通过苏维埃民主实现中央计划经济
来自英文《工人先锋报》第454期(1988年6月3日)
* * *
在1940年代末，铁托的南斯拉夫设立企业工人自主管理时，它不仅是作为对斯大林主义的一项根本挑战而提出的，同时也被视为如此。而二十年后匈牙利引入市场导向的新经济机制，亦同样被视为是中苏阵营国家里的一个反常现象。但今天，“市场社会主义”却都在邓小平的中国和戈尔巴乔夫的俄国出现了。“体制改革(Perestroika)”的主要理论设计师、苏联经济学家埃布尔·阿甘别吉扬(Abel Aganbegyan)，在最近访美期间宣布：“我们将成立包括所有的生产要素：从原料、机床、耐用消费品以至其它一切的市场，去取代目前的集中分配体制。”
我们在这里看到的，并非经济政策反复造成的巧合，而是官僚堕落或畸形工人国家的一种历史趋向。但这种走向“市场社会主义”的趋势既非线的、也不是不可逆转的。东德在1960年代尝试过市场导向的新经济体系，但随后在七十年代初再将经济集中起来。然而如今，东德是东欧主要国家之中唯一保持集中计划和管理的例外。并不偶然地，它同时也是东欧最成功的经济体系。
斯大林主义政权有一个放弃中央计划、倾向具有下列要素的经济结构的内在趋势：产出和价格由各自为政企业间的竞争决定；投资额、管理人员薪金和工人工资与企业的利润挂钩；关闭亏本的企业造成失业；取消价格补贴，提高通胀率；尤其在服务行业里，扩大资本主义小企业家的作用；增加同西方和日本资本主义的商业和金融联系，包括鼓励合资。和很多西方评论员和为数不少的糊涂左派所宣称的不一样，这些措施本身并不是变相的资本主义，但它们确实起着增强国内支持资本主义反革命的势力的作用。
与此同时，戈尔巴乔夫的“体制改革”对苏联工人意味着更苛刻的工作条件。当知识分子在注视着类似赫鲁晓夫(Khrushchev)在50年代中后期进行的“非斯大林化”的新一轮自由化时候，工人阶级看到的却是斯大林时期劳动常规的局部回归。与后斯大林“解冻”时期扩大消费品生产和放松严峻的劳动纪律不同，今天出现的是一个大规模重新引进计件工资、扩大工人和管理技术精英间收入差距的反平等主义运动。但正如《纽约时报》(1988年5月10日)最近关于体制改革对一个黑海港口的影响所报道的，“市场的残酷侵犯了70年的苏联统治给人们对公正和平等的强烈认同。”
因此，苏联工人必然会反抗“市场社会主义”带来的种种后果。尽管我们无法预测其强度、开始的要求或领导，戈尔巴乔夫的俄国清楚地将面临严重的劳工动荡。市场导向的经济措施和政治自由化的爆炸性结合，创造了1920年代以来独立工人运动展露头角的最好机会。在苏联，一个再生的列宁托洛茨基主义先锋队的中心任务，是把工人阶级的自卫性经济斗争和无产阶级政治革命的纲领结合起来，以驱逐斯大林主义官僚层、建立一个以苏维埃民主为基础的中央计划经济，并重新把苏维埃俄国建设为世界革命的一座堡垒。
东欧大部分国家的经济危机和走向市场导向改革的运动证明了在一国建设社会主义的不可能性。早在1840年代，马克思和恩格斯就坚持，“共产主义革命将不仅是一个国家的革命”(《共产主义原理》[1847])。实现共产主义至少需要联合几个经济最发达国家的力量。一个孤立的社会化政权必将遭受周围资本主义世界强大的军事和经济压力，这些压力将扭曲一个局限一国的工人国家、并最终导致它的毁灭。
斯大林主义俄国：从官僚指令主义到体制改革
在戈尔巴乔夫的俄国，“市场社会主义”的鼓吹者艳羡地回忆新经济政策(NEP)、尤其是它在1920年代中后期的一部分，这个政策的主要意识形态辩护者是尼古拉·布哈林，头号执行者则是前者当时的盟友约瑟夫·斯大林。布哈林谈及“以蜗牛爬行的速度”建设社会主义，坚称苏联工业生产的扩大应由小农对工业产品的市场需求所决定。托洛茨基领导的左派反对派则坚决主张进行迅速工业化和中央计划的必要。早在1925年，托洛茨基就警告过“如果国家工业的发展比农业缓慢……这一过程会必然地导致资本主义复辟”(《俄国往何处去？》) 。
正如反对派所预见的，到20年代末，新经济政策不断扩大的矛盾，随着停滞的工业无法供应农民的需要，后者急剧地减少交付谷物，使俄国城市面临停顿的威胁，而导致了严重的“剪刀差危机”。为了应付这个局势，斯大林转向实施极左的经济冒进政策：强制实行农业集体化、厉行官僚指令主义和以非常危险的速度进行工业化。第一个五年计划结束时，他自夸道：
“五年计划的根本任务，是通过将苏联转变为工业国家，完全地驱逐资本主义分子、扩大社会主义经济形式的范围和建立在苏联消灭阶级、建设社会主义社会的经济基础。”
——约·维·斯大林，《第一个五年计划的结果》(1933年1月)
斯大林宣称，第一个五年计划的成功“在国内建立了未来在技术上和经济上不仅赶上而且最终超越发达资本主义国家的先决条件。”
托洛茨基承认苏联工业建设的巨大历史意义，但同时指出了斯大林主义工业化的局限和矛盾，揭露“在一国建设社会主义”的幻想：
“苏联官僚的进步作用总是与致力于把资本主义技术的最重要元素引入苏联的时期吻合。借用、模仿、移植和嫁接的粗糙工作是在革命奠定的基础上完成的。到目前为止，在技术、科学和艺术领域里完全没有新的事物。用官僚指令的办法依照现成的西方设计建造庞大的工厂是完全可能的：尽管毫无疑问地，开支将是正常成本的三倍。但离起步点越远，经济就更频繁地遭遇质量的问题，而这个问题正是官僚层完全没有办法控制的。这样，苏联的产品就像被烙上了漠不关心的灰暗标记。在国有经济下，质量需要属于生产者和消费者的民主制度及批判和争取主动的自由：这些条件都是与充斥着恐惧、谎言和谄媚的极权主义政权不相容的。”[着重标记源自原文]
——《被背叛的革命》(1936)
今天戈尔巴乔夫承认，正是在质量方面，在技术和科学创新上苏联越来越落后于西方和日本资本主义：
“一个曾经迅速地赶上世界先进国家水平的国家开始失去一个又一个阵地。除此之外，生产效率、产品质量、科学和科技发展、先进科技的开发和先进技术的应用等方面的差距开始向不利于我们的方向扩大。”
——《体制改革：献给我国和世界的新思维》(1987)
我们可以合情合理地问：托洛茨基在《被背叛的革命》中描述的斯大林主义俄国的经济矛盾，为什么要经过半个世纪才引起注意？答案在于第二次世界大战(在俄国称为伟大卫国战争)的经济和政治后果。希特勒的巴巴罗萨行动尽管最终被红军粉碎，却对俄罗斯西部和乌克兰造成了彻底的破坏。二千五百万人无家可归，数以百计的城镇和数以千计的村庄被完全摧毁。在1945年，原纳粹德国占领区的工业产出仅为战前的百分之三十。因此，1946至50年的第四个五年计划的大部分被迫重建前三个五年计划的基础建设。苏联的工业生产直到1950年才恢复到战前的水平。
抵抗纳粹入侵重燃了苏联各族人民的爱国主义精神。这又被美帝国主义发动的冷战进一步强化，当时美帝的领导们曾恐吓要对俄国动用他们垄断的核武器。因此苏联工农甘愿作出牺牲、接受战后迅速重建经济必须的劳动纪律。甚至在这期间的官僚寄生和腐败，同1970年代勃列日涅夫及其亲信的“甜蜜生活”精神相比之下，是比较受到抑制的。
赫鲁晓夫在1956年对斯大林的骇人听闻的罪行的谴责，尤其在年轻人之间，产生了对社会主义更新的期望。苏联电影《莫斯科不相信眼泪》(Moscow Does Not Believe In Tears)表达了赫鲁晓夫时代初到达城市成为工厂工人的农民青年的天真却真诚的社会理想主义。这部电影还描述了70年代后期勃列日涅夫时代的最后几年的社会失调：自私的个人主义、政治上的玩世不恭和在莫斯科较富裕的城郊住宅区喧哗的街头帮派。戈尔巴乔夫本人也悲叹在他领导的当代苏联，社会主义理想的失落：
“公共道德开始腐败；在十月革命的英雄时期、最初几个五年计划、伟大卫国战争及战后重建时期里锻炼出来的人与人之间的伟大团结精神在削弱。酗酒、毒瘾和犯罪在增加；与我们迥异不同的、滋生粗俗和低级趣味并导致意识形态贫乏的那些大众文化典型的渗透在增加。”
——《体制改革》
在这里，戈尔巴乔夫在堆砌和混淆一些十分不同的社会理想主义。当年缔造布尔什维克革命的工人是充满革命国际主义精神的；他们相信他们在带领全人类奔向社会主义未来。波兰犹太无政府主义者赫什·门德尔(Hersh Mendel)在1917年10月到达莫斯科时，问一群赤卫队队员什么是他们奋斗的目标。他们的其中一个回答道：“为了世界人民兄弟般的团结”(见“一个革命犹太工人的回忆录”，《斯巴达克思》第41-42期，1987-1988年冬)。与此相反，斯大林的最初几个五年计划中的突击队队员相信他们在短短几年内就能在一国建成社会主义。而在保卫“社会主义祖国”反抗纳粹德国入侵时，苏联工农回应的是斯大林的民族爱国主义的呼吁。
尽管如此，戈尔巴乔夫在一个重要的方面是对的。在勃列日涅夫时代的最后几年，苏联一切形式的社会理想主义都萎缩了。这对经济深刻的负面影响，可被苏联阵营国家共有的玩世不恭的口头禅生动地概括出来：“我们假装工作，他们假装给我们工钱。”戈尔巴乔夫对这个现象的回应是重新引进计件工资和把工薪与企业的利润挂钩。克林姆林宫精英的一些分子在这点上甚至想比戈尔巴乔夫走得更远。譬如，赫鲁晓夫的一个前女婿和体制改革的极端拥护者，经济学者尼古拉·什梅尔雷奥夫 (Nikolai Shmelyov)，就主张只有失业的鞭策才能恢复劳动纪律：
“我相信今天每个人都清楚地认识到我们的混乱无序、酗酒和粗制滥造大部分归咎于过度的充分就业。我们必须勇敢地、按部就班地探讨我们从一个较小的产业后备军中会得到什么好处……失业和依靠临时津贴或被强制指派工作的真正威胁是一道治疗懒惰、酗酒和缺乏负责心的非常好的药方。”
——引自美国国会两院联合经济委员会，《戈尔巴乔夫的经济计划》(1987)
在这里，什梅尔雷奥夫以他的方式着眼于官僚堕落工人国家的一项基本矛盾上。以充分就业为主要优越性之一的经济计划，只有在工人、技术知识分子和管理人员支持和认同颁布计划的政府的情况下才能产生预期的效果。当他们和统治寡头集团格格不入的时候，经济计划会不被承认和受到根本破坏。正式的计划指标虽说可能达到，但却是通过劣质和没有用的产品完成的。同样地，原料、能源和其它的投入品会被浪费掉；国有供给和设备会被转移到黑市、从而破坏社会化经济。
因此，在斯大林主义制度之内，存在着一个以市场机制取代集中计划和管理的内在趋势。由于不能以苏维埃民主(工人委员会)的纪律约束管理人员和工人，官僚层越来越将以市场竞争的纪律来控制各个经济参与者的办法视为解决经济效率低下的唯一答案。在苏联恢复工人民主不仅仅是一个抽象的理想，而且是在社会主义基础上振兴苏联经济的一个必要条件。
计划、市场和苏维埃民主
毫无疑问，工人民主不是解决苏联或任何地方的经济问题的万灵药。在1930年代初，托洛茨基评论斯大林主义官僚层想象它“能够想当然地制定一份——从小麦耕作多少顷到背心上该有多少颗钮扣——无瑕和彻底的经济计划。”一个真正的工人政府既不会拥有完美无瑕的先见之明，也没有制定十全十美、巨细无遗计划的能力。因此，托洛茨基写道：“只有通过国家计划、市场和苏维埃民主三个元素的相互作用，才能获得过渡时期经济的正确方向”(《危险中的苏联经济》[1932年10月])。
当然，这个世界上没有一本关于如何结合中央计划、市场和苏维埃民主，适用于一切时空的秘诀。这将取决于经济发展的水平、国际形势以及其它无数的变化条件。单凭工人民主和计划并不足够；这里必须要有一个明智的政治领导：一个革命的政党，去评定工人国家目前的具体形势和制定与之相适应的策略。然而，我们可以概述一下计划、市场和工人民主的一般指导方针。
明显地，长期规划只适用于某些经济活动。譬如，建造一座新城市或在西伯利亚开发新油田时，我们可能需要一个十年甚至十五年的计划。而建新工厂时，一个五年计划也许是最好的。另一方面，各种工厂的产出组合——生产多少条裙子、多少副炊具等——则需要根据市场需求在短期内调整。
长期规划应用于扩充生产能力(如工厂、铁路)和其它主要的建设项目，如住房、学校、医院之上。不同消费品和中介产品的产量应根据供需情况而持续调整。然而，实现这一调整的机制，既不需也不应为在南斯拉夫或匈牙利存在的企业间各自为政的竞争，而应为一种集中市场机制。波兰的社会主义经济学者奥斯卡·兰格(Oskar Lange)在1930年代便为这种机制发展了一个理论模型。
斯大林给中央计划带来了一个恶名。许多人假设中央计划意味着由一小撮官僚或技术官僚操控经济。怎样才能把计划和苏维埃民主结合起来呢？总的来说，社会面临的最根本经济决策是决定总产品中消费和投资的比例，和投资中消费资料和生产资料(如机床)的比例。一般而言，总产出中投资的比重越大、投资中生产资料的比例越高，收入的长期增长就越高。
在1920年代，苏联经济学家费尔德曼(G.A. Feldman) 以马克思《资本论》第三卷中扩大再生产的模型为基础，发展了一个长期规划的理论模型(这一开创性著作，“关于国家收入增长率的理论”已译成英文，收入尼古拉斯·斯普伯［Nicolas Spulber］编辑的《苏联经济增长策略的基础》一书中 [1964])。 在这个模型里，费尔德曼将现在的投资水平、及其消费资料和生产资料的比重，和未来的人均收入、消费和投资的增长率联系起来。在费尔德曼的研究或类似模型的基础上，我们可以制定从将短期消费最大化到将长期收入增长最大化的一系列可供选择的计划。这些计划可提交最高苏维埃机关，决定未来经济的轮廓。
当人均收入增长率决定下来后，在参考过去经验、进行调查和咨询各个消费合作社的基础上，便可能预测对大项目消费品需求的增长(如食物、衣服、家用品、车辆)。生产最后一系列产品所需提高的原料和中介产品(如钢铁、塑料、纺织品)产量则可以通过由瓦西里·列昂节夫(Wassily Leontief) 首先发展的投入产出分析(Input-output analysis)来预测(列昂节夫移居西方前，在1920年代中就读于列宁格勒大学经济系。投入产出分析因此应被视为1920年代苏联那场理论上丰富而历史上有预示性的、关于工业化和计划的辩论的一个副产品)。计算机科技近年来的快速发展，大大地增加了投入产出分析的潜在范围和准确性。因此，我们可以制定一个内部连贯、同民主决定的投资消费总增长率一致的投资计划。
如前所述，当前消费品和服务的产出组合应通过一个集中市场机制决定。这会是怎样运作的呢？以服装工业为例，一个集中分配机构将对一定数目的商店和消费合作社的供应负责，它同时会支配不同服装厂的资源。如果某一款式或大小的衬衫短缺，这一机构会指示服装厂增加生产这种产品、减少生产那些供应比较充足的产品。服装厂的供应则由支配不同纺织厂资源的集中分配机构负责。当某种合成纤维短缺时，这个机构便会指示纺织厂增加生产这种纤维、减少供应相对过多的纤维的生产。
只有市场竞争才能调整消费品产量以适应需求的概念是资产阶级经济学的一个神话。实际上，这个概念一点也不符合先进资本主义国家高度垄断经济的事实。在今日的美国和西欧，计算机库存控制是相当普遍的。在较大的超级市场里，付款处有光电管读取包装上的产品代码，将销售记录下来。这一信息被传送到一个链接工厂和商店的综合分配网络。社会主义经济在调整生产以适应不断变化的社会需求和短缺方面，会更有效率。
毫无疑问，调整供求的关键在于相对价格的设定。一条定价二十美元时可以立即售罄的裙子，定价四十美元时可以完全没有市场。那么它的价格该如何决定呢？总的来说，价格应与生产成本成正比，即如果某种款式的裙子的生产成本是另一款式的两倍，那么消费者购买前者时就应付出后者价格的双倍。这不排除在特别情况下通过补贴或附加税项来调整价格的做法。例如，为鼓励儿童阅读，儿童读物的价格可以低于出版的成本。上述的经济组织不可能完全避免失衡和瓶颈现象。但是，可以完全预见不断改变的需求、资源和科技的经济体系是不存在的。人生就是如此。
工人自主管理与社会主义计划的对立
工人管理或监督企业的问题已成为一个思想混乱和混淆是非的汪洋大海。工人管理企业也成了那些希望从左翼角度来反对传统斯大林主义官僚指令的人物中的一个常见要求。例如，去年夏天成立于莫斯科的社会主义俱乐部联会(Federation of Socialist Clubs) 公布的宣言，在要求“将社会生产资料转移给一个把自主管理企业出租给集体的制度”之外，同时还号召“计划制度的民主化”(《国际观点》，1987年11月9日)。不用说，社会主义俱乐部的宣言并没有指出怎么能够把自主管理企业和民主经济计划结合起来。
上一段概述的社会主义经济组织的原则决定了工人在生产场所进行监督的性质和局限。工人当然能够选举自己的管理人员和作出某些其它的管理决定(例如组织业务训练)。总投资的一小部分，比如百分之十，可以交由个体的工人委员会处置，并将它们的决定包括在下一个投资计划中。但让个体的工人委员会决定生产和价格则只能重覆市场的无政府状态。由于单个的工人集体不能对国家预算(即社会总剩余)行使无限的权利，企业委员会也不可以单独决定投资的范围和构成。
我们收到本报读者鲍勃·蒙哥马利(Bob Montgomery)回应本系列第一篇文章“南斯拉夫模式的破产”的一封深思熟虑的来信。他指出，马克思的《哥达纲领批判》(1875)批判了那种把无产阶级视为一个个工人集体的凑合、在社会主义下将合并成由国家支持的各个生产合作社的观点。而这种观点就是工人自主管理的19世纪版本。
马克思提醒那些市侩的“社会主义者们”，补充和扩大生产资料、老人和失去劳动能力者的给养、学校和医院的开支等所需的资源，都必须从进行个人分配之前的社会总剩余中扣除。他指出，“生产者作为个人被剥夺的将直接或间接地使作为社会成员的他得益。”正如马克思指出的，社会主义和资本主义的区别在于工人不是独立的劳动生产者，而是社会集体的一个成员。正如这位读者所说的，革命无产阶级的阶级觉悟同工团主义里面工人管理“自己的”生产资料、然后和其它工人交换产品的拜物教没有丝毫相似之处。
许多希望从左翼的角度反对克林姆林宫寡头集团的人物，象社会主义俱乐部联会的主要组织者鲍里斯·卡加尔利茨基(Boris Kagarlitsky)，认为企业自主管理可以削弱官僚统治阶层权贵的权力，是通往工人民主阻力最小的道路。事实上，企业自主管理可以有效地转移真正争取苏维埃民主的斗争力量。戈尔巴乔夫政权本身就大肆宣传它将允许工人选举管理人员。克林姆林宫的头子们愿意让工人作出一些企业运作的决定，尤其是那些为了增加利润的决定。正如南斯拉夫的经验所证明的，工人管理和“市场社会主义”削弱了无产阶级的政治觉悟、尤其加强了世代和民族间的分化。
东西方工人管理的鼓吹者们心目中的经济，是建立在科技停滞的基础上的。正是在这一点上，倾向工团主义的激进分子的观点，和斯大林主义官僚(包括保守和倾向改革的)以及资产阶级理论家们的看法相汇聚。他们都假定同样的工人会在同样的工厂和办公室年复一年地做同样的工作。与此截然不同的，在马克思主义关于社会主义的概念里，经济的科技活跃程度，足以迅速地减少机械和简单的劳动，并以创造性的科学和艺术活动取代之：
“劳动时间的节约意味着自由时间，即容许个人全面地发展的时间的增加，而个人的全面发展将作为作用于劳动生产力之上的最大生产力……自由时间——包含闲暇时间和进行更高尚活动的时间——自然地将拥有它的人转变为另一个人，然后，正是这个不同的人进入生产的直接过程。形成中的人在这个过程中会获得纪律，而对已经形成了的人来说，这个过程就是实践、实验的科学、创造物质的和自成客体的知识，而他在自己的头里面就容纳了社会的累积智慧。”
——卡尔·马克思，《政治经济学批判大纲》
这个共产主义未来的构想是以一个全球性的经济秩序为先决条件的，这本身就需要通过无产阶级革命夺取先进资本主义诸国的生产资源。
为全球社会主义秩序奋斗
如今席卷东欧大部分国家的经济危机是“一国社会主义”的斯大林主义教条造成的直接后果。苏联阵营的经济组织，经济互助委员会(经互会，英文简称为COMECON，亦作CMEA)的一体化程度低于资本主义西欧的共同市场。经互会国家的贸易仅仅比物物交换进一步而已。譬如，东德从对波兰的贸易盈余得到的信用余额，不可以用来增加它从匈牙利的进口。
作为各国官僚层拒绝协调国际经济政策的一个后果，经互会国家之间的贸易是以世界市场价格(受到时间滞差和特殊情况下谈判的影响)进行的。即使世界市场价格已经被国际卡特尔(如石油输出国组织对世界石油市场的操控)严重地歪曲，经互会还是坚持这个惯例。阿甘别吉扬和其他人最近提出让卢布最终可以自由兑换的方案，只能加剧世界市场波动对经互会国家的破坏作用。
在1970年代初，石油的世界市场价格上涨百分之四百时，苏联以石油输出国组织价格越来越小的一部分将石油卖给东欧。结果，东欧官僚不但没有节约反而大肆挥霍了能源。波兰、匈牙利和东德新工厂的设计仿佛是以永远都能得到廉价石油为前提的。然后，在1975至76年期间，苏联将经互会阵营内的石油价格提升了百分之七十，同时减少了对东欧的石油和天然气供应，以便增加向资本主义世界市场的输出，从石油输出国组织的高昂价格上得利 。
在70年代中，东欧国家受到了它们(除了东德)至今还没有从中复元的双重打击。1974至75年的世界资本主义萧条使它们在西欧的出口市场崩溃，同时(大部分从苏联进口的)化石燃料和其它原料的成本飞涨。为维持就业和生活水平，东欧各国的斯大林主义政权转向华尔街、伦敦和法兰克福证交所的高利贷求助。在1974年到1980年期间，东欧欠下西方银行的债务增加了五倍，由110亿增至550亿美元。为如期偿还债务，波兰、匈牙利和南斯拉夫自1980年以来已施行多个由世界银行家的卡特尔、国际货币基金(IMF)指定的、越来越苛刻的财政紧缩方案。
在波兰，经济危机把国家带到反革命的边缘。强大的天主教会(其成员之一，来自克拉科夫［Krakow］ 的卡罗尔·沃蒂拉 ［Karol Wojtyla］，在1979年成为教皇约翰保禄二世)通过所谓的“自由工会”团结工会(Solidarność)动员了工人阶级的大部分。在1981年12月，瓦文萨(Lech Walesa)和其他神权民族主义的团结工会领导人试图夺权，在最后一刻才被贾鲁泽尔斯基(Jaruzelski)将军的反政变阻止。但负债累累的波兰经济，因贾鲁泽尔斯基的戈尔巴乔夫式市场导向改革而进一步恶化，再次造成了大规模的工人动荡。“自由世界”帝国主义在格但斯克(Gdansk)的代理人瓦文萨，再次企图利用(幸而并不太成功)波兰斯大林主义的破产。
克林姆林宫的寡头集团要对其东欧附庸的政治和经济破产负最终的责任。毕竟是约·维·斯大林以他统治下俄国的形像创造了今日东欧的一群官僚畸形的工人国家。而且决定东欧根本的经济秩序的，也是苏联的领导层。在70年代中后期，为减轻俄国的财政负担，勃列日涅夫政权鼓励吉雷克(Gierek)的波兰和卡达尔(Kadar)的匈牙利向西方大量借款。在戈尔巴乔夫领导下，苏联对东欧的经济关系变得更加狭隘的民族主义和短视。一个美国的苏联阵营经济专家迈克尔·马雷斯(Michael Marrese)在几年前指出：
“……苏联人似乎已经放弃了以多边手段减轻经互会国家的能源和原料短缺的做法。看来苏联打算和各个东欧国家进行双边谈判，根据对方出口产品的吸引程度来调整双方在能源和原料方面长远供应的义务。那些更愿意提供食物、工业消费品或优质精密机械的国家将会更容易地得到苏联的能源和原料供应。”
——《国际组织》，1986年春季号
这就是“一国社会主义”的逻辑。
经互会以世界市场价格进行贸易的做法是根本不合理的，造成经济不稳和政治分化。它完全没有道理可言。东欧和苏联的相对生产成本与资本主义世界的显著不同。那么经互会为什么不将价格和生产成本挂钩呢？因为各国官僚完全不能控制他们的“社会主义”贸易伙伴国内的生产成本。克林姆林宫官僚们做梦也不会想把开发西伯利亚油田的一些控制权交给东德人。反之，东德的大款们也不会允许莫斯科人影响莱比锡和埃尔富特电子机械的成本和国内价格。于是，俄国和东德是以洛克菲勒和西门子定下的条件进行石油和机械贸易的！
斯大林主义的民族主义就是这样地增强了资本主义世界市场对苏联阵营的国内外压力。东欧的社会主义经济一体化(特别是通过大规模投资项目进行的)，不仅在提高生产力、而且在抵抗帝国主义经济颠覆和战争方面也是绝对必要的。譬如，把从东柏林到新西伯利亚的科技资源集中起来的一次重点研究，有可能在生产廉价合成油方面取得突破，从而可观地减少东欧各国的进口成本。
在东欧，驱逐篡夺苏联工人政权、背弃列宁主义国际主义的官僚层的无产阶级政治革命，会在它的旗帜上提出：拒绝偿还欠下西方银行的毁灭性债务。东欧各国的斯大林主义政权因为不能抵挡无法避免的帝国主义报复行为(例如贸易抵制)，不可能想像到这种措施：事实上，它们已越来越成为国际货币基金在当地的代理人。然而，社会主义的经济一体化会减少东欧对西方的进口和信贷的依赖，而东柏林、华沙和莫斯科的革命工人政府将有充分的道德权威呼吁西欧和美国工人反对吸血的资本主义银行家们。帝国主义对东欧的经济战争将被转为世界资本主义心脏地带的阶级战争。
托洛茨基主义者并不主张以半个大陆的社会主义替代一国社会主义的教条。只要华尔街的金融家、德国工业家和日本财阀继续拥有这个星球上的大部分生产财富，无阶级、无国家的共产主义理想是不可能在任何地方实现的。只要世界帝国主义还存在，核战末日的阴影始终会徘徊在人类之上。通往和平、物质丰富、社会平等和个人自由的未来的必由之路是列宁和托洛茨基的道路，是通向全球社会主义秩序的、国际无产阶级革命的道路。
2009年5月1日星期五
2009年4月12日星期日
《社会主义者》杂志新一期出版了！
《社会主义者》杂志新一期出版了！
Posted:
保定依棉集团工人反击“欺诈私有化”，呼吁总罢工直到他们的诉求得到满足
中国劳工论坛（chinaworker.info）
Shehui Zhuyi Zhe issue 2
河北省所发生的工人斗争是经济危机日益加深和由此触发阶级斗争逐渐激化的一个迹象。河北所发生的斗争通过互联网传遍了全国。本期《社会主义者》包含由梁闻道撰写的关于“依棉”工人斗争的专题分析、起源和可能前进的道路。新一期杂志中同样也包含由于经济危机给工人、年轻人和农民工带来深重影响的报道。同时包含有郑志采访一名女大学生关于在中国女性就业前景、教育和性别歧视的问题。宏毅的文章就资产阶级民主的本质和富人政治的问题进行了探讨。此外，本期中还包含有彼特•塔菲撰写的纪念伟大革命者罗莎•卢森堡（封面照片）的文章，法属瓜德罗普岛罢工运动的报告，以及美国性权平等（LGTB）斗争的报道。
电子杂志《社会主义者》是由那些秉持国际社会主义立场的中国社会主义者制作，以工人阶级的立场应对日益深重的世界性资本主义危机，在过去的一年中本次危机已使中国失去了3000万个就业机会，是全世界迄今为止新失业人数的一半。由于当局的严密控制和封锁，本杂志主要是以电子刊物的形式进行传播。本期杂志也是中国具有社会主义信仰者战斗意志和决心的表现。同样也可为工人阶级在面对资本家和政府镇压时，进行斗争以捍卫工作岗位和生活条件提供一些有价值的建议和政治分析。
本期杂志共48页，可通过发EMAIL：cwi.china@gmail.com索取订阅。
任何希望为维持杂志和其发展的读者可通过我们的PAYPAL帐户( our paypal account)提供捐款。
China Worker
Socialist magazine – new issue out now!
Posted: 09 Apr 2009 01:07 PM PDT
Chinese workers fighting the fraudulent privatisation of their textile factory have called for a ‘general strike’ unless their demands are met
chinaworker.info
Shehui Zhuyi Zhe issue 2
This struggle in Hebei province is just one sign of the deepening economic crisis and its effects on the class struggle. The struggle in Hebei has been followed with avid interest on internet sites all over China. Issue 2 of Shehui Zhuyi Zhe (Socialist) contains a lengthy analysis of this struggle, its origins and the way forward, written by Liang Weng Dao. The new issue also contains articles on the devastating effects of the economic crisis on workers, young people and migrants. An interview by Zheng Zhi with women students raises important issues about their prospects for jobs and education and the issue of gender discrimination in China. Hong Yi analyses the real nature of bourgeois democracy and the politics of the rich. There are also articles by Peter Taaffe (cover feature) on the revolutionary legacy of Rosa Luxemburg, plus reports of the strike movement in Guadeloupe, and LGTB struggle in the U.S.
Shehui Zhuyi Zhe is produced by Chinese socialists who want an international socialist and working class response to the deepening world capitalist crisis which has destroyed roughly 30 million jobs in China in the last year, around half the world’s total job losses so far from the crisis. The magazine is mainly distributed in electronic format because of extremely tough and increasing state repression. The appearance of the second issue is a tribute to the determination and fighting spirit of Chinese socialists. It also provides the political analysis and arguments that will be invaluable for workers’ struggles to defend jobs and living standards in the face of stepped up pressure from the bosses and the state.
The 48-page magazine can be ordered as a PDF-file from cwi.china@gmail.com
Donations to help sustain and develop the magazine can be made via our paypal account.
Posted:
保定依棉集团工人反击“欺诈私有化”，呼吁总罢工直到他们的诉求得到满足
中国劳工论坛（chinaworker.info）
Shehui Zhuyi Zhe issue 2
河北省所发生的工人斗争是经济危机日益加深和由此触发阶级斗争逐渐激化的一个迹象。河北所发生的斗争通过互联网传遍了全国。本期《社会主义者》包含由梁闻道撰写的关于“依棉”工人斗争的专题分析、起源和可能前进的道路。新一期杂志中同样也包含由于经济危机给工人、年轻人和农民工带来深重影响的报道。同时包含有郑志采访一名女大学生关于在中国女性就业前景、教育和性别歧视的问题。宏毅的文章就资产阶级民主的本质和富人政治的问题进行了探讨。此外，本期中还包含有彼特•塔菲撰写的纪念伟大革命者罗莎•卢森堡（封面照片）的文章，法属瓜德罗普岛罢工运动的报告，以及美国性权平等（LGTB）斗争的报道。
电子杂志《社会主义者》是由那些秉持国际社会主义立场的中国社会主义者制作，以工人阶级的立场应对日益深重的世界性资本主义危机，在过去的一年中本次危机已使中国失去了3000万个就业机会，是全世界迄今为止新失业人数的一半。由于当局的严密控制和封锁，本杂志主要是以电子刊物的形式进行传播。本期杂志也是中国具有社会主义信仰者战斗意志和决心的表现。同样也可为工人阶级在面对资本家和政府镇压时，进行斗争以捍卫工作岗位和生活条件提供一些有价值的建议和政治分析。
本期杂志共48页，可通过发EMAIL：cwi.china@gmail.com索取订阅。
任何希望为维持杂志和其发展的读者可通过我们的PAYPAL帐户( our paypal account)提供捐款。
China Worker
Socialist magazine – new issue out now!
Posted: 09 Apr 2009 01:07 PM PDT
Chinese workers fighting the fraudulent privatisation of their textile factory have called for a ‘general strike’ unless their demands are met
chinaworker.info
Shehui Zhuyi Zhe issue 2
This struggle in Hebei province is just one sign of the deepening economic crisis and its effects on the class struggle. The struggle in Hebei has been followed with avid interest on internet sites all over China. Issue 2 of Shehui Zhuyi Zhe (Socialist) contains a lengthy analysis of this struggle, its origins and the way forward, written by Liang Weng Dao. The new issue also contains articles on the devastating effects of the economic crisis on workers, young people and migrants. An interview by Zheng Zhi with women students raises important issues about their prospects for jobs and education and the issue of gender discrimination in China. Hong Yi analyses the real nature of bourgeois democracy and the politics of the rich. There are also articles by Peter Taaffe (cover feature) on the revolutionary legacy of Rosa Luxemburg, plus reports of the strike movement in Guadeloupe, and LGTB struggle in the U.S.
Shehui Zhuyi Zhe is produced by Chinese socialists who want an international socialist and working class response to the deepening world capitalist crisis which has destroyed roughly 30 million jobs in China in the last year, around half the world’s total job losses so far from the crisis. The magazine is mainly distributed in electronic format because of extremely tough and increasing state repression. The appearance of the second issue is a tribute to the determination and fighting spirit of Chinese socialists. It also provides the political analysis and arguments that will be invaluable for workers’ struggles to defend jobs and living standards in the face of stepped up pressure from the bosses and the state.
The 48-page magazine can be ordered as a PDF-file from cwi.china@gmail.com
Donations to help sustain and develop the magazine can be made via our paypal account.
2009年4月8日星期三
我译自CWI的斯里兰卡： '战争的结束'蕴含着新冲突(初稿）
斯里兰卡： '战争的结束'蕴含着新冲突
星期六， 2009年3月28日。
泰米尔人必须有权决定自己的未来
Siritunga Jayasuriya，联合社会主义党（斯里兰卡的CWI）
斯里兰卡军方控制的媒体的报道给人的感觉是这场战争几乎结束，还有就是战胜泰米尔伊拉姆猛虎解放组织(LTTE)仅仅是一个时间问题，这是在所有战争中都会撒的一种谎言。另外，还强调猛虎组织在数十年之久的内战的这个阶段正面临着失败的结局。
军队指挥官声称随着猛虎组织的行动受制于30至50平方公里范围内，战斗区仅限于一个越来越小的地区，这个说法只是现实的一种解释而已。认为与猛虎组织—一个全副武装的游击部队——的战争即将结束与相信耶和华预测世界末日一样的可疑。
在所谓的战胜了猛虎组织后，该国的东方省份事态的进程只是体现了针对为民族解放而战的游击部队实施的战争的复杂性。该区域的前猛虎组织领导人卡鲁纳的叛逃，无疑给了斯里兰卡军方一个巨大的优势。通过实际上是在枪口的威胁下进行的选举，东方的'平定'促使北方的猛虎组织退却。
国际范围的力强试图相信斯里兰卡军方的宣传，他们希望除去“恐怖主义的猛虎组织”这个眼中钉以便他们可以在这里做生意。作为这个地区的'老大'的印度急于看到战争的结束，因为在其南部地区特别是在泰米尔纳德邦（Tamil Nadu）发生的爆炸事件。
人道灾难
斯里兰卡媒体所称的“伊拉姆战争4” 现在正危险地接近困于战区的平民。几天前，斯里兰卡的55师声称击沉10艘在'海虎'的领导人 Soosai指挥下活动的船。这是另一个迹象显示猛虎组织准备不管平民伤亡把战斗进行到最后一刻。独立消息估计说，在战区仍然有近20 万人活着——或者更确切地说正在等死。他们在前所未有的情况下不得不生活在重型军事装备如迫击炮和其他火炮的环境下，这是猛虎组织设在该地区的装备并且这成为了他们的最后的希望。
不难理解为什么在这种情况下猛虎组织不允许平民离开战斗区。也许大多数平民甚而决定与猛虎组织一起留下来直至最后，因为在30年的血腥战争中，每个人都失去了他们最近的和最亲爱的人。选择离开战区就意味着选择魔鬼和深蓝色的海洋。进入斯里兰卡军方控制的所谓的安全区的人的命运就像走进集中营。每一个泰米尔人都被认定为猛虎组织嫌疑人。
由于JVP（人民解放阵线）和僧伽罗沙文主义政府正在讨论在斯里兰卡北部实施僧伽罗人的定居政策，紧张气氛陡升。斯里兰卡“边境地”已有4万名村民从政府那里得到了武器来保护自己。这些措施将保证暴力活动的进一步爆发和以这种或那种形式在斯里兰卡持续民族间的冲突。
空气中已经充溢着预想的“胜利”带来的狂喜。所有的持强硬路线的社区群体开展宣传活动说，这个军事上的胜利将是一个僧伽罗人对泰米尔人的胜利。他们还把这说成是一个难得的机会——斯里兰卡由僧伽罗统治者完成统一。
鉴于实际的局势，不能排除斯里兰卡很快将荡平猛虎组织控制的地区。但最大的问题仍然是在这之后会发生什么。甚至人们可能会说，猛虎组织将在军事上被打败，但绝对不能断定他们在政治上也将被打败，特别是当它得到了越来越多的来自泰米尔纳德邦和居住在世界各地的泰米尔人的关注和支持的情况下。
在该国南部，极端僧伽罗民族主义势力正在加紧工作以挫败任何实质性的权力转移的企图。随着战争胜利的到来，“多数主义僧伽罗佛教徒”运动将勃兴。伪马克思主义者，Janata Vimukthi Perumuna（人民解放阵线- JVP）已经开始通过实施对任何权力转移的抵制发起其具有煽动性的政策。它希望用之为当下的核心的问题而回到聚光灯下。斯里兰卡的一部分人将坚定地支持这一想法。
总统马欣达·拉贾帕克塞将踏在汹涌的波涛上，因为他准备处理战后局势。他向泰米尔少数民族提供了什么？他已经处在来自印度和其他西方大国的极端的压力下。对他来说，对猛虎组织的军事胜利很可能是短命的，因为他很快将开辟出新的政治战场。
斯里兰卡所有的泰米尔人，包括讲泰米尔语的穆斯林，必定将发现很难理解三十年的武装斗争给他们带来了什么成果。在现代背景和缺乏反对该政权的由“猛虎”呼吁的群众斗争的情况下，人们很容易走向愚蠢的死胡同般的个人恐怖主义和武装游击战术的道路。然而，必须看到灾难性战争的主要责任是资产阶级无法解决影响普通劳动者和穷人的基本问题的无能，包括不能给予泰米尔人自决权的民主权利。斯里兰卡这样的历史，特别是自从英国独立以来，明显地体现出来这一点。在20世纪50年代，泰米尔人的早期领导人只诉求泰米尔人的平等权利。僧伽罗资产阶级不接受这个要求。与此同时，还应当谴责不接手这一问题并把它与反对帝国主义、当地资本家和地主的阶级斗争连起来的磨磨蹭蹭的工人阶级领导人的背叛。
作为社会主义者，从我们工作一开始，作为联合社会主义党成员的我们（斯里兰卡的CWI）一直采用如下原则立场，既捍卫泰米尔人的自决权利以作为一个解决民族问题的重要步骤。更具体地说，目前，我们正在尽一切能力采取行动首先阻止最大的人道灾难发生到困于战争中的Mulaittivu丛林里生活的平民。斯里兰卡政府已推进以结束战争，他们已一次又一次地答应斯里兰卡新年4月之前结束战争。将近20万人的生命处于危险之中。现在国际上的工人阶级必须发出声音反对这一大规模屠杀。在印度，通过发起以 “停止屠杀泰米尔人” 的名义的运动，工人阶级和普通民众中已经形成巨大的支持（见本网站3月19日的相关文章）。我们呼吁国际上的工人和其他被压迫者加入这一运动以争取立即结束这场战争。同时也采取斗争以赢得斯里兰卡所有人的真正的民主权利。
省级选举
2月14日在斯里兰卡中部和北部中央举行了最近的省议会选举。马欣达·拉贾帕克塞的“ Sandanaya联盟”设法轻松赢得近65 ％的选票。因为战争的胜利，拉贾帕克塞仍然深受僧伽罗选民的欢迎。但是，很明显，大多数泰米尔人和穆斯林选民没有投票给拉贾帕克萨。
例如，在康提区，Sandanaya联盟在努瓦拉·伊莱雅赢得的18个议员中没有一个穆斯林和泰米尔人成员，Thondeman这个无原则的党声称代表被超级剥削的种植园工人，但它也支持拉贾帕克塞政府。它原来拥有7个议员，但这次已减为三个。另一个Rajapasa的盟友‘Sandanaya Chandrasekaran’原有三名议员，这一次，已经减少到零。所有这一切都显示了完全生活在东北以外地区的普通泰米尔人民对拉贾帕克塞政权的愤怒。
在这些选举中，联合社会主义党在5区中的3个参加了竞选。有两个其他左翼党派也参加了竞选。总的来说，在过去许多选举中，联合社会主义党已设法赢得相当于第4位的选票。在这次选举中，联合社会主义党也已经达到第4和第5位 。尽管有列于名单上的主要候选人以莫须有的罪名仍然关在监狱里，直到大选结束后才得以释放！
事实上，我们比其他左翼组织得到更多的选票。例如，在努瓦拉·伊莱雅的联合社会主义党得到了688票， '左翼阵线' （纳瓦平等社会党【the Nava Sama Samaja Party】）赢得118票，社会主义平等党获得98票。在马塔莱区，只有左翼阵线参加了竞选，他们仅得到60票。
尽管我们不喜欢在一个半独裁的情况下参加竞选，由于在该国缺乏工人阶级和左翼替代，我们不得不再次参加竞选，这一次是4月25日在西部省份（科伦坡， Gampaha和卡卢特勒区）。左翼阵线和社会主义平等党再次参加了竞选，但只在科伦坡区。
在这次选举中，联合社会主义党活动的首要目标是停止战争，而且也捍卫泰米尔人民的自决权利的生活自由，还有就是自由组建联合工会委员会以反对减薪和赢得工人阶级的要求。最近就约十九亿美元的援助款和要求工人承诺紧缩的问题与国际货币基金组织进行了讨论。考虑到国际和当地资本主义的重大困难，大的政治和阶级斗争可能很快到来。
Sri Lanka: ‘End of war’ stores up major new conflicts
Sat, 28 Mar 2009.
Tamil people must have right to decide own future
Siritunga Jayasuriya, United Socialist Party (CWI in Sri Lanka)
The understanding given by the Sri Lankan Army-controlled media that the war is almost finished, and the victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) is just a matter of time, is the kind of falsehood practiced in all wars. It is, however, pertinent to emphasise that the LTTE is facing defeat in the present phase of the decades-long civil war.
The claims of the army commanders that the battle zone is restricted to an increasingly small geographical area with the LTTE operations confined to between 30 and 50 square kilometres, is only one interpretation of the reality on the ground. To think that the war with the LTTE – a heavily armed guerrilla force - will come to an end with such strategies is like believing Jehovah’s Witnesses predictions about the end of the world.
The course of events in the Eastern Province of the country, after the so-called victory over the LTTE, is just an indication of the complexity of a war conducted against a guerrilla force fighting a national liberation struggle. The defection of former LTTE leader in that area, Karuna, undoubtedly gave the Sri Lankan Army a huge advantage. The ‘pacification’ of the East, with elections carried through often literally at gunpoint, has contributed to the pushing back of the LTTE in the North.
The powers that be on an international scale want to believe the Sri Lankan Army propaganda in the hope that the “terrorist LTTE” headache will be eliminated and they can get on with doing business here. For the ‘Big Brother’ of the region, India, it is urgent that the war comes to an end because of the explosions within its southern areas especially in Tamil Nadu.
Human disaster
‘Eelam War 4’, as it has been labeled by the Sri Lankan media, is now getting dangerously close to civilians trapped in the war zone. A few days ago, the 55th Division of the SLA claimed the sinking of 10 boats operating under the command of the 'Sea Tiger' leader, Soosai. This is another indication that the LTTE is prepared to fight on till the bitter end, regardless of civilian casualties. Independent estimates say that there are still nearly 200,000 people living - or rather, waiting to die - in the war zone. They are in the unprecedented situation of having to live amongst the heavy military equipment, such as mortars and other artillery, which the LTTE has housed in the area and which constitutes their last hope.
It is not difficult to understand in this situation why the LTTE is not allowing civilians to go out of the battle zone. Maybe most of the civilians have even decided to stay with the LTTE to the end, as each of the people has lost some of their nearest and dearest in the 30 year bloody war. The choice of going out of the war zone is like choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea. The fate of people who have gone over to the so-called safe areas controlled by the SLA is like walking into concentration camps. Every Tamil is regarded as an LTTE suspect.
Tension mounts as the JVP and the Sinhala chauvinist government are discussing Sinhala settlers being implanted in the North of Sri Lanka. Already 40,000 villagers in the 'border areas' of Sri Lanka's South have been given arms by the government to protect themselves. Such measures are a guarantee of further outbursts of violence and a continuation of the national conflict in Sri Lanka in one form or another.
The euphoria of the envisaged “victory” is already in the air. All the hard-line communal groups are campaigning with a propaganda which says this military victory will be a victory of the Sinhalese over the Tamils. They also describe this as a rare occasion - Sri Lanka being unified by a Sinhalese ruler.
Given the situation on the ground, it cannot be ruled out that the SLA will move in to clear the LTTE-controlled areas sooner rather than later. But the big question remains what happens after that. Even if one can say that the LTTE will be defeated militarily, it is by no means certain that they will be defeated politically, especially with the growing concerns and support that is witnessed in Tamil Nadu and among the Tamil Diaspora around the world.
In the south of the country, the extreme Sinhala nationalist forces are working overtime to thwart any attempt to introduce any substantial devolution of power. The “majoritarian Sinhala Buddhist” campaign will get shriller as the war victory arrives. The pseudo Marxist, Janata Vimukthi Perumuna (People's Liberation Front - JVP) has already started its gutter-stirring politics by building resistance to any power devolution. It hopes to come back to the limelight using that as its core issue at the present time. A section of the SLA will strongly support this idea.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa will have to ride new rough waters as he prepares to address the post-war situation. What is his offer to the Tamil national minority? He is already under extreme pressure from India and other western powers. Military victory over the LTTE is likely to be short-lived for him as he will open up new political battle zones very soon.
All Tamils, including Tamil-speaking Muslims, in Sri Lanka must be finding it hard to comprehend what the three decades of armed struggle has achieved for them. It is easy to point to the follies and the blind alley of individual terrorism and armed guerrilla tactics in the modern context and the lack of appeal by the 'Tigers' for mass struggle against the regime. Nevertheless the primary responsibility for the disastrous war must be seen in the inability of the capitalist class to solve the basic issues affecting ordinary working and poor people, including granting the democratic right of Tamils to self-determination. The history of this in Sri Lanka, especially since independence from the British, is glaringly manifested. The early leaders of the Tamils, during the 1950s, asked only for equal rights for the Tamil language. This was not acceptable to the Sinhala capitalist class. At the same time, betrayals by dilly-dallying working class leaders have to be equally condemned for not taking up this issue and linking it with the class struggle against imperialism, local capitalists and landlords.
As socialists, we in the United Socialist Party (CWI in Sri Lanka) have taken a principled stand, from the very inception of our work, to defend the right to self-determination of Tamil people as a major step ton the road towards solving the national question. More concretely, at present we are campaigning first and foremost to stop the biggest human disaster happening to the war trapped civilians in the Mulaittivu jungles. The Sri Lankan government has pushed forward to finish the war; they have promised again and again to end it before the Sri Lankan New Year in April. Nearly 200,000 people lives are at stake. Now the working class internationally must organise their voice against this mass slaughter. Already tremendous support is building among the working class and ordinary people in India through a campaign launched under the name “Stop the Slaughter of Tamils” (See article of 19 March on this site). We appeal to workers and other oppressed sections internationally to join this campaign and fight to end this war immediately. Take up the fight also to win genuine democratic rights for all in Sri Lanka.
Provincial elections
The last provincial council elections were held on14 February in central and north central Sri Lanka. Mahinda Rajapaksa's ‘Sandanaya Alliance’ managed to win easily with nearly 65% of votes cast. Rajapaksa is still popular among the Sinhala voters because of the prospect of a war victory. But it is clear that the majority of Tamil and Muslim voters have not voted for Rajapaksa.
In Kandy district, for example, Sandanaya has not got a singleTamil or Muslim member amongst the 18 councillors they won. In Nuwara Eliya, the unprincipled party of Thondeman claims to represent the super-exploited plantation workers there, but he also supports the Rajapaksa government. It had 7 councillors but this time it has been reduced to three. Another ally of Rajapasa's, ‘Sandanaya Chandrasekaran’, had three councillors. This time it has been reduced to nil. All this shows the anger against the Rajapaksa regime by ordinary Tamil people who live totally outside the North East.
In these elections the USP contested 3 out of 5 districts. There were two other left parties who also contested. In general in the last many elections the USP has managed to come in 4th place. Similarly, in this election also the USP has come 4th and 5th. This is in spite of having leading candidates on the list held in prison on trumped up charges and only released after the election was over!
In fact, we got more votes than other left organisations. For example, in Nuwara Eliya the USP received 688 votes, the 'Left Front' (of the Nava Sama Samaja Party) won 118 and the Socialist Equality Party got 98 votes. In Matale district, the Left Front contested alone and they got just 60 votes.
Even though we are not happy contesting elections in a semi-dictatorial situation, because of the lack of a working class and left alternative in the country, we have been compelled to contest the elections again, this time in Western Province (Colombo, Gampaha and Kalutara districts) on April 25. The Left Front and the SEP are contesting again but only in the Colombo district.
In this election, the USP is campaigning above all to stop the war but also to defend the right of self-determination of the Tamil people, the freedom to live and to form joint trade union councils to fight against cuts and win the demands of the working class. The recent discussions with the International Monetary Fund about a $1.9 billion hand-out also involved promises of austerity for workers. Big political and class battles could open up quite quickly, given the major difficulties of capitalism locally and internationally.
星期六， 2009年3月28日。
泰米尔人必须有权决定自己的未来
Siritunga Jayasuriya，联合社会主义党（斯里兰卡的CWI）
斯里兰卡军方控制的媒体的报道给人的感觉是这场战争几乎结束，还有就是战胜泰米尔伊拉姆猛虎解放组织(LTTE)仅仅是一个时间问题，这是在所有战争中都会撒的一种谎言。另外，还强调猛虎组织在数十年之久的内战的这个阶段正面临着失败的结局。
军队指挥官声称随着猛虎组织的行动受制于30至50平方公里范围内，战斗区仅限于一个越来越小的地区，这个说法只是现实的一种解释而已。认为与猛虎组织—一个全副武装的游击部队——的战争即将结束与相信耶和华预测世界末日一样的可疑。
在所谓的战胜了猛虎组织后，该国的东方省份事态的进程只是体现了针对为民族解放而战的游击部队实施的战争的复杂性。该区域的前猛虎组织领导人卡鲁纳的叛逃，无疑给了斯里兰卡军方一个巨大的优势。通过实际上是在枪口的威胁下进行的选举，东方的'平定'促使北方的猛虎组织退却。
国际范围的力强试图相信斯里兰卡军方的宣传，他们希望除去“恐怖主义的猛虎组织”这个眼中钉以便他们可以在这里做生意。作为这个地区的'老大'的印度急于看到战争的结束，因为在其南部地区特别是在泰米尔纳德邦（Tamil Nadu）发生的爆炸事件。
人道灾难
斯里兰卡媒体所称的“伊拉姆战争4” 现在正危险地接近困于战区的平民。几天前，斯里兰卡的55师声称击沉10艘在'海虎'的领导人 Soosai指挥下活动的船。这是另一个迹象显示猛虎组织准备不管平民伤亡把战斗进行到最后一刻。独立消息估计说，在战区仍然有近20 万人活着——或者更确切地说正在等死。他们在前所未有的情况下不得不生活在重型军事装备如迫击炮和其他火炮的环境下，这是猛虎组织设在该地区的装备并且这成为了他们的最后的希望。
不难理解为什么在这种情况下猛虎组织不允许平民离开战斗区。也许大多数平民甚而决定与猛虎组织一起留下来直至最后，因为在30年的血腥战争中，每个人都失去了他们最近的和最亲爱的人。选择离开战区就意味着选择魔鬼和深蓝色的海洋。进入斯里兰卡军方控制的所谓的安全区的人的命运就像走进集中营。每一个泰米尔人都被认定为猛虎组织嫌疑人。
由于JVP（人民解放阵线）和僧伽罗沙文主义政府正在讨论在斯里兰卡北部实施僧伽罗人的定居政策，紧张气氛陡升。斯里兰卡“边境地”已有4万名村民从政府那里得到了武器来保护自己。这些措施将保证暴力活动的进一步爆发和以这种或那种形式在斯里兰卡持续民族间的冲突。
空气中已经充溢着预想的“胜利”带来的狂喜。所有的持强硬路线的社区群体开展宣传活动说，这个军事上的胜利将是一个僧伽罗人对泰米尔人的胜利。他们还把这说成是一个难得的机会——斯里兰卡由僧伽罗统治者完成统一。
鉴于实际的局势，不能排除斯里兰卡很快将荡平猛虎组织控制的地区。但最大的问题仍然是在这之后会发生什么。甚至人们可能会说，猛虎组织将在军事上被打败，但绝对不能断定他们在政治上也将被打败，特别是当它得到了越来越多的来自泰米尔纳德邦和居住在世界各地的泰米尔人的关注和支持的情况下。
在该国南部，极端僧伽罗民族主义势力正在加紧工作以挫败任何实质性的权力转移的企图。随着战争胜利的到来，“多数主义僧伽罗佛教徒”运动将勃兴。伪马克思主义者，Janata Vimukthi Perumuna（人民解放阵线- JVP）已经开始通过实施对任何权力转移的抵制发起其具有煽动性的政策。它希望用之为当下的核心的问题而回到聚光灯下。斯里兰卡的一部分人将坚定地支持这一想法。
总统马欣达·拉贾帕克塞将踏在汹涌的波涛上，因为他准备处理战后局势。他向泰米尔少数民族提供了什么？他已经处在来自印度和其他西方大国的极端的压力下。对他来说，对猛虎组织的军事胜利很可能是短命的，因为他很快将开辟出新的政治战场。
斯里兰卡所有的泰米尔人，包括讲泰米尔语的穆斯林，必定将发现很难理解三十年的武装斗争给他们带来了什么成果。在现代背景和缺乏反对该政权的由“猛虎”呼吁的群众斗争的情况下，人们很容易走向愚蠢的死胡同般的个人恐怖主义和武装游击战术的道路。然而，必须看到灾难性战争的主要责任是资产阶级无法解决影响普通劳动者和穷人的基本问题的无能，包括不能给予泰米尔人自决权的民主权利。斯里兰卡这样的历史，特别是自从英国独立以来，明显地体现出来这一点。在20世纪50年代，泰米尔人的早期领导人只诉求泰米尔人的平等权利。僧伽罗资产阶级不接受这个要求。与此同时，还应当谴责不接手这一问题并把它与反对帝国主义、当地资本家和地主的阶级斗争连起来的磨磨蹭蹭的工人阶级领导人的背叛。
作为社会主义者，从我们工作一开始，作为联合社会主义党成员的我们（斯里兰卡的CWI）一直采用如下原则立场，既捍卫泰米尔人的自决权利以作为一个解决民族问题的重要步骤。更具体地说，目前，我们正在尽一切能力采取行动首先阻止最大的人道灾难发生到困于战争中的Mulaittivu丛林里生活的平民。斯里兰卡政府已推进以结束战争，他们已一次又一次地答应斯里兰卡新年4月之前结束战争。将近20万人的生命处于危险之中。现在国际上的工人阶级必须发出声音反对这一大规模屠杀。在印度，通过发起以 “停止屠杀泰米尔人” 的名义的运动，工人阶级和普通民众中已经形成巨大的支持（见本网站3月19日的相关文章）。我们呼吁国际上的工人和其他被压迫者加入这一运动以争取立即结束这场战争。同时也采取斗争以赢得斯里兰卡所有人的真正的民主权利。
省级选举
2月14日在斯里兰卡中部和北部中央举行了最近的省议会选举。马欣达·拉贾帕克塞的“ Sandanaya联盟”设法轻松赢得近65 ％的选票。因为战争的胜利，拉贾帕克塞仍然深受僧伽罗选民的欢迎。但是，很明显，大多数泰米尔人和穆斯林选民没有投票给拉贾帕克萨。
例如，在康提区，Sandanaya联盟在努瓦拉·伊莱雅赢得的18个议员中没有一个穆斯林和泰米尔人成员，Thondeman这个无原则的党声称代表被超级剥削的种植园工人，但它也支持拉贾帕克塞政府。它原来拥有7个议员，但这次已减为三个。另一个Rajapasa的盟友‘Sandanaya Chandrasekaran’原有三名议员，这一次，已经减少到零。所有这一切都显示了完全生活在东北以外地区的普通泰米尔人民对拉贾帕克塞政权的愤怒。
在这些选举中，联合社会主义党在5区中的3个参加了竞选。有两个其他左翼党派也参加了竞选。总的来说，在过去许多选举中，联合社会主义党已设法赢得相当于第4位的选票。在这次选举中，联合社会主义党也已经达到第4和第5位 。尽管有列于名单上的主要候选人以莫须有的罪名仍然关在监狱里，直到大选结束后才得以释放！
事实上，我们比其他左翼组织得到更多的选票。例如，在努瓦拉·伊莱雅的联合社会主义党得到了688票， '左翼阵线' （纳瓦平等社会党【the Nava Sama Samaja Party】）赢得118票，社会主义平等党获得98票。在马塔莱区，只有左翼阵线参加了竞选，他们仅得到60票。
尽管我们不喜欢在一个半独裁的情况下参加竞选，由于在该国缺乏工人阶级和左翼替代，我们不得不再次参加竞选，这一次是4月25日在西部省份（科伦坡， Gampaha和卡卢特勒区）。左翼阵线和社会主义平等党再次参加了竞选，但只在科伦坡区。
在这次选举中，联合社会主义党活动的首要目标是停止战争，而且也捍卫泰米尔人民的自决权利的生活自由，还有就是自由组建联合工会委员会以反对减薪和赢得工人阶级的要求。最近就约十九亿美元的援助款和要求工人承诺紧缩的问题与国际货币基金组织进行了讨论。考虑到国际和当地资本主义的重大困难，大的政治和阶级斗争可能很快到来。
Sri Lanka: ‘End of war’ stores up major new conflicts
Sat, 28 Mar 2009.
Tamil people must have right to decide own future
Siritunga Jayasuriya, United Socialist Party (CWI in Sri Lanka)
The understanding given by the Sri Lankan Army-controlled media that the war is almost finished, and the victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) is just a matter of time, is the kind of falsehood practiced in all wars. It is, however, pertinent to emphasise that the LTTE is facing defeat in the present phase of the decades-long civil war.
The claims of the army commanders that the battle zone is restricted to an increasingly small geographical area with the LTTE operations confined to between 30 and 50 square kilometres, is only one interpretation of the reality on the ground. To think that the war with the LTTE – a heavily armed guerrilla force - will come to an end with such strategies is like believing Jehovah’s Witnesses predictions about the end of the world.
The course of events in the Eastern Province of the country, after the so-called victory over the LTTE, is just an indication of the complexity of a war conducted against a guerrilla force fighting a national liberation struggle. The defection of former LTTE leader in that area, Karuna, undoubtedly gave the Sri Lankan Army a huge advantage. The ‘pacification’ of the East, with elections carried through often literally at gunpoint, has contributed to the pushing back of the LTTE in the North.
The powers that be on an international scale want to believe the Sri Lankan Army propaganda in the hope that the “terrorist LTTE” headache will be eliminated and they can get on with doing business here. For the ‘Big Brother’ of the region, India, it is urgent that the war comes to an end because of the explosions within its southern areas especially in Tamil Nadu.
Human disaster
‘Eelam War 4’, as it has been labeled by the Sri Lankan media, is now getting dangerously close to civilians trapped in the war zone. A few days ago, the 55th Division of the SLA claimed the sinking of 10 boats operating under the command of the 'Sea Tiger' leader, Soosai. This is another indication that the LTTE is prepared to fight on till the bitter end, regardless of civilian casualties. Independent estimates say that there are still nearly 200,000 people living - or rather, waiting to die - in the war zone. They are in the unprecedented situation of having to live amongst the heavy military equipment, such as mortars and other artillery, which the LTTE has housed in the area and which constitutes their last hope.
It is not difficult to understand in this situation why the LTTE is not allowing civilians to go out of the battle zone. Maybe most of the civilians have even decided to stay with the LTTE to the end, as each of the people has lost some of their nearest and dearest in the 30 year bloody war. The choice of going out of the war zone is like choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea. The fate of people who have gone over to the so-called safe areas controlled by the SLA is like walking into concentration camps. Every Tamil is regarded as an LTTE suspect.
Tension mounts as the JVP and the Sinhala chauvinist government are discussing Sinhala settlers being implanted in the North of Sri Lanka. Already 40,000 villagers in the 'border areas' of Sri Lanka's South have been given arms by the government to protect themselves. Such measures are a guarantee of further outbursts of violence and a continuation of the national conflict in Sri Lanka in one form or another.
The euphoria of the envisaged “victory” is already in the air. All the hard-line communal groups are campaigning with a propaganda which says this military victory will be a victory of the Sinhalese over the Tamils. They also describe this as a rare occasion - Sri Lanka being unified by a Sinhalese ruler.
Given the situation on the ground, it cannot be ruled out that the SLA will move in to clear the LTTE-controlled areas sooner rather than later. But the big question remains what happens after that. Even if one can say that the LTTE will be defeated militarily, it is by no means certain that they will be defeated politically, especially with the growing concerns and support that is witnessed in Tamil Nadu and among the Tamil Diaspora around the world.
In the south of the country, the extreme Sinhala nationalist forces are working overtime to thwart any attempt to introduce any substantial devolution of power. The “majoritarian Sinhala Buddhist” campaign will get shriller as the war victory arrives. The pseudo Marxist, Janata Vimukthi Perumuna (People's Liberation Front - JVP) has already started its gutter-stirring politics by building resistance to any power devolution. It hopes to come back to the limelight using that as its core issue at the present time. A section of the SLA will strongly support this idea.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa will have to ride new rough waters as he prepares to address the post-war situation. What is his offer to the Tamil national minority? He is already under extreme pressure from India and other western powers. Military victory over the LTTE is likely to be short-lived for him as he will open up new political battle zones very soon.
All Tamils, including Tamil-speaking Muslims, in Sri Lanka must be finding it hard to comprehend what the three decades of armed struggle has achieved for them. It is easy to point to the follies and the blind alley of individual terrorism and armed guerrilla tactics in the modern context and the lack of appeal by the 'Tigers' for mass struggle against the regime. Nevertheless the primary responsibility for the disastrous war must be seen in the inability of the capitalist class to solve the basic issues affecting ordinary working and poor people, including granting the democratic right of Tamils to self-determination. The history of this in Sri Lanka, especially since independence from the British, is glaringly manifested. The early leaders of the Tamils, during the 1950s, asked only for equal rights for the Tamil language. This was not acceptable to the Sinhala capitalist class. At the same time, betrayals by dilly-dallying working class leaders have to be equally condemned for not taking up this issue and linking it with the class struggle against imperialism, local capitalists and landlords.
As socialists, we in the United Socialist Party (CWI in Sri Lanka) have taken a principled stand, from the very inception of our work, to defend the right to self-determination of Tamil people as a major step ton the road towards solving the national question. More concretely, at present we are campaigning first and foremost to stop the biggest human disaster happening to the war trapped civilians in the Mulaittivu jungles. The Sri Lankan government has pushed forward to finish the war; they have promised again and again to end it before the Sri Lankan New Year in April. Nearly 200,000 people lives are at stake. Now the working class internationally must organise their voice against this mass slaughter. Already tremendous support is building among the working class and ordinary people in India through a campaign launched under the name “Stop the Slaughter of Tamils” (See article of 19 March on this site). We appeal to workers and other oppressed sections internationally to join this campaign and fight to end this war immediately. Take up the fight also to win genuine democratic rights for all in Sri Lanka.
Provincial elections
The last provincial council elections were held on14 February in central and north central Sri Lanka. Mahinda Rajapaksa's ‘Sandanaya Alliance’ managed to win easily with nearly 65% of votes cast. Rajapaksa is still popular among the Sinhala voters because of the prospect of a war victory. But it is clear that the majority of Tamil and Muslim voters have not voted for Rajapaksa.
In Kandy district, for example, Sandanaya has not got a singleTamil or Muslim member amongst the 18 councillors they won. In Nuwara Eliya, the unprincipled party of Thondeman claims to represent the super-exploited plantation workers there, but he also supports the Rajapaksa government. It had 7 councillors but this time it has been reduced to three. Another ally of Rajapasa's, ‘Sandanaya Chandrasekaran’, had three councillors. This time it has been reduced to nil. All this shows the anger against the Rajapaksa regime by ordinary Tamil people who live totally outside the North East.
In these elections the USP contested 3 out of 5 districts. There were two other left parties who also contested. In general in the last many elections the USP has managed to come in 4th place. Similarly, in this election also the USP has come 4th and 5th. This is in spite of having leading candidates on the list held in prison on trumped up charges and only released after the election was over!
In fact, we got more votes than other left organisations. For example, in Nuwara Eliya the USP received 688 votes, the 'Left Front' (of the Nava Sama Samaja Party) won 118 and the Socialist Equality Party got 98 votes. In Matale district, the Left Front contested alone and they got just 60 votes.
Even though we are not happy contesting elections in a semi-dictatorial situation, because of the lack of a working class and left alternative in the country, we have been compelled to contest the elections again, this time in Western Province (Colombo, Gampaha and Kalutara districts) on April 25. The Left Front and the SEP are contesting again but only in the Colombo district.
In this election, the USP is campaigning above all to stop the war but also to defend the right of self-determination of the Tamil people, the freedom to live and to form joint trade union councils to fight against cuts and win the demands of the working class. The recent discussions with the International Monetary Fund about a $1.9 billion hand-out also involved promises of austerity for workers. Big political and class battles could open up quite quickly, given the major difficulties of capitalism locally and internationally.
2009年3月25日星期三
我译自CWI的如何应对经济危机（初稿）
如何应对经济危机
资本主义的危机，群众意识和社会主义刚要
彼得•塔菲，工人国际委员会
工人阶级能如何应对1930年以来最严重的经济危机的影响呢？大规模的裁员已经成为主要资本主义国家和整个世界面貌的一部分。老板和他们的政府都在进攻以便促使工人阶级和大部份的中产阶级来承担他们导致的灾难。
世界资本主义处在一条死胡同里而且它的严肃的代表们看不到迅速出离的前景。您可以选择各种预测;从英国财政大臣阿利斯泰尔•达林（Alistair Darling）对经济的60年来最糟糕的悲观预言到英国新工党政府的内阁大臣埃德•鲍尔斯的这是100年来最糟糕的说法！资本主义评论家现在同意我们的分析，至少认为这是1930年大萧条以来的最严重的经济危机，甚至还可能超过它。
从某种意义上说，这一危机有可能比那时更糟糕。资本主义全球化的扩展使得这次冲击比1929年前所谓的'镀金时代'时存在的冲击更广泛和更深远。出于这个原因，它已经成为历史上最国际化和最普遍的经济危机。美国，西欧，日本，东欧，俄罗斯，亚洲，大洋洲和拉丁美洲，全部卷入了经济下降的漩涡。它肯定以一定速度并且伴随着比1930年大萧条的最初阶段更甚的严重性发展着。
1929年的那场危机肇始于股票交易所，扩展到金融部门，并无情地扩展到所谓的“实体经济”。今天的危机是由金融垮台所引发的，进而到工业，现在又重新返回到金融部门。但是1929年危机的全面影响只有在一段时间后才能感觉到——在法国的情况下，两年或三年之后——而这一危机以其即使不算令人意志消沉但也是很吓人的速度和严重性击向世界资本主义的代表。1929年需要用三年时间而现在一年里就可能呈现出来。
这一危机的特点是生产过剩，供过于求的商品，老板正在努力通过使工人阶级大规模失业来解决这种生产过剩。但是，这甚至也导致中产阶级的'过剩'，他们和工人一起被逐出工作场所。换言之，中间阶层的无产阶级化，即使在资本主义繁荣期，这个特征就表现出来了，而现在这一趋势正以实质性的步伐推进着。这反过来又破坏了资本主义的社会基础。
工人组织的投降
资本家在将出现的进一步经济内爆的社会后果面前颤抖着。他们唯一值得安慰的是由于前工人组织在象英国首相布莱尔和他们的欧洲和其他地方的堂兄弟社会民主党这样的领导人手里政治上被枭除，他们没有面临来自工人阶级的有组织的挑战。斯大林主义崩溃以及接踵而至的意识形态上亲资本主义的海啸的冲击，他们全部靠向资产阶级一边。结果是，工人阶级中大量工人面对着所能记住的来之不易的权利和社会地位受到最大的挑战时在政治上解除了武装。
当资本家以危机为借口打击工人阶级的利益时，由于缺乏领导和组织，群众的怒火自发地涌向工厂和街头。 政府设法消除老人的保健福利，这发生在爱尔兰，紧接着是愤怒抗议，包括因为残酷的资本家象关闭火柴盒那样轻易地关闭整个工厂，在Waterford Crystal and Dell发生了占领公司或威胁这样做的举动。同样残暴场面出现在上周末结束时在考利、牛津的宝马迷你工厂的转变，这挑起了前所未有的抗议，出现了工人和主管人之间的拳头相向。然而，这一导致持续的运动的工人阶级基本的反抗所需要的是一个明确的刚要，其中包括战斗口号和组织。
这种投降，工会领导人同样有着这样的投降行为，实际上有助于强迫世界各地的工人阶级和穷人接受这个残酷的新自由主义政策。资产阶级不再需要照顾到一个有组织的工人阶级的要求或害怕工人运动的反抗，因此可以无节制地疯狂冲向无管制的资本主义。人们视工人组织的前领导人为新自由主义战车上的基本不发挥作用的第五个轮子。工会领导人完全的优柔寡断显然在向老板和他们的政府投降，因为后者试图推卸这一危机的责任到工人阶级和穷人的身上。
人民群众很清楚谁当为此负责。在意大利，作为底层正在发生什么的晴雨表，学生示威高喊： '我们不会为你们的危机而买单' 。形成鲜明对比的是当工厂在工人阶级的眼皮底下关闭的情况下，工会领导人展示出的趴在地上投降的态度以及所有我们从劳工运动高层那里听到的是需要'共渡时艰'的烂调 。20世纪30年代托洛茨基写道工人阶级，甚至人类面临的危机总而言之是工人组织领导能力的危机。然而，今天不同的是我们面临的不仅是领导能力的危机而且还是一个组织层面的或者缺乏工人阶级组织以及明确的刚要的危机。
历史上从来没有过这样的鸿沟——'剪刀差' ——资本主义危机的客观形势和工人阶级缺乏组织，特别是群众性政党的前景之间的已十分明显的鸿沟。由于无情的宣传屏障， 30多年来新自由主义政策的现实以及没有政治和经济的可选择性，尽管经济危机的冲击很严重，对'市场'的不可避免残留的默许依然存在着，即使在工人阶级之间。虽然许多人震惊于经济崩溃。许多工人中间甚至还有人依然有着根深蒂固的想法认为当前的危机是暂时的，到明年年底就将结束，迟早我们可以返回到晴朗的经济高地。
暗淡的经济前景
'大众'媒体和资产阶级经济学家和评论家中的一翼仍抱有这些幻想。但是，另一部分已经得出结论，这一次真的是盛宴不再。举例来说，无党派者肖恩•奥•格雷迪1月直言宣布： “高失业率逗留不去。 ”在美国大萧条期间，失业率并没有恢复到它的1929年的水平，直到1943年通过破坏性的第二次世界大战，美国经济才走出经济的泥潭。这就是奥巴马总统努力的前景，因为他正在设法与每月增加60万失业的雪崩般的裁员斗争。在未来一年左右，美国和英国的失业问题将达到劳动力的10 ％，现代背景下，其影响类似于大萧条。
在世界其他地方，特别反常的是在应该免遭影响的欧洲部分地区，形势反而更糟糕。欧洲央行的声明认为欧元区将躲过美国经济所产生的病毒的最恶劣影响的观点已化为泡影。这个大陆已经加入了资本主义世界的总内爆，日本也是这样。最新的预测，后者的国内生产总值可能下降近10 ％ 。作为巨大的出口导向机器的日本正减速后停止，2008年最后3个月里下降了3.3 ％ ，年率为12.7 ％ 。欧洲经济发动机的德国也已加入了这个行列，而大陆上较小的经济体——爱尔兰，西班牙，意大利，希腊，葡萄牙和英国——正冒着滑入冰岛那样的国家破产的风险。
对群众来说，这好像是今天是暖和和晴朗的，明天就是寒冷和黑暗的冬夜，其中没有秋天的过渡。西班牙，以及爱尔兰的命运，比起大多数来，在狂欢的债务驱动的建筑和房地产市场的繁荣之路上走得更远，可以由萨拉戈萨（Zaragoza）的故事来总结，2月观察员如此描述其特征。建设热潮的崩溃意味着一年内城市失业率飙升75 ％。到今年年底，西班牙的失业率可能会从已经不能接受的14 ％ （ 330万工人） 猛增到20 ％。工人阶级愤怒了以至于义不容辞地和成千上万的走上街头抗议的人一起要求“罢工！罢工！罢工！”。
西班牙是一系列国家可能会发生什么的一个例子，包括英国，其将及时地挑起革命性的爆发。如果没有有意识地的领导，骚动将接着甚至可能引诱部分青年人走上可谓是一条完全没有出路的死胡同的恐怖主义的道路。希腊爆炸事件表明一小部分人中间的无政府主义和恐怖主义的情绪在某个特定阶段是显而易见的。摆脱机会主义领导人的令人瘫痪的影响的大规模的群众行动是唯一的出路。
英国炼油厂罢工：混乱和清晰
甚至从英国的发电站、炼油厂的建筑工人底层爆发的罢工中也有着这样的愤慨的表达。这是一个用来衡量工人阶级的意识和不同政治倾向如何面对这一点的实验室测试。鉴于新自由主义的黑夜，希望民族主义和种族主义不会出现在一些工人的当前意识中的想法是完全乌托邦的，在某些情况下也许是大多数。然而，这场争论中却并非如此，我们已经在我们的周报社会主义上论证了这一点。从本质上说，罢工是反对资本主义'竞相杀价'并由整个欧洲的老板通过反工人阶级的立法，欧盟指令(European Posted Workers Directive)，欧盟本身精心策划的强加的奴隶般劳动工资。
这在一些工人头脑中被扭曲成民族主义，并通过如下的表达反映出来：“英国的工作岗位应该给英国工人”。这最初由首相布朗在新的劳工大会的讲话中创造出来，企图包抄极右翼的英国国家党（BNP）。没有领导阶层的明确的指导，不仅在英国而且在其他地方，工人这样的初步反应也就不足为奇了。但是，这只是罢工不成熟的特点，通过为移民工人争取同样的权利，工资和条件的更为觉悟的社会主义者，特别是社会主义政党的介入，很快就能克服这一点。在俄国革命中，沙皇的一般工作人员害怕哪怕是一个布尔什维克在场，因为他可以象“饱和溶液中晶体化”那样活动，正如托洛茨基所说的那样，能够在激烈的气氛中把大多数人吸引过来。我们在有社会主义者和马克思主义者（其中一些来自社会主义政党）参与的这个罢工中看到类似的东西，完全克服了民族主义或种族主义的任何的内容。明确表示声援移民工人，包括在意大利印刷小册子，和坚决要求所有工作人员都能够同工同酬。
可以预见的是，一些既没有出现在工人罢工中又不愿意听取罢工中工人的真实情绪的极左派团体站在完全错误的立场上。例如，社会主义工人党(SWP) ，把注意力集中在批评上并强调“英国的工作岗位应该给英国工人”为罢工的主要特征。把如下的事实放在一边：工人驱赶了出现在警戒线上的英国国家党（BNP）的成员。此外，在分配的新的工作岗位上，罢工取得了辉煌成就，即导入了工人控制和工会参与要素。当然，正如一花独放不是春，但在这个行业和其他地方的工人现在有一个在复杂局面下捍卫工人的生活水平的同时克服民族或种族分裂的并在实际上能确保工人阶级胜利的如何斗争的活生生的例子。
罢工之后， '调解'服务的ACAS（（英国咨询调解和仲裁局）得出结论外国合同工人没有得到比英国工人低的工资。这是不正确的，完全忘记掉的是派遣劳工有时可能在其周工资或月工资上得到’国内“或全职工人相同的工资。但是，他们没有得到带薪休息或节假日和其他福利，这些都是全球范围内的老板们正在试图取消的东西以便作为一种手段提高其利润率。这同样适用于这一争端。这一直被ACAS掩盖着而且罢工时并不视之为荣誉的专职工会干部一直默许之，而且与可能属于违反英国严厉的反工会法的非官方的行动保持距离。这一争端主要强调了积极的成果，其次是通过工人斗争的经验和社会主义者和马克思主义者的介入的结合而见证了民族主义被扫地出门的特色。
大部分的极左派团体不理解群众运动将如何演变，特别是由于其最后阶段的性质。这不会是一个完美的全面的样式，正如奥利弗•克伦威尔毫无保留地形容自己那样（译者按：十七世纪英国护国公克伦威尔（Oliver Cromwell）请人给他画像，声明要绝对写实，连他面上的「粉刺、肉粒等等（pimples, warts and all）」都必须画出来，否则他就一个钱画费都不付）。如果置这些极左者于1905年俄国革命开始的当下，毫无疑问，他们的出发点将谴责Father Gapon神父，最初是由他带着向沙皇请愿的书带领群众在沙皇的旗帜下开始第一次游行。和敦促参与运动，革命初期阶段甚至和Gapon讨论和合作的列宁相对比，他们会要求从示威中逐出神父以作为他们参与的一个先决条件！他们将如何对1907年詹姆斯金为了共同与老板斗争而组织了天主教和新教的工人和Orange and Green bands一起大规模示威作出反应？
因为我们刚刚历经的阶段，由社会主义者以干练的方式面向现有的工人阶级的政治前景，没有对种族或民族偏见让步是必要的。我们没有通过回答说“如果我是你，我不会从这里出发 ”回答了“我怎么去莫斯科？”这个问题的俄罗斯圣人的乐事。工人阶级，特别是经过了一段时间的所谓的社会和平的工人阶级，从来没有出现过如来自朱庇特的智慧的非常现成的斗争。
满怀的阶级仇恨
工人阶级的愤怒日积，这由去年在希腊爆发的半起义和1月29日震动法国的反萨科齐大罢工表现出来了。不久前，萨科齐嘲讽道：尽管他攻击法国工人和青年，可哪里来罢工呢？ '回答他的就是这些罢工展示出来的基本反抗，示威在范围和人数上远远超出工会领导的组织者所预期的。超过200万工人涌上法国各城市的街道。罢工之前，萨科齐就感受到了这种潜在的具有爆炸性的情绪，并立即对学校的学生让步以作为一种手段来制止该运动。这并没有阻止罢工发生，这显示了一阵1968年本身的气息。
然而，即使在政治上仍然处在欧洲工人运动先锋地位的法国，1968年和现在的法国工人阶级在各自的情景上有着重要的区别。矛盾的是，今天的资本主义经济形势比1968年时更加糟糕，1968年时，历史上最大的总罢工是发生在一个持续的繁荣的背景下的。然后，在工人和学生中有一个广泛的社会主义甚至是革命性的意识。鉴于伴随着工人组织领导人向资本主义投降（正如我们已经指出的那样）而在最近的三十年里一同丧失的东西，状态必然要落后于1968年。当前有着混合的前景和确定的政治混乱。
因此，毫无疑问，整个先进的资本主义国家满怀着对那些被视为目前的经济灾难的主要肇事者，即金融家和银行家的阶级仇恨。英国议会和美国国会半公开的审判已经展现。在法国，群众的愤怒在街头表达着，但即使在法国，很明显最初是针对银行家和萨科齐之徒的，尽管他蛊惑人心地企图把自己和银行家划清界限。即使在法国，还没有一个广泛的反资本主义的意识，那么在其他欧洲国家，这种意识就可能更少了。
在希腊，情况有所不同，有着显著的前革命形势已经存在的内容。这反映在希腊资产阶级和它的国家彻底破产上，大规模的工人阶级和青年对他们的贫困状况的绝望以及他们准备斗争，这一点由到现在为止的三次总罢工所表明。这也反映在资本主义执政党——新民主党和前社会主义帕索克（PASOK） ——的完全的无能上以及相应的新的工人政党SYRIZA的上升上。这伴随着希腊面临的暗淡的经济前景。经济形势是如此的绝望，以至于评级机构穆迪已把它的经济降级，这可能预示着资本主义投资者将拒绝购买政府债券。这可能会导致经济崩溃，反过来，可以看到希腊离开或将被逐出欧元区。
它也可能预示着一系列的部分甚至彻底的国家破产，如在20世纪30年代在欧洲和新殖民主义的地区，如拉丁美洲那样。如果债券交易商开始进行罢商并拒绝购买政府债券，西班牙、葡萄牙甚至爱尔兰将轻而易举地加入希腊的行列。面对这种情况，统治阶级将毫不犹豫地诉诸措施更野蛮地攻击工人阶级的工资和生存条件。在这种腐朽的资本主义情况下工人阶级的生存条件就像一个人处在只是为了保持它的位置而疯狂地向下运行的自动扶梯上。
名誉扫地的资本主义
资本主义的理论家相当平静和'冷静'地辩称通货紧缩（与价格上升的通货膨胀相对，价格下降，消减生产和大规模失业）的优点为维护自己的地位的最佳途径。通货紧缩和通货膨胀是资本主义硬币的两面，而且往往要工人阶级为此付出。金融时报的一位作家道出了这个秘密，他冷静宣称公司将受益于通货膨胀，因为部分债务将消失，那些有着固定利息之债务的公司将受益。另一方面： “更高的通货膨胀比其他情况更能让越来越多的公司和工人同意削减实际工资。这既对目前缺乏竞争力的公司有益，而且是[资本主义]社会所热衷的，因为减薪比失业更公平“ 。换言之，工人阶级必须付出，即使牺牲工人阶级的利益为代价，利润如果不增加也必须保持。
显然，资本主义和它一起的工人阶级已进入了一个残酷的新时代。极其重要的问题是如何缩小潜在的资本主义旷日持久的危机的客观形势（实际上是一系列的危机）和如何使得意大利青年的口号：'我们不会承担你们的危机'更为具体化之间的鸿沟。这里涉及的是——正如最近的英国炼油厂的罢工和在Cowley用一个小时看完的通知解雇850名工人而爆发出来的愤怒——需要形成一个战斗的纲领。显然，从过时的资本主义向社会主义新社会的总的改变必须完成。
这场危机是卡尔马克思所描述并被过去一段时间的压倒性多数的'明智'的洞见所嘲弄的经济繁荣和萧条的资本主义的经济周期的准确性的证明。在资本主义框架内不平等更是无法克服的，连克努特（Canute）也不能扭转乾坤。不平等是资本主义的实质内容并清楚地显示了工人和资本家之间的关系。正如马克思指出的那样，资本家购买工人阶级的劳动力，以便剥削它。工人阶级只取回了他们新创造的价值的一部分，其余是无酬劳动，即被资本家所攫取的利润。正如托洛茨基指出的，阶级斗争仅仅是分配剩余产品的斗争。这种剩余产品越是被剥夺——尤其是当利润停滞或下降时，如目前的情况——阶级斗争就越加激烈。在这种情况下工人阶级在取得新的胜利之前首先要做的是必须有决心抵制资本的冲击，捍卫所有过去斗争取得的成果。
与资产阶级辩护士所认为的相反，资本主义，特别是在其新自由主义的阶段，即不是最好的也不是最有效的最大限度地提高生产和有效地向世界各国人民分配产品的手段。尤其在柏林墙倒塌后，资本主义是个无懈可击的而且不易于突然崩坏的系统的想法很是普遍，现在却是完全不足为信。不用只看拥有工人阶级自己'品质'的期刊，连捍卫资本主义的辩护士们也承认了这一点： “保守派...其实相信资本主义制度。任何了解资本主义的人都知道，资本主义不时地失败。保守的经济学教义认为经济衰退更象天气。有可能减轻其影响，但不可能改变其性质。 “ （Peter Oborne, ，每日邮报的右翼政治专栏作家。 ）
过渡办法
没有提到美好未来：如果资本主义崩溃，我们工人阶级必须为此埋单。这是Oborne的暴风雨天气情况的本质，在这个世界中，国家是资本主义的保护伞，而工人以大规模失业的形式溺沉下去。我们不打算埋单，我们需要完全更人道的制度。社会主义必须是工人阶级的政策。新闻周刊甚至宣布： “我们现在都是社会主义者” 。不幸的是，这还不是绝大多数这一制度受害者的工人阶级和穷人的情况。因此，在社会主义者和马克思主义者的纲领中要求把民主、社会主义计划经济作为至高无上的理念，有必要在目前的情况下提出战斗的过渡性要求。
在1914年前的社会民主主义中，人们认为这种做法是不必要的。它的纲领被划分成社会主义思想的最高纲领和最低的日常刚要。这决定性的变化发生在导致在俄罗斯革命爆发和由1917年革命引爆的整个世界和欧洲的群众斗争和革命的浪潮的第一次世界大战开始后。在这种变化的形势下，争取基本的改革，甚至捍卫过去的成果都以直接对抗资本主义制度本身的有限性的形式提出来。布尔什维克因此制定了一项过渡纲领作为桥梁——考虑到工人阶级日常的要求——从现有的意识到社会主义革命的思想。即使在俄国革命时期，这也是必要的，因为工人阶级不同部分的不同的和不断变化的观点。这在列宁的出色的小册子《大难临头，出路何在？》中得到了总结。
追随列宁的脚步，托洛茨基为革命的第四次国际制定了过渡纲领：垂死的资本主义和第四次国际的任务。这在1938年托洛茨基正确预计将发生毁灭性的世界大战前夕被采用。灾难中将爆发革命性的浪潮而且在这一进程中过渡纲领以及它的诉求可以发挥关键作用。一股革命性浪潮的确到来了，但社会民主党和斯大林主义在战后的局势下介入并拯救了资本主义。反过来，这为发达国家1950年至1975年的繁荣或者说壮观的经济烟花奠定了政治前提条件。因此，托洛茨基的思想由革命性的时代塑造出来，但在这一时期从来没有实现。
有些组织，例如，社会主义工人党(SWP)，因此放弃了过渡纲领和过渡办法。我们捍卫托洛茨基的方法，但认识到，有必要因繁荣所代表的不同的条件而修改一些具体的要求。然而，世界各地，欧洲和英国工人运动当前所面临的形势意味着这种做法，如果不是1938年所有的要求，在目前的斗争中是至关重要的。事实上，现在，这比1938年撰写时更具有现实性，因为发展着的条件与预期的阶段是类似的。托洛茨基要求，例如，面对着风行的大规模失业，需要“工作或所有的生活费用”。我们今天需求，“有益的工作，或者生活收入”。工人阶级拒绝承担这一危机。让老板支付！如果他们不能保证工人阶级最大限度的存在，我们供养不起他们的制度！
国有化
在此爆发性期间，有必要在工资水平和条件上而且还涉及政府的作为或不作为上争取工人阶级的部分要求。一个恰当的例子是针对银行的冒火的愤怒，而不只是针对卷入其中的骗子，如Bernard Madoff 和 Allen Stanford，而是针对使自己的工业破产并威胁把整个社会包括工人阶级推向深渊的整个资产阶级。他们允许国家介入以通过大规模的救助来拯救他们。然而，失败的右翼共和党总统候选人参议员麦凯恩远为不感激。他把国家债务的增加描述为“窃子孙财者” 。但是，那不是他的法宝，前右翼副总统切尼宣称， “里根[美国政府]证明赤字没有问题” ？但它仍未阻止麦凯恩，连同其他共和党人，考虑全面国有化银行。
资本主义的政客可以接受国家救援，只要它是完全沿着资本主义的路线并带有今后归还'国有化'行业到完全相同的起初破坏它们的私人口袋里的前景。英国的一些评论家设想，银行国有化并继续留在国有部门估计九年。
虚伪的麦凯恩和他的动人的对后代的关心掩盖了伊拉克战争的巨大的开支，可能总计3万亿美元，他是完全支持这个军事开支的。麦道夫（Madoff）的腐败和通过'私有化'建筑业'来提取政府现金用于重建伊拉克一样无关紧要。帕特里克•科伯恩独立评论说： “入侵之后真正掠夺伊拉克的是美国官员而不是巴格达的贫民窟” 。在一个案例中，为政府审计的工作人员说， “五千七百八十万美元以'一袋一袋的百元美钞'送往把自己拍摄在成堆的钱旁边的伊拉克中南部监查官手里” 。虽然抢劫的程度可能永远不会为人所知了，多达一千二百五十亿美元（八百八拾亿英镑）已经消失。这只是不仅在美国而且在世界各地的资本家利用国家作为一个巨大的摇钱树的方式的一个例子。
特别是在英国和美国，所需要的不是救助银行家，而是救助工人阶级和中产阶级。甚至国有化的要求也不似过去阶段那样受欢迎——因为它针对的是应该为混乱负责的银行家 奥巴马和布朗政府可能被迫实施之，尽管这并不合他们的胃口。这是因为迄今在英国和事实上在美国的部分国有化的经验已经与大众的意见疏远。这些部分国有企业的董事会仍然保留着未变守旧的资本主义性质。目前还没有类似于1948年由工党政府接管煤矿时的悬挂红旗和工人阶级对未来满怀希望的庆祝活动。这是因为，例如， 北岩银行的国家收购的特点是增加收回房屋，解雇4000名工人，后来，负责这家银行的资本价们依然保有巨额的奖金。这是国家资本主义的一种形式，而不是步向过去工党中改革派社会主义者所鼓吹的社会主义方向，当时工党基本上是一个工人政党。
需要民主计划
另一方面，'市场'别无选择。在英国， 1999年，例如，有三分之二的就业机会并不是非常自诩的私营企业而是国有部门创造的。这本身就是资本主义破产的一种承认。此外，私营工业的结构根本不是市场的支持者所爱的'知识界精华'的例子。危机的影响是如此具有痉挛性以至于越来越多的作者揭示了资本主义条件和管理的真正性质，这是新自由主义的一个内在组成部分。例如，观察者中的Simon Caulkin把大型企业的结构——包括英国电信，已透露政府有可能计划在它发生崩溃的情况下重新国有化——比作带有很多斯大林主义镜像而不象一个理想的资本主义企业的东西。据他的说法，它们 “结构上是僵尸般的特征和战略性上和斯大林主义具有相似性”。
他宣称这种管理相当粗暴： “他们热脸对主要的行政长官而把冷屁股对着客户”，很多管理者更关心的是利润指标而不是生产有价值的产品。世界上最有效的按照惯例管理的公司通用电气用40 ％的收入 ——也就是说，六百亿美元——于管理层的收入和福利...西方大公司的管理层和命令经济的政治组织比人们所承认的有更多的共同点 。接管这些公司并建立一个工人控制管理并实施社会主义计划经济的制度将是多么地便宜和有效率！
Caulkin的文章即是对马克思的论点的让步，即即使资本主义工厂的内部管理——马克思讲的是19世纪的状况——是计划的一个例子。马克思说，工厂体系应用于整个经济和世界，将描绘出通过消除市场实现民主的社会主义计划的样态。现在，具有讽刺意味的是，大公司——垄断——有着前苏联路线中头重脚轻的官僚作风。解决方法不在于斯大林主义或资本主义'市场' ，而是民主的社会主义的计划。这就需要工会和工人阶级组织，小商人等的代表参与监督，以便告知劳动者实际情况并相应地筹备实现这样一个计划。
为鸿沟搭起桥梁
由工人阶级群众混合意识构成的时代，需要一个过渡纲领。随着事件的推进，这种意识将动摇和改变。但是，过渡办法和过渡纲领——通过与时俱进的并充满着工人阶级本身的斗争经验的托洛茨基的方法可以首先在政治上最先进的阶层，然后是工人阶级群众中发展出完整的社会主义意识方面起到极大地促进作用。这为今天劳动者的意识和社会主义变革思想架起了桥梁。 宗派主义不需要这样一个桥梁，因为他们不打算通过学习，扶助或兼职同工人阶级连接起来并和她一起用社会主义帮助改变意识和增强阶级认同。
对世界，欧洲和英国的工人阶级而言，我们已经进入一个全新的时期。即使奥巴马设法通过刺激方案在世界和美国的资本主义底部放置部分缓冲垫——可是这根本是不确定的——这一危机激起的情势将完全不同于开始之前的情势。世界经济充其量将经历顽固地维持着大规模失业的贫血般的增长。这就像身体中的脂肪组织，是一种衰退的有机体症状。但资本主义不会自动地从历史舞台上消失。有必要建立一个强有力的群众武备，该武备将帮助提高工人阶级群众的理解水平——在过渡纲领的帮助下——从这个衰败的制度上为社会主义开辟道路提供帮助。
如果没有这样一种做法，即使面对目前的经济灾难，有一个对劳动人民来说不会立即明朗化的危险，什么是可行的替代办法。例如，在汽车行业，由于大规模裁员，工资被大幅削减，工人们有一种本能的想法，即他们目前的产品“没有市场”。但是，由于高级技术和技能的存在，将能够花很少的力气来转换汽车产业，由面临着巨大的生产过剩和供过于求的市场转向生产有用的产品，包括绿色，环保车辆。这些都是世界人口的迫切需要，即需要一个可持续的，环保化的运输系统。第二次世界大战爆发时出现了生产上的这种转变，但鉴于今天资本主义的混乱，这完全是不可能的。这样就提出了一个社会主义社会替代的要求。
下一阶段，日益恶化的客观形势和工人阶级意识之间的鸿沟将缩小。事件——而且是爆炸性的事件——将有助于确保这一点。在深渊的边缘，工人大众将面对这个资本主义制度——有时没有明确的什么可以替代它的想法。然而，如果工人阶级信奉那社会主义理念和日常斗争连接起来的过渡方式和过渡纲领，走向社会主义和革命意识之路将大大地缩短，而且痛苦少得多。
向资本主义危机置于工人们肩上的负担说不！向大规模的失业特别是新的一代要永远接受失业救济金的可怕的前景说不。用由工人阶级，工会，小商人等代表参与的民主的和社会主义的组织方式把银行国有化，民主的社会主义国家部门本身将提出进一步国有化的问题，其中包括掌握经济命脉的国有化。在这条道路上，将提供给工人阶级群众以抵抗没有出路的停滞的腐朽的资本主义世界的希望。
23 February 2009
CWI Analysis
From March edition of Socialism Today, magazine of the Socialist Party (CWI in England and Wales)
pdf version
How to fight the economic crisis
Capitalist crisis, mass consciousness and a socialist programme
Peter Taaffe, CWI
How can working-class people fight the effects of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s? Mass lay-offs are already a feature in the major capitalist countries and around the world. The bosses and their governments are on the offensive to make the working class, and large sections of the middle classes, pay for the catastrophe they have created.
World capitalism is in a blind alley and its serious representatives see no quick exit. Take your pick; from the gloomy prognostications for the economy from Alistair Darling, British Chancellor of the Exchequer – ‘the worst for 60 years’ – to Ed Balls, schools cabinet minister in the New Labour government, who says it is the worst in 100 years! Most capitalist commentators now agree with our analysis, that at the very least, this is the worst economic crisis since the great depression of the 1930s and may yet exceed it.
In a sense, this crisis is potentially even worse than then. The extent of capitalist globalisation, which led to this crash,, is much wider and deeper than existed in the so-called ‘gilded age’ before 1929. For this reason, it is already the most internationalised, generalised economic crisis in history. The US, western Europe, Japan, eastern Europe, Russia, Asia, Australasia and Latin America; all have been caught up in the downward economic whirlpool. It has certainly developed at a speed and with a severity that exceeds even the initial phases of the 1930s depression.
The crisis then began in the stock exchanges, spreading to the financial sector and inexorably into the so-called ‘real economy’. Today’s crisis was triggered by the financial meltdown, fed into industry, and now has fed back into the financial sector. But 1929’s full effects were only felt over time – in the case of France, two or three years after – whereas this crisis has struck with a speed and severity that has terrified, if not demoralized, the representatives of world capitalism. What took three years in 1929 could now unfold in a year.
This crisis is marked by overproduction; a glut of goods, which the bosses are trying to solve through mass unemployment of the working class. But it is also leading to ‘overproduction’ even amongst sections of the middle class, who are being ejected from workplaces alongside workers. In other words, the proletarianisation of the intermediate layers, a feature of capitalism even during the boom, is taking a qualitative step forward. This in turn undermines the social reserves of capitalism.
Capitulation by workers’ organisations
The capitalists are trembling at the social consequences of further economic implosions to come. Their only consolation is that they face no organised challenge from the working class, because of the political beheading of the former workers’ organisations, at the hands of leaders like Tony Blair in Britain and their social-democratic cousins in Europe and elsewhere. They went over lock, stock and barrel to the side of the bourgeoisie in the aftermath of the collapse of Stalinism and the ideological, pro-capitalist tsunami that ensued. The result is that the mass of working-class people are politically disarmed in the teeth of the greatest challenge to their hard-won rights and conditions in living memory.
Without leadership and organisation when the capitalists have used the cover of the crisis to put the boot in, mass anger has poured out spontaneously both in the factories and onto the streets. This happened in Ireland as the government sought to eliminate health benefits for the elderly. It was followed by angry protests including occupations or threats to do so at Waterford Crystal and Dell, as brutal capital shut down whole factories with as little difficulty as shutting a matchbox. The same outrageous scenes were seen in the ending of the weekend shift at BMW’s Mini plant in Cowley, Oxford, which provoked unprecedented protests including fist fights between workers and supervisors. However, for this elemental revolt of the working class to lead to a sustained movement, what is required is a clear programme, including fighting slogans, and organisation.
The capitulation, also shared by the trade union leaders, actually helped to reinforce the brutal imposition of neo-liberal policies on the working class and the poor worldwide. The bourgeoisie, no longer forced to look over its shoulder at an organised working class or fearful of a labour movement revolt, was therefore unrestrained in the mad dash towards unregulated capitalism. The former leaders of the workers’ organisations proved to be a fifth wheel in the chariot of neo-liberalism. The complete pusillanimity of the union leaders is evident in the capitulation to the bosses and their governments as the latter seek to unload responsibility for this crisis on to the shoulders of the working class and poor.
The masses are quite clear who are responsible. In Italy, the students, a barometer of what is developing from below, have chanted on demonstrations: ‘We will not pay for your crisis’. What a contrast to the belly-crawling attitude of the trade union leaders as factories close down around the ears of the working class and all that we hear from the summits of the labour movement is the need for ‘shared sacrifices’. Leon Trotsky wrote in the 1930s that the crisis facing the working class, indeed humanity, was summed up in the crisis of leadership of the workers’ organisations. The difference today, however, is that we face not just a crisis of leadership but also of organisation, or the lack of it, for the working class as well as a clear programme.
Never in history has the gap – the ‘scissors’ – between the objective situation of capitalism in crisis and the outlook of the working class, its absence of organisation, particularly political mass parties, been so evident. Given the relentless propaganda barrage, the reality of neo-liberal policies over 30 years and the absence of a political and economic alternative, it is inevitable that there is still, despite the severity of the crash, a residual acquiescence to the ‘market’, even amongst the working class. Many are stunned by the economic collapse. There is even a lingering view amongst many workers that the present crisis is temporary, that it will all be over by the end of next year, at the latest, and we can then return to the sunny, economic uplands.
Bleak economic outlook
These illusions are fostered by the ‘popular’ press and one wing of bourgeois economists and commentators. However, another section has drawn the conclusion that this time the party is really over. For instance, Sean O’Grady of The Independent declared bluntly in January: “High unemployment is here to stay”. In America’s great depression, unemployment did not regain its level of 1929 until 1943 when the US economy was being dragged out of the economic mire by the devastating second world war. This puts in perspective the efforts of the Obama presidency as it seeks to wrestle with the avalanche of job cuts and redundancies which are rising by 600,000 a month. Unemployment in the US and Britain could touch 10% of the workforce in the next year or so, the effects of which in the modern context are akin to a depression.
If anything, the position is even worse in other parts of the world, paradoxically particularly in parts of Europe which were supposed to be immune. The pronouncements of the European Central Bank that the eurozone would escape the worst effects of the virus emanating from the US economy have turned to ashes. The continent has joined the general implosion of world capitalism, as has Japan. The latest forecasts for the latter are that gross domestic product could plunge by almost 10%. The great export-orientated machine of Japan is grinding to a halt, dropping by 3.3% in the last three months of 2008, an annualised rate of 12.7%. It has been joined by Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe, while the lesser powers of the continent – Ireland, Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Britain – risk following Iceland into national bankruptcy.
For the masses, it is as if it is warm and sunny one day and bleak, dark winter the next, without the transition of autumn. The fate of Spain which, along with Ireland, went further than most in an orgy of a debt-fuelled construction and housing boom, is summed up by the story of Zaragoza, featured in the Observer in February. The collapse of the building boom means that unemployment has rocketed in the city by 75% in a year. Spain could see unemployment shooting up from an already unacceptable 14% (3.3 million workers) to 20% by the end of this year. The working class is furious that it will bear the burden, with protesters coming out onto the streets in tens of thousands demanding ‘Strike! Strike! Strike!’
Spain is just one example of what could happen to a series of countries, including Britain, which in time will provoke revolutionary explosions. If a conscious lead is not given then riots will ensue with a section of young people even possibly seduced into taking to the road of terrorism, which is a complete blind alley. The explosive events in Greece revealed that anarchistic and terroristic moods amongst a small section would be evident at a certain stage. Mass action, freed from the paralysing influence of opportunist leaders, is the only way forward.
British oil refinery strikes: confusion and clarity
An expression of the indignation was contained even in the eruption of strikes from below of the construction workers in the oil refineries and power stations in Britain. This was a laboratory test in measuring the consciousness of the working class and how different political trends faced up to this. Given the dark night of neo-liberalism, it would be entirely utopian not to expect that elements of nationalism and even racism would be present in the consciousness of some workers, in some instances perhaps the majority. This, however, was not the case in this dispute as we have demonstrated in our weekly paper, The Socialist. It was, in essence, a strike against the capitalist ‘race to the bottom’ to impose slave labour rates, orchestrated by the bosses on a European scale through the anti-working class legislation, the European Posted Workers Directive, and the EU itself.
This was skewed in the minds of some workers towards nationalism, expressed through ‘British jobs for British workers’. This was coined originally by prime minister Gordon Brown in a New Labour conference speech, in an attempt to outflank the far-right British National Party (BNP). Without clear guidance from the leadership, such an initial reaction of the workers, not just in Britain but elsewhere, is no surprise. But this was a minor feature of the strike, and was soon cut across by the intervention of more conscious socialists, particularly from the Socialist Party, who fought for the same rights, wages and conditions for migrant workers. In the Russian revolution, the tsarist general staff feared the presence of one Bolshevik who could act as a ‘crystal in a saturated solution’, as Trotsky put it, capable in a heated atmosphere of drawing the majority to its side. We witnessed something similar in this strike with socialists and Marxists, some from the Socialist Party, completely cutting across any elements of nationalism or racism. Clear solidarity was expressed with the migrant workers including the printing of a leaflet in Italian and a resolute demand for all workers to receive the rate for the job.
Predictably, some far-left groups without a real presence or even an ear to the real moods of the workers in this strike took a completely false position. The Socialist Workers Party (SWP), for instance, concentrated on criticism and emphasised ‘British jobs for British workers’ as the main feature of the strike. Pushed aside was the fact that the BNP members who turned up on the picket line were driven off by the workers. Moreover, the strike magnificently achieved an element of workers’ control and trade union involvement in the allocation of new jobs. Of course, one swallow does not make a summer but the workers in this industry and elsewhere now have a living example of how to fight in defence of workers’ living standards and, at the same time, overcome national or racial divisions in a complicated situation and actually secure a victory for the working class.
In the aftermath of the strike, the ‘conciliation’ service has concluded that the foreign-contracted workers did not receive lower rates than the British workers. This is not true, but what is entirely forgotten is that agency workers formally may sometimes receive the same as ‘domestic’ or permanent workers in their weekly or monthly wage rates. But they do not receive payments for breaks, holidays or the overheads which the bosses worldwide are trying to wipe out as a means of boosting their profitability. The same applies in this dispute. This has been covered over by ACAS and acquiesced to by the full-time trade union officials who did not exactly cover themselves in glory while the strike was on, being concerned to distance themselves from unofficial action which might fall foul of Britain’s draconian anti-union laws. This dispute primarily emphasised the positive outcome and saw the secondary features of nationalism swept aside by a combination of the experience of the workers in struggle and the intervention of socialists and Marxists.
Most of the far-left groups have no perception of how a mass movement will evolve, particularly given the character of the last period. This will not be in a perfectly rounded-out fashion but, as Oliver Cromwell described himself, with ‘warts and all’. If these ultra-lefts had been present at the beginning of the 1905 Russian revolution, their starting point would have been, no doubt, to condemn Father Gapon, the priest who initially led the masses in the first demonstration under the tsarist flag, with a petition to the ‘Little Father’, the tsar. In contradistinction to Vladimir Lenin who urged participation in the movement and even discussed and collaborated in the initial phases of the revolution with Gapon, they would have demanded that the priest be removed from the demonstration as a precondition for their participation! How would they have reacted to James Larkin organising mass demonstrations of Catholic and Protestant workers in 1907 with Orange and Green bands in the common struggle against the bosses?
While making no concessions to racial or national prejudices, it is necessary, above all because of the period we have just passed through, for socialists to approach the existing political outlook of the working class in a skilful fashion. We do not have the luxury of the Russian sage who answered the question, ‘How do I get to Moscow?’ by answering, ‘I would not start from here if I was you’. The working class, particularly after a period of alleged social peace, never emerges into struggle fully formed, like Minerva from the head of Jupiter.
Bitter class hatred
There is a gathering rage within the working class, signified by the semi-insurrectionary mood in Greece last year and the colossal anti-Sarkozy strikes which convulsed France on 29 January. Not so long ago, Nicolas Sarkozy jeered that, despite his attacks on the French workers and the youth, ‘where are the strikes?’ He was given his answer in the elemental revolt indicated by these strikes, which far exceeded in scope and turnout on demonstrations what was anticipated even by the organisers in the trade union leadership. Over two million workers flooded the streets of the cities of France. Sarkozy, sensing the underlying explosive mood before the strikes, immediately gave concessions to the school students as a means of heading off the movement. This did not prevent the strikes taking place, which indicated a whiff of 1968 itself.
There are, however, even in France, which is still politically in the vanguard of the workers’ movement in Europe, important differences in the outlook of the French working class between 1968 and now. Paradoxically, the economic situation is far worse for capitalism today than it was in 1968 when the greatest general strike in history took place against the background of a continuing boom. Then, there was a broad socialist and even a revolutionary consciousness amongst workers and students. Given what has transpired in the last three decades combined, as we have pointed out, with the capitulation of the leaders of the workers’ organisations to capitalism, the mood is bound to lag behind that of 1968. There is a mixed outlook and a certain political confusion.
There is, undoubtedly, generalized bitter class hatred throughout the advanced capitalist countries for those who are seen as the main authors of the present economic catastrophe, namely the financiers and bankers. Semi-public trials have unfolded in the British parliament and US Congress. The ire of the masses was expressed in France on the streets but, noticeably even here, was initially directed against the bankers and the figure of Sarkozy, despite his demagogic attempts to separate himself from the bankers. If even in France there is not yet a broad anti-capitalist consciousness, then it is perhaps even less the case in other European countries.
In Greece, the situation is somewhat different, with pronounced elements of a pre-revolutionary situation already present. This is reflected in the utter bankruptcy of the Greek bourgeoisie and its state, the desperation of the mass of the working class and the youth at their poverty-stricken condition and their preparedness to struggle, as shown in three general strikes to now. It is also reflected in the complete incapacity of the official parties of capitalism – New Democracy and the ex-socialist PASOK – and the corresponding rise of a new workers’ party, SYRIZA. This is combined with the bleak economic future facing Greece. So desperate is the economic situation that its economy has been downgraded by ratings agency Moody’s, which could presage a refusal to buy government debt by capitalist investors. This could lead to economic collapse and, in turn, could see Greece leave or be evicted from the eurozone.
It could also herald a series of partial or even outright national bankruptcies, as witnessed in the 1930s in Europe and neo-colonial regions such as Latin America. Greece could be joined very easily by Spain, Portugal and even Ireland if bond traders go on strike and refuse to buy government debt. Faced with this situation, the ruling class would unhesitatingly resort to even more savage measures attacking the wages and conditions of the working class. The conditions of the working class in this situation of decaying capitalism is like a man on a downward escalator frantically running just to maintain his position.
Discrediting capitalism
Quite calmly and ‘soberly’, the ideologues of capitalism debate the merits of deflation – falling prices, cuts in production and mass unemployment – versus inflation – an increase in prices – as the best means of preserving their position. Deflation and inflation are heads and tails of the same capitalist coin, and the working class is called on to pay. This was shown by one writer in the Financial Times who calmly declared that companies will benefit from inflation because a portion of the debt will disappear, benefitting those companies with fixed-interest debts. On the other hand: “Higher inflation allows more companies and workers to agree to real wage cuts than would otherwise be the case. This is both useful for those firms that are currently uncompetitive, and preferable for [capitalist] society, because wage cuts are more equitable than unemployment”. In other words, the working class must pay, profits must be maintained, if not increased, at the expense of the working class.
Clearly, capitalism and with it the working class have entered a brutal new era. The burning question is how to close the gap between the underlying objective situation, of the drawn-out crisis of capitalism, indeed a series of crises, and how to make concrete the slogan of the Italian youth: ‘We will not pay for your crisis’. What is involved here – as the recent strikes at the British refineries and the outburst of anger at at the summary dismissal of 850 workers with an hour’s notice show – is the need for a fighting programme. Obviously, the case for a general change from outmoded capitalism to a new socialist society has to be made.
This crisis is proof, if any were needed, that boom and bust, the economic cycle of capitalism described by Karl Marx and so derided by the overwhelming majority of ‘intellectual’ opinion in the past period, has reasserted its validity. Inequality can no more be overcome within the framework of capitalism than could Canute turn back the waves. Inequality is the essence of capitalism, revealed clearly in the relationship between the workers and the capitalists. As Marx pointed out, the capitalists buy the labour power of the working class in order to exploit it. The working class only receives back a portion of the new value it has created, the rest being unpaid labour, the profit that is garnered by the capitalists. The class struggle, as Trotsky pointed out, is nothing else but the struggle over the division of the surplus product. The more that this surplus product is fought over – particularly when profits stagnate or decline, as is the case now – the more intense the class struggle. The starting point of the working class in this situation must be a determination to resist the onslaught of capital, to defend all past gains, before going on to make new conquests.
Contrary to what the bourgeois ideologists argue, capitalism, particularly in its neo-liberal phase, is not the best nor the most efficient vehicle to maximise production and distribute products efficiently to the peoples of the world. The idea that capitalism was a seamless system, not subject to abrupt breakdowns, which was prevalent particularly following the collapse of the Berlin wall, is now utterly discredited. Tucked away from the gaze of the working class in their ‘quality’ journals, the defenders of capitalism admit this: “Conservatives… actually believe in the capitalist system. Anyone who understands capitalism knows that it is programmed to fail from time to time. Conservative economic teachings hold that recessions are much like the weather. It may be possible to mitigate its effects, but impossible to change its nature”. (Peter Oborne, right-wing political columnist for the Daily Mail.)
A transitional approach
No mention of a rosy future: if capitalism breaks down we, the working class, must pay. This is the essence of Oborne’s stormy weather scenario, a world in which the state is the umbrella for capitalism while the workers receive a soaking in the form of mass unemployment. We are not going to pay and we must demand an entirely more humane system. Socialism must be the policy of the working class. Even Newsweek declared: “We are all socialists now”. Unfortunately, this is not yet the case for the overwhelming majority of the victims of this system, the working class and the poor. Therefore, while demanding a democratic, socialist planned economy, as a crowning idea in the programme of socialists and Marxists, it is necessary to put forward fighting transitional demands in the current situation.
In pre-1914 social democracy, such an approach was considered unnecessary. Its programme was divided between a maximum programme, the idea of socialism, and a minimum day-to-day programme. That decisively changed with the onset of the first world war which led to the revolutionary explosions in Russia and the mass struggles and revolutionary waves which detonated in the aftermath of the 1917 revolution throughout Europe and the world. In this changed situation, the struggle for basic reforms and even the defence of past gains, came up directly against the limits of the system of capitalism itself. The Bolsheviks therefore formulated a transitional programme as a bridge – taking into account the day-to-day demands of the working class – from the existing level of consciousness to the idea of the socialist revolution. This was necessary even during the Russian revolution because of the differing and changing outlooks of the different sections of the working class. This was summed up in Lenin’s wonderful pamphlet, The Threatening Catastrophe and How to Avoid It.
Following in Lenin’s footsteps, Trotsky formulated for the revolutionary Fourth International the Transitional Programme: The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International. This was adopted in 1938 on the eve of what Trotsky correctly anticipated would be a devastating world war. Out of this conflagration would come a revolutionary wave and the transitional programme and its demands could play a key role in this process. A revolutionary wave did ensue but social democracy and Stalinism stepped in to save capitalism in the post-war situation. This in turn laid the political preconditions for the boom, the spectacular economic fireworks, which developed between 1950 and 1975. Consequently, Trotsky’s ideas, which were fashion ed for a revolutionary epoch, were never fully implemented in this period.
Some, like the SWP, therefore jettisoned both the transitional programme and the transitional approach. We defended Trotsky’s method but recognised that it was necessary to modify some of the demands for different conditions, which the boom represented. The current situation facing the workers’ movement in Britain, Europe and across the globe, however, means that this approach, if not all the demands of 1938, is now vital in the present struggle. In fact, it is more relevant now than when it was written in 1938 because the conditions which are developing are akin to the period anticipated. Trotsky demanded, for instance, ‘work or full maintenance’ in the teeth of endemic mass unemployment. We demand today, ‘useful work, or a living income’. The working class refuses to shoulder the burden of this crisis. Let the bosses pay! If they cannot guarantee a maximum existence for the working class, we can’t afford their system!
Nationalisation
It is also necessary in this explosive period to take up the partial demands of the working class both at the level of wages and conditions but also involving governmental action or inaction. A case in point is the burning anger directed against the banks, not just the crooks who have been caught, like Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford, but the whole fraternity who have bankrupted their own industry and threaten to drag the whole of society, including the working class, into the abyss. They have allowed the state to step in to rescue them through massive bailouts. Yet the defeated, right-wing Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, is far from grateful. He has described the increase in state debt as “generational theft”. But was it not his talisman, previous right-wing vice-president, Dick Cheney, who declared that “Reagan proved [US government] deficits don’t matter”? It has still not stopped McCain, along with other Republicans, from considering full nationalisation of the banks.
Capitalist politicians can accept state rescue, so long as it is then run completely along capitalist lines and with the prospect of returning the ‘nationalised’ industries in the future to the very same private interests which ruined them in the first place. Some commentators in Britain envisage that banks could be nationalised and remain in the state sector for an estimated nine years.
The hypocrisy of McCain and his touching concern for future generations is belied by the colossal expenditure on the Iraq war, probably $3 trillion in total, which he supported to the hilt. The corruption of Madoff is as nothing to the creaming off of government cash by the ‘privatised’ construction industry to ‘reconstruct Iraq’. Patrick Cockburn in the Independent commented: “The real looting of Iraq after the invasion was by US officials and not by the slums of Baghdad”. In one case, auditors working for the government said “that $57.8 million was sent in ‘pallet upon pallet of hundred-dollar bills’ to the US comptroller for south-central Iraq… who had himself photographed standing with the mound of money”. Although the extent of the robbery will probably never be known, up to $125 billion (£88bn) has simply disappeared. This is just one example of the way that the capitalists, not just in the US but world wide, use the state as a colossal milch cow.
The demand, in Britain and in the US in particular, is not for bailouts for the bankers but for the working and middle classes. Even the demand for nationalisation – because it is aimed at the bankers who are seen as responsible for the mess and which both Obama and the Brown government may be compelled to carry through despite its un palatability to them – is not as popular as in previous periods. This is because the experience of the partial nationalisation so far in Britain and de facto in the US has alienated mass public opinion. The boards of these partially nationalised companies remain unreconstructed capitalist in character. There were no celebrations similar to those which greeted the taking over of the mines in 1948 by the Labour government of the time, with the flying of red flags and big hopes for the future of the working class. This is because, for instance, Northern Rock’s state takeover was marked with increased repossessions of homes, the sacking of 4,000 workers and, latterly, lavish bonuses for some of the capitalist crew who remain in charge of this bank. This is a form of state capitalism, not a step in the direction of socialism, as advocated by even reformist socialists in the Labour Party in the past, when it was a workers’ party at bottom.
The need for democratic planning
On the other hand, the ‘market’ offers no alternative. In Britain in 1999, for instance, two thirds of jobs created were not in the much-vaunted ‘entrepreneurial’ private sector but were in the state sector. This itself is a confession of bankruptcy by capitalism. Moreover, the structures in private industry are not at all an example of the ‘meritocracy’ beloved of the upholders of the market. Indeed, so convulsive have been the effects of the crisis that more and more capitalist writers have revealed the real character of the conditions and management which are such an intrinsic part of neo-liberalism. For instance, Simon Caulkin in the Observer compares the structure of big business – including British Telecom, which the government, it has been leaked, has contingency plans to renationalise in the event of its collapse – as more of a mirror image of Stalinism than a prettified picture of an ideal capitalist firm. They are, according to him, “zombie-like in their structural and strategic similarity” with Stalinism.
Rather rudely, he declares of management: “With their faces towards the [chief executive officer] and their arses towards the customer” most managers are more concerned with earnings targets than producing a worthwhile product. The world’s most efficient, conventionally managed corporation, General Electric, “spends 40% – that is, $60 billion – of its revenues on administration and overheads… The managers of large western corporations have much more in common with the apparatchiks of the command economies than is recognised”. How much cheaper and efficient it would be to take over these firms, establish a system of workers’ control and management, and install a socialist planned economy!
Caulkin’s article is both a concession to Marx’s argument that the internal management of even a capitalist factory – Marx was speaking about the conditions of the nineteenth century – was an example of planning. The factory system, Marx said, applied to the economy and the world as a whole, would represent democratic socialist planning through the elimination of the market. Now, ironically, giant corporations – monopolies – have a top-heavy bureaucracy on the lines of the former Soviet Union. The solution lies not with Stalinism or with the capitalist ‘market’ but with democratic socialist planning. This requires the opening of the books for inspection by representatives of the unions and working-class organisations, small businesspeople, etc, in order to inform working people of what is the real situation as a preparatory step for realising such a plan.
Bridging the gap
The need for a transitional programme in this era arises from the mixed consciousness of working-class people. This consciousness will be shaken and changed by the march of events. But the development of a rounded-out socialist consciousness, firstly of the most politically developed layers and then of the mass of the working class, can also be enormously facilitated by a transitional approach and a transitional programme – by adopting the method of Leon Trotsky brought up to date and filled out by the experience of the working class itself in struggle. This provides the bridge from the consciousness of working people today to the idea of socialist change. Sectarians have no need for such a bridge because they have no intention of passing over from the study, armchair or sideline to engage with the working class and, together with it, helping to change consciousness and increasing identification with socialism.
We have entered an entirely new period for the working class of Britain, Europe and the world. Even if Obama manages to put a partial cushion under US capitalism and thereby the world through stimulus programmes – and this is not at all certain – the situation that will arise from this crisis will be entirely different than the one before its onset. At best, the world economy will experience anaemic growth with the stubborn maintenance of mass unemployment. This, like fatty tissue in the body, is a symptom of a declining organism. Capitalism, however, will not disappear from the scene of history automatically. It is necessary to forge a powerful mass weapon which will be assisted by raising the level of understanding of working-class people – helped by a transitional programme – which can provide the helping hand for this failed system to make way for socialism.
Without such an approach, there is the danger that it will not be immediately evident to working people, even faced with the present economic catastrophe, what is the viable alternative. In the car industry, for instance, where wages have been slashed due to mass layoffs, there is an instinctive understanding by workers that there is ‘no market’ for their present products. But, given the high technique and skill that exists, it would take very little to convert the car industry, with a market faced with massive overproduction and a glut, to the production of useful goods, including green, environmentally-friendly vehicles. These are urgently needed for the world’s population, in the context of a sustainable, environmentally-friendly transport system. Such a switch in production was achieved at the outbreak of the second world war but is frankly impossible given the chaos of capitalism today. This does, however, pose the demand for an alternative socialist society.
The gap between the increasingly worsening objective situation and the consciousness of the working class will close in the next period. Events – and explosive events at that – will help to ensure this. On the edge of an abyss, the mass of workers will confront the capitalist system – sometimes without a clear idea of what can be put in its place. The journey to a socialist and revolutionary consciousness will, however, be shortened considerably, the pain much less, if the working class embraces the transitional method and a transitional programme linking day-to-day struggles with the idea of socialism.
No to any burdens of the crisis of capitalism being placed on the backs of workers! No to mass unemployment, particularly the frightening prospect of a new generation being permanently on the dole. Nationalise the banks but with democratic, socialist forms of organisation, including the involvement of representatives of the working class, unions, small businesspeople, etc. A democratic socialist state sector will itself pose the issue of going further towards more nationalisation, encompassing the commanding heights of the economy. On this road, hope is offered to working-class people against the dead-end of stagnating, decaying world capitalism.
资本主义的危机，群众意识和社会主义刚要
彼得•塔菲，工人国际委员会
工人阶级能如何应对1930年以来最严重的经济危机的影响呢？大规模的裁员已经成为主要资本主义国家和整个世界面貌的一部分。老板和他们的政府都在进攻以便促使工人阶级和大部份的中产阶级来承担他们导致的灾难。
世界资本主义处在一条死胡同里而且它的严肃的代表们看不到迅速出离的前景。您可以选择各种预测;从英国财政大臣阿利斯泰尔•达林（Alistair Darling）对经济的60年来最糟糕的悲观预言到英国新工党政府的内阁大臣埃德•鲍尔斯的这是100年来最糟糕的说法！资本主义评论家现在同意我们的分析，至少认为这是1930年大萧条以来的最严重的经济危机，甚至还可能超过它。
从某种意义上说，这一危机有可能比那时更糟糕。资本主义全球化的扩展使得这次冲击比1929年前所谓的'镀金时代'时存在的冲击更广泛和更深远。出于这个原因，它已经成为历史上最国际化和最普遍的经济危机。美国，西欧，日本，东欧，俄罗斯，亚洲，大洋洲和拉丁美洲，全部卷入了经济下降的漩涡。它肯定以一定速度并且伴随着比1930年大萧条的最初阶段更甚的严重性发展着。
1929年的那场危机肇始于股票交易所，扩展到金融部门，并无情地扩展到所谓的“实体经济”。今天的危机是由金融垮台所引发的，进而到工业，现在又重新返回到金融部门。但是1929年危机的全面影响只有在一段时间后才能感觉到——在法国的情况下，两年或三年之后——而这一危机以其即使不算令人意志消沉但也是很吓人的速度和严重性击向世界资本主义的代表。1929年需要用三年时间而现在一年里就可能呈现出来。
这一危机的特点是生产过剩，供过于求的商品，老板正在努力通过使工人阶级大规模失业来解决这种生产过剩。但是，这甚至也导致中产阶级的'过剩'，他们和工人一起被逐出工作场所。换言之，中间阶层的无产阶级化，即使在资本主义繁荣期，这个特征就表现出来了，而现在这一趋势正以实质性的步伐推进着。这反过来又破坏了资本主义的社会基础。
工人组织的投降
资本家在将出现的进一步经济内爆的社会后果面前颤抖着。他们唯一值得安慰的是由于前工人组织在象英国首相布莱尔和他们的欧洲和其他地方的堂兄弟社会民主党这样的领导人手里政治上被枭除，他们没有面临来自工人阶级的有组织的挑战。斯大林主义崩溃以及接踵而至的意识形态上亲资本主义的海啸的冲击，他们全部靠向资产阶级一边。结果是，工人阶级中大量工人面对着所能记住的来之不易的权利和社会地位受到最大的挑战时在政治上解除了武装。
当资本家以危机为借口打击工人阶级的利益时，由于缺乏领导和组织，群众的怒火自发地涌向工厂和街头。 政府设法消除老人的保健福利，这发生在爱尔兰，紧接着是愤怒抗议，包括因为残酷的资本家象关闭火柴盒那样轻易地关闭整个工厂，在Waterford Crystal and Dell发生了占领公司或威胁这样做的举动。同样残暴场面出现在上周末结束时在考利、牛津的宝马迷你工厂的转变，这挑起了前所未有的抗议，出现了工人和主管人之间的拳头相向。然而，这一导致持续的运动的工人阶级基本的反抗所需要的是一个明确的刚要，其中包括战斗口号和组织。
这种投降，工会领导人同样有着这样的投降行为，实际上有助于强迫世界各地的工人阶级和穷人接受这个残酷的新自由主义政策。资产阶级不再需要照顾到一个有组织的工人阶级的要求或害怕工人运动的反抗，因此可以无节制地疯狂冲向无管制的资本主义。人们视工人组织的前领导人为新自由主义战车上的基本不发挥作用的第五个轮子。工会领导人完全的优柔寡断显然在向老板和他们的政府投降，因为后者试图推卸这一危机的责任到工人阶级和穷人的身上。
人民群众很清楚谁当为此负责。在意大利，作为底层正在发生什么的晴雨表，学生示威高喊： '我们不会为你们的危机而买单' 。形成鲜明对比的是当工厂在工人阶级的眼皮底下关闭的情况下，工会领导人展示出的趴在地上投降的态度以及所有我们从劳工运动高层那里听到的是需要'共渡时艰'的烂调 。20世纪30年代托洛茨基写道工人阶级，甚至人类面临的危机总而言之是工人组织领导能力的危机。然而，今天不同的是我们面临的不仅是领导能力的危机而且还是一个组织层面的或者缺乏工人阶级组织以及明确的刚要的危机。
历史上从来没有过这样的鸿沟——'剪刀差' ——资本主义危机的客观形势和工人阶级缺乏组织，特别是群众性政党的前景之间的已十分明显的鸿沟。由于无情的宣传屏障， 30多年来新自由主义政策的现实以及没有政治和经济的可选择性，尽管经济危机的冲击很严重，对'市场'的不可避免残留的默许依然存在着，即使在工人阶级之间。虽然许多人震惊于经济崩溃。许多工人中间甚至还有人依然有着根深蒂固的想法认为当前的危机是暂时的，到明年年底就将结束，迟早我们可以返回到晴朗的经济高地。
暗淡的经济前景
'大众'媒体和资产阶级经济学家和评论家中的一翼仍抱有这些幻想。但是，另一部分已经得出结论，这一次真的是盛宴不再。举例来说，无党派者肖恩•奥•格雷迪1月直言宣布： “高失业率逗留不去。 ”在美国大萧条期间，失业率并没有恢复到它的1929年的水平，直到1943年通过破坏性的第二次世界大战，美国经济才走出经济的泥潭。这就是奥巴马总统努力的前景，因为他正在设法与每月增加60万失业的雪崩般的裁员斗争。在未来一年左右，美国和英国的失业问题将达到劳动力的10 ％，现代背景下，其影响类似于大萧条。
在世界其他地方，特别反常的是在应该免遭影响的欧洲部分地区，形势反而更糟糕。欧洲央行的声明认为欧元区将躲过美国经济所产生的病毒的最恶劣影响的观点已化为泡影。这个大陆已经加入了资本主义世界的总内爆，日本也是这样。最新的预测，后者的国内生产总值可能下降近10 ％ 。作为巨大的出口导向机器的日本正减速后停止，2008年最后3个月里下降了3.3 ％ ，年率为12.7 ％ 。欧洲经济发动机的德国也已加入了这个行列，而大陆上较小的经济体——爱尔兰，西班牙，意大利，希腊，葡萄牙和英国——正冒着滑入冰岛那样的国家破产的风险。
对群众来说，这好像是今天是暖和和晴朗的，明天就是寒冷和黑暗的冬夜，其中没有秋天的过渡。西班牙，以及爱尔兰的命运，比起大多数来，在狂欢的债务驱动的建筑和房地产市场的繁荣之路上走得更远，可以由萨拉戈萨（Zaragoza）的故事来总结，2月观察员如此描述其特征。建设热潮的崩溃意味着一年内城市失业率飙升75 ％。到今年年底，西班牙的失业率可能会从已经不能接受的14 ％ （ 330万工人） 猛增到20 ％。工人阶级愤怒了以至于义不容辞地和成千上万的走上街头抗议的人一起要求“罢工！罢工！罢工！”。
西班牙是一系列国家可能会发生什么的一个例子，包括英国，其将及时地挑起革命性的爆发。如果没有有意识地的领导，骚动将接着甚至可能引诱部分青年人走上可谓是一条完全没有出路的死胡同的恐怖主义的道路。希腊爆炸事件表明一小部分人中间的无政府主义和恐怖主义的情绪在某个特定阶段是显而易见的。摆脱机会主义领导人的令人瘫痪的影响的大规模的群众行动是唯一的出路。
英国炼油厂罢工：混乱和清晰
甚至从英国的发电站、炼油厂的建筑工人底层爆发的罢工中也有着这样的愤慨的表达。这是一个用来衡量工人阶级的意识和不同政治倾向如何面对这一点的实验室测试。鉴于新自由主义的黑夜，希望民族主义和种族主义不会出现在一些工人的当前意识中的想法是完全乌托邦的，在某些情况下也许是大多数。然而，这场争论中却并非如此，我们已经在我们的周报社会主义上论证了这一点。从本质上说，罢工是反对资本主义'竞相杀价'并由整个欧洲的老板通过反工人阶级的立法，欧盟指令(European Posted Workers Directive)，欧盟本身精心策划的强加的奴隶般劳动工资。
这在一些工人头脑中被扭曲成民族主义，并通过如下的表达反映出来：“英国的工作岗位应该给英国工人”。这最初由首相布朗在新的劳工大会的讲话中创造出来，企图包抄极右翼的英国国家党（BNP）。没有领导阶层的明确的指导，不仅在英国而且在其他地方，工人这样的初步反应也就不足为奇了。但是，这只是罢工不成熟的特点，通过为移民工人争取同样的权利，工资和条件的更为觉悟的社会主义者，特别是社会主义政党的介入，很快就能克服这一点。在俄国革命中，沙皇的一般工作人员害怕哪怕是一个布尔什维克在场，因为他可以象“饱和溶液中晶体化”那样活动，正如托洛茨基所说的那样，能够在激烈的气氛中把大多数人吸引过来。我们在有社会主义者和马克思主义者（其中一些来自社会主义政党）参与的这个罢工中看到类似的东西，完全克服了民族主义或种族主义的任何的内容。明确表示声援移民工人，包括在意大利印刷小册子，和坚决要求所有工作人员都能够同工同酬。
可以预见的是，一些既没有出现在工人罢工中又不愿意听取罢工中工人的真实情绪的极左派团体站在完全错误的立场上。例如，社会主义工人党(SWP) ，把注意力集中在批评上并强调“英国的工作岗位应该给英国工人”为罢工的主要特征。把如下的事实放在一边：工人驱赶了出现在警戒线上的英国国家党（BNP）的成员。此外，在分配的新的工作岗位上，罢工取得了辉煌成就，即导入了工人控制和工会参与要素。当然，正如一花独放不是春，但在这个行业和其他地方的工人现在有一个在复杂局面下捍卫工人的生活水平的同时克服民族或种族分裂的并在实际上能确保工人阶级胜利的如何斗争的活生生的例子。
罢工之后， '调解'服务的ACAS（（英国咨询调解和仲裁局）得出结论外国合同工人没有得到比英国工人低的工资。这是不正确的，完全忘记掉的是派遣劳工有时可能在其周工资或月工资上得到’国内“或全职工人相同的工资。但是，他们没有得到带薪休息或节假日和其他福利，这些都是全球范围内的老板们正在试图取消的东西以便作为一种手段提高其利润率。这同样适用于这一争端。这一直被ACAS掩盖着而且罢工时并不视之为荣誉的专职工会干部一直默许之，而且与可能属于违反英国严厉的反工会法的非官方的行动保持距离。这一争端主要强调了积极的成果，其次是通过工人斗争的经验和社会主义者和马克思主义者的介入的结合而见证了民族主义被扫地出门的特色。
大部分的极左派团体不理解群众运动将如何演变，特别是由于其最后阶段的性质。这不会是一个完美的全面的样式，正如奥利弗•克伦威尔毫无保留地形容自己那样（译者按：十七世纪英国护国公克伦威尔（Oliver Cromwell）请人给他画像，声明要绝对写实，连他面上的「粉刺、肉粒等等（pimples, warts and all）」都必须画出来，否则他就一个钱画费都不付）。如果置这些极左者于1905年俄国革命开始的当下，毫无疑问，他们的出发点将谴责Father Gapon神父，最初是由他带着向沙皇请愿的书带领群众在沙皇的旗帜下开始第一次游行。和敦促参与运动，革命初期阶段甚至和Gapon讨论和合作的列宁相对比，他们会要求从示威中逐出神父以作为他们参与的一个先决条件！他们将如何对1907年詹姆斯金为了共同与老板斗争而组织了天主教和新教的工人和Orange and Green bands一起大规模示威作出反应？
因为我们刚刚历经的阶段，由社会主义者以干练的方式面向现有的工人阶级的政治前景，没有对种族或民族偏见让步是必要的。我们没有通过回答说“如果我是你，我不会从这里出发 ”回答了“我怎么去莫斯科？”这个问题的俄罗斯圣人的乐事。工人阶级，特别是经过了一段时间的所谓的社会和平的工人阶级，从来没有出现过如来自朱庇特的智慧的非常现成的斗争。
满怀的阶级仇恨
工人阶级的愤怒日积，这由去年在希腊爆发的半起义和1月29日震动法国的反萨科齐大罢工表现出来了。不久前，萨科齐嘲讽道：尽管他攻击法国工人和青年，可哪里来罢工呢？ '回答他的就是这些罢工展示出来的基本反抗，示威在范围和人数上远远超出工会领导的组织者所预期的。超过200万工人涌上法国各城市的街道。罢工之前，萨科齐就感受到了这种潜在的具有爆炸性的情绪，并立即对学校的学生让步以作为一种手段来制止该运动。这并没有阻止罢工发生，这显示了一阵1968年本身的气息。
然而，即使在政治上仍然处在欧洲工人运动先锋地位的法国，1968年和现在的法国工人阶级在各自的情景上有着重要的区别。矛盾的是，今天的资本主义经济形势比1968年时更加糟糕，1968年时，历史上最大的总罢工是发生在一个持续的繁荣的背景下的。然后，在工人和学生中有一个广泛的社会主义甚至是革命性的意识。鉴于伴随着工人组织领导人向资本主义投降（正如我们已经指出的那样）而在最近的三十年里一同丧失的东西，状态必然要落后于1968年。当前有着混合的前景和确定的政治混乱。
因此，毫无疑问，整个先进的资本主义国家满怀着对那些被视为目前的经济灾难的主要肇事者，即金融家和银行家的阶级仇恨。英国议会和美国国会半公开的审判已经展现。在法国，群众的愤怒在街头表达着，但即使在法国，很明显最初是针对银行家和萨科齐之徒的，尽管他蛊惑人心地企图把自己和银行家划清界限。即使在法国，还没有一个广泛的反资本主义的意识，那么在其他欧洲国家，这种意识就可能更少了。
在希腊，情况有所不同，有着显著的前革命形势已经存在的内容。这反映在希腊资产阶级和它的国家彻底破产上，大规模的工人阶级和青年对他们的贫困状况的绝望以及他们准备斗争，这一点由到现在为止的三次总罢工所表明。这也反映在资本主义执政党——新民主党和前社会主义帕索克（PASOK） ——的完全的无能上以及相应的新的工人政党SYRIZA的上升上。这伴随着希腊面临的暗淡的经济前景。经济形势是如此的绝望，以至于评级机构穆迪已把它的经济降级，这可能预示着资本主义投资者将拒绝购买政府债券。这可能会导致经济崩溃，反过来，可以看到希腊离开或将被逐出欧元区。
它也可能预示着一系列的部分甚至彻底的国家破产，如在20世纪30年代在欧洲和新殖民主义的地区，如拉丁美洲那样。如果债券交易商开始进行罢商并拒绝购买政府债券，西班牙、葡萄牙甚至爱尔兰将轻而易举地加入希腊的行列。面对这种情况，统治阶级将毫不犹豫地诉诸措施更野蛮地攻击工人阶级的工资和生存条件。在这种腐朽的资本主义情况下工人阶级的生存条件就像一个人处在只是为了保持它的位置而疯狂地向下运行的自动扶梯上。
名誉扫地的资本主义
资本主义的理论家相当平静和'冷静'地辩称通货紧缩（与价格上升的通货膨胀相对，价格下降，消减生产和大规模失业）的优点为维护自己的地位的最佳途径。通货紧缩和通货膨胀是资本主义硬币的两面，而且往往要工人阶级为此付出。金融时报的一位作家道出了这个秘密，他冷静宣称公司将受益于通货膨胀，因为部分债务将消失，那些有着固定利息之债务的公司将受益。另一方面： “更高的通货膨胀比其他情况更能让越来越多的公司和工人同意削减实际工资。这既对目前缺乏竞争力的公司有益，而且是[资本主义]社会所热衷的，因为减薪比失业更公平“ 。换言之，工人阶级必须付出，即使牺牲工人阶级的利益为代价，利润如果不增加也必须保持。
显然，资本主义和它一起的工人阶级已进入了一个残酷的新时代。极其重要的问题是如何缩小潜在的资本主义旷日持久的危机的客观形势（实际上是一系列的危机）和如何使得意大利青年的口号：'我们不会承担你们的危机'更为具体化之间的鸿沟。这里涉及的是——正如最近的英国炼油厂的罢工和在Cowley用一个小时看完的通知解雇850名工人而爆发出来的愤怒——需要形成一个战斗的纲领。显然，从过时的资本主义向社会主义新社会的总的改变必须完成。
这场危机是卡尔马克思所描述并被过去一段时间的压倒性多数的'明智'的洞见所嘲弄的经济繁荣和萧条的资本主义的经济周期的准确性的证明。在资本主义框架内不平等更是无法克服的，连克努特（Canute）也不能扭转乾坤。不平等是资本主义的实质内容并清楚地显示了工人和资本家之间的关系。正如马克思指出的那样，资本家购买工人阶级的劳动力，以便剥削它。工人阶级只取回了他们新创造的价值的一部分，其余是无酬劳动，即被资本家所攫取的利润。正如托洛茨基指出的，阶级斗争仅仅是分配剩余产品的斗争。这种剩余产品越是被剥夺——尤其是当利润停滞或下降时，如目前的情况——阶级斗争就越加激烈。在这种情况下工人阶级在取得新的胜利之前首先要做的是必须有决心抵制资本的冲击，捍卫所有过去斗争取得的成果。
与资产阶级辩护士所认为的相反，资本主义，特别是在其新自由主义的阶段，即不是最好的也不是最有效的最大限度地提高生产和有效地向世界各国人民分配产品的手段。尤其在柏林墙倒塌后，资本主义是个无懈可击的而且不易于突然崩坏的系统的想法很是普遍，现在却是完全不足为信。不用只看拥有工人阶级自己'品质'的期刊，连捍卫资本主义的辩护士们也承认了这一点： “保守派...其实相信资本主义制度。任何了解资本主义的人都知道，资本主义不时地失败。保守的经济学教义认为经济衰退更象天气。有可能减轻其影响，但不可能改变其性质。 “ （Peter Oborne, ，每日邮报的右翼政治专栏作家。 ）
过渡办法
没有提到美好未来：如果资本主义崩溃，我们工人阶级必须为此埋单。这是Oborne的暴风雨天气情况的本质，在这个世界中，国家是资本主义的保护伞，而工人以大规模失业的形式溺沉下去。我们不打算埋单，我们需要完全更人道的制度。社会主义必须是工人阶级的政策。新闻周刊甚至宣布： “我们现在都是社会主义者” 。不幸的是，这还不是绝大多数这一制度受害者的工人阶级和穷人的情况。因此，在社会主义者和马克思主义者的纲领中要求把民主、社会主义计划经济作为至高无上的理念，有必要在目前的情况下提出战斗的过渡性要求。
在1914年前的社会民主主义中，人们认为这种做法是不必要的。它的纲领被划分成社会主义思想的最高纲领和最低的日常刚要。这决定性的变化发生在导致在俄罗斯革命爆发和由1917年革命引爆的整个世界和欧洲的群众斗争和革命的浪潮的第一次世界大战开始后。在这种变化的形势下，争取基本的改革，甚至捍卫过去的成果都以直接对抗资本主义制度本身的有限性的形式提出来。布尔什维克因此制定了一项过渡纲领作为桥梁——考虑到工人阶级日常的要求——从现有的意识到社会主义革命的思想。即使在俄国革命时期，这也是必要的，因为工人阶级不同部分的不同的和不断变化的观点。这在列宁的出色的小册子《大难临头，出路何在？》中得到了总结。
追随列宁的脚步，托洛茨基为革命的第四次国际制定了过渡纲领：垂死的资本主义和第四次国际的任务。这在1938年托洛茨基正确预计将发生毁灭性的世界大战前夕被采用。灾难中将爆发革命性的浪潮而且在这一进程中过渡纲领以及它的诉求可以发挥关键作用。一股革命性浪潮的确到来了，但社会民主党和斯大林主义在战后的局势下介入并拯救了资本主义。反过来，这为发达国家1950年至1975年的繁荣或者说壮观的经济烟花奠定了政治前提条件。因此，托洛茨基的思想由革命性的时代塑造出来，但在这一时期从来没有实现。
有些组织，例如，社会主义工人党(SWP)，因此放弃了过渡纲领和过渡办法。我们捍卫托洛茨基的方法，但认识到，有必要因繁荣所代表的不同的条件而修改一些具体的要求。然而，世界各地，欧洲和英国工人运动当前所面临的形势意味着这种做法，如果不是1938年所有的要求，在目前的斗争中是至关重要的。事实上，现在，这比1938年撰写时更具有现实性，因为发展着的条件与预期的阶段是类似的。托洛茨基要求，例如，面对着风行的大规模失业，需要“工作或所有的生活费用”。我们今天需求，“有益的工作，或者生活收入”。工人阶级拒绝承担这一危机。让老板支付！如果他们不能保证工人阶级最大限度的存在，我们供养不起他们的制度！
国有化
在此爆发性期间，有必要在工资水平和条件上而且还涉及政府的作为或不作为上争取工人阶级的部分要求。一个恰当的例子是针对银行的冒火的愤怒，而不只是针对卷入其中的骗子，如Bernard Madoff 和 Allen Stanford，而是针对使自己的工业破产并威胁把整个社会包括工人阶级推向深渊的整个资产阶级。他们允许国家介入以通过大规模的救助来拯救他们。然而，失败的右翼共和党总统候选人参议员麦凯恩远为不感激。他把国家债务的增加描述为“窃子孙财者” 。但是，那不是他的法宝，前右翼副总统切尼宣称， “里根[美国政府]证明赤字没有问题” ？但它仍未阻止麦凯恩，连同其他共和党人，考虑全面国有化银行。
资本主义的政客可以接受国家救援，只要它是完全沿着资本主义的路线并带有今后归还'国有化'行业到完全相同的起初破坏它们的私人口袋里的前景。英国的一些评论家设想，银行国有化并继续留在国有部门估计九年。
虚伪的麦凯恩和他的动人的对后代的关心掩盖了伊拉克战争的巨大的开支，可能总计3万亿美元，他是完全支持这个军事开支的。麦道夫（Madoff）的腐败和通过'私有化'建筑业'来提取政府现金用于重建伊拉克一样无关紧要。帕特里克•科伯恩独立评论说： “入侵之后真正掠夺伊拉克的是美国官员而不是巴格达的贫民窟” 。在一个案例中，为政府审计的工作人员说， “五千七百八十万美元以'一袋一袋的百元美钞'送往把自己拍摄在成堆的钱旁边的伊拉克中南部监查官手里” 。虽然抢劫的程度可能永远不会为人所知了，多达一千二百五十亿美元（八百八拾亿英镑）已经消失。这只是不仅在美国而且在世界各地的资本家利用国家作为一个巨大的摇钱树的方式的一个例子。
特别是在英国和美国，所需要的不是救助银行家，而是救助工人阶级和中产阶级。甚至国有化的要求也不似过去阶段那样受欢迎——因为它针对的是应该为混乱负责的银行家 奥巴马和布朗政府可能被迫实施之，尽管这并不合他们的胃口。这是因为迄今在英国和事实上在美国的部分国有化的经验已经与大众的意见疏远。这些部分国有企业的董事会仍然保留着未变守旧的资本主义性质。目前还没有类似于1948年由工党政府接管煤矿时的悬挂红旗和工人阶级对未来满怀希望的庆祝活动。这是因为，例如， 北岩银行的国家收购的特点是增加收回房屋，解雇4000名工人，后来，负责这家银行的资本价们依然保有巨额的奖金。这是国家资本主义的一种形式，而不是步向过去工党中改革派社会主义者所鼓吹的社会主义方向，当时工党基本上是一个工人政党。
需要民主计划
另一方面，'市场'别无选择。在英国， 1999年，例如，有三分之二的就业机会并不是非常自诩的私营企业而是国有部门创造的。这本身就是资本主义破产的一种承认。此外，私营工业的结构根本不是市场的支持者所爱的'知识界精华'的例子。危机的影响是如此具有痉挛性以至于越来越多的作者揭示了资本主义条件和管理的真正性质，这是新自由主义的一个内在组成部分。例如，观察者中的Simon Caulkin把大型企业的结构——包括英国电信，已透露政府有可能计划在它发生崩溃的情况下重新国有化——比作带有很多斯大林主义镜像而不象一个理想的资本主义企业的东西。据他的说法，它们 “结构上是僵尸般的特征和战略性上和斯大林主义具有相似性”。
他宣称这种管理相当粗暴： “他们热脸对主要的行政长官而把冷屁股对着客户”，很多管理者更关心的是利润指标而不是生产有价值的产品。世界上最有效的按照惯例管理的公司通用电气用40 ％的收入 ——也就是说，六百亿美元——于管理层的收入和福利...西方大公司的管理层和命令经济的政治组织比人们所承认的有更多的共同点 。接管这些公司并建立一个工人控制管理并实施社会主义计划经济的制度将是多么地便宜和有效率！
Caulkin的文章即是对马克思的论点的让步，即即使资本主义工厂的内部管理——马克思讲的是19世纪的状况——是计划的一个例子。马克思说，工厂体系应用于整个经济和世界，将描绘出通过消除市场实现民主的社会主义计划的样态。现在，具有讽刺意味的是，大公司——垄断——有着前苏联路线中头重脚轻的官僚作风。解决方法不在于斯大林主义或资本主义'市场' ，而是民主的社会主义的计划。这就需要工会和工人阶级组织，小商人等的代表参与监督，以便告知劳动者实际情况并相应地筹备实现这样一个计划。
为鸿沟搭起桥梁
由工人阶级群众混合意识构成的时代，需要一个过渡纲领。随着事件的推进，这种意识将动摇和改变。但是，过渡办法和过渡纲领——通过与时俱进的并充满着工人阶级本身的斗争经验的托洛茨基的方法可以首先在政治上最先进的阶层，然后是工人阶级群众中发展出完整的社会主义意识方面起到极大地促进作用。这为今天劳动者的意识和社会主义变革思想架起了桥梁。 宗派主义不需要这样一个桥梁，因为他们不打算通过学习，扶助或兼职同工人阶级连接起来并和她一起用社会主义帮助改变意识和增强阶级认同。
对世界，欧洲和英国的工人阶级而言，我们已经进入一个全新的时期。即使奥巴马设法通过刺激方案在世界和美国的资本主义底部放置部分缓冲垫——可是这根本是不确定的——这一危机激起的情势将完全不同于开始之前的情势。世界经济充其量将经历顽固地维持着大规模失业的贫血般的增长。这就像身体中的脂肪组织，是一种衰退的有机体症状。但资本主义不会自动地从历史舞台上消失。有必要建立一个强有力的群众武备，该武备将帮助提高工人阶级群众的理解水平——在过渡纲领的帮助下——从这个衰败的制度上为社会主义开辟道路提供帮助。
如果没有这样一种做法，即使面对目前的经济灾难，有一个对劳动人民来说不会立即明朗化的危险，什么是可行的替代办法。例如，在汽车行业，由于大规模裁员，工资被大幅削减，工人们有一种本能的想法，即他们目前的产品“没有市场”。但是，由于高级技术和技能的存在，将能够花很少的力气来转换汽车产业，由面临着巨大的生产过剩和供过于求的市场转向生产有用的产品，包括绿色，环保车辆。这些都是世界人口的迫切需要，即需要一个可持续的，环保化的运输系统。第二次世界大战爆发时出现了生产上的这种转变，但鉴于今天资本主义的混乱，这完全是不可能的。这样就提出了一个社会主义社会替代的要求。
下一阶段，日益恶化的客观形势和工人阶级意识之间的鸿沟将缩小。事件——而且是爆炸性的事件——将有助于确保这一点。在深渊的边缘，工人大众将面对这个资本主义制度——有时没有明确的什么可以替代它的想法。然而，如果工人阶级信奉那社会主义理念和日常斗争连接起来的过渡方式和过渡纲领，走向社会主义和革命意识之路将大大地缩短，而且痛苦少得多。
向资本主义危机置于工人们肩上的负担说不！向大规模的失业特别是新的一代要永远接受失业救济金的可怕的前景说不。用由工人阶级，工会，小商人等代表参与的民主的和社会主义的组织方式把银行国有化，民主的社会主义国家部门本身将提出进一步国有化的问题，其中包括掌握经济命脉的国有化。在这条道路上，将提供给工人阶级群众以抵抗没有出路的停滞的腐朽的资本主义世界的希望。
23 February 2009
CWI Analysis
From March edition of Socialism Today, magazine of the Socialist Party (CWI in England and Wales)
pdf version
How to fight the economic crisis
Capitalist crisis, mass consciousness and a socialist programme
Peter Taaffe, CWI
How can working-class people fight the effects of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s? Mass lay-offs are already a feature in the major capitalist countries and around the world. The bosses and their governments are on the offensive to make the working class, and large sections of the middle classes, pay for the catastrophe they have created.
World capitalism is in a blind alley and its serious representatives see no quick exit. Take your pick; from the gloomy prognostications for the economy from Alistair Darling, British Chancellor of the Exchequer – ‘the worst for 60 years’ – to Ed Balls, schools cabinet minister in the New Labour government, who says it is the worst in 100 years! Most capitalist commentators now agree with our analysis, that at the very least, this is the worst economic crisis since the great depression of the 1930s and may yet exceed it.
In a sense, this crisis is potentially even worse than then. The extent of capitalist globalisation, which led to this crash,, is much wider and deeper than existed in the so-called ‘gilded age’ before 1929. For this reason, it is already the most internationalised, generalised economic crisis in history. The US, western Europe, Japan, eastern Europe, Russia, Asia, Australasia and Latin America; all have been caught up in the downward economic whirlpool. It has certainly developed at a speed and with a severity that exceeds even the initial phases of the 1930s depression.
The crisis then began in the stock exchanges, spreading to the financial sector and inexorably into the so-called ‘real economy’. Today’s crisis was triggered by the financial meltdown, fed into industry, and now has fed back into the financial sector. But 1929’s full effects were only felt over time – in the case of France, two or three years after – whereas this crisis has struck with a speed and severity that has terrified, if not demoralized, the representatives of world capitalism. What took three years in 1929 could now unfold in a year.
This crisis is marked by overproduction; a glut of goods, which the bosses are trying to solve through mass unemployment of the working class. But it is also leading to ‘overproduction’ even amongst sections of the middle class, who are being ejected from workplaces alongside workers. In other words, the proletarianisation of the intermediate layers, a feature of capitalism even during the boom, is taking a qualitative step forward. This in turn undermines the social reserves of capitalism.
Capitulation by workers’ organisations
The capitalists are trembling at the social consequences of further economic implosions to come. Their only consolation is that they face no organised challenge from the working class, because of the political beheading of the former workers’ organisations, at the hands of leaders like Tony Blair in Britain and their social-democratic cousins in Europe and elsewhere. They went over lock, stock and barrel to the side of the bourgeoisie in the aftermath of the collapse of Stalinism and the ideological, pro-capitalist tsunami that ensued. The result is that the mass of working-class people are politically disarmed in the teeth of the greatest challenge to their hard-won rights and conditions in living memory.
Without leadership and organisation when the capitalists have used the cover of the crisis to put the boot in, mass anger has poured out spontaneously both in the factories and onto the streets. This happened in Ireland as the government sought to eliminate health benefits for the elderly. It was followed by angry protests including occupations or threats to do so at Waterford Crystal and Dell, as brutal capital shut down whole factories with as little difficulty as shutting a matchbox. The same outrageous scenes were seen in the ending of the weekend shift at BMW’s Mini plant in Cowley, Oxford, which provoked unprecedented protests including fist fights between workers and supervisors. However, for this elemental revolt of the working class to lead to a sustained movement, what is required is a clear programme, including fighting slogans, and organisation.
The capitulation, also shared by the trade union leaders, actually helped to reinforce the brutal imposition of neo-liberal policies on the working class and the poor worldwide. The bourgeoisie, no longer forced to look over its shoulder at an organised working class or fearful of a labour movement revolt, was therefore unrestrained in the mad dash towards unregulated capitalism. The former leaders of the workers’ organisations proved to be a fifth wheel in the chariot of neo-liberalism. The complete pusillanimity of the union leaders is evident in the capitulation to the bosses and their governments as the latter seek to unload responsibility for this crisis on to the shoulders of the working class and poor.
The masses are quite clear who are responsible. In Italy, the students, a barometer of what is developing from below, have chanted on demonstrations: ‘We will not pay for your crisis’. What a contrast to the belly-crawling attitude of the trade union leaders as factories close down around the ears of the working class and all that we hear from the summits of the labour movement is the need for ‘shared sacrifices’. Leon Trotsky wrote in the 1930s that the crisis facing the working class, indeed humanity, was summed up in the crisis of leadership of the workers’ organisations. The difference today, however, is that we face not just a crisis of leadership but also of organisation, or the lack of it, for the working class as well as a clear programme.
Never in history has the gap – the ‘scissors’ – between the objective situation of capitalism in crisis and the outlook of the working class, its absence of organisation, particularly political mass parties, been so evident. Given the relentless propaganda barrage, the reality of neo-liberal policies over 30 years and the absence of a political and economic alternative, it is inevitable that there is still, despite the severity of the crash, a residual acquiescence to the ‘market’, even amongst the working class. Many are stunned by the economic collapse. There is even a lingering view amongst many workers that the present crisis is temporary, that it will all be over by the end of next year, at the latest, and we can then return to the sunny, economic uplands.
Bleak economic outlook
These illusions are fostered by the ‘popular’ press and one wing of bourgeois economists and commentators. However, another section has drawn the conclusion that this time the party is really over. For instance, Sean O’Grady of The Independent declared bluntly in January: “High unemployment is here to stay”. In America’s great depression, unemployment did not regain its level of 1929 until 1943 when the US economy was being dragged out of the economic mire by the devastating second world war. This puts in perspective the efforts of the Obama presidency as it seeks to wrestle with the avalanche of job cuts and redundancies which are rising by 600,000 a month. Unemployment in the US and Britain could touch 10% of the workforce in the next year or so, the effects of which in the modern context are akin to a depression.
If anything, the position is even worse in other parts of the world, paradoxically particularly in parts of Europe which were supposed to be immune. The pronouncements of the European Central Bank that the eurozone would escape the worst effects of the virus emanating from the US economy have turned to ashes. The continent has joined the general implosion of world capitalism, as has Japan. The latest forecasts for the latter are that gross domestic product could plunge by almost 10%. The great export-orientated machine of Japan is grinding to a halt, dropping by 3.3% in the last three months of 2008, an annualised rate of 12.7%. It has been joined by Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe, while the lesser powers of the continent – Ireland, Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Britain – risk following Iceland into national bankruptcy.
For the masses, it is as if it is warm and sunny one day and bleak, dark winter the next, without the transition of autumn. The fate of Spain which, along with Ireland, went further than most in an orgy of a debt-fuelled construction and housing boom, is summed up by the story of Zaragoza, featured in the Observer in February. The collapse of the building boom means that unemployment has rocketed in the city by 75% in a year. Spain could see unemployment shooting up from an already unacceptable 14% (3.3 million workers) to 20% by the end of this year. The working class is furious that it will bear the burden, with protesters coming out onto the streets in tens of thousands demanding ‘Strike! Strike! Strike!’
Spain is just one example of what could happen to a series of countries, including Britain, which in time will provoke revolutionary explosions. If a conscious lead is not given then riots will ensue with a section of young people even possibly seduced into taking to the road of terrorism, which is a complete blind alley. The explosive events in Greece revealed that anarchistic and terroristic moods amongst a small section would be evident at a certain stage. Mass action, freed from the paralysing influence of opportunist leaders, is the only way forward.
British oil refinery strikes: confusion and clarity
An expression of the indignation was contained even in the eruption of strikes from below of the construction workers in the oil refineries and power stations in Britain. This was a laboratory test in measuring the consciousness of the working class and how different political trends faced up to this. Given the dark night of neo-liberalism, it would be entirely utopian not to expect that elements of nationalism and even racism would be present in the consciousness of some workers, in some instances perhaps the majority. This, however, was not the case in this dispute as we have demonstrated in our weekly paper, The Socialist. It was, in essence, a strike against the capitalist ‘race to the bottom’ to impose slave labour rates, orchestrated by the bosses on a European scale through the anti-working class legislation, the European Posted Workers Directive, and the EU itself.
This was skewed in the minds of some workers towards nationalism, expressed through ‘British jobs for British workers’. This was coined originally by prime minister Gordon Brown in a New Labour conference speech, in an attempt to outflank the far-right British National Party (BNP). Without clear guidance from the leadership, such an initial reaction of the workers, not just in Britain but elsewhere, is no surprise. But this was a minor feature of the strike, and was soon cut across by the intervention of more conscious socialists, particularly from the Socialist Party, who fought for the same rights, wages and conditions for migrant workers. In the Russian revolution, the tsarist general staff feared the presence of one Bolshevik who could act as a ‘crystal in a saturated solution’, as Trotsky put it, capable in a heated atmosphere of drawing the majority to its side. We witnessed something similar in this strike with socialists and Marxists, some from the Socialist Party, completely cutting across any elements of nationalism or racism. Clear solidarity was expressed with the migrant workers including the printing of a leaflet in Italian and a resolute demand for all workers to receive the rate for the job.
Predictably, some far-left groups without a real presence or even an ear to the real moods of the workers in this strike took a completely false position. The Socialist Workers Party (SWP), for instance, concentrated on criticism and emphasised ‘British jobs for British workers’ as the main feature of the strike. Pushed aside was the fact that the BNP members who turned up on the picket line were driven off by the workers. Moreover, the strike magnificently achieved an element of workers’ control and trade union involvement in the allocation of new jobs. Of course, one swallow does not make a summer but the workers in this industry and elsewhere now have a living example of how to fight in defence of workers’ living standards and, at the same time, overcome national or racial divisions in a complicated situation and actually secure a victory for the working class.
In the aftermath of the strike, the ‘conciliation’ service has concluded that the foreign-contracted workers did not receive lower rates than the British workers. This is not true, but what is entirely forgotten is that agency workers formally may sometimes receive the same as ‘domestic’ or permanent workers in their weekly or monthly wage rates. But they do not receive payments for breaks, holidays or the overheads which the bosses worldwide are trying to wipe out as a means of boosting their profitability. The same applies in this dispute. This has been covered over by ACAS and acquiesced to by the full-time trade union officials who did not exactly cover themselves in glory while the strike was on, being concerned to distance themselves from unofficial action which might fall foul of Britain’s draconian anti-union laws. This dispute primarily emphasised the positive outcome and saw the secondary features of nationalism swept aside by a combination of the experience of the workers in struggle and the intervention of socialists and Marxists.
Most of the far-left groups have no perception of how a mass movement will evolve, particularly given the character of the last period. This will not be in a perfectly rounded-out fashion but, as Oliver Cromwell described himself, with ‘warts and all’. If these ultra-lefts had been present at the beginning of the 1905 Russian revolution, their starting point would have been, no doubt, to condemn Father Gapon, the priest who initially led the masses in the first demonstration under the tsarist flag, with a petition to the ‘Little Father’, the tsar. In contradistinction to Vladimir Lenin who urged participation in the movement and even discussed and collaborated in the initial phases of the revolution with Gapon, they would have demanded that the priest be removed from the demonstration as a precondition for their participation! How would they have reacted to James Larkin organising mass demonstrations of Catholic and Protestant workers in 1907 with Orange and Green bands in the common struggle against the bosses?
While making no concessions to racial or national prejudices, it is necessary, above all because of the period we have just passed through, for socialists to approach the existing political outlook of the working class in a skilful fashion. We do not have the luxury of the Russian sage who answered the question, ‘How do I get to Moscow?’ by answering, ‘I would not start from here if I was you’. The working class, particularly after a period of alleged social peace, never emerges into struggle fully formed, like Minerva from the head of Jupiter.
Bitter class hatred
There is a gathering rage within the working class, signified by the semi-insurrectionary mood in Greece last year and the colossal anti-Sarkozy strikes which convulsed France on 29 January. Not so long ago, Nicolas Sarkozy jeered that, despite his attacks on the French workers and the youth, ‘where are the strikes?’ He was given his answer in the elemental revolt indicated by these strikes, which far exceeded in scope and turnout on demonstrations what was anticipated even by the organisers in the trade union leadership. Over two million workers flooded the streets of the cities of France. Sarkozy, sensing the underlying explosive mood before the strikes, immediately gave concessions to the school students as a means of heading off the movement. This did not prevent the strikes taking place, which indicated a whiff of 1968 itself.
There are, however, even in France, which is still politically in the vanguard of the workers’ movement in Europe, important differences in the outlook of the French working class between 1968 and now. Paradoxically, the economic situation is far worse for capitalism today than it was in 1968 when the greatest general strike in history took place against the background of a continuing boom. Then, there was a broad socialist and even a revolutionary consciousness amongst workers and students. Given what has transpired in the last three decades combined, as we have pointed out, with the capitulation of the leaders of the workers’ organisations to capitalism, the mood is bound to lag behind that of 1968. There is a mixed outlook and a certain political confusion.
There is, undoubtedly, generalized bitter class hatred throughout the advanced capitalist countries for those who are seen as the main authors of the present economic catastrophe, namely the financiers and bankers. Semi-public trials have unfolded in the British parliament and US Congress. The ire of the masses was expressed in France on the streets but, noticeably even here, was initially directed against the bankers and the figure of Sarkozy, despite his demagogic attempts to separate himself from the bankers. If even in France there is not yet a broad anti-capitalist consciousness, then it is perhaps even less the case in other European countries.
In Greece, the situation is somewhat different, with pronounced elements of a pre-revolutionary situation already present. This is reflected in the utter bankruptcy of the Greek bourgeoisie and its state, the desperation of the mass of the working class and the youth at their poverty-stricken condition and their preparedness to struggle, as shown in three general strikes to now. It is also reflected in the complete incapacity of the official parties of capitalism – New Democracy and the ex-socialist PASOK – and the corresponding rise of a new workers’ party, SYRIZA. This is combined with the bleak economic future facing Greece. So desperate is the economic situation that its economy has been downgraded by ratings agency Moody’s, which could presage a refusal to buy government debt by capitalist investors. This could lead to economic collapse and, in turn, could see Greece leave or be evicted from the eurozone.
It could also herald a series of partial or even outright national bankruptcies, as witnessed in the 1930s in Europe and neo-colonial regions such as Latin America. Greece could be joined very easily by Spain, Portugal and even Ireland if bond traders go on strike and refuse to buy government debt. Faced with this situation, the ruling class would unhesitatingly resort to even more savage measures attacking the wages and conditions of the working class. The conditions of the working class in this situation of decaying capitalism is like a man on a downward escalator frantically running just to maintain his position.
Discrediting capitalism
Quite calmly and ‘soberly’, the ideologues of capitalism debate the merits of deflation – falling prices, cuts in production and mass unemployment – versus inflation – an increase in prices – as the best means of preserving their position. Deflation and inflation are heads and tails of the same capitalist coin, and the working class is called on to pay. This was shown by one writer in the Financial Times who calmly declared that companies will benefit from inflation because a portion of the debt will disappear, benefitting those companies with fixed-interest debts. On the other hand: “Higher inflation allows more companies and workers to agree to real wage cuts than would otherwise be the case. This is both useful for those firms that are currently uncompetitive, and preferable for [capitalist] society, because wage cuts are more equitable than unemployment”. In other words, the working class must pay, profits must be maintained, if not increased, at the expense of the working class.
Clearly, capitalism and with it the working class have entered a brutal new era. The burning question is how to close the gap between the underlying objective situation, of the drawn-out crisis of capitalism, indeed a series of crises, and how to make concrete the slogan of the Italian youth: ‘We will not pay for your crisis’. What is involved here – as the recent strikes at the British refineries and the outburst of anger at at the summary dismissal of 850 workers with an hour’s notice show – is the need for a fighting programme. Obviously, the case for a general change from outmoded capitalism to a new socialist society has to be made.
This crisis is proof, if any were needed, that boom and bust, the economic cycle of capitalism described by Karl Marx and so derided by the overwhelming majority of ‘intellectual’ opinion in the past period, has reasserted its validity. Inequality can no more be overcome within the framework of capitalism than could Canute turn back the waves. Inequality is the essence of capitalism, revealed clearly in the relationship between the workers and the capitalists. As Marx pointed out, the capitalists buy the labour power of the working class in order to exploit it. The working class only receives back a portion of the new value it has created, the rest being unpaid labour, the profit that is garnered by the capitalists. The class struggle, as Trotsky pointed out, is nothing else but the struggle over the division of the surplus product. The more that this surplus product is fought over – particularly when profits stagnate or decline, as is the case now – the more intense the class struggle. The starting point of the working class in this situation must be a determination to resist the onslaught of capital, to defend all past gains, before going on to make new conquests.
Contrary to what the bourgeois ideologists argue, capitalism, particularly in its neo-liberal phase, is not the best nor the most efficient vehicle to maximise production and distribute products efficiently to the peoples of the world. The idea that capitalism was a seamless system, not subject to abrupt breakdowns, which was prevalent particularly following the collapse of the Berlin wall, is now utterly discredited. Tucked away from the gaze of the working class in their ‘quality’ journals, the defenders of capitalism admit this: “Conservatives… actually believe in the capitalist system. Anyone who understands capitalism knows that it is programmed to fail from time to time. Conservative economic teachings hold that recessions are much like the weather. It may be possible to mitigate its effects, but impossible to change its nature”. (Peter Oborne, right-wing political columnist for the Daily Mail.)
A transitional approach
No mention of a rosy future: if capitalism breaks down we, the working class, must pay. This is the essence of Oborne’s stormy weather scenario, a world in which the state is the umbrella for capitalism while the workers receive a soaking in the form of mass unemployment. We are not going to pay and we must demand an entirely more humane system. Socialism must be the policy of the working class. Even Newsweek declared: “We are all socialists now”. Unfortunately, this is not yet the case for the overwhelming majority of the victims of this system, the working class and the poor. Therefore, while demanding a democratic, socialist planned economy, as a crowning idea in the programme of socialists and Marxists, it is necessary to put forward fighting transitional demands in the current situation.
In pre-1914 social democracy, such an approach was considered unnecessary. Its programme was divided between a maximum programme, the idea of socialism, and a minimum day-to-day programme. That decisively changed with the onset of the first world war which led to the revolutionary explosions in Russia and the mass struggles and revolutionary waves which detonated in the aftermath of the 1917 revolution throughout Europe and the world. In this changed situation, the struggle for basic reforms and even the defence of past gains, came up directly against the limits of the system of capitalism itself. The Bolsheviks therefore formulated a transitional programme as a bridge – taking into account the day-to-day demands of the working class – from the existing level of consciousness to the idea of the socialist revolution. This was necessary even during the Russian revolution because of the differing and changing outlooks of the different sections of the working class. This was summed up in Lenin’s wonderful pamphlet, The Threatening Catastrophe and How to Avoid It.
Following in Lenin’s footsteps, Trotsky formulated for the revolutionary Fourth International the Transitional Programme: The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International. This was adopted in 1938 on the eve of what Trotsky correctly anticipated would be a devastating world war. Out of this conflagration would come a revolutionary wave and the transitional programme and its demands could play a key role in this process. A revolutionary wave did ensue but social democracy and Stalinism stepped in to save capitalism in the post-war situation. This in turn laid the political preconditions for the boom, the spectacular economic fireworks, which developed between 1950 and 1975. Consequently, Trotsky’s ideas, which were fashion ed for a revolutionary epoch, were never fully implemented in this period.
Some, like the SWP, therefore jettisoned both the transitional programme and the transitional approach. We defended Trotsky’s method but recognised that it was necessary to modify some of the demands for different conditions, which the boom represented. The current situation facing the workers’ movement in Britain, Europe and across the globe, however, means that this approach, if not all the demands of 1938, is now vital in the present struggle. In fact, it is more relevant now than when it was written in 1938 because the conditions which are developing are akin to the period anticipated. Trotsky demanded, for instance, ‘work or full maintenance’ in the teeth of endemic mass unemployment. We demand today, ‘useful work, or a living income’. The working class refuses to shoulder the burden of this crisis. Let the bosses pay! If they cannot guarantee a maximum existence for the working class, we can’t afford their system!
Nationalisation
It is also necessary in this explosive period to take up the partial demands of the working class both at the level of wages and conditions but also involving governmental action or inaction. A case in point is the burning anger directed against the banks, not just the crooks who have been caught, like Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford, but the whole fraternity who have bankrupted their own industry and threaten to drag the whole of society, including the working class, into the abyss. They have allowed the state to step in to rescue them through massive bailouts. Yet the defeated, right-wing Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, is far from grateful. He has described the increase in state debt as “generational theft”. But was it not his talisman, previous right-wing vice-president, Dick Cheney, who declared that “Reagan proved [US government] deficits don’t matter”? It has still not stopped McCain, along with other Republicans, from considering full nationalisation of the banks.
Capitalist politicians can accept state rescue, so long as it is then run completely along capitalist lines and with the prospect of returning the ‘nationalised’ industries in the future to the very same private interests which ruined them in the first place. Some commentators in Britain envisage that banks could be nationalised and remain in the state sector for an estimated nine years.
The hypocrisy of McCain and his touching concern for future generations is belied by the colossal expenditure on the Iraq war, probably $3 trillion in total, which he supported to the hilt. The corruption of Madoff is as nothing to the creaming off of government cash by the ‘privatised’ construction industry to ‘reconstruct Iraq’. Patrick Cockburn in the Independent commented: “The real looting of Iraq after the invasion was by US officials and not by the slums of Baghdad”. In one case, auditors working for the government said “that $57.8 million was sent in ‘pallet upon pallet of hundred-dollar bills’ to the US comptroller for south-central Iraq… who had himself photographed standing with the mound of money”. Although the extent of the robbery will probably never be known, up to $125 billion (£88bn) has simply disappeared. This is just one example of the way that the capitalists, not just in the US but world wide, use the state as a colossal milch cow.
The demand, in Britain and in the US in particular, is not for bailouts for the bankers but for the working and middle classes. Even the demand for nationalisation – because it is aimed at the bankers who are seen as responsible for the mess and which both Obama and the Brown government may be compelled to carry through despite its un palatability to them – is not as popular as in previous periods. This is because the experience of the partial nationalisation so far in Britain and de facto in the US has alienated mass public opinion. The boards of these partially nationalised companies remain unreconstructed capitalist in character. There were no celebrations similar to those which greeted the taking over of the mines in 1948 by the Labour government of the time, with the flying of red flags and big hopes for the future of the working class. This is because, for instance, Northern Rock’s state takeover was marked with increased repossessions of homes, the sacking of 4,000 workers and, latterly, lavish bonuses for some of the capitalist crew who remain in charge of this bank. This is a form of state capitalism, not a step in the direction of socialism, as advocated by even reformist socialists in the Labour Party in the past, when it was a workers’ party at bottom.
The need for democratic planning
On the other hand, the ‘market’ offers no alternative. In Britain in 1999, for instance, two thirds of jobs created were not in the much-vaunted ‘entrepreneurial’ private sector but were in the state sector. This itself is a confession of bankruptcy by capitalism. Moreover, the structures in private industry are not at all an example of the ‘meritocracy’ beloved of the upholders of the market. Indeed, so convulsive have been the effects of the crisis that more and more capitalist writers have revealed the real character of the conditions and management which are such an intrinsic part of neo-liberalism. For instance, Simon Caulkin in the Observer compares the structure of big business – including British Telecom, which the government, it has been leaked, has contingency plans to renationalise in the event of its collapse – as more of a mirror image of Stalinism than a prettified picture of an ideal capitalist firm. They are, according to him, “zombie-like in their structural and strategic similarity” with Stalinism.
Rather rudely, he declares of management: “With their faces towards the [chief executive officer] and their arses towards the customer” most managers are more concerned with earnings targets than producing a worthwhile product. The world’s most efficient, conventionally managed corporation, General Electric, “spends 40% – that is, $60 billion – of its revenues on administration and overheads… The managers of large western corporations have much more in common with the apparatchiks of the command economies than is recognised”. How much cheaper and efficient it would be to take over these firms, establish a system of workers’ control and management, and install a socialist planned economy!
Caulkin’s article is both a concession to Marx’s argument that the internal management of even a capitalist factory – Marx was speaking about the conditions of the nineteenth century – was an example of planning. The factory system, Marx said, applied to the economy and the world as a whole, would represent democratic socialist planning through the elimination of the market. Now, ironically, giant corporations – monopolies – have a top-heavy bureaucracy on the lines of the former Soviet Union. The solution lies not with Stalinism or with the capitalist ‘market’ but with democratic socialist planning. This requires the opening of the books for inspection by representatives of the unions and working-class organisations, small businesspeople, etc, in order to inform working people of what is the real situation as a preparatory step for realising such a plan.
Bridging the gap
The need for a transitional programme in this era arises from the mixed consciousness of working-class people. This consciousness will be shaken and changed by the march of events. But the development of a rounded-out socialist consciousness, firstly of the most politically developed layers and then of the mass of the working class, can also be enormously facilitated by a transitional approach and a transitional programme – by adopting the method of Leon Trotsky brought up to date and filled out by the experience of the working class itself in struggle. This provides the bridge from the consciousness of working people today to the idea of socialist change. Sectarians have no need for such a bridge because they have no intention of passing over from the study, armchair or sideline to engage with the working class and, together with it, helping to change consciousness and increasing identification with socialism.
We have entered an entirely new period for the working class of Britain, Europe and the world. Even if Obama manages to put a partial cushion under US capitalism and thereby the world through stimulus programmes – and this is not at all certain – the situation that will arise from this crisis will be entirely different than the one before its onset. At best, the world economy will experience anaemic growth with the stubborn maintenance of mass unemployment. This, like fatty tissue in the body, is a symptom of a declining organism. Capitalism, however, will not disappear from the scene of history automatically. It is necessary to forge a powerful mass weapon which will be assisted by raising the level of understanding of working-class people – helped by a transitional programme – which can provide the helping hand for this failed system to make way for socialism.
Without such an approach, there is the danger that it will not be immediately evident to working people, even faced with the present economic catastrophe, what is the viable alternative. In the car industry, for instance, where wages have been slashed due to mass layoffs, there is an instinctive understanding by workers that there is ‘no market’ for their present products. But, given the high technique and skill that exists, it would take very little to convert the car industry, with a market faced with massive overproduction and a glut, to the production of useful goods, including green, environmentally-friendly vehicles. These are urgently needed for the world’s population, in the context of a sustainable, environmentally-friendly transport system. Such a switch in production was achieved at the outbreak of the second world war but is frankly impossible given the chaos of capitalism today. This does, however, pose the demand for an alternative socialist society.
The gap between the increasingly worsening objective situation and the consciousness of the working class will close in the next period. Events – and explosive events at that – will help to ensure this. On the edge of an abyss, the mass of workers will confront the capitalist system – sometimes without a clear idea of what can be put in its place. The journey to a socialist and revolutionary consciousness will, however, be shortened considerably, the pain much less, if the working class embraces the transitional method and a transitional programme linking day-to-day struggles with the idea of socialism.
No to any burdens of the crisis of capitalism being placed on the backs of workers! No to mass unemployment, particularly the frightening prospect of a new generation being permanently on the dole. Nationalise the banks but with democratic, socialist forms of organisation, including the involvement of representatives of the working class, unions, small businesspeople, etc. A democratic socialist state sector will itself pose the issue of going further towards more nationalisation, encompassing the commanding heights of the economy. On this road, hope is offered to working-class people against the dead-end of stagnating, decaying world capitalism.
2009年3月3日星期二
The Cog In The Machine On Which All Depends
「The Cog In The Machine On Which All Depends. 」
「（工资劳动者的）境况随机器齿轮而定。」
2009年2月22日星期日
仁的精神——言语谨慎(好几年前写的文章）
仁的精神——言语谨慎
> 在大学里时，我常泡在图书馆里以消磨时光，我偶然读了《中国大学人文启思录》一书，该书里面的篇篇文章都出自名人学者之手，其所表达的思想自然具有权威性，这权威性到底是指什么？我也不太清楚，或许爱因斯坦的一句话——我一生反对权威，到头来我自己却成了权威——能给出一解！一旦某篇文章出自某某知名人士，便带有权威性，也就能唬人了。而大学生却是最容易被吓住的了，因为大学生是这样的群体：他们最反对权威但又最迷信权威。
> 大学生们一听说有某知名人士来校作讲座时，便怀着仰慕的心情趋之若骛，若所讲的主题他们较为熟悉，他们就表现出怀疑精神来，否则，他们便迷信起来！
> 我曾作为一个大学生，何曾免于此！
> 现在我就要把我的怀疑精神的一面表现一下！
> 《中国大学人文启思录》里面有位教授邓晓芒在他的“苏格拉底与孔子言说方式的比较”一文中说“再看看司马牛问‘仁’，他的回答只有一句：‘仁者其言也仞’，就是说：仁人说话是不太机灵的，说话笨一点就是‘仁’了，司马牛就发问了：其言也仞，斯谓之‘仁’矣乎？意思是说话笨一点，这就叫‘仁’了吗？孔子的回答就更加答非所问了：为之难，言之得无仞乎？意思是做起来很难，说话能不迟钝吗？这个回答可以说是驴唇不对马嘴，同时这句话本身也是经不起推敲的，说得容易，做起来很难，或者做起来很容易，但是说不清楚，这种事情太多，孔夫子在这里似乎是不太讲道理的，有的注者这样解释：孔子这么说，是针对司马牛多嘴的缺点，但是从言谈本身来说，司马牛问的是‘仁’，而不是什么小事情，你怎么能把多嘴随意上升到如此的高度呢？迟钝还是多嘴不是‘仁’的根本问题，所以这表面看起来是对话，但实质上它只是一番教训。”
> 这段话的意思并不难理解！我本来还以为“司马牛问仁”的那段对话也并不难理解的，用不着邓晓芒教授作出这一番滑稽的讲解并以一种新的诠释来教喻大家的！《诠释与过度诠释》一书中有这样一段话：“这些人自命不凡地认为自己是在从事解读符码，从偶然性中发现本质，撕开表象身上的神秘面纱而揭示隐藏着的真象的工作。”表面上看，邓晓芒教授似乎想做一个这样的自命不凡的人，想从孔子的言谈方式及其内容（符码）中发现某种意义上的本质，然而他的整篇文章，至少上面引用的那段话，实质上是“反本质主义”的，换言之，它是实用主义的，只要能服务于他自己的论说目的和需要，他能对孔子的言谈方式及其内容进行随意的诠释！
> 我为了揭示邓晓芒教授在这段话中表现出来的“反本质主义”倾向，特意查看了上海古藉出版社出版的《论语注释》中关于该对话的注释：“司马牛问仁，孔子说：‘具备仁的人，他的言语谨慎，’司马牛说：‘言语谨慎就叫做仁了吗？’孔子说：‘做起来难，说能不谨慎吗？’”朱喜在《集注》中说：“忍也，难也，仁者心存而不放，故其言若有所忍而不易发，盖其德之一端也。”看来“司马牛问仁”这段对话的确不难理解，并且朱席也认为迟钝还是多嘴的确是仁的根本问题之一（德之一端）。
> 我在此打算看看在“司马牛问仁”这段对话中孔子的回答是否是答非所问，或者说孔子这样的回答是否是驴唇不对马嘴，这是其一。其二是孔子这样的回答是否经得起推敲，或者说孔子这样的回答是否有道理。其三是孔子有没有把多嘴随意上升到如此的高度，或者说多嘴是否是仁的根本问题。
> 为了弄清第一个问题，我们可以从言谈方式入手进行剖解，先来看看“颜渊问仁”这段对话：
> “颜渊问仁，子曰：“克己复礼为仁，一日克己复礼，天下归仁焉，为人由己，而由人乎哉！’颜渊曰：‘请问其目’，子曰：‘……’。”显然这段对话的结构与“司马牛问仁”那段对话的结构是有差别的，但两者的言谈方式却完全是一样的，并且两者在内容上也有重叠互补处。重叠处是两者都是问“仁”，互补处是两者涉及了“仁”的不同方面。从这些角度来看，两者在结构上也可以相同，从孔子的角度看，两者在结构上更为可能相同了，而现在两者的不同是由于问者不同，一个是颜渊，另一个据说是多嘴多舌的司马牛。现在让我们试着把“颜渊问仁”的对话结构转换为“司马牛问仁”的对话结构：
> “颜渊问仁，子曰：‘仁者克己复礼。’曰：‘克己复礼，斯谓之仁矣乎？’子曰：‘一日克己复礼，天下归仁矣，为仁由己，而由人乎哉。’”
> 然而“颜渊的问仁”是不可能如司马牛那样的，据说司马牛是一个多嘴的人，也就是说他不迟钝，这样的人必然口快，这从其问仁上就可见一般，司马牛问仁后，孔子回答了“仁者，其言也仞”并准备进一步用“为之难，言之得无仞乎”来解释为什么“仁者，其言也仞”。而司马牛却抢着问：“其言也仞，斯谓之仁矣乎”孔子自然顺着原来的思路回答下去了。如果“司马牛问仁”能如颜渊那样的话，那么这段对话的结构就会是这样的：
> “司马牛问仁，子曰：‘仁者，其言也仞，为之难，言之得无仞乎。”
> 很显然这样的回答并非如邓晓芒所谓的答非所问，更不是驴唇不对马嘴了！
> 现在来看第二个问题，既孔子的这样回答是否经得起推敲，其回答是否有道理。同时回答第三个问题：孔子有没有把多嘴随意上升到如此的高度，或者说多嘴是否是仁的根本问题。
> 按邓晓芒教授的意思，似乎孔夫子把说话谨慎与否放到仁的高度是不恰当的，然而事实并非如此！前面提到过，朱子认为说话迟钝与否确是仁的根本问题之一。我们必须承认言语谨慎可以上升到仁的高度，孔夫子回答说“为之难，言之得无仞乎。”意思是做起来难，说能不谨慎吗？这样的回答非常合乎道理。具有仁德的人他的言语一定是谨慎的。原因很简单，我们都知道孔子是反对“言而无信”的。这样的意思在论语中到处都是。且看：
> 子曰：“君子欲讷于言而敏于行。”
> 子曰：“人而无信，不知其可也。”
> 子曰：“今吾与人也，听其言而观其行。”
> 子曰：“君子……敏于事而慎于言。”
> 子复曰：“……与朋友交言而有信。”
> 子曰：“巧言……左丘明耻之，丘也耻之。”
> 子曰：“先言而后从之。”
> 子曰：“故君子名之必可言也，言之必可行也，君子与其言，无所苟而已矣，只要不忘平生之言。”
> 子曰：“君子耻其言而过其言。”
> 这样看来，孔夫子把言语谨慎与否放到如此高度并不是没有根据的，孔夫子一向注意言行的统一的，而有两种情况能导致言行的不统一，一是说者能做而不去做，既口头上答应或说要做某事，并且完全能够做到却不去践履。这种行为属于明显的“言而无信”。二是明明自己做不到，却夸夸其谈，吹牛自己能怎样怎样，到头来，什么也做不成，大家一般不知这种行为也属于“言而无信”。孔子反对“言而无信”，既反对前者，同时也反对后者。孔子在“司马牛问仁”那段对话中的回答，正是针对司马牛多嘴多舌而说出一些冒冒失失的话，到头来却不能做到，给人以“言而无信”的感觉，让人笑话。在《论语》“里仁第四”中，有子曰：“古者言之不出，耻躬之不逮也”意思是古时候言语不随意出口，是耻于自身的行为做不到。孔子在人的言行上非常强调谨慎，就言行关系而言，两者不一是违背“仁”和“信”的。更有甚者，如孔子的弟子子路“有闻未之能行，唯恐有闻”，意思是子路在有所听说后而不能施行时，就害怕又听到些什么？在子路看来不但说了一定要做到，而且听了也一定要做到，其对言行的统一如此。可见言行统一不但孔子本人极其重视，而且孔子的弟子也很重视，在儒家，多嘴与否确是仁的根本问题之一。这样看来在“司马牛问仁”中孔子那样的回答一方面具有针对性，另一方面也完全与儒家的“仁”的根本精神一致的。岂容邓晓芒教授在那腾口徒说，总之，孔子那样的回答不但很经得起推敲，或者说很有道理，而且孔子并没有把多嘴随意上升到如此高度，或者说多嘴与否的确是“仁”的根本问题之一。
> 可见，邓晓芒教授的那段话完全是无稽之谈，我真希望他能言语谨慎些，这样差不多一可以不误他人，二又能不至于被人笑话！
> 最后，我还想说几句，现在象邓晓芒教授这样的学者虽在少数，这少数的人往往欺大学生们在某方面的无知，而信口雌黄，结果只能是误人子弟。我真诚的希望我们大学生们能亲自去看看我们的圣经《论语》！这样在自己有了直接的认识后，就不至于受人蒙骗（不管是善意的还是恶意的）了！
> 在大学里时，我常泡在图书馆里以消磨时光，我偶然读了《中国大学人文启思录》一书，该书里面的篇篇文章都出自名人学者之手，其所表达的思想自然具有权威性，这权威性到底是指什么？我也不太清楚，或许爱因斯坦的一句话——我一生反对权威，到头来我自己却成了权威——能给出一解！一旦某篇文章出自某某知名人士，便带有权威性，也就能唬人了。而大学生却是最容易被吓住的了，因为大学生是这样的群体：他们最反对权威但又最迷信权威。
> 大学生们一听说有某知名人士来校作讲座时，便怀着仰慕的心情趋之若骛，若所讲的主题他们较为熟悉，他们就表现出怀疑精神来，否则，他们便迷信起来！
> 我曾作为一个大学生，何曾免于此！
> 现在我就要把我的怀疑精神的一面表现一下！
> 《中国大学人文启思录》里面有位教授邓晓芒在他的“苏格拉底与孔子言说方式的比较”一文中说“再看看司马牛问‘仁’，他的回答只有一句：‘仁者其言也仞’，就是说：仁人说话是不太机灵的，说话笨一点就是‘仁’了，司马牛就发问了：其言也仞，斯谓之‘仁’矣乎？意思是说话笨一点，这就叫‘仁’了吗？孔子的回答就更加答非所问了：为之难，言之得无仞乎？意思是做起来很难，说话能不迟钝吗？这个回答可以说是驴唇不对马嘴，同时这句话本身也是经不起推敲的，说得容易，做起来很难，或者做起来很容易，但是说不清楚，这种事情太多，孔夫子在这里似乎是不太讲道理的，有的注者这样解释：孔子这么说，是针对司马牛多嘴的缺点，但是从言谈本身来说，司马牛问的是‘仁’，而不是什么小事情，你怎么能把多嘴随意上升到如此的高度呢？迟钝还是多嘴不是‘仁’的根本问题，所以这表面看起来是对话，但实质上它只是一番教训。”
> 这段话的意思并不难理解！我本来还以为“司马牛问仁”的那段对话也并不难理解的，用不着邓晓芒教授作出这一番滑稽的讲解并以一种新的诠释来教喻大家的！《诠释与过度诠释》一书中有这样一段话：“这些人自命不凡地认为自己是在从事解读符码，从偶然性中发现本质，撕开表象身上的神秘面纱而揭示隐藏着的真象的工作。”表面上看，邓晓芒教授似乎想做一个这样的自命不凡的人，想从孔子的言谈方式及其内容（符码）中发现某种意义上的本质，然而他的整篇文章，至少上面引用的那段话，实质上是“反本质主义”的，换言之，它是实用主义的，只要能服务于他自己的论说目的和需要，他能对孔子的言谈方式及其内容进行随意的诠释！
> 我为了揭示邓晓芒教授在这段话中表现出来的“反本质主义”倾向，特意查看了上海古藉出版社出版的《论语注释》中关于该对话的注释：“司马牛问仁，孔子说：‘具备仁的人，他的言语谨慎，’司马牛说：‘言语谨慎就叫做仁了吗？’孔子说：‘做起来难，说能不谨慎吗？’”朱喜在《集注》中说：“忍也，难也，仁者心存而不放，故其言若有所忍而不易发，盖其德之一端也。”看来“司马牛问仁”这段对话的确不难理解，并且朱席也认为迟钝还是多嘴的确是仁的根本问题之一（德之一端）。
> 我在此打算看看在“司马牛问仁”这段对话中孔子的回答是否是答非所问，或者说孔子这样的回答是否是驴唇不对马嘴，这是其一。其二是孔子这样的回答是否经得起推敲，或者说孔子这样的回答是否有道理。其三是孔子有没有把多嘴随意上升到如此的高度，或者说多嘴是否是仁的根本问题。
> 为了弄清第一个问题，我们可以从言谈方式入手进行剖解，先来看看“颜渊问仁”这段对话：
> “颜渊问仁，子曰：“克己复礼为仁，一日克己复礼，天下归仁焉，为人由己，而由人乎哉！’颜渊曰：‘请问其目’，子曰：‘……’。”显然这段对话的结构与“司马牛问仁”那段对话的结构是有差别的，但两者的言谈方式却完全是一样的，并且两者在内容上也有重叠互补处。重叠处是两者都是问“仁”，互补处是两者涉及了“仁”的不同方面。从这些角度来看，两者在结构上也可以相同，从孔子的角度看，两者在结构上更为可能相同了，而现在两者的不同是由于问者不同，一个是颜渊，另一个据说是多嘴多舌的司马牛。现在让我们试着把“颜渊问仁”的对话结构转换为“司马牛问仁”的对话结构：
> “颜渊问仁，子曰：‘仁者克己复礼。’曰：‘克己复礼，斯谓之仁矣乎？’子曰：‘一日克己复礼，天下归仁矣，为仁由己，而由人乎哉。’”
> 然而“颜渊的问仁”是不可能如司马牛那样的，据说司马牛是一个多嘴的人，也就是说他不迟钝，这样的人必然口快，这从其问仁上就可见一般，司马牛问仁后，孔子回答了“仁者，其言也仞”并准备进一步用“为之难，言之得无仞乎”来解释为什么“仁者，其言也仞”。而司马牛却抢着问：“其言也仞，斯谓之仁矣乎”孔子自然顺着原来的思路回答下去了。如果“司马牛问仁”能如颜渊那样的话，那么这段对话的结构就会是这样的：
> “司马牛问仁，子曰：‘仁者，其言也仞，为之难，言之得无仞乎。”
> 很显然这样的回答并非如邓晓芒所谓的答非所问，更不是驴唇不对马嘴了！
> 现在来看第二个问题，既孔子的这样回答是否经得起推敲，其回答是否有道理。同时回答第三个问题：孔子有没有把多嘴随意上升到如此的高度，或者说多嘴是否是仁的根本问题。
> 按邓晓芒教授的意思，似乎孔夫子把说话谨慎与否放到仁的高度是不恰当的，然而事实并非如此！前面提到过，朱子认为说话迟钝与否确是仁的根本问题之一。我们必须承认言语谨慎可以上升到仁的高度，孔夫子回答说“为之难，言之得无仞乎。”意思是做起来难，说能不谨慎吗？这样的回答非常合乎道理。具有仁德的人他的言语一定是谨慎的。原因很简单，我们都知道孔子是反对“言而无信”的。这样的意思在论语中到处都是。且看：
> 子曰：“君子欲讷于言而敏于行。”
> 子曰：“人而无信，不知其可也。”
> 子曰：“今吾与人也，听其言而观其行。”
> 子曰：“君子……敏于事而慎于言。”
> 子复曰：“……与朋友交言而有信。”
> 子曰：“巧言……左丘明耻之，丘也耻之。”
> 子曰：“先言而后从之。”
> 子曰：“故君子名之必可言也，言之必可行也，君子与其言，无所苟而已矣，只要不忘平生之言。”
> 子曰：“君子耻其言而过其言。”
> 这样看来，孔夫子把言语谨慎与否放到如此高度并不是没有根据的，孔夫子一向注意言行的统一的，而有两种情况能导致言行的不统一，一是说者能做而不去做，既口头上答应或说要做某事，并且完全能够做到却不去践履。这种行为属于明显的“言而无信”。二是明明自己做不到，却夸夸其谈，吹牛自己能怎样怎样，到头来，什么也做不成，大家一般不知这种行为也属于“言而无信”。孔子反对“言而无信”，既反对前者，同时也反对后者。孔子在“司马牛问仁”那段对话中的回答，正是针对司马牛多嘴多舌而说出一些冒冒失失的话，到头来却不能做到，给人以“言而无信”的感觉，让人笑话。在《论语》“里仁第四”中，有子曰：“古者言之不出，耻躬之不逮也”意思是古时候言语不随意出口，是耻于自身的行为做不到。孔子在人的言行上非常强调谨慎，就言行关系而言，两者不一是违背“仁”和“信”的。更有甚者，如孔子的弟子子路“有闻未之能行，唯恐有闻”，意思是子路在有所听说后而不能施行时，就害怕又听到些什么？在子路看来不但说了一定要做到，而且听了也一定要做到，其对言行的统一如此。可见言行统一不但孔子本人极其重视，而且孔子的弟子也很重视，在儒家，多嘴与否确是仁的根本问题之一。这样看来在“司马牛问仁”中孔子那样的回答一方面具有针对性，另一方面也完全与儒家的“仁”的根本精神一致的。岂容邓晓芒教授在那腾口徒说，总之，孔子那样的回答不但很经得起推敲，或者说很有道理，而且孔子并没有把多嘴随意上升到如此高度，或者说多嘴与否的确是“仁”的根本问题之一。
> 可见，邓晓芒教授的那段话完全是无稽之谈，我真希望他能言语谨慎些，这样差不多一可以不误他人，二又能不至于被人笑话！
> 最后，我还想说几句，现在象邓晓芒教授这样的学者虽在少数，这少数的人往往欺大学生们在某方面的无知，而信口雌黄，结果只能是误人子弟。我真诚的希望我们大学生们能亲自去看看我们的圣经《论语》！这样在自己有了直接的认识后，就不至于受人蒙骗（不管是善意的还是恶意的）了！
我译自CWI的以色列政权的野蛮攻击杀死和伤害成千上万人，留给加沙的是一片废墟（初稿）
以色列政权的野蛮攻击杀死和伤害成千上万人，留给加沙的是一片废墟
呼吁停火，但冲突的根源仍然在——至关重要的是社会主义的解决方案！
工人国际委员会国际秘书处，罗伯特•贝歇特
中东地区的群众再次经历了更多的痛苦，伤害和死亡。这种对加沙地带的攻击一直是一边倒的暴行。 据报道第一天有225人丧生，这是以色列历史上血腥的一日。
在国际上，以色列政府的宣传是为了阻止对以色列南部地区的导弹袭击，这样的破坏性打击是必要的。可以说这种大规模的袭击是完全不对称的而且无助于实现和平。有着越来越多的表明这场战争影响到平民的证据，其中包括袭击联合国建造的难民营，这些越来越令人义愤填膺。社会主义者反对哈马斯的一些政策和方法，但是一刻也没有因此而削弱我们要求立即停止对加沙袭击所从事的活动。
以色列政府发起的这种对巴勒斯坦人进行集体惩罚的目的之一是破坏对在2006年1月巴勒斯坦议会选举中获胜的哈马斯的支持并打击巴勒斯坦的反压迫和反占领的意志。以色列和埃及封锁加沙地带的目的是要使人们服软而顺从地接受帝国主义强加到他们身上的任何协议。战争的另一个目的是迫使巴勒斯坦人接受以色列、反动的阿拉伯政权和帝国主义可以接受的领导人。
以色列政府的最直接的战争目标，即于2月10日的重新选举，更可能无法实现。力量进一步右转，尤其是内塔尼亚胡领导的利库德集团和利伯曼的Yisrael Beitenu（以色列我们的家园） ，在投票中已有所获。虽然这一屠杀展示了以色列军队2006年在黎巴嫩发动的针对黎巴嫩真主党的战争失败后的军事力量，但对以色列统治阶级而言，它没有提供解决办法。
巴勒斯坦工人阶级和穷人承受的这场战争的代价是巨大的。但是，不管以色列政权短期内得到了什么，从长远来看，它不会给以色列工人阶级带来什么积极的东西。这种屠杀不会带给以色列劳动人民和平或安全。相反，它会导致又一轮冲突，其中巴勒斯坦的工人阶级和穷人，包括以色列犹太工人，将受害最深。
这场战争再次向巴勒斯坦人提出尖锐的问题：他们如何才能结束压迫和实现解放。显然，阿拉伯政权，甚至那些口头上谴责这一攻击的阿拉伯政权，并不能使巴勒斯坦群众免受压迫。相反，他们更害怕激进的巴勒斯坦人民以及他们自己的人民。这一经验再次表明，巴勒斯坦工人和穷人只能通过自己的行动才能真正地保护自己并实现真正的自由和安全。
挑拨离间法塔赫和哈马斯
试图通过踏平加沙大部分地区来使人们疏离哈马斯而转向效忠更为顺服的民族权力机构主席阿巴斯和巴勒斯坦解放组织（巴解组织）的领导是完全错误的。哈马斯由于关键成员的死亡在军事上可能已经减弱，但在政治上，哈马斯可能得到加强。哈马斯最初赢得支持是因为人们认为它比法塔赫领导层更少腐败和更少顺从帝国主义者。这场战争的结果将是进一步削弱对法塔赫的支持和加强更为激进的势力。
这就是为什么美国和其他势力加大努力来支持法塔赫的原因。该计划是使由法塔赫当政的西岸的巴勒斯坦民族权力机构（自治政府）来控制重建资金的分配，特别是沙特阿拉伯承诺的10亿美元，并扮演有限的角色以管理加沙与埃及的边界。华尔街日报报道'欧洲联盟高级官员'称： “欧盟将不会帮助重建因以色列的进攻而被毁的建筑物和基础设施，直到加沙由欧盟可接受的统治者管辖” 。同一篇文章报道，在'耶路撒冷的西方外交官' 说明他们的计划就是： “巴勒斯坦民族权力机构（自治政府）回来拯救加沙人民。这就是我们直言不讳的观点“ 。 （ 1月20日）这就是他们所谓的为加沙及其受苦受难的人民争取自决和给予的所谓的人道主义帮助！
这场战争是以色列政府以应对来自加沙地带的导弹袭击为借口而蓄意挑起的。它的唯一的理由是哈马斯除非在解除封锁情况下将拒绝延长6个月的停火'（阿拉伯人和希伯来人的字面上的'平静'），并恢复从加沙地带向以色列南部地区发射相对较少而且作用不大的导弹。当然，对当地居民来说，这是恐怖活动，但与以色列军队所造成的伤亡相比，它们造成相对较小的破坏和生命丧失。尽管如此，它们给了奥尔默特政府理由来发动战争并使它能够调动绝大多数以色列犹太人支持打击。美国和其他国家政府把这些导弹看作是主要问题，而把对巴勒斯坦人的屠杀及其苦难放在次要的位置。
社会主义者和支持其他被压迫人民一样支持巴勒斯坦人民的在必要的情况下通过武装行动来保卫自己的权利。然而，为了行之有效，这种自卫的行动必须建立在群众的支持上并处在通过基层委员会组织起来的更广泛的人们的民主要求下。否则，秘密民兵组织的发展有演变成刑事勒索并使得以色列安全人员更容易渗透进去的危险。
此外，火箭袭击的策略以及此前针对以色列公民的自杀式炸弹袭击——工人国际委员会反对这样的方法和目标——不能捍卫巴勒斯坦人的利益，并导致了目前绝大多数以色列犹太人支持国家的打击的后果。认为这种袭击将向犹太人显示以色列军队不能保护他们从而能破坏以色列国家的观点是错误的。其主要作用是加强右翼民族主义分子的力量和加强对这场战争的支持。这就是为什么和它的国际支持者乔治•布什一样，以色列政府的宣传机器，不断重复提到“导弹袭击”，同时限制所有外国记者进入加沙地带以试图限制报道以色列的导弹、炮弹所造成的大屠杀。
虽然这一打击的时间选择正值以色列大选前期以及布什政府的结束，军事行动的强度和范围表明它有着更大的战争目的。他们以此证明以色列的军事力量，破坏加沙地带的基础设施以削弱哈马斯的统治，如果可能的话，通过除去选举产生的哈马斯政府实现政权改变而代之以更为顺服的对人友好的巴勒斯坦民族权力机构主席马哈茂德•阿巴斯。
如果不是更长的时间的话，这场战争已经准备了6个月。其中一部分就是组织宣传机器以使人们认为这种打击纯粹是防止哈马斯从加沙发射导弹。但是，尽管导弹袭击，国际上人们普遍知道这场战争是不对称的。在过去三个星期里， 13名以色列人——10名士兵和3名平民——被炸死。这一模式屡见不鲜。在2005年7月，加沙地带发射的导弹导致11名以色列人死亡，而以色列的军事行动造成在加沙地带的1290个巴勒斯坦人，包括222个儿童死亡。 2007年，尽管没有来自那里的导弹发射，83名巴勒斯坦人死于以色列在约旦河西岸的行动。正如2006年在黎巴嫩，以色列空军以'和平'的名义袭击消灭了整个家庭。
整个三个星期的攻击，以色列和其他国家政府担心打击持续的时间越长，阿拉伯国家发生重大剧变并升级为更大的战争的可能性就更高。面对中东不断上涨的愤怒和世界各地日益增加的厌恶，主要的大国被迫出来采取行动，但尽管联合国出台了有关决议而且尼古拉•萨尔科齐在该地区往来穿梭，事情一如往常。现在有可能建议在加沙和埃及边界，也许在加沙地带及其与以色列的边界驻入外国军队来管辖这个边境。但是，这不会给予巴勒斯坦人行动的自由，更遑论自决权了。在黎巴嫩的国际部队并没有阻止2006年的入侵。最后，这些部队会面临越来越多的反对，因为人们认为它们是捍卫帝国主义列强利益的。
给以色列的袭击正当性辩护的谎言和歪曲说明是无耻的。侵略者把它的行动说成是防御性的做法是正常的。因此，以色列政府根本无视这一事实，它仍然占领着，或在加沙地带的情况下，包围在1967年战争中霸占的领土。以色列外交部长齐皮•利夫尼在世界面前谴责恐怖主义，同时却无视以色列在被占领土地内外所实施的国家恐怖主义。利夫尼的虚伪尤为突出的是她的父母是右翼犹太团体伊尔根的关键成员，该团体在以色列/巴勒斯坦实施了简直是最血腥的恐怖行为， 它1946年在耶路撒冷炸毁大卫王酒店。尽管越来越多的证据表明他们使用了作为一种禁止在平民区使用的战争武器的白磷弹，以色列军队只是回避他们是否使用了白磷弹。
以色列精英不断操纵大屠杀的记忆，试图压制批评，更重要的是利用以色列犹太人的恐惧心理。但是，在以色列的犹太人的悲剧是他们处在如此情势下，只要资本主义和剥削依然存在，它们将面临反复的战争以及担心如果他们被打败将被'推入海'，直到他们看到一种替代办法，许多以色列的犹太人将具有一种被围困的心态并为此可能会导致支持他们政府的侵略。
为投票支持'错误路线'而遭受惩罚
当前军事行动的历史可以追溯到2006年1月，那时哈马斯在选举中以获得44 ％的选票和巴勒斯坦议会132个席位中74个而胜选后，以色列炮击加沙地带。本次投票震惊了希望其2005年从加沙地带撤军将使顺从的法塔赫领导层掌管该地区的以色列政府。
担心哈马斯呼吁抵抗会破坏它的计划，以色列政府试图在加沙施加影响以改变该政权。以色列政府试图通过使加沙居民转而反对哈马斯来削弱哈马斯，这些没有成功。后来在美国杂志名利场上记载的一项美国支持的发动政变反对哈马斯的企图在2007年6月哈马斯把法塔赫从加沙地带逐出而被挫败。然而，在约旦河西岸得到以色列政权帮助的占主导地位的法塔赫日益设法镇压哈马斯的支持者。今天，40多个哈马斯议员遭到监禁，而其他人遭到暗杀。
帝国主义者虚伪地谴责哈马斯2007年6月的行动并接着加强封锁加沙地带。尽管中东地区的主要顾问向当时的美国副总统切尼供认说， “所发生之事基本上不是哈马斯发动的政变而是法塔赫企图发动政变以便在哈马斯可能发动之前先发制人” 。帝国主义列强和腐败的阿拉伯政权完全支持这些针对哈马斯的举动，他们恐怕哈马斯的成功将推进中东地区的反抗
只有当“民主”适合他们的需要时，帝国主义列强才谈'民主' ，如果产生了他们不喜欢的结果，那么它们就不谈“民主”了。没有一个大国曾就目前的企图禁止巴勒斯坦各党派参与2月份的以色列大选发表评论。正如巴勒斯坦人，在帝国主义者看来，他们投票支持'错误的路线' ，帝国主义者没有提及哈马斯在2006年选举中的获胜，而只是一再谴责它为恐怖组织。因此，埃及关闭了进入加沙地带的拉法过境点，同时以色列政府扣留属于巴勒斯坦当局的税收收入并减少运送人道主义物资的卡车。很快有一连串的以色列和哈马斯之间的攻击和反击。
在解释和反对以色列和美国和阿拉伯打击上，社会主义者并不给哈马斯以政治支持。尽管哈马斯有反帝国主义和反腐败的言论，但哈马斯是一个亲资本主义的运动。它试图把自己独特的宗教观点强加给社会并且会无情镇压巴勒斯坦人中间的对手。哈马斯的政策和策略最终将阻碍巴勒斯坦民族解放斗争。其目前得到的支持是因为许多巴勒斯坦人认为哈马斯领导人比起它的对手法塔赫更少腐败以及他们语言上更为激进地反对以色列的侵略。以色列政府对哈马斯的妖魔化是虚伪的，最初，以色列秘密工作支持哈马斯的基金会，以破坏作为其当时的强大的竞争对手的世俗的巴解组织。但是，正如发生在美国中央情报局和沙特资助的阿富汗的'伊斯兰抵抗运动'一样，其用意是把他们作为一个工具，但是这个工具变得过于强大并且威胁到了他们的前资助国。但是，反对哈马斯的政策并帮助建立能为了工人阶级，被压迫者和穷人的利益而结束冲突的工人的组织与抵抗以色列，美国和其他帝国主义政府之间并不矛盾。
精心布置的陷阱
去年，由哈马斯和其他巴勒斯坦团体从加沙地带发射的导弹只是违反为期6个月的'平静'中的一个——以色列军队利用这个“平静”期来为他们的行动认真地做好准备。'平静期'之前，以色列政府借助埃及的胡斯尼•穆巴拉克政权不断增强对加沙地带的封锁。在2005年年底，禁止来自加沙的大部分工人进入以色列工作。然后加沙的商业贸易活动遭到了大大的限制，最终，从2006年年中开始，人道主义援助也遭到挤压。其结果是，去年加沙只收到2005年收到的进口物资的25 ％。这就是为什么加沙的一个主要要求是解除封锁。在加沙的边界挖了数以百计的隧道，这些隧道主要并不是用于以色列和西方国家政府声称的武器走私活动，而是努力克服封锁的影响。
到去年年底，这种封锁变得越来越紧。据华尔街日报报导说， “在十一月五日和开始的最近的冲突之间，平均每天只允许16辆卡车进入加沙地带，而十月份是每天123辆和2007年5月时是每天475辆” （ 1月8日） 。11月5日的日子是重要的，因为它是以色列军队打击后的一天，它开始了实施最新攻击的倒计时。实际上，以色列政府把加沙置于饥饿的口粮配给状态中：联合国说，大约需要40辆卡车以满足加沙每日的最低限度的需要。这就是为什么甚至联合国也说到了以色列的对加沙的集体惩罚。
这种经济封锁和军事打击驱使哈马斯除非在开放边境的情况下将拒绝延长六个月的“平静”，同时也驱使哈马斯重新向以色列南部地区发射导弹，哈马斯领导层切实地掉进了这个陷阱，使得以色列政府政治上更容易发动这个选举前的战争。
以色列11月4号的袭击导致哈马斯六个成员的死亡后，哈马斯拒绝延长六个月'平静'启动了这个陷阱。以色列军方声称有情报显示挖隧道的目的是绑架以色列士兵。
情报和恐怖主义信息中心（ ITIC ）记录了接下来发生的事情，该中心的资料由以色列政府发布。以前的记录表明在7月至10月的4个月里只有11枚火箭弹和15发迫击炮炮弹从加沙发射过来， ITIC报告说， “在6个月的平静期，该恐怖组织发射了223枚火箭弹和139发迫击炮炮弹” ，其中大部分是“在11月4日和12月19日之间的6个星期里”发射的。
显然， 11月4日的袭击改变了局势，这正是它打算这样做的。看来很清楚，以色列政府正在努力筹划10月底确定的2月10日的选举前的行动的时间表。
有许多报道说，哈马斯愿意维持停火，同时要求解除封锁。12月中旬它派遣了一个代表团前往开罗讨论这个问题。大约在同一时间，美国前总统卡特会见了设在叙利亚大马士革的哈马斯政治局的主席马沙尔。马沙尔表示，“如果有迹象表明以色列将解除对加沙的封锁”，哈马斯愿意回到停火状态。几天后，以色列安全机构辛贝特的总负责人尤瓦迪斯12月21日举行的以色列内阁会议中说： “没有错，哈马斯有意维持休战” 。尽管哈马斯领导人说如果通道被打开他们将继续延长停火，但以色列和埃及政府拒绝这样做。
看来，停火协议12月19日结束后哈马斯发射火箭弹不一定是一个长期的攻势的开始。ITIC说，袭击事件12月24日达到高峰。换句话说，以色列空军12月27日发动“铸铅行动”(Operation Cast Lead)前，导弹袭击已经减少。埃及报纸金字塔报（ 1月20日）引述米什尔的话说，哈马斯只计划为期3天的军事反应。相反，加沙遭到了22天的屠杀。
由于这种错误判断，以及哈马斯并不是基于动员群众而落于挑衅。它可以动员加沙地带的人们以诉求在停火计划中同意重新开放加沙边界。不能说要求打开与埃及的边界的大规模动员是恐怖主义。这样的行动，再加上呼吁埃及人的支持，将使穆巴拉克政权处于难以忍受的境地下，要么开放边界，要么将面临反抗。
这不是梦想。不到一年前，拉法附近的边境炸开一个洞后，群众行动保证了11天自由进出，直到哈马斯同意将其重新关闭。去年12月，哈马斯领导人希望发射几百枚导弹将改变这种状况。相反这给了以色列政府借口以发动它希望的选举前的战争。去年1月/ 2月使边境保持开放的群众行动是一个例子，和两次巴勒斯坦人起义一样表明这种形式的斗争是巴勒斯坦民族解放的关键。随着时间的推移，人们将开始质疑哈马斯的政策和策略，正如以前法塔赫的政策和策略受到质疑一样。
对加沙的巴勒斯坦人的集体惩罚——封锁和军事行动——只会加深对以色列的敌意。它不会损害到哈马斯或加强法塔赫的地位。它使得巴勒斯坦人团结起来反对以色列。然而，以色列军方指望厌战情绪可以创造一个更为顺从的情绪。随着哈马斯领导人急于显示以色列人应对任何新的战斗的负责，在加沙似乎结合着绝望和渴望报仇的情绪。
有达成交易的任何机会吗？
有可能受欢迎的遭监禁的法塔赫领导人巴尔古提（Marwan Barghouti）在未来的发展中会发挥作用。在第二次起义期间，巴尔古提的受欢迎程度得到了提高，在本世纪初，他作为一个法塔赫武装分支坦兹姆的领导人被以色列人监禁起来，他从法塔赫中分裂出来并组成一个新党al-Mustaqbal（未来） 。在2006年1月选举中，他与法塔赫联合起来参加选举。后来，巴尔古提帮助起草了由来自许多团体，其中包括哈马斯的知名的遭监禁的巴勒斯坦领导人的联合协议。作为战犯全国安抚文件的这个声明为巴勒斯坦民族团结政府以及同以色列打交道提供了基础。巴尔古提可能尚未被释放，因为帝国主义者企图以某种交易的形式干涉较受欢迎的领导人。
但是，即使一个临时交易也取决于以色列的局势。尽管政府试图呈现出加沙战争取得了胜利的形象，战争仍然不可能挽救前进党和工党的联盟，而且利库德集团领导的政府可以尝试摆出一个更为好斗的姿态。尽管一些帝国主义列强希望解决问题而同意形成两个国家，以色列精英中关键部分将不会允许任何形成一个可行的巴勒斯坦国的走向。他们担心的是这样一个国家，即使是试图形成一个这样的国家，将增添该地区新的不稳定因素。
然而，在以色列境内对战争的质问将增加。虽然这种质疑在名声扫地的2006年黎巴嫩战争中很快出现，现在可能需要多一点的时间，因为加沙战争正在呈现出成功的形象。但是，不可避免地，大家会问：长远的未来是什么？尽管以色列的打击得到了压倒性的支持，主要是因为导弹和上世纪90年代哈马斯的自杀式袭击的策略，只有少数人反对，其中包括一些军人。在特拉维夫和雅法有相当大的巴勒斯坦人和犹太人的联合示威以反对战争。即使在战争的支持者中也没有支持长期重新占领加沙地带的。
随着时间的推移，以色列的犹太人会问：我们到底得到了什么？在以色列社会的两极分化将继续下去。极端民族主义者将要求采取进一步的对巴勒斯坦人的行动。随着新闻报道了所发生的事情，其他国家也将越来越对大规模杀害平民尤其是儿童的做法感到憎恶。如果试图表明以色列国没有取得胜利而恢复导弹攻击或新的自杀性袭击，这样的发展可能中断。
围困的心态和大屠杀的遗痕是个有力的问题，以色列精英经常利用这些问题。尽管玩世不恭的利用，如果为了劳动人民和穷人的利益要打破这种僵局，这些是必须考虑到的真正的因素。除非提供给以色列的犹太人一个可行的替代办法，如果他们认为他们的生存受到威胁，绝大多数人将用尽一切手段反击。
变弱的以色列
以色列犹太人不是一个单一集团。这里有着越来越明显的阶级分化，特别是在新自由主义取消了这个福利国家的许多方面的福利后。自以色列成立以来就有种族隔离。土生土长的以色列精英歧视到1995年占进入以色列的移民45 ％以上的来自阿拉伯国家的犹太人。在过去十年中出现了工人和学生的重要斗争，包括大罢工和示威，随着世界经济灾难的展开，这种斗争再三地爆发。如果利库德集团再次奉行新自由主义政策，它会迅速导致阶级斗争的发展。这些可能带来建立一个真正的工人运动的可能性以作为在以色列的战斗力量，同时也作为以色列和巴勒斯坦工人共同斗争的一步。
国际上，对以色列攻击加沙的野蛮行径越来越多的深恶痛绝削弱了以色列的力量，特别是在2006年黎巴嫩战争之后。视以色列政府的政策为不稳定因素并希望尝试'解决'的部分世界帝国主义可能利用这一点。
新的奥巴马政府的倡议可能会努力走上这条道路，并要求以色列撤出部分1967年战争后占领的领土，他也许会与哈马斯接触，寻求让他们参与某种形式的巴勒斯坦民族团结政府。在这场战争中，奥尔默特主张'土地换和平'的交易，这是奥巴马政府现在所推动的。然而，虽然这些举动调子很高而且会提升希望，在这一天结束时，它们都将被证明是有限的。沿着这些路线，没有什么交易可以挑战资本主义的统治，包括以色列在内的地区性霸权。毫无疑问，巴勒斯坦工人和穷人会再次发现自己被出卖了。
这场战争在阿拉伯国家的舆论上产生了巨大的影响。阿拉伯群众愤怒了，但没有看到具体该怎么做。即使现在只有有限的街头抗议活动，在未来，将感觉到这场战争的影响。
中东的政权显然视哈马斯为一种威胁。埃及和沙特阿拉伯的亲美的政权视哈马斯和逊尼派运动以及伊朗之间的连接为一种公开的道路使什叶派伊朗领导层获得对逊尼派穆斯林国家的影响力。非常有效地反对法塔赫的哈马斯的反腐败和反帝国主义的宣传还可以激励人们反对与帝国主义勾结的腐败的不民主的政权。一位美国布鲁金斯研究所的分析师说： “哈马斯从来没有这么多的合法性” 。这在迈沙勒出席1月15日在卡塔尔首都多哈举行的阿拉伯国家和伊朗的首脑会议上反映出来了。本次会议上，再次显示出阿拉伯国家之间的分裂，埃及和沙特阿拉伯政权没有出席。
这场战争准备着一个更动荡的中东，特别是对那些有效地支持了这一袭击和2006年攻击黎巴嫩的政权。奥巴马可能会使大量的阿拉伯政权卷入进来，试图在不同的问题上达成一致意见，但协议并不等于解决办法。
中东产生冲突的根源在于资本主义无法满足人们的社会和经济需要和它无力解决民族问题上的冲突以及帝国主义国家不断努力在经济上和战略上控制这个重要的地区。这些都加深了整个区域的民族冲突，因为如果不推翻精英统治和资本主义，它们就不能得到解决。直到这样做以前，跨越整个中东地区的周期性的战争和压迫和剥削是不会结束的。
和平的基础
对一些人来说，这一最新战争可能是60年里已席卷该地区的无穷无尽的一系列冲突的一个而已。面对看似棘手的犹太人和巴勒斯坦人之间的冲突，有些人可能会得出这样的结论：没有出路以及中东地区的人们注定要遭受一个又一个灾难。
这不是社会主义者的观点。中东的人民大众希望生活在和平与安全的环境下。工人国际委员会（CWI）认为，真正的和平是可以实现的。然而，唯一可能的是，如果劳动人民——巴勒斯坦人和以色列的犹太人——在承认它们的共同利益的基础上谈判达成一项协议而建设社会主义作为一种替代方式来实现这些目标。
这只能通过巴勒斯坦领土上和以色列以及该地区的工人阶级和穷人的独立的行动和组织的发展达到。这种运动将不得不反对资本主义和当地腐败的精英，并捍卫全体劳动人民的民族权益，这样才能取得成功。他们应该捍卫这样的理念，即所有工作的人应受益于中东地区的财富。通过这种方式，可以为建立双方之间的信任与合作开辟道路，以实现真正的和平。如果没有这样的社会主义运动，统治精英将利用群众对该地区将面临一个持续循环的流血冲突的恐惧维持其统治。
为了反对地方统治者和帝国主义的利益，这类组织可以争取社会主义的解决办法——一个真正独立的社会主义的巴勒斯坦国，这能够满足巴勒斯坦人民的愿望，并且可以与社会主义以色列和平共存。只有在社会主义的框架下开放根据当地人民的愿望重新划定的边界，让耶路撒冷成为共同的首都，并保障所有少数民族的民主权利，这样巴勒斯坦人的困境才可以得到解决。只有巴勒斯坦人和以色列人的民族的权利得到解决，权利的问题才转向那些不希望被看作是一种威胁的问题。社会主义巴勒斯坦和社会主义以色列可能是该地区自由和自愿的社会主义邦联的一部分。
跟着多年遭受的压迫和多年的斗争以及不能确保根本的改变， 加上过去几周加沙遭受的可怕的痛苦，这些肯定会在巴勒斯坦人之间就下一步该怎么做激起讨论和辩论。腐败的法塔赫领导人和哈马斯的局限性将导致重新寻找一条前进的道路，其中群众斗争和社会主义替代的思想将会得到响应。
在以色列，重要的是这场战争一开始就遭到了犹太人和巴勒斯坦人的联合的抗议。然而，在以色列的这个抗议，工人国际委员会（CWI）在其中发挥了作用，只有极少数人并且遭到了特别针对进行抗议的以色列的阿拉伯人的镇压。然而，这一以色列的抗议标明人们将承认可以越来越清楚地看到这个预先计划的选举前的战争和今后的任何战争并不能保证以色列的犹太人的安全。
加沙的巴勒斯坦人经历了这些残暴的事件和遭受巨大的苦难，以色列领导人的玩世不恭，阿拉伯国家领导人的腐败，再加上世界经济危机必然的影响，会为开始建设可以反抗压迫、贫穷和资本主义的社会主义组织创造机会。
Israeli regime’s brutal assault kills and injures thousands, leaves Gaza in ruins
Ceasefire called but root causes of conflict remain – socialist solution vital!
Robert Bechert, International Secretariat, CWI
Once again the masses in the Middle East have endured more suffering, injury and death. This attack on Gaza has been one of overwhelmingly brutality. On the first day, 225 people were reported killed, one of the bloodiest days in Israel’s history.
Internationally, Israeli government propaganda that the destruction was necessary to stop missile attacks on southern Israel was not accepted. The scale of the attack was seen as being out of all proportion and would do nothing to bring peace. The growing evidence of the war’s impact on civilians, including the strikes on those sheltering in UN buildings, increased the outrage. Socialists’ opposition to some of Hamas’ policies and methods did not for a minute dent our campaigning for an immediate end to this attack on Gaza.
One aim of the Israeli government in inflicting this collective punishment on the Palestinians was to undermine support for Hamas, which won the January 2006 Palestinian assembly elections, and crush the Palestinian will to resist oppression and occupation. The Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza was designed to soften up the population so that they would tamely accept any agreement that imperialism foisted onto them. Another aim war was to force Palestinians into accepting leaders who were acceptable to the Israeli state, reactionary Arab regimes, and imperialism.
It more than likely that the Israeli government’s most immediate war aim, re-election on 10 February, will not be achieved. The forces further to the right, particularly Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud and Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home), have gained in the polls. While this slaughter illustrates the Israeli army’s military power, following its defeat in the 2006 war on Hezbollah in Lebanon, it has not provided a solution for the Israeli ruling class.
This war’s cost to the Palestinian working class and poor is enormous. But, whatever the short-term gains for the Israeli regime, in the longer term, it will bring nothing positive to the Israeli working class. This slaughter will not bring peace or security to the working people of Israel. On the contrary, it will lead to another cycle of conflict in which the working class and poor, Palestinian but also Israeli Jewish workers, will suffer most.
This war again poses sharply to Palestinians the questions of how they can end oppression and achieve liberation. Clearly, the Arab regimes, even those which verbally denounced this assault, are incapable of preventing the oppression of the Palestinian masses. On the contrary, they are more fearful of a radicalisation of the Palestinians and their own populations. This experience has shown again that it will only be through their own actions that the Palestinian workers and poor can really defend themselves and realise genuine freedom and security.
Playing Fatah against Hamas
The idea that levelling large parts of Gaza would lead its population to switch their allegiance from Hamas to the more compliant Mahmoud Abbas and Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) leadership is utterly false. Hamas may have been militarily weakened, with key personnel killed, but politically, Hamas is likely to emerge strengthened. Hamas originally built its support because it was seen as less corrupt and less amenable to imperialism than the Fatah leadership. This war is resulting in a further weakening of Fatah’s support and the strengthening of more radical forces.
This is why the US and other powers are increasing their efforts to bolster Fatah. The plan is to give the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA), which Fatah runs, control of the distribution of reconstruction funds, especially the promised $1 billion from Saudi Arabia, and a limited role in administering Gaza’s border with Egypt. The Wall Street Journal reported a ‘top European Union official’ saying the EU “wouldn’t help to rebuild buildings and infrastructure destroyed in Israel’s offensive until Gaza is governed by rulers acceptable to the EU”. The same article reported a ‘Western diplomat in Jerusalem’ explaining their plan: “The PA comes back to save the people of Gaza. That’s the narrative”. (20 January) So much for self-determination and humanitarian help for Gaza and its suffering people!
This war was deliberately provoked by the Israeli government under the cover of dealing with missile attacks from Gaza. Its only justification was Hamas’ refusal to extend the six-month ‘ceasefire’ (literally, ‘calm’ in Arabic and Hebrew) unless the blockade was lifted, and the resumption of firing of relatively small, and not very effective, missiles from Gaza into southern Israel. Naturally, this terrorizes the local population, but they have caused relatively minor damage and loss of life, unlike the casualties inflicted by the Israeli military. Nevertheless, they gave Ehud Olmert’s government a cause for war and enabled it to mobilise the vast majority of Israeli Jews behind the assault. The US and other governments made these missiles the major issue, pushing to second place the slaughter and suffering of the Palestinians.
Socialists support the right of Palestinians, like any oppressed people, to defend themselves through armed action if necessary. However, to be effective, such defensive action has to be based on mass support, and under the democratic direction of the wider population, organised through grassroots committees. Otherwise, there is the danger that secretive militia organisations develop that can degenerate into criminal extortion and be infiltrated more easily by the Israeli security services.
Moreover, the policy of rocket attacks and, previously, suicide bombings against Israeli citizens – methods and targets the CWI opposes – cannot defend the Palestinians and has led to the current overwhelming Israeli-Jewish support for the state’s onslaught. The argument that such attacks will show Jews that the Israeli military cannot defend them and, thereby, undermine the Israeli state is wrong. Their main effect has been to strengthen the right-wing nationalists and support for this war. This is why the Israeli government’s propaganda machine, and its international supporters like George Bush, keep repeating the mantra of ‘missile attacks’, while keeping all foreign journalists out of Gaza to try to limit reports of the carnage wrought by Israeli missiles and shells.
While the timing of this onslaught flowed from the early general election in Israel and the end of the Bush administration, the intensity and scope of the military action shows that it had far wider war aims. They were to demonstrate again the power of Israel’s military, wreck Gaza’s infrastructure to cripple Hamas rule and, if possible, secure regime change by removing the elected Hamas government and replacing it with more compliant elements around the outgoing Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas.
This war had been prepared for six months, if not longer. Part of this was the organisation of a propaganda machine that would try to present this attack as purely defensive against the missiles fired from Gaza. But, notwithstanding the missile attacks, there was general understanding internationally that the battle was not between equals. In these past three weeks, 13 Israelis – ten soldiers and three civilians – were killed. This pattern has been seen before. During 2005-7, eleven Israelis were killed by missiles fired from Gaza while Israeli military action killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children. In 2007, 83 Palestinians were killed by Israeli action in the West Bank despite no missiles being fired from there. As in Lebanon in 2006, the Israeli air assaults have wiped out whole families in the name of ‘peace’.
Throughout the three-week assault the Israeli and other governments feared that the longer the fighting continued, the higher was the possibility of major upheavals in Arab countries and the escalation into a wider war. Faced with rising anger in the Middle East, and growing disgust around the world, the major powers were compelled to appear to act but, despite UN resolutions and Nicolas Sarkozy flying around the region, nothing happened. Possibly now there will be the suggestion to put in foreign troops to police the borders between Gaza and Egypt, perhaps inside the Gaza Strip itself and on its border with Israel. But this will not give freedom of movement, let alone self-determination, to the Palestinians. The international forces in Lebanon did not prevent the 2006 invasion. Eventually, such forces can face increasing opposition as they are seen to be defending the interests of the imperialist powers.
The lies and distortions justifying the Israeli attack were shameless. As is normal, the aggressor presents its actions as simply defensive. Thus, the Israeli government simply ignores the fact that it still occupies or, in the case of Gaza, lays siege to the territories it seized in the 1967 war. Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, stood before the world denouncing terrorism while ignoring the Israeli state terror employed in the occupied territories and beyond. Livni’s hypocrisy is particularly striking as her parents were key members of Irgun, the right-wing Jewish group that carried out the single most deadly terrorist act in Israel/Palestine, the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Despite growing evidence of their use, the Israeli military are simply evasive on whether they used white phosphorous shells, banned as a weapon of war in civilian areas.
The Israeli elite continually manipulate the memory of the Holocaust to try to silence critics and, more importantly, play on the fears of Israeli Jews. But the tragedy for the Jews in Israel is that they are in a situation where, as long as capitalism and exploitation remains, they face repeated wars and the fear of being ‘pushed into the sea’ if they are defeated. Until they see an alternative, many Israeli Jews will have a siege mentality that can lead to support for their government’s aggression.
Punished for voting the ‘wrong way’
THE HISTORY OF the current cycle of military operations dates back to January 2006 when Israel fired artillery shells into Gaza following Hamas’ victory in the elections, with 44% of the vote and 74 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian parliament. This vote shocked the Israeli government which hoped that its 2005 withdrawal from Gaza would enable the pliant Fatah leadership to run the area.
Fearing that Hamas’ calls for resistance would undermine its plans, the Israeli government sought to effect regime change in Gaza. Immediately, attempts began to undermine Hamas by turning the Gaza population against it. These did not succeed. A US-backed attempt to stage a coup against Hamas, later documented in the US magazine Vanity Fair, was thwarted in June 2007 by Hamas ousting Fatah from Gaza. However, in the West Bank the more dominant Fatah, aided by the Israeli regime, increasingly sought to suppress Hamas supporters. Today, over 40 Hamas MPs are imprisoned, while others have been assassinated.
Hypocritically, the imperialists denounce Hamas’ June 2007 action and justify the subsequent tightened blockade of Gaza. This is despite the admission by the main Middle East advisor to the then US vice-president Dick Cheney that, “what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen”. The imperialist powers and the corrupt Arab regimes fully backed these moves against Hamas, fearing that its success would boost opposition throughout the Middle East.
When it suits them the imperialist powers speak about ‘democracy’, but not when it produces results they do not like. None of the major powers have commented on the current attempt to ban Palestinian parties from standing in February’s Israeli election. As the Palestinians, in imperialism’s view, voted the ‘wrong way’, no reference is made to Hamas’ 2006 election victory and it is just repeatedly denounced as a terror group. Thus, Egypt closed the Rafah crossing into Gaza while the Israeli government withheld tax receipts owed to the Palestinian authorities, cutting the number of trucks carrying humanitarian supplies. Soon there was a series of Israeli and Hamas attacks and counter-attacks.
。
In explaining and opposing the Israeli-US-Arab assault, socialists do not give political support to Hamas. Despite its anti-imperialist and anti-corruption rhetoric, Hamas is a pro-capitalist, movement. It seeks to impose its own particular religious views on society and can ruthlessly suppress its opponents among Palestinians. Hamas’ policies and tactics will ultimately set back the struggle for Palestinian liberation. Its present support is because many Palestinians see the Hamas leaders as much less corrupt than their Fatah counterparts and more militant in their language against Israeli aggression. The hypocrisy of the Israeli government’s demonization of Hamas is that, originally, the Israeli secret services supported Hamas’ foundation in order to undermine its stronger rival at the time, the secular PLO. But, as happened with the CIA and Saudi-funded ‘Islamic resistance’ in Afghanistan, what was intended as a pawn became too powerful and a threat to their former sponsors. But opposition to Hamas’ policies, and helping to build workers’ organisations that can end the conflict in the interests of the working class, oppressed and poor, is not in contradiction to resisting the Israeli, US and other imperialist governments.
A carefully laid trap
Last year, the firing of missiles from Gaza by Hamas and other Palestinian groups were only one of the breaches of the six-month ‘calm’ – which the Israeli military used to carefully prepare Operation Cast Lead. Prior to the ‘calm’, the Israeli government steadily imposed a tighter and tighter blockade of Gaza, aided by the regime of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In late 2005, workers from Gaza were mostly barred from entering Israel to work. Then Gaza’s commercial trade was massively restricted and, finally, from mid-2006, humanitarian aid was squeezed. The result was that last year Gaza received only 25% of the imported supplies it received in 2005. This was why one of the main demands of Gazans was a lifting of the blockade. The hundreds of tunnels dug under Gaza’s borders are not mainly for weapon smuggling, as Israeli and western governments claim, but to try to overcome the effects of the blockade.
This siege was tightened even more towards the end of last year. The Wall Street Journal reported that “between November 5 and the start of the most recent conflict, an average of 16 trucks a day were allowed into Gaza, down from 123 a day in October and 475 a day in May 2007”. (8 January) The 5 November date is significant, as it was the day after the Israeli military raid that started the countdown to the latest assault. Effectively, the Israeli government put Gazans on starvation rations: the UN says it requires about 40 trucks daily to meet Gazans’ minimal needs. This was why even the UN spoke of Israel’s ‘collective punishment’ of Gaza.
The economic siege and military raids provoked Hamas into rejecting a continuation of the six month ‘calm’ unless the border was opened, and resuming missile attacks into southern Israel. The Hamas leadership effectively fell into this trap and made it politically easier for the Israeli government to launch its pre-election war.
This trap was triggered by the provocation of the first significant breach in the ‘calm’ when, on 4 November, an Israeli raid killed six Hamas members. The Israeli military claimed that it had intelligence that a tunnel was being dug for the purpose of abducting Israeli soldiers.
What happened next was recorded by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), an organisation whose material is published by the Israeli government. Having previously recorded only eleven rockets and 15 mortar shells fired from Gaza in the four months between July and October, the ITIC reported that “during the six months of the lull, the terrorist organisations fired 223 rockets and 139 mortar shells”, with most of them fired “during the six weeks between November 4 and December 19”.
Clearly, the 4 November raid changed the situation, as it was intended to do. It seems clear that the Israeli government was working to a timetable of preparing for action in the run-up to the 10 February election, an election called at the end of October.
There are many reports that Hamas wanted to maintain the truce, while demanding that the blockade be lifted. It sent a delegation to Cairo in mid-December to discuss this. Around the same time, former US president Jimmy Carter met Khaled Meshal, the Syrian-based chairman of the Hamas political bureau, in Damascus. Meshal indicated that Hamas was willing to go back to the ceasefire, “if there was a sign that Israel would lift the siege on Gaza”. A few days later, Yuval Diskin, head of Israel’s security agency, Shin Bet, told the 21 December meeting of the Israeli cabinet: “Make no mistake, Hamas is interested in maintaining the truce”. While Hamas leaders kept saying they would extend the truce if the crossings were opened, the Israeli and Egyptian governments refused to do so.
It seems that the barrage of rockets that Hamas fired after the truce ended on 19 December was not necessarily the start of a long offensive. The ITIC said that the attacks peaked on 24 December. In other words, the attacks subsided before the Israeli air force launched Operation Cast Lead on 27 December. The Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram (20 January) quoted Meshal as saying that Hamas only expected a three-day military response. Instead, there was a 22-day slaughter.
Because of this misjudgement, and because Hamas is not based on the mobilisation of the masses, it fell into this provocation. It could have mobilised the population in Gaza around its main demand of reopening the Gaza border, as agreed in the ceasefire plan. A mass mobilisation to the border with Egypt demanding that it be opened could not have been described as terrorism. Such action, combined with an appeal to Egyptians for support, would have put the Mubarak regime in an impossible position, either having to open the border or face revolt.
This is not a dream. Less than a year ago, after a hole was blown in the border near Rafah, mass action secured free travel for eleven days until Hamas agreed to its re-closure. In December, the Hamas leaders hoped that firing a few hundred missiles would change the situation. Instead this gave the Israeli government the excuse it had wanted to launch a pre-election war. The mass action that kept the border open in January/February last year was an example, like the two intifadas, that this form of struggle is the key to Palestinian liberation. Over time, the policies and tactics of Hamas will start to be questioned, as were Fatah’s previously.
The collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza – by siege and military action – has only deepened the hostility towards Israel. It has not undermined Hamas or strengthened Fatah’s position. It has united Palestinians against Israel. However, the Israeli military may be counting on war-weariness to create a more submissive mood. It seems that there is in Gaza a combination of despair and desire for revenge, with Hamas leaders anxious to show that the Israelis are responsible for any renewed fighting.
Any chance of a deal?
It is possible that the popular jailed Fatah leader, Marwan Barghouti, may play a role in future developments. Barghouti’s popularity grew during the second intifada, at the beginning of this century, as a leader of Tanzim, a Fatah armed branch. Jailed by the Israelis he split from Fatah to form a new party, al-Mustaqbal (The Future). He ran on a joint list with Fatah in the January 2006 elections. Later, Barghouti helped draft the joint agreement by prominent imprisoned Palestinian leaders from most groupings, including Hamas. This statement, the National Conciliation Document of the Prisoners, put forward the basis for a Palestinian national unity government and a deal with Israel. Barghouti could yet be released in an attempt by imperialism to involve the more popular leaders in some kind of deal.
But even a temporary deal depends on the situation in Israel. Despite the attempt by the government to present the Gaza war as a victory, the war is still unlikely to save the Kadima-Labour coalition, and a Likud-led government could attempt an even more aggressive attitude. Despite the wishes of some imperialist powers for a settlement that allows for the formation of two states, key sections of the Israeli elite will not allow any moves towards the formation of a viable Palestinian state. They fear that such a state, even the attempt to form one, would add a new destabilising factor into the region.
Nevertheless, within Israel there will be increased questioning of the war. While such questioning came quickly after the discredited 2006 Lebanon war, it may take a bit longer now as the Gaza war is being presented as a success. But, inevitably, the question will be asked: what is the long-term future? Although there was overwhelming Israeli support for the attack, mainly because of the missiles and Hamas’ previous suicide bomb strategy in the 1990s, there was a minority in opposition, including some in the military. In Tel Aviv and Jaffa there were sizeable joint Palestinian–Jewish demonstrations against the war. Even among the war’s supporters there was no support for a long term reoccupation of Gaza.
Over time, Israeli Jews will ask: what has really been achieved? The polarisation in Israeli society will continue. The extreme nationalists will demand further action against the Palestinians. Others will feel growing revulsion at the mass killings of civilians, especially children, as full news of what happened is reported. Such a development could be cut across if there is a major resumption of missile attacks, or new suicide attacks, in an attempt to show the Israeli state that it has not won.
The siege mentality and the legacy of the Holocaust are powerful issues which are regularly exploited by the Israeli elite. Despite the cynical exploitation, these are real factors that have to be taken into account if this deadlock is to be broken in the interests of working people and the poor. Unless a viable alternative is offered to Israeli Jews the vast majority will fight with all means if they think that their very existence is threatened.
A weakened Israel
Israeli jewry is not a homogeneous bloc. There are increasingly sharp class divisions, especially after the neo-liberal dismantling of many parts of the welfare state. From the formation of Israel there have been racial divisions. The original Israeli elite discriminated against Jews from Arab countries who made up over 45% of the migrants into Israel until 1995. The past decade has seen important workers’ and students’ struggles, including big strikes and demonstrations, which are likely to be repeated as a result of the unfolding world economic disaster. If Likud again pursues neo-liberal policies it could quickly lead to class battles developing. These could carry within them possibilities for building a genuine workers’ movement as a fighting force in Israel, and also as a step towards common struggles by Israeli and Palestinian workers.
Internationally, mounting revulsion against the savagery of the assault on Gaza has weakened Israel’s position, especially as it comes after the 2006 Lebanon war. This may be used by those sections of world imperialism that see the Israeli government’s policies as destabilizing and wish for some attempt at a ‘settlement’.
It is likely that the new Obama administration’s initiative will try to go down this road, calling for some Israeli withdrawal from lands occupied after the 1967 war and, perhaps, making contact with Hamas to seek to involve them in some kind of Palestinian government of national unity. Before this war, Olmert argued for a ‘land for peace’ deal, which the Obama administration may now push for. However, while these moves would be made with great fanfare and raise hopes, at the end of the day, they will prove to be limited. No deal along these lines would challenge the domination of capitalism, including Israel’s regional strength. Undoubtedly, the Palestinian workers and poor will find themselves betrayed, yet again.
This war has had a huge effect on opinion in Arab countries. The mass of Arabs were furious, but did not see concretely what could be done. Even if there were only limited protests on the streets, the impact of this war will be felt over the next period.
Hamas is clearly seen as a threat to Middle East regimes. The ties between Hamas, a Sunni movement, and Iran are seen by the pro-US regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia as opening a way for the Shia Iranian leadership to gain influence in predominately Sunni countries. Hamas’ anti-corruption and anti-imperialist propaganda that was so effective against Fatah can also inspire opposition to the rotten and undemocratic regimes tied to imperialism. One US Brookings Institute analyst said that “Hamas has never had this much legitimacy”. This was reflected in the attendance of Meshal at the 15 January Arab and Iranian summit in Doha, Qatar. This meeting again showed the divisions among Arab states as the Egyptian and Saudi Arabian regimes did not attend.
This war has set the scene for more turmoil in the Middle East, especially for those regimes that effectively supported this attack and the 2006 assault on Lebanon. Obama may try to involve a larger number of Arab regimes in an attempt to reach agreement on different issues, but agreement is not the same as a settlement.
The root causes of the conflict in the Middle East lie in capitalism’s inability to meet the social and economic needs of the population, its inability to resolve the conflicting national questions, and the continual efforts by the imperialist nations to maintain a grip over an economically and strategically vital region. These have deepened the national conflicts throughout the region because they cannot be resolved without the overthrowing of the ruling elites and capitalism. Until this is done there will be no end to the periodic wars, repression and deprivation that extends through much of the Middle East.
The basis for peace
To some, this latest war may seem as yet one more in an apparently endless series of conflicts that has swept the region for over 60 years. Faced with the seemingly intractable conflict between Jews and Palestinians some may draw the conclusion that there is no way out and that the peoples in the Middle East are doomed to suffer one calamity after another.
This is not the view of socialists. The mass of the Middle Eastern population want to live in peace and security. The CWI believes that genuine peace is achievable. However, this is only possible if working people – Palestinian and Israeli Jewish – negotiate a deal on the basis of recognising their common interests, and building a socialist alternative as a way to achieve them.
This can only be achieved by the development of independent action and organisation by the working class and poor in the Palestinian territories, Israel and the region. Such movements would have to stand against capitalism and the corrupt regional elites, and in defence of the national rights of all working people if they are to succeed. They should defend the idea that all working people should benefit from the wealth of the Middle East. In this way, trust and cooperation could be built between the two sides, opening the way to genuine peace. Without such socialist movements the ruling elites will maintain their rule by exploiting the fears of the masses, and the region will face a continued cycle of bloody conflict.
Against the interests of their local rulers and imperialism such organisations could fight for a socialist solution – a genuinely independent socialist Palestine that can satisfy the national aspirations of the Palestinian people and which could exist alongside a socialist Israel. Only within a socialist framework can the plight of the Palestinians be resolved, with open borders redrawn in accordance with the wishes of local people, a shared capital in Jerusalem, and with guaranteed democratic rights for all national minorities. Only with the national rights of the Palestinians and Israelis resolved would the question of the right to return of those who wish to not be seen as a threat. A socialist Palestine and a socialist Israel could, in turn, be part of a free and voluntary socialist confederation of the region.
The terrible suffering of Gaza over the past weeks, coming on top of years of oppression, struggles and failure to secure fundamental change, is sure to provoke discussion and debate among Palestinians over what to do next. The rottenness of the Fatah leadership and the limitations of Hamas will result in a new search for a way forward in which the ideas of mass struggle and a socialist alternative will be able to find an echo.
Within Israel it is significant that, from the beginning of this war, there was opposition to it with joint Jewish and Palestinian protests. However, in Israel this opposition, in which the CWI played a role, was in a small minority and suffered repression, which was particularly aimed at the Israeli Arabs who protested. Nevertheless, this Israeli opposition laid down a marker that will come to be recognised as it becomes clear that this pre-planned election war, and any future wars, will not guarantee security for Israeli Jews.
The experience of these brutal events, the immense suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza, the cynicism of the Israeli leaders, the rottenness of the Arab leaders, coupled with the inevitable impact of the world economic crisis, will create the opportunity to begin to build socialist organisations that can fight against oppression, poverty and capitalism.
呼吁停火，但冲突的根源仍然在——至关重要的是社会主义的解决方案！
工人国际委员会国际秘书处，罗伯特•贝歇特
中东地区的群众再次经历了更多的痛苦，伤害和死亡。这种对加沙地带的攻击一直是一边倒的暴行。 据报道第一天有225人丧生，这是以色列历史上血腥的一日。
在国际上，以色列政府的宣传是为了阻止对以色列南部地区的导弹袭击，这样的破坏性打击是必要的。可以说这种大规模的袭击是完全不对称的而且无助于实现和平。有着越来越多的表明这场战争影响到平民的证据，其中包括袭击联合国建造的难民营，这些越来越令人义愤填膺。社会主义者反对哈马斯的一些政策和方法，但是一刻也没有因此而削弱我们要求立即停止对加沙袭击所从事的活动。
以色列政府发起的这种对巴勒斯坦人进行集体惩罚的目的之一是破坏对在2006年1月巴勒斯坦议会选举中获胜的哈马斯的支持并打击巴勒斯坦的反压迫和反占领的意志。以色列和埃及封锁加沙地带的目的是要使人们服软而顺从地接受帝国主义强加到他们身上的任何协议。战争的另一个目的是迫使巴勒斯坦人接受以色列、反动的阿拉伯政权和帝国主义可以接受的领导人。
以色列政府的最直接的战争目标，即于2月10日的重新选举，更可能无法实现。力量进一步右转，尤其是内塔尼亚胡领导的利库德集团和利伯曼的Yisrael Beitenu（以色列我们的家园） ，在投票中已有所获。虽然这一屠杀展示了以色列军队2006年在黎巴嫩发动的针对黎巴嫩真主党的战争失败后的军事力量，但对以色列统治阶级而言，它没有提供解决办法。
巴勒斯坦工人阶级和穷人承受的这场战争的代价是巨大的。但是，不管以色列政权短期内得到了什么，从长远来看，它不会给以色列工人阶级带来什么积极的东西。这种屠杀不会带给以色列劳动人民和平或安全。相反，它会导致又一轮冲突，其中巴勒斯坦的工人阶级和穷人，包括以色列犹太工人，将受害最深。
这场战争再次向巴勒斯坦人提出尖锐的问题：他们如何才能结束压迫和实现解放。显然，阿拉伯政权，甚至那些口头上谴责这一攻击的阿拉伯政权，并不能使巴勒斯坦群众免受压迫。相反，他们更害怕激进的巴勒斯坦人民以及他们自己的人民。这一经验再次表明，巴勒斯坦工人和穷人只能通过自己的行动才能真正地保护自己并实现真正的自由和安全。
挑拨离间法塔赫和哈马斯
试图通过踏平加沙大部分地区来使人们疏离哈马斯而转向效忠更为顺服的民族权力机构主席阿巴斯和巴勒斯坦解放组织（巴解组织）的领导是完全错误的。哈马斯由于关键成员的死亡在军事上可能已经减弱，但在政治上，哈马斯可能得到加强。哈马斯最初赢得支持是因为人们认为它比法塔赫领导层更少腐败和更少顺从帝国主义者。这场战争的结果将是进一步削弱对法塔赫的支持和加强更为激进的势力。
这就是为什么美国和其他势力加大努力来支持法塔赫的原因。该计划是使由法塔赫当政的西岸的巴勒斯坦民族权力机构（自治政府）来控制重建资金的分配，特别是沙特阿拉伯承诺的10亿美元，并扮演有限的角色以管理加沙与埃及的边界。华尔街日报报道'欧洲联盟高级官员'称： “欧盟将不会帮助重建因以色列的进攻而被毁的建筑物和基础设施，直到加沙由欧盟可接受的统治者管辖” 。同一篇文章报道，在'耶路撒冷的西方外交官' 说明他们的计划就是： “巴勒斯坦民族权力机构（自治政府）回来拯救加沙人民。这就是我们直言不讳的观点“ 。 （ 1月20日）这就是他们所谓的为加沙及其受苦受难的人民争取自决和给予的所谓的人道主义帮助！
这场战争是以色列政府以应对来自加沙地带的导弹袭击为借口而蓄意挑起的。它的唯一的理由是哈马斯除非在解除封锁情况下将拒绝延长6个月的停火'（阿拉伯人和希伯来人的字面上的'平静'），并恢复从加沙地带向以色列南部地区发射相对较少而且作用不大的导弹。当然，对当地居民来说，这是恐怖活动，但与以色列军队所造成的伤亡相比，它们造成相对较小的破坏和生命丧失。尽管如此，它们给了奥尔默特政府理由来发动战争并使它能够调动绝大多数以色列犹太人支持打击。美国和其他国家政府把这些导弹看作是主要问题，而把对巴勒斯坦人的屠杀及其苦难放在次要的位置。
社会主义者和支持其他被压迫人民一样支持巴勒斯坦人民的在必要的情况下通过武装行动来保卫自己的权利。然而，为了行之有效，这种自卫的行动必须建立在群众的支持上并处在通过基层委员会组织起来的更广泛的人们的民主要求下。否则，秘密民兵组织的发展有演变成刑事勒索并使得以色列安全人员更容易渗透进去的危险。
此外，火箭袭击的策略以及此前针对以色列公民的自杀式炸弹袭击——工人国际委员会反对这样的方法和目标——不能捍卫巴勒斯坦人的利益，并导致了目前绝大多数以色列犹太人支持国家的打击的后果。认为这种袭击将向犹太人显示以色列军队不能保护他们从而能破坏以色列国家的观点是错误的。其主要作用是加强右翼民族主义分子的力量和加强对这场战争的支持。这就是为什么和它的国际支持者乔治•布什一样，以色列政府的宣传机器，不断重复提到“导弹袭击”，同时限制所有外国记者进入加沙地带以试图限制报道以色列的导弹、炮弹所造成的大屠杀。
虽然这一打击的时间选择正值以色列大选前期以及布什政府的结束，军事行动的强度和范围表明它有着更大的战争目的。他们以此证明以色列的军事力量，破坏加沙地带的基础设施以削弱哈马斯的统治，如果可能的话，通过除去选举产生的哈马斯政府实现政权改变而代之以更为顺服的对人友好的巴勒斯坦民族权力机构主席马哈茂德•阿巴斯。
如果不是更长的时间的话，这场战争已经准备了6个月。其中一部分就是组织宣传机器以使人们认为这种打击纯粹是防止哈马斯从加沙发射导弹。但是，尽管导弹袭击，国际上人们普遍知道这场战争是不对称的。在过去三个星期里， 13名以色列人——10名士兵和3名平民——被炸死。这一模式屡见不鲜。在2005年7月，加沙地带发射的导弹导致11名以色列人死亡，而以色列的军事行动造成在加沙地带的1290个巴勒斯坦人，包括222个儿童死亡。 2007年，尽管没有来自那里的导弹发射，83名巴勒斯坦人死于以色列在约旦河西岸的行动。正如2006年在黎巴嫩，以色列空军以'和平'的名义袭击消灭了整个家庭。
整个三个星期的攻击，以色列和其他国家政府担心打击持续的时间越长，阿拉伯国家发生重大剧变并升级为更大的战争的可能性就更高。面对中东不断上涨的愤怒和世界各地日益增加的厌恶，主要的大国被迫出来采取行动，但尽管联合国出台了有关决议而且尼古拉•萨尔科齐在该地区往来穿梭，事情一如往常。现在有可能建议在加沙和埃及边界，也许在加沙地带及其与以色列的边界驻入外国军队来管辖这个边境。但是，这不会给予巴勒斯坦人行动的自由，更遑论自决权了。在黎巴嫩的国际部队并没有阻止2006年的入侵。最后，这些部队会面临越来越多的反对，因为人们认为它们是捍卫帝国主义列强利益的。
给以色列的袭击正当性辩护的谎言和歪曲说明是无耻的。侵略者把它的行动说成是防御性的做法是正常的。因此，以色列政府根本无视这一事实，它仍然占领着，或在加沙地带的情况下，包围在1967年战争中霸占的领土。以色列外交部长齐皮•利夫尼在世界面前谴责恐怖主义，同时却无视以色列在被占领土地内外所实施的国家恐怖主义。利夫尼的虚伪尤为突出的是她的父母是右翼犹太团体伊尔根的关键成员，该团体在以色列/巴勒斯坦实施了简直是最血腥的恐怖行为， 它1946年在耶路撒冷炸毁大卫王酒店。尽管越来越多的证据表明他们使用了作为一种禁止在平民区使用的战争武器的白磷弹，以色列军队只是回避他们是否使用了白磷弹。
以色列精英不断操纵大屠杀的记忆，试图压制批评，更重要的是利用以色列犹太人的恐惧心理。但是，在以色列的犹太人的悲剧是他们处在如此情势下，只要资本主义和剥削依然存在，它们将面临反复的战争以及担心如果他们被打败将被'推入海'，直到他们看到一种替代办法，许多以色列的犹太人将具有一种被围困的心态并为此可能会导致支持他们政府的侵略。
为投票支持'错误路线'而遭受惩罚
当前军事行动的历史可以追溯到2006年1月，那时哈马斯在选举中以获得44 ％的选票和巴勒斯坦议会132个席位中74个而胜选后，以色列炮击加沙地带。本次投票震惊了希望其2005年从加沙地带撤军将使顺从的法塔赫领导层掌管该地区的以色列政府。
担心哈马斯呼吁抵抗会破坏它的计划，以色列政府试图在加沙施加影响以改变该政权。以色列政府试图通过使加沙居民转而反对哈马斯来削弱哈马斯，这些没有成功。后来在美国杂志名利场上记载的一项美国支持的发动政变反对哈马斯的企图在2007年6月哈马斯把法塔赫从加沙地带逐出而被挫败。然而，在约旦河西岸得到以色列政权帮助的占主导地位的法塔赫日益设法镇压哈马斯的支持者。今天，40多个哈马斯议员遭到监禁，而其他人遭到暗杀。
帝国主义者虚伪地谴责哈马斯2007年6月的行动并接着加强封锁加沙地带。尽管中东地区的主要顾问向当时的美国副总统切尼供认说， “所发生之事基本上不是哈马斯发动的政变而是法塔赫企图发动政变以便在哈马斯可能发动之前先发制人” 。帝国主义列强和腐败的阿拉伯政权完全支持这些针对哈马斯的举动，他们恐怕哈马斯的成功将推进中东地区的反抗
只有当“民主”适合他们的需要时，帝国主义列强才谈'民主' ，如果产生了他们不喜欢的结果，那么它们就不谈“民主”了。没有一个大国曾就目前的企图禁止巴勒斯坦各党派参与2月份的以色列大选发表评论。正如巴勒斯坦人，在帝国主义者看来，他们投票支持'错误的路线' ，帝国主义者没有提及哈马斯在2006年选举中的获胜，而只是一再谴责它为恐怖组织。因此，埃及关闭了进入加沙地带的拉法过境点，同时以色列政府扣留属于巴勒斯坦当局的税收收入并减少运送人道主义物资的卡车。很快有一连串的以色列和哈马斯之间的攻击和反击。
在解释和反对以色列和美国和阿拉伯打击上，社会主义者并不给哈马斯以政治支持。尽管哈马斯有反帝国主义和反腐败的言论，但哈马斯是一个亲资本主义的运动。它试图把自己独特的宗教观点强加给社会并且会无情镇压巴勒斯坦人中间的对手。哈马斯的政策和策略最终将阻碍巴勒斯坦民族解放斗争。其目前得到的支持是因为许多巴勒斯坦人认为哈马斯领导人比起它的对手法塔赫更少腐败以及他们语言上更为激进地反对以色列的侵略。以色列政府对哈马斯的妖魔化是虚伪的，最初，以色列秘密工作支持哈马斯的基金会，以破坏作为其当时的强大的竞争对手的世俗的巴解组织。但是，正如发生在美国中央情报局和沙特资助的阿富汗的'伊斯兰抵抗运动'一样，其用意是把他们作为一个工具，但是这个工具变得过于强大并且威胁到了他们的前资助国。但是，反对哈马斯的政策并帮助建立能为了工人阶级，被压迫者和穷人的利益而结束冲突的工人的组织与抵抗以色列，美国和其他帝国主义政府之间并不矛盾。
精心布置的陷阱
去年，由哈马斯和其他巴勒斯坦团体从加沙地带发射的导弹只是违反为期6个月的'平静'中的一个——以色列军队利用这个“平静”期来为他们的行动认真地做好准备。'平静期'之前，以色列政府借助埃及的胡斯尼•穆巴拉克政权不断增强对加沙地带的封锁。在2005年年底，禁止来自加沙的大部分工人进入以色列工作。然后加沙的商业贸易活动遭到了大大的限制，最终，从2006年年中开始，人道主义援助也遭到挤压。其结果是，去年加沙只收到2005年收到的进口物资的25 ％。这就是为什么加沙的一个主要要求是解除封锁。在加沙的边界挖了数以百计的隧道，这些隧道主要并不是用于以色列和西方国家政府声称的武器走私活动，而是努力克服封锁的影响。
到去年年底，这种封锁变得越来越紧。据华尔街日报报导说， “在十一月五日和开始的最近的冲突之间，平均每天只允许16辆卡车进入加沙地带，而十月份是每天123辆和2007年5月时是每天475辆” （ 1月8日） 。11月5日的日子是重要的，因为它是以色列军队打击后的一天，它开始了实施最新攻击的倒计时。实际上，以色列政府把加沙置于饥饿的口粮配给状态中：联合国说，大约需要40辆卡车以满足加沙每日的最低限度的需要。这就是为什么甚至联合国也说到了以色列的对加沙的集体惩罚。
这种经济封锁和军事打击驱使哈马斯除非在开放边境的情况下将拒绝延长六个月的“平静”，同时也驱使哈马斯重新向以色列南部地区发射导弹，哈马斯领导层切实地掉进了这个陷阱，使得以色列政府政治上更容易发动这个选举前的战争。
以色列11月4号的袭击导致哈马斯六个成员的死亡后，哈马斯拒绝延长六个月'平静'启动了这个陷阱。以色列军方声称有情报显示挖隧道的目的是绑架以色列士兵。
情报和恐怖主义信息中心（ ITIC ）记录了接下来发生的事情，该中心的资料由以色列政府发布。以前的记录表明在7月至10月的4个月里只有11枚火箭弹和15发迫击炮炮弹从加沙发射过来， ITIC报告说， “在6个月的平静期，该恐怖组织发射了223枚火箭弹和139发迫击炮炮弹” ，其中大部分是“在11月4日和12月19日之间的6个星期里”发射的。
显然， 11月4日的袭击改变了局势，这正是它打算这样做的。看来很清楚，以色列政府正在努力筹划10月底确定的2月10日的选举前的行动的时间表。
有许多报道说，哈马斯愿意维持停火，同时要求解除封锁。12月中旬它派遣了一个代表团前往开罗讨论这个问题。大约在同一时间，美国前总统卡特会见了设在叙利亚大马士革的哈马斯政治局的主席马沙尔。马沙尔表示，“如果有迹象表明以色列将解除对加沙的封锁”，哈马斯愿意回到停火状态。几天后，以色列安全机构辛贝特的总负责人尤瓦迪斯12月21日举行的以色列内阁会议中说： “没有错，哈马斯有意维持休战” 。尽管哈马斯领导人说如果通道被打开他们将继续延长停火，但以色列和埃及政府拒绝这样做。
看来，停火协议12月19日结束后哈马斯发射火箭弹不一定是一个长期的攻势的开始。ITIC说，袭击事件12月24日达到高峰。换句话说，以色列空军12月27日发动“铸铅行动”(Operation Cast Lead)前，导弹袭击已经减少。埃及报纸金字塔报（ 1月20日）引述米什尔的话说，哈马斯只计划为期3天的军事反应。相反，加沙遭到了22天的屠杀。
由于这种错误判断，以及哈马斯并不是基于动员群众而落于挑衅。它可以动员加沙地带的人们以诉求在停火计划中同意重新开放加沙边界。不能说要求打开与埃及的边界的大规模动员是恐怖主义。这样的行动，再加上呼吁埃及人的支持，将使穆巴拉克政权处于难以忍受的境地下，要么开放边界，要么将面临反抗。
这不是梦想。不到一年前，拉法附近的边境炸开一个洞后，群众行动保证了11天自由进出，直到哈马斯同意将其重新关闭。去年12月，哈马斯领导人希望发射几百枚导弹将改变这种状况。相反这给了以色列政府借口以发动它希望的选举前的战争。去年1月/ 2月使边境保持开放的群众行动是一个例子，和两次巴勒斯坦人起义一样表明这种形式的斗争是巴勒斯坦民族解放的关键。随着时间的推移，人们将开始质疑哈马斯的政策和策略，正如以前法塔赫的政策和策略受到质疑一样。
对加沙的巴勒斯坦人的集体惩罚——封锁和军事行动——只会加深对以色列的敌意。它不会损害到哈马斯或加强法塔赫的地位。它使得巴勒斯坦人团结起来反对以色列。然而，以色列军方指望厌战情绪可以创造一个更为顺从的情绪。随着哈马斯领导人急于显示以色列人应对任何新的战斗的负责，在加沙似乎结合着绝望和渴望报仇的情绪。
有达成交易的任何机会吗？
有可能受欢迎的遭监禁的法塔赫领导人巴尔古提（Marwan Barghouti）在未来的发展中会发挥作用。在第二次起义期间，巴尔古提的受欢迎程度得到了提高，在本世纪初，他作为一个法塔赫武装分支坦兹姆的领导人被以色列人监禁起来，他从法塔赫中分裂出来并组成一个新党al-Mustaqbal（未来） 。在2006年1月选举中，他与法塔赫联合起来参加选举。后来，巴尔古提帮助起草了由来自许多团体，其中包括哈马斯的知名的遭监禁的巴勒斯坦领导人的联合协议。作为战犯全国安抚文件的这个声明为巴勒斯坦民族团结政府以及同以色列打交道提供了基础。巴尔古提可能尚未被释放，因为帝国主义者企图以某种交易的形式干涉较受欢迎的领导人。
但是，即使一个临时交易也取决于以色列的局势。尽管政府试图呈现出加沙战争取得了胜利的形象，战争仍然不可能挽救前进党和工党的联盟，而且利库德集团领导的政府可以尝试摆出一个更为好斗的姿态。尽管一些帝国主义列强希望解决问题而同意形成两个国家，以色列精英中关键部分将不会允许任何形成一个可行的巴勒斯坦国的走向。他们担心的是这样一个国家，即使是试图形成一个这样的国家，将增添该地区新的不稳定因素。
然而，在以色列境内对战争的质问将增加。虽然这种质疑在名声扫地的2006年黎巴嫩战争中很快出现，现在可能需要多一点的时间，因为加沙战争正在呈现出成功的形象。但是，不可避免地，大家会问：长远的未来是什么？尽管以色列的打击得到了压倒性的支持，主要是因为导弹和上世纪90年代哈马斯的自杀式袭击的策略，只有少数人反对，其中包括一些军人。在特拉维夫和雅法有相当大的巴勒斯坦人和犹太人的联合示威以反对战争。即使在战争的支持者中也没有支持长期重新占领加沙地带的。
随着时间的推移，以色列的犹太人会问：我们到底得到了什么？在以色列社会的两极分化将继续下去。极端民族主义者将要求采取进一步的对巴勒斯坦人的行动。随着新闻报道了所发生的事情，其他国家也将越来越对大规模杀害平民尤其是儿童的做法感到憎恶。如果试图表明以色列国没有取得胜利而恢复导弹攻击或新的自杀性袭击，这样的发展可能中断。
围困的心态和大屠杀的遗痕是个有力的问题，以色列精英经常利用这些问题。尽管玩世不恭的利用，如果为了劳动人民和穷人的利益要打破这种僵局，这些是必须考虑到的真正的因素。除非提供给以色列的犹太人一个可行的替代办法，如果他们认为他们的生存受到威胁，绝大多数人将用尽一切手段反击。
变弱的以色列
以色列犹太人不是一个单一集团。这里有着越来越明显的阶级分化，特别是在新自由主义取消了这个福利国家的许多方面的福利后。自以色列成立以来就有种族隔离。土生土长的以色列精英歧视到1995年占进入以色列的移民45 ％以上的来自阿拉伯国家的犹太人。在过去十年中出现了工人和学生的重要斗争，包括大罢工和示威，随着世界经济灾难的展开，这种斗争再三地爆发。如果利库德集团再次奉行新自由主义政策，它会迅速导致阶级斗争的发展。这些可能带来建立一个真正的工人运动的可能性以作为在以色列的战斗力量，同时也作为以色列和巴勒斯坦工人共同斗争的一步。
国际上，对以色列攻击加沙的野蛮行径越来越多的深恶痛绝削弱了以色列的力量，特别是在2006年黎巴嫩战争之后。视以色列政府的政策为不稳定因素并希望尝试'解决'的部分世界帝国主义可能利用这一点。
新的奥巴马政府的倡议可能会努力走上这条道路，并要求以色列撤出部分1967年战争后占领的领土，他也许会与哈马斯接触，寻求让他们参与某种形式的巴勒斯坦民族团结政府。在这场战争中，奥尔默特主张'土地换和平'的交易，这是奥巴马政府现在所推动的。然而，虽然这些举动调子很高而且会提升希望，在这一天结束时，它们都将被证明是有限的。沿着这些路线，没有什么交易可以挑战资本主义的统治，包括以色列在内的地区性霸权。毫无疑问，巴勒斯坦工人和穷人会再次发现自己被出卖了。
这场战争在阿拉伯国家的舆论上产生了巨大的影响。阿拉伯群众愤怒了，但没有看到具体该怎么做。即使现在只有有限的街头抗议活动，在未来，将感觉到这场战争的影响。
中东的政权显然视哈马斯为一种威胁。埃及和沙特阿拉伯的亲美的政权视哈马斯和逊尼派运动以及伊朗之间的连接为一种公开的道路使什叶派伊朗领导层获得对逊尼派穆斯林国家的影响力。非常有效地反对法塔赫的哈马斯的反腐败和反帝国主义的宣传还可以激励人们反对与帝国主义勾结的腐败的不民主的政权。一位美国布鲁金斯研究所的分析师说： “哈马斯从来没有这么多的合法性” 。这在迈沙勒出席1月15日在卡塔尔首都多哈举行的阿拉伯国家和伊朗的首脑会议上反映出来了。本次会议上，再次显示出阿拉伯国家之间的分裂，埃及和沙特阿拉伯政权没有出席。
这场战争准备着一个更动荡的中东，特别是对那些有效地支持了这一袭击和2006年攻击黎巴嫩的政权。奥巴马可能会使大量的阿拉伯政权卷入进来，试图在不同的问题上达成一致意见，但协议并不等于解决办法。
中东产生冲突的根源在于资本主义无法满足人们的社会和经济需要和它无力解决民族问题上的冲突以及帝国主义国家不断努力在经济上和战略上控制这个重要的地区。这些都加深了整个区域的民族冲突，因为如果不推翻精英统治和资本主义，它们就不能得到解决。直到这样做以前，跨越整个中东地区的周期性的战争和压迫和剥削是不会结束的。
和平的基础
对一些人来说，这一最新战争可能是60年里已席卷该地区的无穷无尽的一系列冲突的一个而已。面对看似棘手的犹太人和巴勒斯坦人之间的冲突，有些人可能会得出这样的结论：没有出路以及中东地区的人们注定要遭受一个又一个灾难。
这不是社会主义者的观点。中东的人民大众希望生活在和平与安全的环境下。工人国际委员会（CWI）认为，真正的和平是可以实现的。然而，唯一可能的是，如果劳动人民——巴勒斯坦人和以色列的犹太人——在承认它们的共同利益的基础上谈判达成一项协议而建设社会主义作为一种替代方式来实现这些目标。
这只能通过巴勒斯坦领土上和以色列以及该地区的工人阶级和穷人的独立的行动和组织的发展达到。这种运动将不得不反对资本主义和当地腐败的精英，并捍卫全体劳动人民的民族权益，这样才能取得成功。他们应该捍卫这样的理念，即所有工作的人应受益于中东地区的财富。通过这种方式，可以为建立双方之间的信任与合作开辟道路，以实现真正的和平。如果没有这样的社会主义运动，统治精英将利用群众对该地区将面临一个持续循环的流血冲突的恐惧维持其统治。
为了反对地方统治者和帝国主义的利益，这类组织可以争取社会主义的解决办法——一个真正独立的社会主义的巴勒斯坦国，这能够满足巴勒斯坦人民的愿望，并且可以与社会主义以色列和平共存。只有在社会主义的框架下开放根据当地人民的愿望重新划定的边界，让耶路撒冷成为共同的首都，并保障所有少数民族的民主权利，这样巴勒斯坦人的困境才可以得到解决。只有巴勒斯坦人和以色列人的民族的权利得到解决，权利的问题才转向那些不希望被看作是一种威胁的问题。社会主义巴勒斯坦和社会主义以色列可能是该地区自由和自愿的社会主义邦联的一部分。
跟着多年遭受的压迫和多年的斗争以及不能确保根本的改变， 加上过去几周加沙遭受的可怕的痛苦，这些肯定会在巴勒斯坦人之间就下一步该怎么做激起讨论和辩论。腐败的法塔赫领导人和哈马斯的局限性将导致重新寻找一条前进的道路，其中群众斗争和社会主义替代的思想将会得到响应。
在以色列，重要的是这场战争一开始就遭到了犹太人和巴勒斯坦人的联合的抗议。然而，在以色列的这个抗议，工人国际委员会（CWI）在其中发挥了作用，只有极少数人并且遭到了特别针对进行抗议的以色列的阿拉伯人的镇压。然而，这一以色列的抗议标明人们将承认可以越来越清楚地看到这个预先计划的选举前的战争和今后的任何战争并不能保证以色列的犹太人的安全。
加沙的巴勒斯坦人经历了这些残暴的事件和遭受巨大的苦难，以色列领导人的玩世不恭，阿拉伯国家领导人的腐败，再加上世界经济危机必然的影响，会为开始建设可以反抗压迫、贫穷和资本主义的社会主义组织创造机会。
Israeli regime’s brutal assault kills and injures thousands, leaves Gaza in ruins
Ceasefire called but root causes of conflict remain – socialist solution vital!
Robert Bechert, International Secretariat, CWI
Once again the masses in the Middle East have endured more suffering, injury and death. This attack on Gaza has been one of overwhelmingly brutality. On the first day, 225 people were reported killed, one of the bloodiest days in Israel’s history.
Internationally, Israeli government propaganda that the destruction was necessary to stop missile attacks on southern Israel was not accepted. The scale of the attack was seen as being out of all proportion and would do nothing to bring peace. The growing evidence of the war’s impact on civilians, including the strikes on those sheltering in UN buildings, increased the outrage. Socialists’ opposition to some of Hamas’ policies and methods did not for a minute dent our campaigning for an immediate end to this attack on Gaza.
One aim of the Israeli government in inflicting this collective punishment on the Palestinians was to undermine support for Hamas, which won the January 2006 Palestinian assembly elections, and crush the Palestinian will to resist oppression and occupation. The Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza was designed to soften up the population so that they would tamely accept any agreement that imperialism foisted onto them. Another aim war was to force Palestinians into accepting leaders who were acceptable to the Israeli state, reactionary Arab regimes, and imperialism.
It more than likely that the Israeli government’s most immediate war aim, re-election on 10 February, will not be achieved. The forces further to the right, particularly Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud and Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home), have gained in the polls. While this slaughter illustrates the Israeli army’s military power, following its defeat in the 2006 war on Hezbollah in Lebanon, it has not provided a solution for the Israeli ruling class.
This war’s cost to the Palestinian working class and poor is enormous. But, whatever the short-term gains for the Israeli regime, in the longer term, it will bring nothing positive to the Israeli working class. This slaughter will not bring peace or security to the working people of Israel. On the contrary, it will lead to another cycle of conflict in which the working class and poor, Palestinian but also Israeli Jewish workers, will suffer most.
This war again poses sharply to Palestinians the questions of how they can end oppression and achieve liberation. Clearly, the Arab regimes, even those which verbally denounced this assault, are incapable of preventing the oppression of the Palestinian masses. On the contrary, they are more fearful of a radicalisation of the Palestinians and their own populations. This experience has shown again that it will only be through their own actions that the Palestinian workers and poor can really defend themselves and realise genuine freedom and security.
Playing Fatah against Hamas
The idea that levelling large parts of Gaza would lead its population to switch their allegiance from Hamas to the more compliant Mahmoud Abbas and Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) leadership is utterly false. Hamas may have been militarily weakened, with key personnel killed, but politically, Hamas is likely to emerge strengthened. Hamas originally built its support because it was seen as less corrupt and less amenable to imperialism than the Fatah leadership. This war is resulting in a further weakening of Fatah’s support and the strengthening of more radical forces.
This is why the US and other powers are increasing their efforts to bolster Fatah. The plan is to give the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA), which Fatah runs, control of the distribution of reconstruction funds, especially the promised $1 billion from Saudi Arabia, and a limited role in administering Gaza’s border with Egypt. The Wall Street Journal reported a ‘top European Union official’ saying the EU “wouldn’t help to rebuild buildings and infrastructure destroyed in Israel’s offensive until Gaza is governed by rulers acceptable to the EU”. The same article reported a ‘Western diplomat in Jerusalem’ explaining their plan: “The PA comes back to save the people of Gaza. That’s the narrative”. (20 January) So much for self-determination and humanitarian help for Gaza and its suffering people!
This war was deliberately provoked by the Israeli government under the cover of dealing with missile attacks from Gaza. Its only justification was Hamas’ refusal to extend the six-month ‘ceasefire’ (literally, ‘calm’ in Arabic and Hebrew) unless the blockade was lifted, and the resumption of firing of relatively small, and not very effective, missiles from Gaza into southern Israel. Naturally, this terrorizes the local population, but they have caused relatively minor damage and loss of life, unlike the casualties inflicted by the Israeli military. Nevertheless, they gave Ehud Olmert’s government a cause for war and enabled it to mobilise the vast majority of Israeli Jews behind the assault. The US and other governments made these missiles the major issue, pushing to second place the slaughter and suffering of the Palestinians.
Socialists support the right of Palestinians, like any oppressed people, to defend themselves through armed action if necessary. However, to be effective, such defensive action has to be based on mass support, and under the democratic direction of the wider population, organised through grassroots committees. Otherwise, there is the danger that secretive militia organisations develop that can degenerate into criminal extortion and be infiltrated more easily by the Israeli security services.
Moreover, the policy of rocket attacks and, previously, suicide bombings against Israeli citizens – methods and targets the CWI opposes – cannot defend the Palestinians and has led to the current overwhelming Israeli-Jewish support for the state’s onslaught. The argument that such attacks will show Jews that the Israeli military cannot defend them and, thereby, undermine the Israeli state is wrong. Their main effect has been to strengthen the right-wing nationalists and support for this war. This is why the Israeli government’s propaganda machine, and its international supporters like George Bush, keep repeating the mantra of ‘missile attacks’, while keeping all foreign journalists out of Gaza to try to limit reports of the carnage wrought by Israeli missiles and shells.
While the timing of this onslaught flowed from the early general election in Israel and the end of the Bush administration, the intensity and scope of the military action shows that it had far wider war aims. They were to demonstrate again the power of Israel’s military, wreck Gaza’s infrastructure to cripple Hamas rule and, if possible, secure regime change by removing the elected Hamas government and replacing it with more compliant elements around the outgoing Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas.
This war had been prepared for six months, if not longer. Part of this was the organisation of a propaganda machine that would try to present this attack as purely defensive against the missiles fired from Gaza. But, notwithstanding the missile attacks, there was general understanding internationally that the battle was not between equals. In these past three weeks, 13 Israelis – ten soldiers and three civilians – were killed. This pattern has been seen before. During 2005-7, eleven Israelis were killed by missiles fired from Gaza while Israeli military action killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children. In 2007, 83 Palestinians were killed by Israeli action in the West Bank despite no missiles being fired from there. As in Lebanon in 2006, the Israeli air assaults have wiped out whole families in the name of ‘peace’.
Throughout the three-week assault the Israeli and other governments feared that the longer the fighting continued, the higher was the possibility of major upheavals in Arab countries and the escalation into a wider war. Faced with rising anger in the Middle East, and growing disgust around the world, the major powers were compelled to appear to act but, despite UN resolutions and Nicolas Sarkozy flying around the region, nothing happened. Possibly now there will be the suggestion to put in foreign troops to police the borders between Gaza and Egypt, perhaps inside the Gaza Strip itself and on its border with Israel. But this will not give freedom of movement, let alone self-determination, to the Palestinians. The international forces in Lebanon did not prevent the 2006 invasion. Eventually, such forces can face increasing opposition as they are seen to be defending the interests of the imperialist powers.
The lies and distortions justifying the Israeli attack were shameless. As is normal, the aggressor presents its actions as simply defensive. Thus, the Israeli government simply ignores the fact that it still occupies or, in the case of Gaza, lays siege to the territories it seized in the 1967 war. Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, stood before the world denouncing terrorism while ignoring the Israeli state terror employed in the occupied territories and beyond. Livni’s hypocrisy is particularly striking as her parents were key members of Irgun, the right-wing Jewish group that carried out the single most deadly terrorist act in Israel/Palestine, the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Despite growing evidence of their use, the Israeli military are simply evasive on whether they used white phosphorous shells, banned as a weapon of war in civilian areas.
The Israeli elite continually manipulate the memory of the Holocaust to try to silence critics and, more importantly, play on the fears of Israeli Jews. But the tragedy for the Jews in Israel is that they are in a situation where, as long as capitalism and exploitation remains, they face repeated wars and the fear of being ‘pushed into the sea’ if they are defeated. Until they see an alternative, many Israeli Jews will have a siege mentality that can lead to support for their government’s aggression.
Punished for voting the ‘wrong way’
THE HISTORY OF the current cycle of military operations dates back to January 2006 when Israel fired artillery shells into Gaza following Hamas’ victory in the elections, with 44% of the vote and 74 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian parliament. This vote shocked the Israeli government which hoped that its 2005 withdrawal from Gaza would enable the pliant Fatah leadership to run the area.
Fearing that Hamas’ calls for resistance would undermine its plans, the Israeli government sought to effect regime change in Gaza. Immediately, attempts began to undermine Hamas by turning the Gaza population against it. These did not succeed. A US-backed attempt to stage a coup against Hamas, later documented in the US magazine Vanity Fair, was thwarted in June 2007 by Hamas ousting Fatah from Gaza. However, in the West Bank the more dominant Fatah, aided by the Israeli regime, increasingly sought to suppress Hamas supporters. Today, over 40 Hamas MPs are imprisoned, while others have been assassinated.
Hypocritically, the imperialists denounce Hamas’ June 2007 action and justify the subsequent tightened blockade of Gaza. This is despite the admission by the main Middle East advisor to the then US vice-president Dick Cheney that, “what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen”. The imperialist powers and the corrupt Arab regimes fully backed these moves against Hamas, fearing that its success would boost opposition throughout the Middle East.
When it suits them the imperialist powers speak about ‘democracy’, but not when it produces results they do not like. None of the major powers have commented on the current attempt to ban Palestinian parties from standing in February’s Israeli election. As the Palestinians, in imperialism’s view, voted the ‘wrong way’, no reference is made to Hamas’ 2006 election victory and it is just repeatedly denounced as a terror group. Thus, Egypt closed the Rafah crossing into Gaza while the Israeli government withheld tax receipts owed to the Palestinian authorities, cutting the number of trucks carrying humanitarian supplies. Soon there was a series of Israeli and Hamas attacks and counter-attacks.
。
In explaining and opposing the Israeli-US-Arab assault, socialists do not give political support to Hamas. Despite its anti-imperialist and anti-corruption rhetoric, Hamas is a pro-capitalist, movement. It seeks to impose its own particular religious views on society and can ruthlessly suppress its opponents among Palestinians. Hamas’ policies and tactics will ultimately set back the struggle for Palestinian liberation. Its present support is because many Palestinians see the Hamas leaders as much less corrupt than their Fatah counterparts and more militant in their language against Israeli aggression. The hypocrisy of the Israeli government’s demonization of Hamas is that, originally, the Israeli secret services supported Hamas’ foundation in order to undermine its stronger rival at the time, the secular PLO. But, as happened with the CIA and Saudi-funded ‘Islamic resistance’ in Afghanistan, what was intended as a pawn became too powerful and a threat to their former sponsors. But opposition to Hamas’ policies, and helping to build workers’ organisations that can end the conflict in the interests of the working class, oppressed and poor, is not in contradiction to resisting the Israeli, US and other imperialist governments.
A carefully laid trap
Last year, the firing of missiles from Gaza by Hamas and other Palestinian groups were only one of the breaches of the six-month ‘calm’ – which the Israeli military used to carefully prepare Operation Cast Lead. Prior to the ‘calm’, the Israeli government steadily imposed a tighter and tighter blockade of Gaza, aided by the regime of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In late 2005, workers from Gaza were mostly barred from entering Israel to work. Then Gaza’s commercial trade was massively restricted and, finally, from mid-2006, humanitarian aid was squeezed. The result was that last year Gaza received only 25% of the imported supplies it received in 2005. This was why one of the main demands of Gazans was a lifting of the blockade. The hundreds of tunnels dug under Gaza’s borders are not mainly for weapon smuggling, as Israeli and western governments claim, but to try to overcome the effects of the blockade.
This siege was tightened even more towards the end of last year. The Wall Street Journal reported that “between November 5 and the start of the most recent conflict, an average of 16 trucks a day were allowed into Gaza, down from 123 a day in October and 475 a day in May 2007”. (8 January) The 5 November date is significant, as it was the day after the Israeli military raid that started the countdown to the latest assault. Effectively, the Israeli government put Gazans on starvation rations: the UN says it requires about 40 trucks daily to meet Gazans’ minimal needs. This was why even the UN spoke of Israel’s ‘collective punishment’ of Gaza.
The economic siege and military raids provoked Hamas into rejecting a continuation of the six month ‘calm’ unless the border was opened, and resuming missile attacks into southern Israel. The Hamas leadership effectively fell into this trap and made it politically easier for the Israeli government to launch its pre-election war.
This trap was triggered by the provocation of the first significant breach in the ‘calm’ when, on 4 November, an Israeli raid killed six Hamas members. The Israeli military claimed that it had intelligence that a tunnel was being dug for the purpose of abducting Israeli soldiers.
What happened next was recorded by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), an organisation whose material is published by the Israeli government. Having previously recorded only eleven rockets and 15 mortar shells fired from Gaza in the four months between July and October, the ITIC reported that “during the six months of the lull, the terrorist organisations fired 223 rockets and 139 mortar shells”, with most of them fired “during the six weeks between November 4 and December 19”.
Clearly, the 4 November raid changed the situation, as it was intended to do. It seems clear that the Israeli government was working to a timetable of preparing for action in the run-up to the 10 February election, an election called at the end of October.
There are many reports that Hamas wanted to maintain the truce, while demanding that the blockade be lifted. It sent a delegation to Cairo in mid-December to discuss this. Around the same time, former US president Jimmy Carter met Khaled Meshal, the Syrian-based chairman of the Hamas political bureau, in Damascus. Meshal indicated that Hamas was willing to go back to the ceasefire, “if there was a sign that Israel would lift the siege on Gaza”. A few days later, Yuval Diskin, head of Israel’s security agency, Shin Bet, told the 21 December meeting of the Israeli cabinet: “Make no mistake, Hamas is interested in maintaining the truce”. While Hamas leaders kept saying they would extend the truce if the crossings were opened, the Israeli and Egyptian governments refused to do so.
It seems that the barrage of rockets that Hamas fired after the truce ended on 19 December was not necessarily the start of a long offensive. The ITIC said that the attacks peaked on 24 December. In other words, the attacks subsided before the Israeli air force launched Operation Cast Lead on 27 December. The Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram (20 January) quoted Meshal as saying that Hamas only expected a three-day military response. Instead, there was a 22-day slaughter.
Because of this misjudgement, and because Hamas is not based on the mobilisation of the masses, it fell into this provocation. It could have mobilised the population in Gaza around its main demand of reopening the Gaza border, as agreed in the ceasefire plan. A mass mobilisation to the border with Egypt demanding that it be opened could not have been described as terrorism. Such action, combined with an appeal to Egyptians for support, would have put the Mubarak regime in an impossible position, either having to open the border or face revolt.
This is not a dream. Less than a year ago, after a hole was blown in the border near Rafah, mass action secured free travel for eleven days until Hamas agreed to its re-closure. In December, the Hamas leaders hoped that firing a few hundred missiles would change the situation. Instead this gave the Israeli government the excuse it had wanted to launch a pre-election war. The mass action that kept the border open in January/February last year was an example, like the two intifadas, that this form of struggle is the key to Palestinian liberation. Over time, the policies and tactics of Hamas will start to be questioned, as were Fatah’s previously.
The collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza – by siege and military action – has only deepened the hostility towards Israel. It has not undermined Hamas or strengthened Fatah’s position. It has united Palestinians against Israel. However, the Israeli military may be counting on war-weariness to create a more submissive mood. It seems that there is in Gaza a combination of despair and desire for revenge, with Hamas leaders anxious to show that the Israelis are responsible for any renewed fighting.
Any chance of a deal?
It is possible that the popular jailed Fatah leader, Marwan Barghouti, may play a role in future developments. Barghouti’s popularity grew during the second intifada, at the beginning of this century, as a leader of Tanzim, a Fatah armed branch. Jailed by the Israelis he split from Fatah to form a new party, al-Mustaqbal (The Future). He ran on a joint list with Fatah in the January 2006 elections. Later, Barghouti helped draft the joint agreement by prominent imprisoned Palestinian leaders from most groupings, including Hamas. This statement, the National Conciliation Document of the Prisoners, put forward the basis for a Palestinian national unity government and a deal with Israel. Barghouti could yet be released in an attempt by imperialism to involve the more popular leaders in some kind of deal.
But even a temporary deal depends on the situation in Israel. Despite the attempt by the government to present the Gaza war as a victory, the war is still unlikely to save the Kadima-Labour coalition, and a Likud-led government could attempt an even more aggressive attitude. Despite the wishes of some imperialist powers for a settlement that allows for the formation of two states, key sections of the Israeli elite will not allow any moves towards the formation of a viable Palestinian state. They fear that such a state, even the attempt to form one, would add a new destabilising factor into the region.
Nevertheless, within Israel there will be increased questioning of the war. While such questioning came quickly after the discredited 2006 Lebanon war, it may take a bit longer now as the Gaza war is being presented as a success. But, inevitably, the question will be asked: what is the long-term future? Although there was overwhelming Israeli support for the attack, mainly because of the missiles and Hamas’ previous suicide bomb strategy in the 1990s, there was a minority in opposition, including some in the military. In Tel Aviv and Jaffa there were sizeable joint Palestinian–Jewish demonstrations against the war. Even among the war’s supporters there was no support for a long term reoccupation of Gaza.
Over time, Israeli Jews will ask: what has really been achieved? The polarisation in Israeli society will continue. The extreme nationalists will demand further action against the Palestinians. Others will feel growing revulsion at the mass killings of civilians, especially children, as full news of what happened is reported. Such a development could be cut across if there is a major resumption of missile attacks, or new suicide attacks, in an attempt to show the Israeli state that it has not won.
The siege mentality and the legacy of the Holocaust are powerful issues which are regularly exploited by the Israeli elite. Despite the cynical exploitation, these are real factors that have to be taken into account if this deadlock is to be broken in the interests of working people and the poor. Unless a viable alternative is offered to Israeli Jews the vast majority will fight with all means if they think that their very existence is threatened.
A weakened Israel
Israeli jewry is not a homogeneous bloc. There are increasingly sharp class divisions, especially after the neo-liberal dismantling of many parts of the welfare state. From the formation of Israel there have been racial divisions. The original Israeli elite discriminated against Jews from Arab countries who made up over 45% of the migrants into Israel until 1995. The past decade has seen important workers’ and students’ struggles, including big strikes and demonstrations, which are likely to be repeated as a result of the unfolding world economic disaster. If Likud again pursues neo-liberal policies it could quickly lead to class battles developing. These could carry within them possibilities for building a genuine workers’ movement as a fighting force in Israel, and also as a step towards common struggles by Israeli and Palestinian workers.
Internationally, mounting revulsion against the savagery of the assault on Gaza has weakened Israel’s position, especially as it comes after the 2006 Lebanon war. This may be used by those sections of world imperialism that see the Israeli government’s policies as destabilizing and wish for some attempt at a ‘settlement’.
It is likely that the new Obama administration’s initiative will try to go down this road, calling for some Israeli withdrawal from lands occupied after the 1967 war and, perhaps, making contact with Hamas to seek to involve them in some kind of Palestinian government of national unity. Before this war, Olmert argued for a ‘land for peace’ deal, which the Obama administration may now push for. However, while these moves would be made with great fanfare and raise hopes, at the end of the day, they will prove to be limited. No deal along these lines would challenge the domination of capitalism, including Israel’s regional strength. Undoubtedly, the Palestinian workers and poor will find themselves betrayed, yet again.
This war has had a huge effect on opinion in Arab countries. The mass of Arabs were furious, but did not see concretely what could be done. Even if there were only limited protests on the streets, the impact of this war will be felt over the next period.
Hamas is clearly seen as a threat to Middle East regimes. The ties between Hamas, a Sunni movement, and Iran are seen by the pro-US regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia as opening a way for the Shia Iranian leadership to gain influence in predominately Sunni countries. Hamas’ anti-corruption and anti-imperialist propaganda that was so effective against Fatah can also inspire opposition to the rotten and undemocratic regimes tied to imperialism. One US Brookings Institute analyst said that “Hamas has never had this much legitimacy”. This was reflected in the attendance of Meshal at the 15 January Arab and Iranian summit in Doha, Qatar. This meeting again showed the divisions among Arab states as the Egyptian and Saudi Arabian regimes did not attend.
This war has set the scene for more turmoil in the Middle East, especially for those regimes that effectively supported this attack and the 2006 assault on Lebanon. Obama may try to involve a larger number of Arab regimes in an attempt to reach agreement on different issues, but agreement is not the same as a settlement.
The root causes of the conflict in the Middle East lie in capitalism’s inability to meet the social and economic needs of the population, its inability to resolve the conflicting national questions, and the continual efforts by the imperialist nations to maintain a grip over an economically and strategically vital region. These have deepened the national conflicts throughout the region because they cannot be resolved without the overthrowing of the ruling elites and capitalism. Until this is done there will be no end to the periodic wars, repression and deprivation that extends through much of the Middle East.
The basis for peace
To some, this latest war may seem as yet one more in an apparently endless series of conflicts that has swept the region for over 60 years. Faced with the seemingly intractable conflict between Jews and Palestinians some may draw the conclusion that there is no way out and that the peoples in the Middle East are doomed to suffer one calamity after another.
This is not the view of socialists. The mass of the Middle Eastern population want to live in peace and security. The CWI believes that genuine peace is achievable. However, this is only possible if working people – Palestinian and Israeli Jewish – negotiate a deal on the basis of recognising their common interests, and building a socialist alternative as a way to achieve them.
This can only be achieved by the development of independent action and organisation by the working class and poor in the Palestinian territories, Israel and the region. Such movements would have to stand against capitalism and the corrupt regional elites, and in defence of the national rights of all working people if they are to succeed. They should defend the idea that all working people should benefit from the wealth of the Middle East. In this way, trust and cooperation could be built between the two sides, opening the way to genuine peace. Without such socialist movements the ruling elites will maintain their rule by exploiting the fears of the masses, and the region will face a continued cycle of bloody conflict.
Against the interests of their local rulers and imperialism such organisations could fight for a socialist solution – a genuinely independent socialist Palestine that can satisfy the national aspirations of the Palestinian people and which could exist alongside a socialist Israel. Only within a socialist framework can the plight of the Palestinians be resolved, with open borders redrawn in accordance with the wishes of local people, a shared capital in Jerusalem, and with guaranteed democratic rights for all national minorities. Only with the national rights of the Palestinians and Israelis resolved would the question of the right to return of those who wish to not be seen as a threat. A socialist Palestine and a socialist Israel could, in turn, be part of a free and voluntary socialist confederation of the region.
The terrible suffering of Gaza over the past weeks, coming on top of years of oppression, struggles and failure to secure fundamental change, is sure to provoke discussion and debate among Palestinians over what to do next. The rottenness of the Fatah leadership and the limitations of Hamas will result in a new search for a way forward in which the ideas of mass struggle and a socialist alternative will be able to find an echo.
Within Israel it is significant that, from the beginning of this war, there was opposition to it with joint Jewish and Palestinian protests. However, in Israel this opposition, in which the CWI played a role, was in a small minority and suffered repression, which was particularly aimed at the Israeli Arabs who protested. Nevertheless, this Israeli opposition laid down a marker that will come to be recognised as it becomes clear that this pre-planned election war, and any future wars, will not guarantee security for Israeli Jews.
The experience of these brutal events, the immense suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza, the cynicism of the Israeli leaders, the rottenness of the Arab leaders, coupled with the inevitable impact of the world economic crisis, will create the opportunity to begin to build socialist organisations that can fight against oppression, poverty and capitalism.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)
