past period with otherpro-independence forces in Scotland aboutorganizing an Independence Convention.The SNP and the Green Party have nowsigned on, Alan McCombes told thedelegates, and the Convention will belaunched later this year.The issue of Scottish independence wasdebated fully at the previous convention, atwhich time the party’s position wasoverwhelmingly reaffirmed. But thematter was raised again. There was someresentment among some of the delegates towhat they said was kind of guerilla war thatdoes not offer anything new in the way ofargument. This was expressed in a motionfrom the Scottish Republican Platform thatcalled for the Party to incorporate itsposition on independence into the Party’sconstitution. “The SSP was founded as apro-independence party. The democraticdemand for Scottish independence is a‘triple pillar’ of SSP policy,” it said,pointing out that “for a small butvociferous minority of SSP activists, thisremains a matter to be continuallychallenged…” The delegates rejected thisconstitutional change however,recognizing that it would be wrong to seekan organizational solution to the confusionon this important question.One group, the “Committee for a Workers’International”, commonly known in Britainas the “Militant tendency”, distributed anopen letter from their London leadership tothe conference, denouncing the Party’sposition on the national question, warningthe delegates of a “shift towardsopportunism” when the Scottish SocialistVoice, the Party’s weekly paper, in thespirit of open and democratic discussion,allowed ex-SNP members to express theiropinions -- mainly left criticisms of theSNP -- in its pages.Also, a motion influenced by the SocialistWorkers’ Party “platform” took a similarposition on the national question. Itsupported “the right of Scottish people toself-determination”, however, it believedthe Party’s position on independence“should be based on whether the goal ofIndependence and the means of achievingit, will strengthen or weaken the political,ideological and industrial position of theworking class – not only in Scotland, but inthe U.K. and internationally.“ This motionwas defeated.A major issue in Scottish society is thequestion of religious anti-catholicsectarianism which finds its expression in

many forms, and which can be seen often,for example, in the eruption of violenceand rioting by hooligans during soccermatches between the Rangers and Celticteams. The delegates debated the difficultissues of building a secular educationalsystem, and the issue of religious schools.The recent reactionary actions of theFrench government in banning Muslimwomen for the wearing of the head-scarvesin schools, and the confusion in the Frenchleft on this issue, was mentioned severaltimes in the discussion, which was at timeimpassioned, but open and comradely.A motion was finally adopted whichstated: “religion is a private, not a statematter. The state shall not restrict anindividual’s right to freedom ofconscience, of worship or of religiousobservance. The Church and state aretotally separate entities. The state shall notfund or subsidize any religious institutionsor organizations; the state shall notsponsor any act of religious worship orobservance.”We were impressed with the spirit ofdemocracy around the event was, but itseemed to us, the pressure to keep to theagenda, meant there was insufficient timefor reflection to allow people to changetheir minds. It was a conference for the branches,however, not just in words, but in actualpractice. The SSP leaders, many of whomintroduced the major reports, did not speakfrom the floor. The movers of motionswere given time to introduce them, as wereseconders. Amendments were alsointroduced and seconded. After debate,both the movers of the motion and theamendments were given time to sum up.And while this was going on, the delegateswere voting by secret ballot to elect theirleadership. There was no organizationalwrangling.This was a sharp contrast to ourexperience in the labour movement in(Continued on page 12)

10

Two Marches:Anti-War Organizingin Toronto

By Peter Graham

nti-war groups competed for thesupport of protestors in the June30th day of action against the

supposed US hand over in Iraq. TheJune 30th Coalition (J30) and theToronto Coalition to Stop the War(TCSW) organized different pickets anddemonstrations throughout the day. Formost of the day, the two groups weresupportive of each other’s events wherehundreds of protestors came out to de-nounce the continuing US interventionin Iraq. But tensions developed as theday came to an end.The all day action began with an infor-mation picket organized by J30 at theCanadian Commercial Corporation - acrown corporation established to facili-tate the sale of Canadian military equip-ment. Afterwards was a demo held byStir It Up, a youth coalition, at the inter-section south of Queen’s Park. Then itwas off to the US Consulate, whereTCSW held a rally.

A Choice

After listening to a number of speakers,the protestors had to choose betweentwo marches. J30 had planned a marchtowards the financial district, whileTCSW, had received a permit to marcha circuitous route north of the consulate.As TCSW called for unity in the anti-war movement, J30 supporters chanted“Go south,” as they distributed a leafletcalling on Canadian institutions, publicand corporate, to be the focus of the anti-war movement. The 600 demonstratorsappeared to be evenly split in theirchoice of a marching route.Predictably, there was some friction gen-erated between the two camps. Some J30activists said they were under the im-pression that TCSW had not planned amarch. There were allegations that amarch had been added only when TCSWhad learned about J30’s march. TCSWsupporters maintained that a march hadbeen planned all along. All of TCSW’spast demonstrations at the consulate in-

cluded marches, when numbers permit-ted. There was a disquieting tussle forTCSW’s microphone.Beyond the day’s petty intrigues, thesplit in the demonstration highlights thedifferent politics in the anti-war move-ment.

The June 30th Coalition

In a pattern similar to the Ontario Coali-tion Against Poverty’s Oct 16th marchon Bay Street in 2001 (OCAP is a spon-sor of J30), the southbound demonstra-tors weaved along the streets and thor-oughfares of the financial district to pre-vent police from stopping their unli-censed procession. At several points thecrowd stopped at towers sheltering busi-nesses benefiting from the occupation ofIraq, listening to speakers give the de-tails on each corporation’s involvement.There were repeated calls of “BayStreet’s covered in Baghdad’s blood,”renditions of “Workers’ revolution iswhat we’re for” and “Smash the state.” -chants never heard on TCSW’s marches.J30 tends to link their opposition to thewar with an overtly anti-capitalistagenda. They look to the tactics of theanti-globalization movement, noting thatthey “have come together to fight capi-talist globalization before.” They believethat a diversity of tactics needs to be em-

ployed to end the occupation with directaction playing a central role.Recent attempts at direct action had notbeen successful. For the March 20thJ30’s march winds through the financial district

demonstration in Ottawa, there was asplit-off from the march, but they were

forced to regroup back into the mainmarch. Some attempts at direct actionmarches were rendered invisible by thesheer size of the permit-clad demonstra-tions. This time, attempts at direct actionseemed to be a success because insteadof being relegated to the sidelines, directaction protestors played a significantpart in the marches.

Toronto Coalition to Stop the War

The Toronto Coalition to Stop the War

11

(TCSW) has been responsible for much ofthe anti-war activity in Toronto. The100,000-strong anti-war demonstration oflast year was held under their auspices.More recently, at least 5,000 people as-sembled to protest on March 20th, the an-niversary of the invasion of Iraq.TCSW is not a single-issue coalition. Theyhave joined opposition to the ocupation ofIraq with resistance to the occupations ofAfghanistan and Palestine. Speakers atTCSW events have condemned the block-ade of Cuba and endorsed NDP politi-cians. While there are socialists playing animportant part in TCSW, they publiclytake a back seat to unions, religious orga-nizations and other important constituentparts of the coalition.

TCSW marchers listen to the day’s final speaker

The TCSW plan is to forge the broadestcoalition possible against the war. This in-cludes obtaining the appropriate permitsfor legal assembly and employing mar-shals to maintain an orderly demonstra-tion.When opposition to the war was flowing,it was easy to see the effectiveness of thisapproach: TCSW posters were hanging inworkplaces throughout the city; crowds ofunion member attended the demonstra-tions; the Arab community was out instrength. The broad constituency TCSWsought turned out in large numbers.

Frustration

When there’s ebb in activity, the choicebecome less clear. There is frustration withthe pace of events. Despite strong protestsaround the world, the war went ahead andthe occupation continues. The mass media,which actually promoted some of the anti-war events in advance last year, is silent.The liberal left, while anti-war, have notrallied against the occupation. Many so-cialists, while calling for an end to the oc-

cupation, seem unsure as to how thisshould be accomplished.For the committed numbers who repeat-edly attend anti-war demonstrations, therituals of sloganeering and marching seemmore burdensome. Changing the routine,by marching on their own route, with theirslogans, added a level of energy that hadbeen absent in recent demonstrations.

Which side are you on?

Although the anti-capitalist rhetoric of J30are closer to where we, as socialists, areat, most of the working class people wewant to attract are not there yet. Further-more, direct action demonstrations arelargely big city fare. They do little to de-crease the gapping hole between theToronto left and those living in other partsof the province.The anti-war movement of the 60’s and70’s, as with the Latin American peacemovement of the 1980’s, had many upsand downs. So it is with this anti-occupation movement. The Vietnam anti-war movement was in its’ infancy whenriffs emerged in broader coalitions. Therewere criticisms of events not being radicalenough. Some activists urged a turn tocommunity work. Others wanted to“escalate the costs of war.”Socialist were on both sides of the tacticalfence. Of the major theoretical currents ofthe day, the Communist Party and a ma-jority of Trotskyists hewed towards theall-inclusive model. The most popular so-cialist current of that time, Maoism,largely favoured a direct actionist ap-proach. There was a mutual anger at whateach camp viewed as a betrayal.This time, the anger may be muted. So-cialists who are cool to a diversity of tac-tics are in a bit of a bind. While direct ac-tion, as seen in the anti-globalizationmovement, was once condemned as ad-venturism – and may be again – it is diffi-cult for these tactics to be condemned perse, as most socialists hopped on the anti-globalization bandwagon, tactics and all.That there should be competing, thoughincomplete, visions of resistance is in-evitable. Socialists must try to limit thetension between different approaches toorganizing. Might the anti-occupationmovement create green and red marches,as used in many anti-globalization demon-strations?

Canada. We’ve participated in many unionand NDP meetings over the years andoften – quite often -- even after havingspoken from the platform, we’ve seenleaders eat up the delegate’s time at thefloor mikes. Rank and file delegates havebeen pushed aside so an MP can speak. Inaddition the agenda is always taken upwith videos and special events and specialinvited speakers, the mayor or someprovincial leaders, who use up a lot of timeof the convention with the willingcooperation of the organizers,who say they are making the event“entertaining”. There was none of thatthere. It was also interesting to see the roleplayed by the newly affiliated uniondelegates. We had expected to see themsitting on the sidelines, watching, voyeurlike, as the various “platforms” engaged indebate. We’ve seen that happen in somemeetings in Canada. But no, these workersseemed very experienced politically andwere fully engaged in what was going on,many of them making passionateinterventions, frequently effecting policyin a serious way, probably the result oftheir long struggle in the unions. This wasclearly their Party.The Scottish Socialist Party was born inthe last decade of the last century whenmany ideologues of the ruling classes saidthe struggle for socialism had come to anend. We are still early in the new centuryand the SSP gives us a glimpse of how it ispossible for socialists in an advancedcapitalist country to organize themselvesin a new and democratic way. We haveheard there are similar formationsdeveloping in other countries, and this istruly inspiring. Of course, it would beabsurd to think we can mechanicallyreproduce in Canada what the Scottishsocialists have achieved, but we cancertainly learn a lot from their experience.It might be a good idea if, in the spirit ofinternationalism, more people visitedScotland to see the SSP. Perhaps someCanadian socialists can look to attendingtheir next conference.

12

SSP’s 2004 Conference-continued from page 10

ousuf Karsh (1908-2002) isCanada's best-known photographicartist. Born to Armenian parents ineastern Turkey, Karsh fled

Ottoman persecution, first to Syria in 1922and then to Canada in 1925. Karsh's father(a successful merchant) was devoutlyRoman Catholic, and his educated motherProtestant; his parents originally destinedhim for the priesthood. Karsh becamefascinated by photography, however, andafter apprenticing in Boston, he returned toCanada in 1931 aspiring to photograph theillustrious figures of his era.

The Art Gallery of Windsor's exhibit ofKarsh's portraits is especially interesting,since his fame and life-work centred notaround working-class subjects, but whatKarsh referred to as 'people ofconsequence'. Karsh's passion wascapturing the animating force inhabitingthe souls of statesmen, eminent thinkersand religious figures, a force he termed"the 'inward power'. Karsh's spiritual questand photographic technique strived torender this quality of 'greatness', thoseexalted aspects of mind and soul and spiritrevealed on the faces of his distinguishedsubjects. Karsh wasn't exclusively fixatedon the great, however. In early 1951, heaccepted a Ford of Canada commission tophotograph Windsor workers for use inFord's annual reports and companyadvertising. The two weeks he spent

photographing Ford workers came amidst asimilar photographic assignment at theAtlas Steel facilities in Welland, Ontarioand Sharon Steel Limited in Pennsylvania.

The photographs romantically depictworkers in shimmering light andbeautifully-lit workplaces, Karsh's carefultechnique giving his figures a luminous andheroic quality. The exhibit is perhaps mostinteresting, however, for the context forKarsh's images. Between May 1950 andDecember 1951, historian David Fraserdescribes "an on-again off-again in-plantwar" at Ford's, peaking in the discharge of26 workers (including 13 stewards andcommitteemen) and a wildcat shutdown. Inthe years following the 1945 strike,management had adopted a conciliatoryapproach to the union, but theintensification of competition in the late1940s prompted management to tightendiscipline and restore management'sshopfloor authority. At the same time, in-plant union reps became more determinedto circumvent the grievance procedure andconfront shopfloor problems head-on. Inthe early summer of 1950, a number ofworkplace actions and stoppages resulted indischarges. That fall, Local 200 members rejectedFord management's pressure for a five-yearagreement, against the wishes of their localand regional leadership. Ongoing agitationduring the subsequent wage negotiations

led to accusations of sabotage frommanagement, and a speed-up campaignconducted by management in July 1951renewed months of confrontation,culminating in wildcats and discharge of 26workers in December. In October 1951,Ford announced that assembly would bemoved from Windsor to Oakville, where"the climate of capital" was healthier.

Given the turmoil, it's fascinating to seeKarsh's beaming workers accompanied byconfident descriptions of employee loyaltyand spreading affluence. Karsh's gaze wasdirected skyward, his attention undividedby the earthly realities before him, and thispolitical and aesthetic vision, guided byKarsh's spirituality, is on full view at thisexhibit. In his 1962 memoirs In Search ofGreatness, Karsh recounts an old Armenianstory in which a master shows his slave hisimage in a mirror, which the slave has neverseen before. Said the master to his slave,“'Look into this mirror, and you will seeyourself as you are." The slave did so; thenbroke into tears and sobbed. 'What iswrong?' said the master. Replied the slave,'I never knew how ugly I was.' His masterconsoled him, 'You have seen yourself butonce. I have been looking at you for yearsand I am not crying. In your face I havealways seen the love and devotion which Itreasure beyond price. It is beauty to me:go and be at peace.'”

CULTURAL FRONT

13

othing illustrates the exhaustion ofthe North American public fromthe ‘reality’ produced by the mass

media than the box office smashes of aseries of ‘guerrilla’ documentaries (forthey are anything but conventionalnarratives) over the last year or so. Ratherthan escaping into yet another pubescentcomedy, postmodern action thriller, orromanticized historical drama, audienceshave headed for Super Size Me, TheControl Room, Michael Moore’s Bowlingfor Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, andFog of War. The most distinctly radical ofthese has been The Corporation, directedand written by Canadians Mark Achbar,Jennifer Abott and Joel Bakan. Not onlyhas this literally titled film done record boxoffice during its run in Canada, it has beenpacking houses in the U.S. as well since itsearly summer release. Not exactlycountries that would be expected to betrumping anti-corporate cinema.

The contention of the film, as wellas the companion book by Joel Bakan, TheCorporation (New York: Free Press,2004), is straightforward enough. The

corporation stands as the most powerfulinstitution of our time, yet is accountableonly to itself and the singular objective ofmaking profits for its shareholders. Othersocietal objectives, such as ecologicalsustainability, decent work and pay, publichealth, common space, are all damned bythe inherent nature of corporations, even ifthey occasionally receive passing notice.For neoliberals, given voice in the film byarch ideologues Milton Friedman of theUniversity of Chicago and MichaelWalker of the Fraser Institute inVancouver, and CEOs of Goodyear andShell, this is the merit of the market andcapitalist competition. Friedman’scomments are utterly chilling in his abruptdismissal of any goal other than makingprofits at all costs; Walker comes off ingood part as the intellectual huckster he isin defending low wage zones and childlabour as necessary exploitation on theinevitable path to prosperity via freemarkets; and the corporate CEOs gush allthe empty sincerity about their societalroles that MBAs have been taught to reciteon business ethics. For liberals and social

democrats, the shortsighted objective ofonly seeking profits for shareholdersmakes the case for converting corporationsinto ‘stakeholding’ institutions, by addingnew agendas to corporate governancewhile leaving the basic organizationalstructure and market intact (partly in theway of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation inthe U.S. and the Broadbent corporateaccountability commission in Canada).This is a role played large by RayAnderson, CEO of Interface, a billiondollar commercial carpet maker in Atlanta,as the ‘good capitalist’ follower of PaulHawken’s Ecology of Commerce, whoconfesses that corporations have the habitof ‘making other people pay the bills’ fortheir wasteful and toxic practices, andimplores other companies to lessen theirecological footprint.

But all the evidence in the filmon the ‘pathological pursuit of profits andpower’ – the metaphor adopted to explaincorporate behaviour – points to far lesssanguine and easy conclusions. The19thcentury creation of the legal fiction oftreating the corporation as a ‘person’, viathe granting of a corporate charter in orderto limit the liability of shareholders, hascreated a social monster. This is where allthe power of film as a media is called uponto make unexpected links in time and spaceto convey the structural power ofcorporations. A flurry of clips ofnewscasts, interviews, old black and whitenewsreels, and video shoots juxtaposecorporate public relations imagery againstevidence of corporate malfeasance,environmental damage, abuses of childlabour, news manipulation and hostility todemocracy. Little is new here. But thestaccato repetition of corporate vice –presented with a mix of awe, shock,humour, and sober analysis by the sages ofthe anti-corporate movement such asNoam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, VandanaShiva – staggers. The linkages drawnbetween vastly different historical periodsand countries, from IBM collaborationwith the Nazis to Enron corporate fraud toGap sweatshops in Honduras, dispels allillusions that the problem is simply a ‘fewbad apples’.

The assessment of the impact ofcorporate rule on democracy draws thefilm to a conclusion. And here, it must besaid, the film (as well as Bakan’s book)

CULTURAL FRONT

14

dodges the central question its pathologymetaphor poses: are corporations behavingbadly because the imperatives of thecapitalist economic system requires themto, or because they lack the appropriateexternal regulatory context to overcomethese disorders? The answer is confused.Because corporations are such powerfulinstitutions, the film only poses theirpolitical opposition in the chaos of streetprotests insistent that ‘the world is not forsale’. Alternative directions lie in the needto improve corporate accountability, theboycott of ‘branding’ through shifts inconsumptive practices, insistence on the

old state insulation of certain basic servicessuch as access to water outside the market,and ‘internalization’ of the actualecological costs of production. Theworkers that produce the value and wealththat corporate private property rights allowto be appropriated by the shareholdingclass of owners are only present in the filmas the exploited (and then making theirappearance largely as the marginalized indeveloping countries) and not as potentialsocial actors. After all the stunningimaginative film-making in rendering asearing indictment of corporate power, TheCorporation dissolves into the banal of

better regulation, better ethics, less bias ininternational institutions. The corporation,it seems, is too powerful to do away with.The hard political question begs asking: isthis the anti-corporate movement faltering,or the corporate movement for neoliberalglobalization succeeding?

he Toronto Media-FestivalsNetwork, the creation of aprogressive bookseller and an arts

facilitator, organized a discussion betweenthe current crop of federal politicalhopefuls and a panel of media (mainly filmindustry) production agents.A noticeable, but unfortunately predictableabsence, was a representative from theRegressive Conservatives. Even theGreens sent someone who was truly‘green’. The Liberals had a heavy hitterwith Sarmite Butte, who worked with

Sheila Copps at the Department ofHeritage. She drowned all the others withan insiders’ knowledge of cultural policyand never admitted a flaw. Peter Tabuns ofthe NDP had his heart in the right place,but didn’t know the territory.The main topic brought up by the mediapanelists was the dramatic drop inCanadian film production and distribution:only 3.8% of Canadian film box officegross goes to Canadian productions!Unfortunately, this has been the case forquite some time. It’s the same story with

slowly diminishing figures, but one thatshould receive more attention. Given thesize and power of the American culturalindustry, and the saturation of theCanadian landscape with Americanproducts, Canadians should take the idealof ‘cultural’ sovereignty more seriously.As an artists and activist, I often wonderwhat it must feel like to be an Americanfighting for public health care against thearray of large corporate interests andrightwing free-market perspectives. In away, being a Canadian and arguing for asovereign culture is not dissimilar.Political folks of all stripes, for manyyears, have paid lip service to the need fora sovereign Canadian cultural industry andidentity. But in the current era of neo-liberalism, Canadian ‘culture’ seldomappears on the political agenda as an agentof sovereignty; culture has been reduced tocommodified ‘entertainment’ that isproduced for and consumed in anincreasingly international marketplace.Though Canadian culture is acommercialized and commodified as aproduct of the fourth largest industry inCanada (a lot of it is sub-contract work byAmericanized firms), the ideal of a distinctCanadian culture still helps Canadians todistinguish themselves and their identitiesfrom the culture of American empire.

Visit www.socialistproject.ca for upcoming Socialist Project eventsin Toronto. Our founding statement and constitution are available onthe website. For further information about Socialist project, or to findout if there’s a branch in your area, email socialistproject@hotmail.com

CULTURAL FRONT

15

The Labour Committee of theSocialist Project is launching aprocess to involve workplace

activists in the rethinking and rebuilding ofthe labour movement. The urgency of thisundertaking lies in what we see as a historiccrisis in the labour movement (a crisis thatexists in labour movements virtuallyeverywhere, not just Canada). Over the past quarter century, capitalismhas dramatically changed; unions have not.In spite of sporadic and impressivestruggles, there is little evidence that thetrade union movement has any overallorientation or effective strategy for copingwith the changes. Moreover, given itsdefensive mode, the labour movement hasbeen reluctant to even acknowledge howserious this internal crisis is. We do notpretend to have a set of ready-madeanswers. What we can, however, contributeis organizing a process and some structuresfor activists to come together and begin thekind of discussions that might developpromising answers.

What’s the proposal?

The Labour Committee will be establishingnetworks of activism based in workplacesand communities, with each networkfocusing on the issues in either a particularsector (e.g. auto, telecommunications, themunicipal sector) or on a set of issues thatcross sectors (e.g. the inter-relationship ofspeed-up, health and safety, and workers’comp struggles; democratizing socialservices; living wage campaign). In the latefall, we plan to organize a conference thatwill a) discuss the overall crisis within themovement; b) get reports fromrepresentatives of these networks andengage in general discussions about theirreports; and c) establish new networkswhere there is interest in doing so. (We willalso invite other workplace and communityactivists who have already been involved insuch networking – e.g. in the health caresector – to share their experiences andlessons).

Why focus on such ‘networks’?

We think such an approach addresses twocrucial problems: labour’s fragmentationinto competing unions and the limits ofstruggles centered on traditionalbargaining. The networks structure opens

the door to coming together across unionsand also involving workers that are not inunions. It also supports raising the struggleto a more effective, more ‘politicized’level by bringing in the larger issues ofproperty rights and class capacities. Someexamples might clarify what we mean by‘politicization’.

i) The recent bargaining in Air Canadasuffered from unions fighting separatelyover how much they should give up, withno guarantee in the end that thecorporation will not come back for more orthat their jobs will remain. ‘Politicizing’that struggle would have meant focusingon changing the conditions under whichbargaining takes place and away from thefalse solution of concessions – that is,getting all the unions involved to launch apublic campaign to restore Air Canada topublic ownership and regulate the industryso as to get rid of the waste and turmoil ofexcess competition.

ii) Unions are structured to deal with theprice and conditions of their labour but notwith creating and protecting the jobsthemselves against outsourcing, closuresand privatization. That weakness affects alldimensions of our ability to defendworkers including the restructuring of thework that remains. ‘Politicizing’ ourstruggle means broadening it so it canaddress the larger issue of economicrestructuring

iii) Public sector workers facing cutbacksunderstandably tend to defend ‘biggergovernment’. But this has proven to be anineffective way to mobilize againstcutbacks; too many people are alienatedfrom government services that arebureaucratized, hierarchical, and which seetheir clients as problems to be managed.Perhaps the way to improve each of jobsecurity, the quality of the jobs involved,and the satisfaction in the servicesprovided requires a radical challenge to theexisting business model of governmentwork – advancing one in whichgovernment workers have more input intothe nature of the service being provided,and in which government workers activelymobilize their constituency to improve theservice and resources provided.

iv) As long as we think of organizing as

competition between unions to bring inmembers that can protect their own financialbase, organizing will be limited. But if weview it as part of building the capacities ofthe working class and a collectiveresponsibility of the labour movement, thenit becomes possible to imagine organizinggetting the kind of priority, commitment ofresources, and above all cooperation acrossunions, that can finally make keybreakthroughs.

Is this a Toronto project or a nationalproject?

We would clearly like to see this become anational project. We’re presently discussingit with contacts in Winnipeg and Vancouveras well as Ontario (Toronto, Windsor,London, and Ottawa). For now, however, thefocus will be Ontario - and even here,practical realities imply starting in variouscommunities and then building to provincialnetworks,

Do you have to join the Socialist Project toparticipate in this?

Of course not. Anyone concerned with thelabour movement’s revival and seeingpotential in this project is welcome. TheSocialist Project will help to get thenetworks going and will organize the late fallconference to review and expand thenetworks. As the work proceeds andparticular networks are ready to draftpamphlets that can be used to bring morepeople into the process, we’ll help with thewriting, lay-out and production of thematerial. Once underway, we hope toorganize regular monthly meetings ofrepresentatives from the networks to discusstheir work and other local issues. And wehope to use our new newsletter as acommunication tool within and across thenetworks.Since we believe that one of the reasons forthe weakness of the labour movement hasbeen our own weakness as socialists, we’recommitted to building a socialist left with abase in the union movement. We thereforehope that over time some of the networkactivists will also choose to join the SocialistProject.

How does someone get involved in thenetworks?

If you’re interested, drop a note tosocialistproject@hotmail.com. The noteshould include what you currently do andwhat kind of network you might be interestedin. We will quickly get back to you.

Rethinking the Labour MovementLabour Committee of the Socialist Project

false boom, a boom which was largelyfuelled by foreign investment, foreignmoneys coming into banks where therewere low interest rates. So people used touse this to invest, but whenever theinvestments got risky they used to takethem out—international capital. They hadabsolutely no motivation for buildingBrazil or Argentina so you graduallybegan to have the rise of a new socialmovement which arose from below:peasant movements, landless peasantmovements, unemployed working classmovements which began to challenge thisinitially on a micro-level, in villages, inone town, in one locality, in one region.And then gradually it began to spread.

The result was continent wide protests...

You had an uprising in Cochabamba inBolivia against the privatization of water.You had a struggle of the peasants ofCuzco in Peru, against the privatization ofelectricity. On both struggles thegovernment made repression first and thenthey had to retreat. Then you had anunbelievable collapse in Argentina, wherewithin three weeks I think 4 or 5 presidentscame and fell. That began to demonstratevery graphically the crisis of neoliberalcapitalism. Then you had Brazil. In Brazilyou had a situation where Cardoso had de-industrialized the country completely.There was no national bourgeoisie left,there were no national traditions within thecapitalist sphere left, and the countrybegan to suffer.

Do you see the US Empire absorbing thisenergy by trying to propose a softerversion of neoliberalism?

I don’t think they are, at the moment,prepared to do that. They will only do thatif they feel threatened. And they don’t feelthreatened at the moment. And onereason—I have to be very blunthere—they don’t feel threatened isbecause there is an idealistic slogan withinthe social movements, which goes likethis: ‘We can change the world withouttaking power.’ This slogan doesn’tthreaten anyone; it’s a moral slogan. TheZapatistas—who I admire—you know,when they marched from Chiapas toMexico City, what did they think was

going to happen? Nothing happened. It wasa moral symbol, it was not even a moralvictory because nothing happened. So Ithink that phase was understandable inLatin American politics, people were veryburnt by recent experiences: the defeat ofthe Sandinistas, the defeat of the armedstruggle movements, the victory of themilitary, etc., so people where nervous. ButI think, from that point of view, theVenezuelan example is the most interestingone. It says: ‘in order to change the worldyou have to take power, and you have tobegin to implement change—in small dosesif necessary—but you have to do it. Withoutit nothing will change.’ So, it’s aninteresting situation and I think at PortoAlegre next year all these things will bedebated and discussed—I hope.

Without adequately addressing statepower, what alternative to neoliberalism isthe Global Social Justice movementoffering?

No, they have no alternative! They thinkthat it is an advantage not to have analternative. But, in my view that’s a sign ofpolitical bankruptcy. If you have noalternative, what do you say to the peopleyou mobilize? The MST[1] in Brazil has analternative, they say ‘take the land and giveit to the poor peasants, let them work it.’But the Holloway[2] thesis of theZapatistas, it’s—if you like—a virtualthesis, it’s a thesis for cyber space: let’simagine. But we live in the real world, and

in the real world this thesis isn’t going towork. Therefore, the model for me of theMST in Brazil is much much moreinteresting than the model of the Zapatistasin Chiapas. Much more interesting.

What do you make of the impasse that hasbeen reached between the grassroots andthe government in Brazil?

I think the problem in Brazil is thefollowing: the PT[3] captured theaspirations of the people, especially thepoor. They captured them, but theycouldn’t deliver anything—so far, theyhave delivered nothing. In fact, therepression against the MST in the first yearof Lula has been much higher than in anysingle year of the Cardoso government.The farmers and the police have victimized

and killed far more MST militants. Now,this will end badly. Why has it happened?It’s happened because, in my opinion, thePT had not prepared itself in a serious wayto even think about any real alternatives.Publicly they said, ‘yes we’ll give land tothe landless, yes will do this, yes we will dothat,’ but they had not made any realpreparation. And Lula, I’m afraid, is aweak leader. A weak leader who is soexcited at being in power, that he forgetswhy he is. The same thing

17

Interview with Tariq Ali-continued from page 2

happened to Lech Walesa in Poland whenthe big mass movement Solidarnosc threwhim up and he finally was elected. Whatdid he deliver? Nothing. And he was votedout by the people, and that will happen toLula.

Rebuilding the Brazilian left...

I think that, in my opinion, what we need inBrazil is a movement to refound theBrazilian left. And this movement mustinclude, broadly speaking, those peopleinside the PT including many members ofparliament and senators and grassrootsmembers, a very key component thatshould include the MST and it shouldinclude that layer of Brazilian socialistintellectuals who are now verydisillusioned. These three components arevery important to refound the Brazilianleft, it’s foolish to do it by just a few peoplewalking out and declaring ‘we’re a newparty.’ You need a new different sort of amovement and a different sort of a partythan the PT. In these conditions the bulk ofthe Brazilian working class is now aninformal working class—it’s not the caseas it was when the PT was founded. And soyou have different priorities. You have torefound a Brazilian left which is in accordwith these new priorities and realities ofBrazil today, not some mythologicalpicture of the past.

Before the elections in Brazil, I was inRibeirao Preto at a festival, and they askedme ‘if you were a Brazilian, who wouldyou vote for?’ And I said I would vote forLula with the majority of the poor ofBrazil. But I said my big worry was thatLula will forget who has voted him intopower and he will cater to the policies ofthose who did not vote for him—the IMFand the World Bank and the internationalfinancial institutions. They did not vote forLula, but they’re the people who’s policiesare being carried out. And I said that wouldbe a tragedy, and people gasped but that’sexactly what’s happened. And for me therelation between Lula and Cardoso is therelation between Thatcher and Blair. Blairfollowed Thatcher, Lula is followingCardoso. It’s intertwined, and this is thetragedy of Brazil and in four or five yearstime there will massive disillusionment; theright will probably win again and we willhave to start the fight from the beginning.

In Colombia, for example, there has beena huge militarization that is very similar to

cold war U.S strategy in Latin America.Where does this fit in with a new strategythat, as you have pointed out, is largelyeconomic?

Colombia is exceptional at the moment,and of course Venezuela where they triedto push through a new coup d’état whichfailed. They will do that if nothing elsesucceeds. Where they feel democracydoesn’t serve their interests they will returnto the military—that’s obvious. But at themoment the problem is: how to devise asociety in which you can push throughprojects, social-democratic projects for thepoor. That’s the key in my opinion, that’swhy Venezuela is very important. BeforeLula was elected a possibility emerged, animage emerged of the following: Argentinahad collapsed, in Venezuela there was

Chávez that if you had a Bolivarianfederation, of Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador,Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba, together youcould produce a completely different wayof looking at the world and a different formof society, which would not be repressive,which would not be vicious, which wouldtransform the everyday lives of the poor.That has not happened because…Kirchner,in my opinion, is better than Lula; he’strying to resist on some levels. The bigdisappointment has been the Brazilian PT,big disappointment. But that doesn’t meanwe stop thinking like that because in asmall way it’s what I said at the pressconference today: 10,000 Cuban doctors,thousands of poor Venezuelan kids goingto Cuba to learn to be doctors. Here youtake advantage of each other’s strengths,

not each other’s weaknesses. So it’s verygood that Venezuela and Chávez are takingadvantage of the strengths of Cuba, ratherthan their weaknesses. The social structurethey have created, health, education that’ssomething that Brazil could do as well, butthey don’t do it.

In the wake of strong opposition to theFree Trade Area of the Americas, might theUS use bilateral trade agreements toachieve its economic goals in LatinAmerica?

I think the United States, you have tounderstand, always acts in its own interests,and its own interests are to stop a regionalforce from emerging in Latin Americawithout the presence of the United States;to stop a regional force emerging in the far

east—China, Japan,Korea, without thepresence of theUnited States; tostop Europe frombecoming a strongpolitical economicpower. So, theUnited States willpermit concessionswhere it suits theirinterests, as long asthey feel that thisdoesn’t threatenthem politically oreconomically. Theycan make manyconcessions, but byand large theyprefer bilateraldeals. ‘Deal with us.Don’t deal with us

as a collective, deal with us one-to-one.That’s what suits us.’ That’s always beentheir policy.

The Global Justice Movement is wary ofChávez’ populism, his militarybackground, and what they fear maybecome a top-down ‘revolution’ thatexcludes the grassroots. How do you thinkthe GJM and Chávez can be reconciled?

As long as the poor in Venezuela supportthis government it will survive, when theywithdraw their support it will fall. But Ithink it will be useful if the Global Justicemovement—and there are many differentstrands in it—came and saw what’s goingon here. What’s the problem? Go into theshantytowns, see what the lives of the

18

people are, see what their lives were beforethis regime came into power. And don’t goon the basis of stereotypes. You cannotchange the world without taking power,that is the example of Venezuela. Chávez isimproving the lives of ordinary people, andthat’s why it’s difficult to topplehim—otherwise he would be toppled. Soit’s something that people in the GlobalJustice movement have to understand, thisis serious politics. It’s pointless justchanting slogans, because for the ordinarypeople on whose behalf you claim to befighting getting an education, freemedicine, cheap food is much much moreimportant than all the slogans put together.

What do you think of the Venezuelanexample of participatory democracy?

I think it needs to be strengthened. I thinkit’s weak, I think the movement here needsto institutionalize on every level—the levelof small pueblos, the level of the towns, thelevel of different quarters—organizations,which can be very broad: BolivarianCircles, whatever you want to call them,which meet regularly, which talk with eachother, which discuss their problems, whicharen’t simply a response to calls fromabove. It’s very very important, becauseyou know, Chávez is an unusual guy inLatin America—very special—and he isyoung and long may he live, but he has tocreate institutions which outlast him for thefuture of this country.

What is at stake in Venezuela? Whoseinterests? And can Venezuela survivealone? What does Venezuela mean to theUS?

Venezuela is an example which theAmericans wish to wipe out. Because if thisexample exists, and gets stronger andstronger and stronger, then people inBrazil, in Argentina, in Ecuador, in Chile,in Bolivia will say ‘if Venezuelans can doit, we can do it.’ So Venezuela, from thatpoint of view, is a very important example.That’s why they’re so worked up. That’swhy the Americans pour in millions ofdollars to help this stupid opposition in thiscounry; an opposition which is incapable ofoffering any real alternative to the people,except what used to exist before: a corrupt,a servile oligarchy. That’s what Venezuelameans, and I think that one weakness, tillrecently, of the Bolivarian revolution hasbeen that it has not done more towards therest of Latin America, because it’s been

under siege at home. But I think, onceChávez wins the referendum, and then thelocal elections I hope, and the mayoralty ofCaracas in September, I hope then a bigoffensive is made for the rest of LatinAmerica too. From that point of view, themodel of the Cuban doctors is a very goodone. I mean, a Venezuelan doctor—in fiveyears Venezuelans will come back [fromCuba] as doctors, they can help both theirown country, and they can go to othercountries to work in the shantytowns. Theyare small things, but in the world in whichwe live they are very big things. Fifty yearsago they would have been small, today theyare very big. And that’s why we have topreserve and nurture them.

The mainstream private media plays animportant political role in Venezuela. Howcan this disinformation be combated?

What we lack in Latin America is means ofcommunication, we need a satellite channellike Al Jazeera, and I said we’ll call it ‘AlBolivar’ if you want. But you need onewhich reports regularly—what the right issaying, what the left movements are saying,which gives an account of what it is theMST wants, which challenges Lula, butwhich does it quite independently, withoutbeing attached to any state. And I think thissatellite channel could be very important forthe whole of Latin America, to challengethe BBC World, and CNN and have a LatinAmerican channel. And the Venezuelans,and the Argentineans, etc. it’s in their owninterests to do it.

What do you think opposition and USstrategy will be in the event of a Chávezvictory come A-15?

Well, I think the only strategy left then is totry and overthrow him by a military coup.So the fact that the military seems to besupporting him, and after the previous coupit was a warning to him as well: you can’tsimply rely on the military withouteducating people. I think without themilitary in Venezuela, they can’t doanything—they cannot topple him. I thinkthe opposition, quite honestly, if they losethis referendum—which was their bigdemand for years, ‘oh, he’s not allowing areferendum,’ forgetting that he has givenyou a constitution according which youwant this referendum, without thisconstitution you couldn’t have had thisreferendum—so if he wins this referendumthe opposition will be fractured, I think they

will be completely demoralized, it’sfoolish.

Do you think opposition strategy might beto claim there was fraud in order todeligitmize Chavez´victory?

Well, look: we have to fight that when ithappens, but I think this is why the processshould be transparent, and I think lots ofobservers will be coming. And if thathappens, the government has to goimmediately on the offensive, and say ‘thiswas a clear victory, you want you go intothe whole country and talk to every singlevoter.’ One hasn’t got to be defensiveabout that. Go completely on the offensiveand say, ‘this isn’t Florida.’

In any case, one shouldn’t worrypermanently, be paranoid, you know oneshould depend on the strength of thepeople. If the people vote him in, and hewins the referendum they will be bigcelebrations all over the country. And itwill be obvious, what has happened.

This interview first appeared onVenezuelanalysis.com.

[1] Movimento dos Trabalhadores RuraisSem Tera—Landless Rural WorkersMovement, Brazil.

[2] John Holloway, Change the WorldWithout Taking Power: The Meaning ofRevolution Today, Pluto Press: 2002.

[3] Partido dos Trabalhadores—WorkersParty, Brazil.

19