综观2008年的材料
对中国的统治者来说，工业减速和美国资本主义模式的破裂预示着深刻的危机的开始。
本文应与以前的综观2007年的文章 ——中国处于十字路口一并阅读。在该文章中概述了未来的社会和政治危机的重要特点，因此在此不赘述了。
对整个世界尤其是中国产生巨大影响的并导致华尔街金融垮台的美国资本主义的债务危机是资本主义历史上一个开创性的时刻。现在很少有人谈论经济“脱钩”或怀疑中国和其他主要新兴经济体如印度和俄罗斯将被拖入全球经济漩涡。在这个阶段，唯一的未知因素是危机的深度和持续时间及期限。
2008年，人们清楚地看到中国处在工业经济放缓的第一阶段。所有经济增长率的预测正在向下修正。在2006-07年度实现国内生产总值增长11.8 ％ 后，预测2008年的增长在9%至9.6 ％之间 ，下一年为8％至9 ％。
来自在香港的瑞士信贷集团的陶东警告说：“在一个社会里，每年新的求职者超过新增非农就业岗位达2000万人，甚至经济增长下降到百分之八就等于衰退。”他告诉彭博新闻说“低于百分之九将使当局很紧张 ”。
闭幕式后的几个星期里，中国伟大的奥运时刻已经逐渐成为历史。取代欢呼的人群的是越来越多的愤怒的农民、学生和处于困境中的农民工和荡产的股民。导致超过13000名婴儿住院并致死4个婴儿的有毒牛奶丑闻是中国社会一个令人震惊的'现实写照'。涉及20多家公司包括食品行业中非常大的公司的这个丑闻是几乎完全缺乏管制的结果。2005年政府决定免除超过2100家的公司在食品和乳制品业的管制措施，由它们自己的标准来认定就足够了。由于缺乏控制，乳品行业的中间商通过增加工业化学品三聚氰胺的措施来提高原料奶的蛋白质水平。于事无补的是当局命令新闻界奥运会期间“所有的食品安全问题是禁地”。 奥运会开幕6天前省级领导人（河北）知道了污染问题。然后采取行动可以拯救生命和减少无尽的痛苦。丑闻中心地的几家公司在中国和外国的股票市场上上市而且奶制品行业在短短几年中从几乎是零爆发成为具有200亿美元的产业。受害的孩子们的家长开始组织起来在互联网上发贴表达他们的要求并联系律师活动家，期待着起诉乳品公司。
仅2008年9月4日一天里，在三个省-河南，湖南和浙江爆发了大规模抗议-合起来有10 0000人走上街头，和安全部队发生了冲突。英国广播公司评论说“在中国，社会动乱是常见的，但很少达到这个规模”。这些抗议从学校学生（河南申邱县）抗议房地产开发商夺取他们的学校体育场到在14岁的工人遭受了严重事故后10000名农民工和当地居民（浙江宁波）包围工厂。中共展望杂志公布的统计数字显示， '群体性事件'曲线呈继续上升的状态，2006年记录达惊人的90000次抗议-几乎每天都有2 50起！这是2003年5.8万起、2004年7.4万、2005年8.7万后又一次增加。尽管国民生产总值的数字令人眼花缭乱，这些数字指明了深刻的社会弊病。
南方都市报专栏作家文云超说“谁说今天的中国是和谐的，我将抽他 ”。 “随着社会不稳定的问题的增加示威数增长着。”
在蓬勃发展的城市厦门，上海和重庆，数千人参加了针对环境有害的建设项目的非法街头游行。2007年几千名退伍军人至少在三个城市暴乱以抗议待遇不公，非官方退伍军人网站上大量地报告这些事件。在过去，兵役意味这国有企业保证有工作，但现在不再适用，这是对工人和农民以前权益饿许多攻击之一。
仅在中国南部的珠江三角洲，罢工和工厂停工持续不断的，而且每天都在发生涉及1000个或更多的工人的停工。大多数的这些斗争因为新闻封锁而未见于报道。通常管理人员，政府官员和安全部队严厉地处理他们。中国目前有170万警察部队， 100多万武警（PAP）和2百万武装部队。在最近几年新开设了3 0000个新派出所。1989年群众运动后，由于正规军表现出不愿意出动镇压，PAP得到了增强。部署在西藏和新疆的'反恐'力量中，武警是该政权主要的镇压工具。
学生动乱也有所增加，一个仍困扰政权的1989年记忆的不祥预兆。89年运动是由全面地对通货膨胀，腐败的不满以及实现基本民主权利的愿望引起的-这些都是目前的局势的特征。政府在当前的五年计划（ 2006-2010年）的期限中设定的公共就业水平最高限度为650万，造成严重的大学毕业生失业。2007年413万毕业生中120万人没有找到工作，在2008年更有150万大学毕业生面临着同样的命运。
中国已经发生一系列重大灾害：四川地震（ 8.7万人死亡或失踪） ，中国许多地区出现极其寒冷的冬天的，随后是半世纪里最严重的夏季降雨。这些事件使一部分人口带有政治色彩并质疑政府的作用。经济学家的评论说：“四川地震造成了数以百万计的潜在的不满者 ”。
在对地震最初的反应中，国家处在震惊中，22日温家宝在国家电视台含泪的表现使他得到了广泛阶层的爱戴，并作为官方关怀的一个例子'。但是地震五个月之后，四川的省级政府抱怨它只收到承诺的用于重建四分之一的钱，需要更多的1800亿美元。全省将需要几年时间才能恢复到地震前国内生产总值达到的水平，意味着困难，失业和数以百万计人口只能住临时住房。‘豆腐渣学校’ 在世界各地传开。中国电影导演潘剑林一部“谁杀了我们的孩子？”的纪录片中反映了这个问题，导演说“这些建筑的质量槽糕透了 ”。
甚至由于地方服务的衰减、国有资产被盗，贪污腐败，滥用权力，镇压，以及一大堆其他罪行已成为家常，低级别的中共机器也遭到了群众越来越多指责，高层领导人基本上屏蔽于大众批评之外。
在2008年，民政的剧变成功地迫使中央政府纪律处分和牺牲一些地方大员 。贵州省“6.28” 瓮安事件就是一例，为期两天达50000名的观众围攻派出所和摧毁数十辆车辆。北京迅速解除当地警察局长和党委书记的职务。同样，在有毒牛奶丑闻中，负责全国产品质量和安全的局长和产生丑闻的中心城市的石家庄的党委书记的职务也被解除。在山西省，仅几周前，在一个非法煤矿场的泥石流导致271人死亡，省长孟学农辞职，毫无疑问，上面'说服'了他。孟立即被称为“中国最倒霉的官员” -在2 003年，他因为在处理SARS爆发事件的不当而被解除北京市市长的职务。
通过牺牲腐败或无能的官员，北京希望赢得时间和在危机扩大之前化解危机，但这是以鼓励其他人在将来走上斗争之路为代价的，并进一步削弱了党的国家机器。
在他的书《向农民道歉》中，山西省白蜀县（音译）前副党委书记马英卢（音译）正确地描述了作为保护中共政权内在核心的“防火墙”的中国政府的五个层次。在2003年他写道：“今天，中央领导仍安全， ” “但较低层次的防火墙[即村和乡镇的政府]已经完全瘫痪，中间层[即省级]防火墙处于危险之中。“
中国执政党的执政地位一直因它有能力保持不可阻挡的经济增长而得到护卫。但是，这北京政权的国内生产总值的'王牌' ，现在也受到来自全球资本主义的危机和其自身的内部矛盾威胁。由于消费市场的不足和非常过剩的生产能力，中国的经济模式是不可持续的。而在先进的资本主义经济体，私人债务的积累在一定时期里给这一资本主义的基本矛盾提供了一条出路，中国有限的国内市场被前所未有的资本投资和出口部门的快速扩张'克服'了。
随着美国次级债和房地产泡沫的破裂，作为常常具有浪费性的和高度投机性的巨额投资的结果的中国自身的危机才刚刚开始。在中国由于在经济领域巨大的国家支持的信用发挥着作用，这一过程很可能被拖延，但这只是一个时间和程度的问题而不是趋势的问题。
在全国范围内，2008年上半年，约67000家中小型企业倒闭，大约20万人因此失去工作。受害最严重的地区是最为融入全球经济的比较富裕的和更为工业化的沿海省份，例如根据香港工业联合会的消息，世界500强最大公司中有176家在那里有基地的广东正在经历“20年来最恶劣的状况 ”。 自2007年年底广东省一半以上的制鞋企业（超过2200家工厂）已经关闭或搬迁。现在纺织部门的利润正大大地减少至大约营业额的百分之一点五，而且广东省的政府报告说，与2007年同期相比，2008年上半年服装和配件的销售几乎下降了三分之一。
由于货币升值，原材料成本上升和因劳动力短缺而被迫放弃声名狼藉的他们低工资，出口商已经遭到挤压。较新的低工资竞争对手，如越南和孟加拉，以及中国的贫穷省份，甚至东欧和墨西哥，正在资本主义'恶性竞争'中获得优势。
作为珠江三角洲一个出口业大市的东莞市的市领导谈到了当地经济“萧条”。 2008年市政府发起了两项救助资金以支持受到出口衰退打击的中小型企业。在作为世界第四繁忙的港口的深圳港口，“出口危机”是显而易见的，该港口的货运量的增长已经放慢，只有去年水平的一半。业内分析人士预测严重依赖于中国的全球集装箱航运业将遭到 “普遍的下半年的损失”，这发生在世界经济和作为重要市场的美国，欧盟和日本正式进入衰退之前。
其他沿海出口省份，如浙江，江苏，山东和福建也苦不堪言。浙江省的外贸研究中心主任描述那里的局势是“灾难性的” 。省内公司五分之一-超过10000公司-2 0 08年的损失总额已达三百六十亿元（5 3 亿美元） 。省政府介入拯救由于其出口的缝纫机下降了百分之四十四，因而无力偿还其债权人近10亿元（一亿四千六百万美元）的债务而濒临破产的有5000名员工的飞跃集团）。正如在东莞和其他地区一样，政府下令延期来自当地银行的贷款以使公司继续生存下去。
目前的危机极不可能的只限于出口部门。2008年整个经济中投资速度已经放缓至5年来的最低水平。这是多种因素共同作用的结果，其中房地产泡沫的破裂和利润率的下降是最重要的因素。这种低迷也已开始影响到作为长达10年的建设热潮的支柱的钢铁行业，住宅建筑如饥似渴地吸收了约百分之二十的钢铁需求。该研究公司特钢宣布中国的钢铁工业自2008年中旬以来价格下降多达百分之二十而处在“衰退”中 。
在一项行业调查中，国家发展和改革委员会哀叹这样的事实，即“由地方政府启动的大多数钢铁项目未经中央的批准” 。该委员会过去在毛派斯大林计划经济时期是中国的计划机构。这份声明强调了时代已经大大地改变。评论家们很早就预测了中国的钢铁工业合并的破坏性时代的到来。
发电产业有着类似的情况。正如中国专家尼古拉斯拉迪（Nicholas Lardy）指出： “中国已建立这么多的发电厂以至于有些地区现在能力过剩。但是投入到将更有效地利用发电能力的国家电网的建设资金却已滞后。 “ [华尔街日报， 08年9月30日]
一个行业跟着一个行业中出现了同样的图景：没有规划，激烈的地区性竞争，长期过度投资和浪费。这也表现在最现代的电信行业。2008年8月国家审计署报告说2002年至2006年超过11200亿元（1640美元）用于建设电信公司的基本设施，但只有三分之一的电信电缆安装使用。前中国联通总裁杨贤足说“电信方面的投资性浪费可建几个三峡大坝” ，三峡大坝指建在长江上的世界上最大的水电工程。
中国的股市泡沫自2007年10月达峰值以来已经破裂。这是2008年世界上50家最大的证券交易所中表现的最差的。实际上，2005年当一系列重大的国有企业被推向市场以来所有的投机性收益已被抹去。1.36亿股民（ '投资者' ）被诱骗到股市中，百分之七十的股民的年收入低于10000美元，自2007年10月以来，在12个月里他们平均损失了三分之二的资金。
虽然他们不到人口总数的十分之一，因此股市下跌的“负财富效应” 比起在西方来说较为有限，对中国统治者来说，这些荡产的股民是重要的阶层。这是中共的主要社会基础-城市中产阶级-而且希望依赖这个阶层的消费来把出口导向型的经济转向内需拉动型经济。有能力购买所有那些汽车和平板电视这个阶层是完全破产了？
作者威利林评论道：“有迹象表明，党的领导层最担心的一场恶梦可能会比预期的更早发生：中产阶级成员加入'处于不利地位的阶层，如农民和工人举行抗议，甚至暴乱，以发泄他们的不满”。
婚姻破裂，自杀和心理疾病所有这些都是市场附带后果的表现。在一些地区，如陕西省，在2008年春季，投资者聚众闹事，并包围了当地的股票经纪处。官方的这种下降是“对市场经济来说是正常的” 声明已激怒了许多人。网民已经张贴愤怒的评论，如： “即使是资本主义美国也通过干预以挽救其市场，为什么中国政府不做同样的事呢？ ”
然而股市的崩溃正在迅速升级为更大和更严重的金融泡沫。虽然官方统计数字给予的印象是楼价总体而言仍在上升，而事实上看情况不是如此。在北京，上海，杭州，宁波，海口，而且在内陆城市如成都，武汉，南宁，西安，兰州，乌鲁木齐，房屋价格正在下降。所有这些城市在2007年经历了投机性增长。现在一些地区报告的价格下降了百分之十到四十之间而且房地产公司已经开始了价格战。
正如工业领域一样，许多地方的房地产市场遭受极端过剩之苦。深圳市土地和房管局的报告说，按目前的销售价格，深圳的开发商将花超过10年的时间才能出售完现有的所有房屋存量。中国现在拥有世界上最大的购物商场，准备靠消费猛增来赚钱，但并没有实现。东莞市南中国购物中心是世界最大的购物中心，但只租出不到百分之十的店面。三分之一的北京写字楼空置的。当然，在现实中，不是有“太多的”建筑，在中国为普通百姓的住房严重短缺。但是，利润制度是无法解决这一矛盾的。
在中国大多数人欢迎房价的下跌。目前百分之七十的城市居民买不起新的公寓。据北京师范大学金融研究中心的研究，在中国一所公寓的平均价格约平均每年家庭可支配收入的13倍，远远高于国际平均水平的3至6倍。当然，虽然1984年时在旧的国家控制制度下的住房的质量往往有许多有待改进之处，但中国的平均租金只是家庭收入的百分之一。
但是，当金融泡沫展开，他们往往趋向一个恶性循环，即价格下降，面临损失的投机者抛售资产以获得现金，随后空房的存量增加，造成价格进一步下跌。这对更广的经济可能产生的影响是大大降低随后的投资水平，信贷条件普遍收紧（ “信贷紧缩” ）以及坏帐急剧上升威胁到银行业的稳定。当然，银行面临倒闭的威胁，中国政权将尝试保尔森式救助。不同于美国政府的是，他们有相当的可支配的储备。中国的未偿债务水平相当于GDP的15.7%，是低的。它还拥有世界上最大的外汇储备，接近2万亿美元的价值，虽然这些储备有很大一部分有力地'植入'以支撑美元的价值，防止全球货币体系的崩溃。
中国的房地产业（即投机）已经占了最近几年所有固定资产投资的三分之一以上，可能多达一半。据一些调查，价格需要下跌百分之五十才能恢复中国的房地产市场。在此基础上，摆在面前的是不良贷款发生爆炸。据官方统计，今天中国银行系统的该级别的不良贷款达6000亿美元，但实际数字可能达到11000亿美元（相当于一半以上的中国的外汇储备） 。大约四分之一的国内生产总值，这高于日本在1990年代初的水平。
因此，中国可能会步入1990年日本'泡沫经济'破裂的相似地步。这十年中间，超过三分之二的日本公司没有利润，只能通过银行更多的信贷以维持生命的延续。这就是所谓的“僵尸经济” 。银行背后站着中央银行和政府，其公共债务比率由经合组织中最低水平国转变为最高水平的国家之一。然而，相反，在20世纪90年代，今天的美国，欧洲和亚洲新兴经济体持续增长给日本的资本主义提供了部分的出路。中国目前的问题发生在非常不利的全球危机关头。
未来的危机将迎来中国复杂的国内政治的一个新的时期。它标志着1989年时代的结束。较富裕的沿海区域是首先遭到危机打击的，并可能会遭到最严重的打击。这将是现在形势的一个逆转，以往这些省份的发展和经济实力的增长是以内陆省份为代价的。在资源上的权力斗争以形成国家政策将变得更加激烈。共产党两个主要派别之间的'上海帮' （它的主要基地是沿海省份）和胡锦涛的' 团派 '内很好的平衡将动摇。大幅经济衰退可能公开党内严重的分裂。正如中共早期阶段，对抗的派系可以通过走上街头扩大他们背后的舆论支持。经济冲突也将加剧。
“没有'中国市场'这么回事。在经济发展的不同阶段，中国是一个地区性市场的拼凑物，它作为一个民族结合在一起，但因治理上的差别、通讯的困难、区域竞争和落后的基础设施而分离。 “这是来自科技顾问组的一个准确的描述。 [中国的市场， Cambashi有限公司， 2005 ]
经济衰退对一些地区的打击远远超过其他地区的话，地区贸易保护主义的趋势将增强。
面对出口下降，沿海省份的比较现代的工厂的将把它们的市场目标转向其他省份，并要求中央政府出台政策以给予便利。较穷的省份的弱势产业将尽最大努力阻止这一点。结果可能出现高涨的地区主义和省际争夺，这将不可避免地通向北京。威利林使用术语“军阀”来形容省级领导人，说明多年来他们已就一系列重要问题成功地抗拒中央政府的政策。
今后一段时期将看到为抵制经济危机影响而爆发的大规模斗争和第一次独立的工人运动的'绿芽'。它也标志着出现如20世纪90年代危机期间在台湾、香港和其他东亚地区那样的大规模的民主运动。为了避免这样的发展，中共某些阶层想要重新启动陷入僵局的争取'政治改革'的进程。北京中央党校的研究人员报告认为这项工作是“当务之急” 。但是，本报告主张的改变是要加强法制和使媒体更自由，而不是独立组织，成立政党，还有选举的权利。
在中共高层中有一种对任何真正的对党的控制的开放或放松的病态的恐惧，担心这将打开大规模的不满闸门。相反，一些有限的地方实验已经付之实行。例如，深圳市已表示将在党的结构内推出多个候选人选举，这有可能扩大到市人民政治协商会议。然而，'民主'的问题，尤其以其模糊的形式，可以在一定条件下被集团、地区或个人所用作为斗争的一部分以获得让步或改变政府的政策的方向。这可能会在人民群众中产生共鸣并引发一场远远超出其发出者的设想的运动。
自1989年以来二十年内，国内生产总值的快速增长，所有大经济体中的最快的速度，一直是中共政权的重要的支柱。这种所谓的'奇迹'已经几乎成为保护统治集团的神奇的力量，给人经济永远不会衰退的感觉 。国内和国外资本家迎合这个政权并允许中共在城市中产阶级中创建一个新的社会基础。30年来国内生产总值的增长已达到年均百分之九点六的速度，使得40岁以下的中国人认为这是'常态' 。这至少是中共统治集团内具有相对凝聚力的基础-没有了1989年前所具有的很多不稳定的公开分裂的特征。因此在世界上很少政权会因正在展开的全球资本主义的危机而失去更多。在中国和全球范围内急迫的事是发起具有明确的社会主义纲领的新的战斗的劳工运动来应付危机。
Perspectives material 2008
Industrial slowdown and the implosion of the US capitalist model signal the onset of a deep crisis for China’s rulers
[This document should be read together with the previous document, Perspectives 2007 – China at the Crossroads. Important features of the coming social and political crisis are outlined in that document and are therefore not repeated in this material].
The debt crisis of US capitalism, which produced the Wall Street financial meltdown, represents a seminal moment in the history of capitalism, with huge effects for the whole world, not least China. Few people now speak about economic “decoupling” or doubt that China, and other major emerging economies such as India and Russia, will be drawn into the global economic maelstrom. The depth of the crisis, its timing, duration, these are the only unknowns at this stage.
In 2008, it became clear China was in the first stages of an industrial slowdown. All forecasts for economic growth are being revised downwards. After achieving GDP growth of 11.8% in 2006-07, predictions for 2008 range between 9 to 9.6%, and 8 to 9% for the following year.
“In a society where the number of new job-seekers each year exceeds the number of jobs created by 20 million, a decline in economic growth to even 8 percent would be tantamount to a recession,” warned Tao Dong, from Credit Suisse AG in Hong Kong. Anything “below 9 percent would make the authorities quite nervous,” he told Bloomberg News.
Within a few weeks of the closing ceremony, China’s great Olympic moment had faded into history. In place of the cheering crowds are growing numbers of angry farmers and students, embattled migrant workers and ruined stock market investors. The toxic milk scandal that hospitalised more than 13,000 babies, killing four, was a shocking ‘reality check’ for Chinese society. This scandal, involving more than 20 companies including the very largest in the food sector, was the result of almost complete deregulation. The government decided in 2005 to exempt more than 2,100 companies in the food and dairy industry from regulatory controls, judging their own standards to be adequate. In the absence of controls, dairy industry middlemen took to adding the industrial chemical melamine to boost the protein level of raw milk. Matters were not helped by the regime’s orders to the press that “all food safety issues are off-limits” for the duration of the Olympics. Provincial-level leaders (in Hebei) knew of the contamination problem six days before the Olympic Games opened. Action then could have saved lives and untold suffering. Several of the companies at the centre of the scandal are listed on the Chinese and foreign stock markets, and the dairy sector has exploded from almost nothing to a $20 billion industry in a few short years. Parents of contaminated children began to organise, posting their demands on the internet, contacting activist lawyers, and looking to sue the dairy companies.
On just one day, 4 September 2008, mass protests erupted in three provinces – Henan, Hunan and Zhejiang – drawing a combined 100,000 onto the streets, leading to clashes with security forces. “Social unrest is common in China, but rarely on this scale,” commented the BBC. These protests ranged from school students (Shenqiu county, Henan) protesting the seizure of their school sports fields by property developers, to 10,000 migrant workers and local citizens (Ningbo, Zhejiang province) besieging a factory after one 14-year old worker suffered a serious accident. The CCP journal Outlook published statistics showing that the curve of ‘mass incidents’ continues to rise, with a staggering 90,000 protests recorded in 2006 – almost 250 every day! This was an increase from 87,000 in 2005, 74,000 in 2004, and 58,000 in 2003. These figures point to a deep malaise in society despite the dazzling GDP figures.
“I will slap anyone who says today’s China is harmonious,” remarked Wen Yunchao, a columnist for the Southern Metropolis Daily. “The amount of demonstrations is growing as social issues of instability are increasing.”
In booming cities like Xiamen, Shanghai and Chongqing, thousands have taken part in illegal street marches against environmentally harmful construction projects. Several thousand demobilized soldiers rioted in at least three cities in 2007 against the terms of their discharge, giving rise to reports of vast unofficial networks of retired soldiers. In the past, military service led to a guaranteed job at a state-owned enterprise, but this no longer applies, one of many attacks on the former rights of workers and peasants.
In southern China’s Pearl River Delta alone, strikes and factory flare-ups are continual, with a stoppage involving 1,000 workers or more occurring every day. The majority of these struggles go unreported due to state censorship. Often, they are dealt with harshly by managers, officials and security forces. China currently has 1.7 million in its police force, 1 million paramilitary police (PAP) and 2 million in the armed forces. 30,000 new police stations have been opened in recent years. The PAP was beefed up after the mass movement of 1989, as the army showed a reluctance to be used. Deployed in Tibet and Xinjiang on ‘anti-terror’ missions, the PAP is the main repressive tool of the regime.
Student unrest is also on the rise, an ominous portent for a regime still haunted by the memory of 1989. That movement was fuelled by general discontent over inflation, corruption, and the desire for basic democratic rights – all features of the current situation. The government has capped civil service employment at the level of 6.5 million for the duration of the current (2006-10) Five Year Plan, resulting in serious unemployment among university graduates. In 2007, 1.2 million out of a total 4.13 million graduates failed to find jobs, and a further 1.5 million graduates face the same fate in 2008.
China has been hit by a series of major disasters: the Sichuan earthquake (87,000 people dead or missing), the coldest winter in many parts of China, and then the worst summer rains for half a century. These events have politicised a section of the population and raised major questions about the government’s role. “The Sichuan earthquake has created millions of potential malcontents,” commented The Economist.
During the initial earthquake response, with the nation in shock, Wen Jiabao’s tearful appearances on national television endeared him to a broad layer, as an example of a ‘caring official’. But five months after the quake, Sichuan’s provincial government was complaining it had only received one-quarter of the money promised for reconstruction, a further $180 billion is needed. The province will need several years to get back to the GDP levels achieved before the quake, spelling hardship, unemployment and makeshift housing for millions. The scandal of the ‘tofu schools’ is known throughout the world. Chinese film director, Pan Jianlin, has captured this issue in a documentary, Who Killed Our Children? “The quality of these buildings was terrible,” the director says.
Even as the lower echelons of the CCP apparatus are increasingly cursed by the masses as local services decay, state-owned property is stolen, corruption, abuse of power, repression, and a litany of other crimes have become the norm, the top leaders have largely been shielded from popular criticism.
In the course of 2008, popular upheavals succeeded in pressuring the central government into disciplining and sacrificing some local satraps. This was the case in the “6/28” incident in Weng’an, in Guizhou province, where for two days crowds of up to 50,000 laid siege to the police station and destroyed dozens of vehicles. Beijing swiftly sacked the town’s police chief and party boss. Likewise, during the toxic milk scandal, the national products quality and safety chief as well as the mayor and party boss in Shjiazhuang, the city at the centre of the scandal, were removed. In Shanxi province, just weeks earlier, a mudslide at an illegal coalmine dump killed 271 people and the provincial governor, Meng Xuenong, resigned, undoubtedly ‘persuaded’ from above. Meng instantly became known as the “unluckiest official in China” – in 2003 he was dismissed as Beijing’s mayor for mishandling the SARS outbreak.
By sacrificing corrupt or inept officials, Beijing hopes to win time and defuse crises before they grow, but this comes at the price of emboldening others to take the road of struggle in future, and of further undermining the party-state apparatus.
In his book, Apologise to the Peasantry, the former vice party secretary of Baishu County in Shanxi province, Ma Ying Lu, aptly described the five layers of government in China as “firewalls” protecting the inner core of the CCP regime. “Today the central leadership are still safe,” he wrote in 2003, “but the lower level firewalls [i.e. village and country governments] have totally collapsed, and middle layer [i.e. provincial] firewalls are in danger.”
China’s ruling party has been protected by its apparent ability to deliver unstoppable economic growth. But this too, the Beijing regime’s GDP ‘trump card’, is now threatened both from the global capitalist crisis and its own internal contradictions. The Chinese economic model, with an under-dimensioned consumer market and vastly over-dimensioned production base, is unsustainable. Whereas in the advanced capitalist economies, the accumulation of private debt offered a way out – for a period – from this basic capitalist contradiction, in China the limits of the domestic market have been ‘overcome’ by unprecedented levels of capital investment and rapid expansion of the export sector.
Following the collapse of the US ‘subprime’ model and housing bubble, China’s own crisis, the result of huge amounts of often wasteful and highly speculative investment, is just beginning. The process can be more protracted in China due the vast sums of state-backed credit at play in the economy, but this is a question of timescale and degree, not overall direction.
Nationally, in the first half of 2008, about 67,000 small and medium-sized enterprises collapsed, throwing roughly 20 million out of work. The worst hit areas are the wealthier, more industrialised coastal provinces, which are the most integrated into the global economy. Guangdong for example, where 176 of the world’s 500 largest companies have a base, is experiencing “the worst conditions for 20 years,” according to the Federation of Hong Kong Industry. Half of the shoe manufacturing industry in Guangdong (over 2,200 factories) has closed down or relocated since the end of 2007. Profits in the textile sector are now widely reduced to around 1.5 per cent of turnover, and Guangdong’s government reported that sales of garments and accessories fell by almost a third in the first half of 2008, over the same period in 2007.
Exporters have been squeezed by currency appreciation, rising raw material costs, and a labour shortage that forces them to lift notoriously low wages. Newer low-wage rivals such as Vietnam and Bangladesh, as well as poorer Chinese provinces and even Eastern Europe and Mexico, are gaining ground in the capitalist ‘race to the bottom’.
City leaders in Dongguan, an export industry behemoth in the Pearl River Delta, speak of a “depression” in the local economy. The city government launched two rescue funds in 2008 to support small and medium enterprises battered by the export downturn. The “export crisis” is evident at Shenzhen’s port, the world’s fourth busiest, where the growth of cargo volume has slowed to half last year’s level. Industry analysts predict “widespread second-half losses” in the global container shipping industry, which is heavily dependent on China. This is before the world economy, and the crucial markets of the US, EU, and Japan, have formally moved into recession.
Other coastal exporting provinces such as Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Shandong and Fujian are also suffering. The director of Zhejiang province’s foreign trade research centre described the situation there as “disastrous”. One-fifth of the province’s companies – over 10,000 firms – have booked losses in 2008 totalling 36 billion yuan ($5.3 bn). The provincial government stepped in to rescue Feiyue Group, with 5,000 employees, from bankruptcy after its exports of stitching machines fell 44 percent, leaving it unable to meet almost one billion yuan ($146m) in repayments to its creditors. As in Dongguan and other areas, the government ordered an extension facility from local banks to keep the company alive.
It is extremely unlikely that the current crisis can be contained within the export sector. The pace of investment in the whole economy has slowed in 2008, to its lowest level for five years. This is a result of several factors, of which the bursting of the property bubble and falling rate of profit are the most important. The downturn has also begun to impact on the steel industry, the backbone of the decade-long construction boom. Residential construction soaks up about 20 percent of steel demand. The research company, Mysteel, declared that China’s steel industry was in “recession”, with prices falling from mid-year 2008 by as much as 20 percent.
In a survey of the industry, the State Development and Reform Commission bemoaned the fact that, “the majority of the steel projects under construction were started up by local governments without the approval of the central authorities”. This commission used to be China’s planning agency, in the days of the Maoist-Stalinist planned economy. This statement underlines how times have changed. Commentators have long predicted a destructive phase of consolidation in China’s steel industry.
The situation is similar in the power generating industry. As China expert Nicholas Lardy points out: “China has built so many power plants that some regions now have excess capacity. But investments to create a national power grid, which would allow more efficient utilization of generating capacity, have lagged.” [Wall Street Journal, 30 September 2008]
In industry after industry the same picture emerges: no planning, ferocious regional rivalry, chronic over-investment and waste. This is shown in the telecom industry, one of the most modern. The National Audit Office reported in August 2008 that more than 1.12 trillion yuan ($164bn) was spent by telecom companies on the construction of basic facilities between 2002 and 2006, but only one-third of the installed telecom cables were used. “The wasted investment in telecommunications could have built several Three Gorges Dams,” said Yang Xianzu, the former head of China Unicom, referring to the world’s biggest hydro-power project on the Yangtze River.
China’s stock market bubble has imploded since its peak in October 2007. It was the worst performer among the world’s 50 largest bourses in 2008. Effectively, all the speculative gains after 2005, when a series of major state-owned companies were brought to market, have been erased. Of the 136 million gumin (‘investors’) lured into stocks, 70 percent earn less than $10,000 a year, and on average they have lost two-thirds of their capital in the twelve months since October 2007.
Although they constitute less than one-tenth of the total population, and so the “negative wealth effect” from falling stocks is more limited than in the West, these ruined gumin represent a crucial layer for China’s rulers. This is the CCP’s main social base – the urban middle-class – and moreover it is upon this layer that any hopes rest of ‘rebalancing’ the economy away from exports towards domestic consumption. Who will buy all those cars and flat-screen televisions if this layer is completely bankrupted?
“There are signs that the nightmare the party leadership fears most may come to pass sooner than anticipated: members of the middle-class joining ‘disadvantaged sectors’ such as peasants and migrant workers in staging protests and even riots to vent their grievances,” commented Willy Lam, the author.
Broken marriages, suicides and mental illness are all features of the market fallout. In some regions, such as Shanxi province in the spring of 2008, investors rioted and laid siege to a local stock brokerage. Official pronouncements that such falls are “normal for a market economy” have enraged many people. Netizens have posted angry comments such as: “Even the capitalist US is intervening to rescue its market, why isn’t the Chinese government doing the same?”
The crashing stock market is however being rapidly upstaged by the bursting of an even larger and more serious financial bubble. While official statistics give an impression of still rising property prices overall, things look different on the ground. Housing prices are falling in Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Ningbo, Haikou, but also in interior cities such as Chengdu, Wuhan, Nanning, Xi’an, Lanzhou and Ürümqi. All these cities experienced spectacular growth in 2007. Several regions now report price falls of between 10-40 percent and property companies have embarked upon a price war.
As in industry, many parts of the property market suffer extreme levels of overcapacity. The Shenzhen Bureau of Land and Housing Management reports that, at the current rate of sales, it would take developers in Shenzhen more than a decade to sell all their existing stock of properties. China now boasts the world’s biggest shopping malls, built to cash in on a consumer explosion that has not materialised. Dongguan’s South China Mall is the biggest in the world, but less than ten percent of its store space has been leased. Fully one-third of Beijing’s offices space lies vacant. Of course, in reality, rather than ‘too much’ construction, there is an acute housing shortage in China – for ordinary people. But the profit system is incapable of solving this contradiction.
Most people in China will welcome falling property prices. Currently 70 percent of urban residents cannot afford to buy a new apartment. According to studies by Beijing Normal University Finance Research Centre, the average price of an apartment in China is about 13 times the average annual household disposable income, well above the international average of between three and six times. Although of course the standard of housing often left a lot to be desired, in 1984, under the old state-controlled system, average rents in China were just one percent of family income.
When financial bubbles unwind, however, they tend to move in a vicious cycle whereby prices fall, speculators facing losses dump assets to get their hands on cash, and the pool of empty property grows, causing prices to fall even more. The likely effects of this on the wider economy will be a much-reduced level of investment hereafter, a generalised tightening of credit terms (“credit crunch”) and a sharp rise in bad debts threatening the stability of the banking sector. Of course, faced with the threat of bank collapses, the Chinese regime will attempt a Paulson-style bailout. Unlike the US government, they have considerable reserves at their disposal. China’s level of outstanding debt, at 15.7 percent of GDP, is low. It also has the world’s largest foreign exchange reserves, approaching $2 trillion worth, although a large part of these reserves are effectively ‘embedded’ in propping up the value of the dollar and preventing a collapse of the global money system.
China’s property sector (i.e. speculation) has accounted for more than a third of all fixed asset investment in recent years, possibly as much as half. According to some surveys, a 50 percent fall in prices will be needed to revive China’s real estate market. On this basis, an explosion of non-performing loans lies ahead. Officially, the level of non-performing loans in the Chinese banking system today is $600bn, but the real figure could be $1,100 (equal to more than half China’s forex reserves). At around a quarter of GDP, this is higher than the level in Japan at the start of the 1990s.
China could therefore arrive in a similar position to Japan when its ‘bubble economy’ burst in 1990. By the middle of that decade over two-thirds of Japanese companies were making no profits, kept alive by the banks extending more credit. This was called “the zombie economy”. Behind the banks stood the central bank and the government, whose public debt ratio shot from the lowest in the OECD to one of the highest. In contrast to today, however, the US, Europe and emerging Asian economies continued to grow in the 1990s, offering Japanese capitalism a partial escape route. China’s current problems occur during a far less favourable global conjuncture.
The coming crisis will usher in a new period in China’s complex internal politics. It marks the end of the post-1989 era. The wealthier coastal regions are being hit first by the crisis and will probably be hit hardest. This will be a reversal of the previous situation where these provinces have led development and increased their economic power at the expense of the inland provinces. The power struggle over resources, and to shape national policy will grow more intense. The fine balance inside the CCP, between the two dominant factions, the ‘Shanghai faction’ (which has its main base in the coastal provinces) and Hu Jintao’s ‘tuanpai’, will be shaken. A sharp economic downturn can open serious divisions within the party hierarchy. As in the old days of the CCP, rival factions can seek to mobilise opinion behind them by going to the streets. Economic conflicts too will intensify.
“There is no such a thing as ‘the Chinese market’. China is a patchwork of regional markets at various stages of economic development, bound together as a nation, but separated by differences in governance, communications challenges, regional rivalries and poor infrastructure.” This is an accurate description from a group of IT consultants. [The markets in China, Cambashi Ltd, 2005]
An economic downturn that hits some regions far harder than others will increase internal protectionist tensions. Faced with falling exports, the more modern factories of the coastal provinces will turn their aim inwards towards the markets of other provinces, demanding that the central government crafts policies to facilitate this. Poorer provinces with weaker industries will do their utmost to block this. The result can be an upsurge of regionalism and inter-provincial disputes that will inevitably feed their way upwards to Beijing. Willy Lam uses the term “warlords” to describe the provincial leaders, showing how for years they have successfully resisted central government policies on a range of important issues.
The coming period will see the eruption of mass struggle against the effects of economic crisis and the first ‘green shoots’ of an independent workers’ movement. It can also mark the emergence of a mass pro-democracy movement as in Taiwan, Hong Kong and in other parts of East Asia during the crisis of the 1990s. To avert such a development, some layers within the CCP want to restart the stalled process towards ‘political reform’. A report by researchers at the Central Communist Party School in Beijing argues this task is now “urgent”. But the changes advocated in this report are for a strengthened legal system and freer media, not for the right to organise independently, to form political parties and to stand in elections.
Among the CCP tops there is a morbid fear of any serious opening up or relaxation of the party’s control, a fear that this would open the floodgates of mass discontent. Instead, some limited local experiments have been floated. For example, Shenzhen has signalled it will introduce multi-candidate elections inside the CCP’s structures, possibly extending this to the city’s People’s Political Consultative Congress. However, the issue of ‘democracy’, especially in its vaguest forms, could under certain conditions be seized upon by a faction, region, or individual, as part of a struggle to wrest concessions or shift the direction of government policy. This could resonate with the masses and trigger a movement going well beyond what its authors envisaged.
Rapid GDP growth, the fastest of any large economy, has been the crucial pillar supporting the CCP regime in the two decades since 1989. This so-called ‘miracle’ has exercised an almost divine power of protection over the ruling group, conferring an aura of economic ‘invincibility’. It has ingratiated the regime with the capitalists at home and abroad and allowed the CCP to create a new social base among the urban middle-classes. GDP has grown by an annual average of 9.6 percent for 30 years, leading most Chinese under 40 years of age to believe this is ‘normal’. Not least, this has underpinned the relative cohesion of the CCP ruling group – the absence of the destabilising open splits that characterised much of its pre-1989 history. Few regimes in the world therefore have more to lose from the global capitalist crisis that is unfolding. What is urgent in China, and globally, is the building of a new fighting labour movement equipped with a clear socialist programme to meet the crisis.
2008年10月23日星期四
2008年10月7日星期二
我译自CWI的大爆炸
www.chinaworker.tk
08年9月26日
世界经济
大爆炸
资本主义金融体系接近崩溃
社论，当今社会主义， 2008年10月
最近几年，我们常常被人指责为“劫数难逃论者” 。这是因为我们预测由高利润，高风险金融资本主义所主导下的债务驱动的泡沫经济将在某个时刻崩溃，继而导致世界经济严重的衰退。回顾一下我们的文章，我们从来没有在任何之处宣布过一项'大灾难'，只是对发展的每一阶段作出认真的，均衡的分析。而目前的情势正在充分证明我们的分析的正确性。
不幸的是，左翼的一些人接受了如下观点，即在加速推进的全球经济一体化和超自由市场政策基础上，世界资本主义的繁荣可能会无限期地继续下去。美国房地产泡沫崩溃和次优抵押贷款危机产生严重后果之后的最近几个星期的事件完全改变了面貌。现在在严肃的资本主义新闻媒体的大字标题上显示出来的也是'劫数难逃论' 。金融时报（ 9月20日）的标题是“混乱的资本主义”。
政府资助解救并接管贝尔斯登，房利美、房地美以及美国保险集团等等后，约翰普伦德写道，布什试图用数十亿的美元来拯救金融系统是“以严重损害美国模式的自由市场资本主义为代价的” （金融时报， 9月20日）。这对于把金融机构“社会化”或“国有化”的诉求而言是老生常谈。在现实中，金融资本主义之具有掠夺性的和不计后果的巨大的债务正落在工人阶级的肩上。
当美国财政部长汉克·保尔森宣布他的7,000亿美元资产困境救援方案时，评论员保罗·克鲁格曼（自由民主党）评论说： “保尔森同志占领了制高点” 。作为一个自由市场论者的金融交易商比尔·帕金斯在纽约时报上做了一个广告，说布什、保尔森和美国联邦储备委员会主席伯南克是“新的共产党人，他们在‘私营企业'和‘资本主义'的坟墓前举起美国国旗。帕金斯认为经营失败的银行就应允许其倒闭，不能让纳税人来承受负担来使其出离困境。他说：“我认为这是一种社会主义或共产主义的滴入式版本” “你们比委内瑞拉国有化了更多的机构” （9月25日卫报）。
然而几天里布什，保尔森和伯南克正在面临的前景是新的1929年型崩溃的金融体系。如果他们象美联储和当时的政府于1929年做的那样允许这种情况发生，这将威胁到资本主义制度的生存。从资本主义的角度来看，他们别无选择，只能进行干预，以试图稳定金融体系。保尔森的整套方案能否成功，仍有待观察。一连串的危机还远远没有结束。
然而，救援的国有资金的累积和事实上的国有化，再加上现在的7,000亿美元拯救计划，这些都毁了美国资本主义和自由市场思想的声誉。
当然布什政府的国有化并不意味着真正的'社会主义' 。其目的是利用国家的资源，包括大量增加公共债务，以稳定资本主义以及为在以后的日子里的恢复作好基础性的准备。贡献给美国政府最大份额税款的工人阶级将为该救援计划买单。此外，数以百万计的工人阶级的家庭已被诱骗人的金融公司骗入抵押贷款陷阱，许多人现在正在失去家园。由于金融危机把美国经济推入更深地衰退，数百万人将面临失业和贫乏的工资。
真正的社会主义将意味着由工人阶级的政府接管金融部门和经济的制高点，并在创造财富的人的控制下民主地运行这些部门和经济。民主计划将取代市场的无政府状态。生产将用来满足社会的需要而不是为了少数人的利润。然而，正如马克思和恩格斯指出的那样，甚至资本主义国家为自己的目的而采取的国有化措施展现出了私人所有制的多余和具有替代性的更先进的经济体系的可能性。
金融资本的支配
许多人现在指责当前的危机是由金融市场上的银行家、对冲基金经理，交易商等等的'贪婪'和'恐惧'导致的。这些人无疑发挥了掠夺的和寄生的作用。他们的投机活动使得财富和利润集中到一小撮超级富裕的少数人手里。举例来说，去年，金融部门的首席执行官平均获得的收入是一个普通工人的275倍。然而，他们自私的动机只是该制度的一种症状而不是发展的原因。
在过去30年里，美国，英国和其他地方的资产阶级远离于生产活动的投资，既多数人所需要的商品和服务的生产。他们无论是在发达资本主义国家还是在中国和其他发展中经济体的金融部门寻求更高的盈利性。随着苏联和东欧斯大林主义的崩溃，20世纪80年代工人阶级的失败使得资产阶级得以加强剥削工人阶级，特别是在不发达世界的新殖民主义国家。资本主义制度作为一个整体变得越来越具有寄生性。
这是寄生的金融资本主义占支配地位的基础。这是全球化和超自由市场（新自由主义）的政策所允许的自由的范围。但是随着世界范围内工人阶级分配到的财富份额的减少，极端不平等的增长越来越限制资本主义的市场。资产阶级，特别是那些以盎格鲁-美国模式运作的资产阶级，在债务史无前例的增长的基础上维持着相对较高的增长水平。在1980年，全球债务大约相当于全球国内生产总值。但是，自此以后，全球债务已经膨胀到超过全球产量的3.5倍。与此同时，作为为利润而进行的债务交易的渠道的金融资本主义获得了资本主义利润的大约三分之一。
我们已经多次指出这种趋势是不可持续的。整个大厦倒塌只是一个时间问题。这就是现在正在发生的事。影子银行系统(shadow banking system)，不受管制的投资银行、对冲基金和银行自身帐外融资的网络已经爆炸。影子网络是为了绕开受管制的商业银行而发展出来的。但是，仍然构成金融体系的核心的各大银行都没有逃脱这场流动性和资本的可获得性的危机。如果不消除风险，衍生出来的一系列奇特的金融工具理所当然要蔓延，正如守旧的金融家巴菲特所警告的，这些衍生物已被证明是“具有大规模杀伤性的金融工具” 。
在美国和国际上，对资本主义危机和针对腐朽的金融资本的救援活动将产生深刻的反应。除了经济矛盾，这场危机无疑将产生一个比以前的安然丑闻更大规模的巨大的腐败行径如诈骗和盗窃的丑闻。工人将被迫组织起来并回击资本主义危机的影响。这些事件将创造出肥沃的土壤使得对真正的社会主义和马克思主义感兴趣的人大量的增加。
崩溃倒计时
9月里发生的这些事件标志着这场全球金融体系的危机进入一个新的关键阶段。世界被带到1929年型崩溃的边缘。
9月7日，美国财政部不得不进入并接管以直接经营两个巨大的政府赞助的抵押贷款提供商房利美、房地美。紧随着7月时的政府干预以担保它们的5万亿美元抵押贷款，得到的回报是获得这些机构的股份-实际上是部分国有化。即使如此也没有成功使这些巨头稳定下来。保尔森的“火箭炮”已被证明不能足够地使外国投资恢复信心，特别是亚洲各国的中央银行，它们已经售出了房利美和房地美的债券。政府的完全接管和有效地国有化这些机构，是唯一剩下的措施了。
然后（ 9月14日至15号）五大华尔街投资银行之二的雷曼兄弟公司和美林证券面临破产。在没有得到政府担保雷曼兄弟和美林不良资产的情况下，其他华尔街银行拒绝介入。保尔森和伯南克拒绝担保。他们已受到巨大的政治压力以避免把更多的纳税人的美元拿出来。此外，自由市场论者要求他们避免造成进一步的“道德风险” ，即发出自己的愚蠢的盲目投机将保证得到政府挽救的另一个信号。通过拒绝支持政府救援雷曼兄弟和美林证券，保尔森和伯南克希望发出一个信息，既除了贝尔斯登获得政府担保外，不会有更多的经营失败的银行会得到政府担保。雷曼兄弟公司申请破产，巴克莱国际和其他贪婪者开始逐食潜在的有利可图的雷曼兄弟的资产。另一方面，美林证券急忙把自己买给带有更大的资本储备的作为存款银行的美国银行（Bank of America）。
然而保尔森和伯南克犯了巨大的错误。他们以为他们可以划清界限，但他们拒绝支持拯救雷曼兄弟或美林引发了银行股的普遍不景气。这暗示大批银行要步雷曼兄弟和美林的后尘。其中受到最大威胁的是剩下的两个投资银行，摩根士丹利和高盛。整个“影子银行系统” ，不受管制的债务融资的高投机性的投资银行和对冲基金网络正在爆炸。由于它们和大银行的多重联系，这些银行也操作资产负债表外的投资工具，投资银行可能击到许多其他机构。如果保尔森和伯南克支持救援雷曼兄弟和美林，这不会停止它们的腐烂（正如其后的华盛顿互惠[Washington Mutual]银行的破产所昭示的） ，但站他们在雷曼兄弟和美林的沉没旁边不管不问却加快了银行业的危机。
在英国，作为一个主要的银行和抵押贷款供应商的HBOS（苏格兰的哈利法克斯银行）面临破产。在英格兰银行的推动下，它只是通过迅速地和劳埃德TSB的联姻而得到挽救。
经营失败的雷曼兄弟和美林对短期货币市场产生了直接的连锁效应。银行用来拆借的货币市场基金通常被视为几乎和现金一样安全。信贷紧缩的一个关键方面是由于银行囤积现金以避免给其他银行的任何潜在的风险贷款而导致的短期货币市场的失灵。尽管美国联邦储备大幅度削减利率，银行间拆借利率，通常是略微高于美联储的利率，已经上升到一个前所未有的水平。在雷曼和美林破产的影响下，严重的信贷紧缩转变成至关重要的货币市场的完全瘫痪。
美国联邦储备委员会被迫与其他主要央行合作注入全球银行系统1800亿美元（在此之际，货币掉期，美元对欧元，英镑等）。在随后的几天里，他们注入系统额外的1000亿美元，英国和日本的中央银行以及欧洲的中央银行也注入额外的流动资金。此外，美联储和其他中央银行同意接受更广泛的证券作为贷款的担保品，包括股票，公司债券等，换句话说，比他们曾坚持的政府债券具有更多的风险的资产。（自那时以来，中央银行注入以短期贷款形式存在的更多的流动资金。 ）
保尔森允许雷曼兄弟和美林证券的崩溃，但面临着大保险公司美国保险集团公司（ AIG ）的可能的崩溃，政府被迫介入.美国国际集团危机的起因是评级机构降低其安全状态。这可能触发抛售AIG的股票，从而进一步消耗其资本储备。这个问题和美国国际集团在美国，欧洲和亚洲的大规模保险业务无关。这场危机源于其通过其全球信贷违约掉期的业务参与影子银行系统，信贷违约掉期是用来担保广泛的证券（住房抵押贷款证券，公司债券，市政债券等）投资等级地位的保险的一种形式。美国国际集团发出了4470亿美元的这种保险（包括发向欧洲机构的3000亿美元）。
AIG的信用状况的下降自动意味着由AIG发行的信贷违约掉期担保的证券的降级。反过来这将造成任何用AIG金融保险证券作为担保品为自己贷款筹资购房的问题。换句话说，美国国际集团的崩溃将意味着全球金融体系里不良债务的大量的增加。损失将是绝对惊人的（有人估计对全球金融部门来说，这将意味着至少1800亿美元） 。与此同时，美国国际集团的崩溃也将意味着全球保险业的崩溃。为了避免灾难性垮台，保尔森不得不介入，用850亿美元来担保美国国际集团的资产以换取该保险公司的优先股。
在9月15-19日的关键的一周，世界证券交易所暴跌。政府挽救美国国际集团未能稳定股票市场。与此同时，最近几周已趋于下降的石油价格开始上升-可能因恐慌性购买石油期货。保尔森和伯南克显然意识到他们面临着一个严峻的1929年的情况。如果他们站在一旁，无疑将是全球金融体系的崩溃，这反过来会促使世界资本主义经济大萧条。在吸取了1929年崩溃的教训后，当时美联储和美国政府站在一旁，并允许金融多米诺骨牌的倒塌，保尔森和伯南克决定，他们别无选择只能介入挽救资本主义制度。
9月19日，保尔森宣布他的困境资产救济方案(Tarp) ，一个7,000亿美元的计划，在正在崩溃的金融机构下筑好基底和重新稳定美国和全球的金融体系。保尔森的声明至少在一段时间里避免了一场全球性崩溃。但是，这的确是治标不治本的措施，本身不能克服银行系统的信贷紧缩和瘫痪。
当我们把目光投向报刊，可以看到华盛顿互惠破产的消息，美国历史上最大的银行倒闭。 华盛顿互惠银行（WaMu）被管制者没收（ 9月25日） 并出售给摩根大通。
欧洲银行遭受了其不良抵押贷款证券带来的巨大损失的打击。受影响最严重的是瑞士银行，瑞银华宝（UBS）总减记约500亿美元（超过美林） 。金融时报评论说，许多欧洲银行现在不仅'太大而不能失败' ，而且“太大而无法挽救” 。 “举例来说，德意志银行负债总额（融资率超过50 ！ ）共约€ 2000亿欧元（超过房利美）或超过德国国内生产总值的80 ％。这对央行（Bundesbank）甚至德国整个国家来说简直是太多了... “ （苟延残喘的欧洲银行，金融时报， 9月24日）
保尔森的一揽子方案
雷曼兄弟公司和美林证券危机爆发和短期货币市场失灵（尽管由联邦储备委员会和其他中央银行持续，大规模注入流动资金）后，保尔森被迫宣布（ 9月18日）一揽子拯救计划，既TARP。没有提供任何细节，保尔森建议花费7,000亿美元纳税人的钱建立一个仍然在金融机构名册上的卖不掉的不良证券垃圾箱。
据报道5000亿美元的损失已被注销，但有人估计来自住房市场的剩余证券更多达1万亿美元。随着保尔森的声明，全球股市交易立即恢复。然而，国会领导人，无论民主党和共和党几乎立即开始抗议保尔森的救援计划之清场的性质和他作为一个财政部长的特别权力。
保尔森建议应给予财政部长（最初为两年）根据他的判断力以任何价格从任何人那里购买证券的无限的权力。此外，他还要求免受法院或政府行政机构的任何形式的起诉。起初，他提议只购买美国银行的证券，但很快扩大到包括外国银行的美国子公司。
如果美国国会接受这个建议，保尔森将是美国历史上最强大的财政部长。新闻周刊（Newsweek）的封面上称他为“国王亨利”。实际上，财政部长将成为美国资本主义的没有监督（仅仅是每年向国会报告两次）的经济主管人员，可以和总统本身的权力相匹敌。
如同布什9 / 11事件后一样，在伯南克支持下，保尔森正试图以全球金融崩溃的威胁来促使国会在没有彻底讨论其内容的情况下迅速批准他的建议。举例来说保尔森要求这一揽子方案应该是“干净利落”的，也就是说它不应该受制于任何建议，如政府获得股份以换取购买不良债务，或限制银行家的薪酬，或屋主免于面对丧失抵押品赎回权。热衷于挽救破产的银行家，保尔森残酷地拒绝购房人士的合法权益。
保尔森提议支付大约接近不良证券的票面价值，以美元计超过60美分，而不是其20或30美分的当前市场价值。此外，不同的银行，金融公司和其他公司正在游说以便扩大救援的范围。举例来说，要求把市政债券，信用卡债务和汽车购买债务包括进来。华尔街的公司已经期待从执行保尔森方案的业务中收费。
那么，金融公司的负责人对保尔森的建议很热心就不足为奇了。然而，一些自由市场主义的共和党强烈谴责该计划为“债务社会化”。 来自肯塔基州的共和党参议员吉姆·邦宁（Jim Bunning）宣称： “在美国，适合于所有意图和目的的自由市场死了。”他说，保尔森的计划将“把华尔街的痛苦带给纳税人...它是金融社会主义，它是非美国式的” 。
另一方面，民主党领袖要求采取措施帮助哀伤的业主。保尔森拒绝了这一要求，其理由是这批不良证券过于复杂以至于不能减少个体业主的付款额。 “银行和证券业... 正极其所能地和变化战斗，正如他们提出住房法案（7月份通过的）时所做的” （9月24日国际先驱论坛报）。
保尔森目前的建议完全不同于20世纪90年代初挽救储蓄和贷款银行（thrifts[储蓄]）时采取的措施。当时，美国政府有效地国有化了经营失败的thrifts[储蓄]，并在把thrifts[储蓄] 返回为私人所有之前的一段时期里出售了其剩余资产。1994年后强劲的经济增长恢复了抵押资产的价值，并使得政府可以收回部分救援的成本。
在1991-92年房地产泡沫破裂后瑞典政府采取了类似的措施。政府国有化了瑞典银行部门的一大部分，削减了这些经营失败的机构的股东，随后再次出售了所有可以售出的资产，后来，银行回到了私营部门。可是，救援成本约达瑞典的国内生产总值（虽然随着时间的推移捞回来了一些成本）的4 ％ 。毫无疑问美国资产阶级将坚决抵制大规模国有化美国银行业。
目前保尔森的救援建议，耗资约7,000亿美元，相当于GDP的5 ％ 。然而，保尔森无意接管经营失败的美国银行，只是通过全买他们的不良债务使他们脱困，从而使它们能够补充其资本和像往常一样运行下去。保尔森甚至不能要求获得银行股份以换取购买其坏帐。
保尔森的一揽子方案会得到国会的批准吗？鉴于国会反对的力量，有可能会有一些拖延以及保尔森可能会被迫接受一些修改，特别是他所主张的超常的不受制止的权力。但是，面临着金融市场进一步下跌的威胁和新的社会动乱的可能性，看来国会将在因11月的选举而分崩离析前以这种或那种的形式接受这一揽子方案。
社会主义替代
保尔森声称，人们不在乎谁拥有银行。但数以百万计的房主会在乎政府使用纳税人的金钱来使已把不良抵押贷款出售和证券化的银行摆脱困境，而数百万人面临违约利率和丧失抵押品赎回权的威胁。事实上，数以百万计的美国人已经被保尔森的计划激怒了。
社会团体，工会，以及所有那些捍卫劳动人民利益的人士应该要求国有化银行和金融机构（保险公司，对冲基金等）并在工人的控制和管理下以民主计划的方式运行，而不是国有化金融资本的不良资产和坏账。只在必要的基础上补偿小股东和存款人。
银行部门的运行应促进能提供大部分人口所需要的商品和服务的行业的利益，而不是为少数超级富裕的金融资本家的投机活动提供资金。银行应提供廉价的抵押贷款以供个人购房（有一个排除富人的豪宅的上限） 。它们还应向小企业和小农户提供廉价信贷以便他们能为当地社区的需要服务。
当然这些措施将令许多人面临对更广泛的经济部门的所有权和控制权的问题，并需要用民主的计划来取代市场的无政府状态和赤裸裸的惟利是图。例如，美国政府目前正在考虑给大汽车公司福特、克莱斯勒和通用汽车公司一揽子国家担保贷款。这些公司处在严重的危机中，应该把它们置于工人的民主控制和管理下来运行以便满足社会的需要。
工会和社会团体应完全反对所有丧失抵押品赎回权。应该取消凡通过欺诈行为或欺骗手段已售出的抵押贷款。没有能力按揭还款的购房者应有权以负担得起的社会的租金租借房屋。通过丧失抵押品赎回权和建设者和房地产公司的破产，产生了一些空房，州和市的政府应接管无人居住的房屋并且以负担得起的租金出租出去。关于抵押贷款违约，丧失抵押品赎回权和房屋所有者的权利的决定，一般不应由政府官员或破产法院来作出，而应由全民选举出来的将维护劳动人民的权利的委员会来作出。
一个新的时期
如果国会通过可能带有一些修改的保尔森的一揽子方案，金融崩溃或可避免。在付诸实施的具体措施上仍然会有严重的争吵。然而，营救计划本身不会恢复金融部门。美国住房危机，信贷紧缩之根本，还远远没有结束。即使政府接管不良资产，金融部门的巨额亏损意味着信贷紧缩将持续多年。
金融部门的拯救将不会使美国经济避免衰退，美国经济正在放缓。此外，美国经济放缓加上在许多其他经济体的金融危机正把世界推向经济衰退。现在欧洲的经济有一个急剧的衰退。日本，近年来开始有些微弱的恢复，但再次陷入零增长。中国，仍然被视为世界经济的动力，预计将放慢，从11-12 ％的增长降到2008年的约8 ％ 。虽然8 ％的比例相对较高，但是这将在中国产生严重的经济上和政治上的影响。
20世纪80年代以来通过在美国和其他国家助长债务为基础的消费开支（驱使在中国和其他低成本经济体生产廉价商品）的一系列的金融泡沫，资本主义生产和盈利能力的潜在的危机已被推迟数次 。但是，现在得到清算的时候了。极度的债务之山的崩溃几乎肯定意味着长时间的世界资本主义经济增长疲软。毫无疑问，仍然有一个经济周期，但很可能不会返回到2001-07之间经历的那种全球繁荣了。
加速全球化和不受约束的新自由主义政策的最近阶段即将结束并且将打开一个全新的发展时期。针对金融部门的大规模的国家干预对贸易，国际货币流通和产业政策将具有广泛的影响。主要资本主义势力之间的关系将更紧张。长期的停滞、断断续续的微弱复苏和再次的衰退将引起社会危机和激烈的政治斗争。资本主义的经济危机同时也是意识形态和政治的危机，这不可避免地会重新把马克思主义提到政治议程上来。
World Economy
pdf version
The great implosion
Capitalist finance system nears meltdown
Editorial, Socialism Today, October 2008
Over recent years, we have often been accused of being ‘catastrophists’. This is because we predicted that the debt-driven bubble economy, dominated by high-profit, high-risk finance capitalism, would at a certain point collapse, resulting in a serious downturn in the world economy. As a review of our articles will show (see box), we have never proclaimed a ‘catastrophe’ at every point, but have presented a careful, balanced analysis of each stage of development. And our analysis is now being amply borne out.
Unfortunately, some on the left succumbed to the idea that the world capitalist boom, based on accelerated globalisation and ultra-free-market policies, could continue indefinitely. The events of recent weeks, following the collapse of the US housing bubble and the severe repercussions of the subprime mortgage crisis, have completely changed the picture. Now the headlines in the serious capitalist press are ‘catastrophist’. “Capitalism in convulsion”, read a headline in the Financial Times (20 September).
George Bush’s attempted multi-billion dollar rescue of the financial system, wrote John Plender, is “at the cost of inflicting severe damage on the US model of free-market capitalism”. (Financial Times, 20 September) After the government-financed bail-outs and takeovers of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, American Insurance Group, etc, it has become commonplace to refer to the ‘socialisation’ or ‘nationalisation’ of financial institutions. In reality, the colossal debts of reckless, predatory finance capitalism are being offloaded onto the shoulders of the working class.
When US treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, announced his $700 billion Troubled Asset Rescue Programme, the commentator, Paul Krugman (a liberal Democrat), commented: “Comrade Paulson is taking over the commanding heights”. One financial trader, Bill Perkins, a free-marketeer, placed an advert in the New York Times. It shows Bush, Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, the ‘new communists’, raising an American flag on the grave of ‘private enterprise’ and ‘capitalism’. Perkins believes that failed banks should be allowed to collapse, and not be bailed out at the taxpayers’ expense. “I think it’s a kind of trickle down version of socialism or communism”, he said. “You have the government nationalising more institutions than Venezuela”. (Guardian, 25 September)
For a few days, however, Bush, Paulson and Bernanke were facing the prospect of a new 1929-type crash of the financial system. If they allowed it to happen, as the Federal Reserve and the government did in 1929, it would threaten the survival of the capitalist system. From a capitalist standpoint, they had no choice but to intervene to try to stabilise the financial system. Whether Paulson’s package succeeds remains to be seen. There is a chain of crisis that is far from played out.
Nevertheless, the accumulation of state-finance bail-outs and de facto nationalisation, and now the $700 billion rescue plan, is a shattering blow to the prestige of US capitalism and the ideology of the free market.
Nationalisation by the Bush regime, of course, does not mean real ‘socialism’. Their aim is to use the state’s resources, including a massive increase in public debt, to stabilise capitalism and prepare the ground for a recovery at a later date. The bill for the bail-outs will be handed to the working class, who contribute the biggest share of taxes to the US government. Moreover, millions of working-class families have been ensnared by crooked finance companies into the subprime mortgage trap, and many are now losing their homes. Millions will face unemployment and poverty wages as the financial crisis pushes the US economy deeper into recession.
Real socialism would mean the taking over of the finance sector and the commanding heights of the economy by a government of the working class, to be run democratically under the control of those who produce the wealth. Democratic planning would replace the anarchy of the market. Production would be to meet the needs of society, not the profits of the few. Nevertheless, as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels pointed out, even nationalisation measures carried out by the capitalist state for its own ends demonstrate the redundancy of private ownership and the possibility of an alternative, more advanced economic system.
Domination of finance capital
Many are now blaming the current crisis on the ‘greed’ and ‘fear’ of bankers, hedge fund managers, traders on financial markets, and so on. These people have undoubtedly played a predatory, parasitic role. Their speculative activities have concentrated wealth and profits into the hands of a tiny, super-rich minority. Last year, for instance, the average chief executive in the finance sector gained an income 275 times that of an average worker. Their egotistical motives, however, are a symptom of the system, not the cause of developments.
Over the last 30 years, the capitalist class in the US, Britain and elsewhere moved away from investing in productive activity, the production of goods and services required by the majority of people. They sought higher levels of profitability in the finance sector, both in the advanced capitalist countries and in China and other developing economies. The defeats of the working class in the 1980s, followed by the collapse of Stalinism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, allowed the capitalist class to intensify the exploitation of the working class, especially in the neo-colonial countries of the underdeveloped world. The capitalist system as a whole became increasingly parasitic.
That was the basis on which the parasitic finance capitalism became dominant. It was allowed free scope by globalisation and ultra-free-market (neo-liberal) policies. But the growth of grotesque inequality, with the worldwide reduction in the share of wealth taken by the working class, increasingly restricted the market for capitalism. The capitalist class, especially those operating on the Anglo-US model, have sustained relatively high levels of growth on the basis of ever growing volumes of debt. In 1980, global debt was approximately equal to global GDP. Since then, however, global debt has ballooned to over 3.5 times global output. At the same time, finance capitalism, the channel through which this debt is traded for profit, took around a third of capitalist profits.
This trend, as we have pointed out many times, was unsustainable. It was only a matter of time before the whole edifice collapsed. That is what is happening now. The shadow banking system, the network of unregulated investment banks, hedge funds, and the banks’ own off-balance sheet vehicles, has imploded. The shadow network was developed to bypass the regulated commercial banks. But the major banks, which still form the core of the finance system, have not escaped the crisis of liquidity and capital availability. Derivatives, a whole array of exotic financial instruments that were supposed to spread if not abolish risk, have indeed turned out to be “financial instruments of mass destruction”, as the old-fashioned financier, Warren Buffett, warned.
There will be a profound reaction in the US and internationally to the capitalist crisis and the state bail-out of rotten finance capital. Apart from the economic contradictions, the crisis will undoubtedly produce a monumental scandal of corrupt practices, fraud and theft on an even bigger scale than the earlier Enron scandals. Workers will be forced to organise and fight against the effects of capitalist crisis. These events will create fertile ground for the growth of interest in genuine socialism and Marxism.
Countdown to meltdown
Events in September marked a new, critical stage of the crisis in the global finance system. The world was brought to the brink of a 1929-type collapse.
On 7 September, the US treasury was forced to step in and take over the direct running of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two giant government-sponsored mortgage providers. This followed the government intervention in July, when it guaranteed their $5 trillion mortgage debt in return for shares in these institutions – in effect, a partial nationalisation. Even that failed to stabilise these giants. Paulson’s ‘bazooka’ had not proved enough to reassure foreign investors, particularly Asian central banks, which have been selling off Fannie and Freddie bonds. A complete takeover by the government, effectively nationalising the institutions, was the only measure left.
Then (14-15 September) Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, two of the five giant Wall Street investment banks, faced bankruptcy. Other Wall Street banks refused to intervene without a government undertaking to guarantee Lehman and Merrill toxic assets. Paulson and Bernanke refused. They had come under tremendous political pressure to avoid handing out any more taxpayers’ dollars. Moreover, free marketers were demanding that they avoid creating further ‘moral hazard’, that is, sending out another signal that reckless speculators would be protected from their own folly by the assurance of a government bail-out. By refusing to back a government rescue of Lehman and Merrill, Paulson and Bernanke hoped to send a message that there would be no more Bear Stearns-type government-sponsored bail-outs for failing banks. Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, and Barclays International and other vultures began to cherry-pick the potentially profitable Lehman assets. Merrill Lynch, on the other hand, rushed to sell itself to the Bank of America, a deposit bank with much greater capital reserves.
Paulson and Bernanke, however, made a monumental miscalculation. They thought they could draw a line, but their refusal to back a rescue of Lehman or Merrill triggered a general slump in bank shares. This signalled that a whole swathe of banks were about to follow Lehman and Merrill into the dust. Among the most threatened were the two remaining investment banks, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The whole ‘shadow banking system’, the unregulated, debt-financed, highly speculative network of investment banks and hedge funds, was imploding. Because of their multiple links with the major banks, which also operated off-balance sheet investment vehicles, the investment banks threatened to bring down many other institutions. If Paulson and Bernanke had backed a rescue of Lehman and Merrill, it would not have stopped the rot (as the subsequent bankruptcy of Washington Mutual shows), but by standing back as Lehman and Merrill sank, they accelerated the pace of the banking crisis.
In Britain, HBOS (Halifax-Bank of Scotland), a major bank and mortgage provider, faced bankruptcy. It was only saved by a rapid marriage of convenience, pushed by the Bank of England, with Lloyds TSB.
The failure of Lehman and Merrill had an immediate knock-on effect on the short-term money market. Money market funds, used by the banks to finance their short-term borrowing, have usually been regarded as almost as safe as cash. A key aspect of the credit crunch was the seizing up of this short-term money market, as banks hoarded cash and avoided making any potentially risky loans to other banks. Despite the Federal Reserve’s drastic interest rates cuts, the inter-bank lending rate, usually fractionally higher than the Fed’s rate, has soared to an unprecedented level. Reeling under the impact of the Lehman and Merrill bankruptcies, the severe credit crunch turned into a complete paralysis of this vital money market.
The Federal Reserve, cooperating with other major central banks, was forced to pump $180 billion into the global banking system (on this occasion, currency swaps, dollars for euros, pounds, etc). In the following few days, they pumped in another $100 billion into the system, and the central banks of Britain and Japan, and the European Central Bank also pumped in additional liquidity. Moreover, the Fed and other central banks agreed to accept a wider range of securities as collateral for the loans, including shares, company bonds, etc, in other words, much more risky assets than the government bonds they had previously insisted on. (Since then, more liquidity in the form of short-term loans have been pumped in by central banks.)
Paulson had allowed Lehman and Merrill to collapse, but faced with the possible collapse of a giant insurance company, American Insurance Group (AIG), the government was forced to step in. The AIG crisis was triggered by the downgrading of its security status by a rating agency. This threatened to trigger a run on AIG’s shares, thus further depleting its capital reserves. The problem was not with AIG’s massive insurance business in the US, Europe and Asia. The crisis arose from its involvement in the shadow banking system through its worldwide business in credit default swaps, a form of insurance used to guarantee the investment grade status of a wide range of securities (mortgage-backed securities, company bonds, municipal bonds, etc). AIG had issued $447 billion of such insurance (including $300bn to European institutions).
The downgrading of AIG’s credit status automatically meant a downgrading of securities insured by AIG-issued credit default swaps. This would, in turn, create problems for any finance house using AIG-insured securities as collateral for their own borrowing. In other words, a collapse of AIG would mean a huge increase in the quantity of toxic debt in the global finance system. The losses would be absolutely staggering (one estimate is that it would mean at least $180bn for the global financial sector). At the same time, AIG’s collapse would also mean the collapse of its worldwide insurance business. To avoid a catastrophic crash, Paulson was forced to step in by guaranteeing $85 billion of AIG assets in return for preference shares in the insurance company.
During the critical week, 15-19 September, world stock exchanges plunged. The government bail-out of AIG failed to stabilise share markets. At the same time, the price of oil, which had been tending to fall over recent weeks, began to rise – probably due to a panicky buying of oil futures. Paulson and Bernanke evidently realised that they were faced with a stark 1929 situation. If they stood aside, there would undoubtedly be a collapse of the global finance system which, in turn, would provoke a major slump in the world capitalist economy. Having learned the lessons of the 1929 crash, when the Federal Reserve and the US government stood aside and allowed the financial dominoes to collapse, Paulson and Bernanke decided that they had no choice but to step in to save the capitalist system.
On 19 September, Paulson announced his Troubled Asset Relief Programme (Tarp), a $700 billion ‘plan’ to place a floor under collapsing financial institutions and re-stabilise the US and world banking system. Paulson’s announcement averted a global crash, at least for the time being. But it is really a palliative measure that will not in itself overcome the credit crunch and the paralysis of the banking system.
As we go to press, there is news of the bankruptcy of Washington Mutual, the biggest bank failure in US history. WaMu was seized by the regulator (25 September) and sold to JP Morgan Chase.
European banks have also been hammered by their huge losses from toxic subprime mortgage securities. The hardest hit is the Swiss bank, UBS, which has made total write-downs of around $50 billion (more than Merrill Lynch). The Financial Times has commented that many European banks are now not only ‘too big to fail’, but “too big to save”. “For example, the total liabilities of Deutsche Bank (leverage ratio over 50!) amount to about €2000 billion (more than Fannie Mae) or more than 80% of the gross domestic product of Germany. This is simply too much for the Bundesbank or even the German state…” (European Banking Lives on Borrowed Time, Financial Times, 24 September)
Paulson’s package
After the crisis with Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, and the seizing up of the short-term money market (despite continuing, massive injections of liquidity by the Federal Reserve and other central banks) Paulson was forced to announce (18 September) a rescue package, the Tarp. Without giving any details, Paulson proposed to spend $700 billion of taxpayers’ money to establish a toxic waste dump for the unsellable securities still on the books of financial institutions.
A reported $500 billion of losses have already been written off, but some estimates put remaining securities from the housing market at a further $1,000 billion. Global stock exchanges immediately revived following Paulson’s announcement. Almost immediately, however, congressional leaders, both Democrat and Republican, began to protest at the sweeping character of Paulson’s rescue plan and the extraordinary powers that he was claiming as treasury secretary.
Paulson proposed that the treasury secretary should be given (initially for two years) unlimited powers to buy securities from anyone at any price according to his discretion. Moreover, he was claiming immunity from any kind of action by courts or administrative agencies of the government. Initially, he proposed buying the securities from US banks only, but soon widened this to include the US subsidiaries of foreign banks.
If this were accepted by Congress, Paulson would be the most powerful treasury secretary in US history. On its cover, Newsweek dubbed him ‘King Henry’. In effect, the treasury secretary would become the economic executive of US capitalism, with no oversight (merely reporting to Congress twice a year), a rival source of power to the presidency itself.
Like Bush after 9/11, Paulson, backed by Bernanke, is attempting to use the threat of global financial collapse to get rapid congressional approval of his proposals without a thorough discussion of their content. Paulson, for instance, is demanding the package should be ‘clean’, meaning that it should not be encumbered by any proposals such as the government acquisition of shares in exchange for buying toxic debt, or limits on the remuneration of bankers, or relief to homeowners facing foreclosure. Keen to bail out bankrupt bankers, Paulson brutally rejects the legitimate claims of home-buyers.
Paulson is proposing to pay something near the face value of toxic securities, over 60 cents in the dollar, as opposed to their current market value of 20 or 30 cents. Moreover, a variety of banks, finance houses and other companies are lobbying to widen the scope of the rescue. For instance, there are demands for municipal bonds, credit card debt and car-purchase debt to be included. Wall Street firms are already looking forward to the fees they hope to collect from being drawn in to administer the operations of Paulson’s programme.
It is hardly surprising, then, that the heads of finance companies are enthusiastic about Paulson’s proposals. However, some free-market Republicans have vehemently denounced the plan as the ‘socialisation of debt’. Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky, proclaimed: “The free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America”. He said that Paulson’s plan would “take Wall Street’s pain and spread it to the taxpayers… It’s financial socialism, and it’s un-American”.
Democrat leaders, on the other hand, are demanding measures to help distressed homeowners. Paulson has rejected this demand on the grounds that the bundles of toxic securities are too complex to allow the reduction of individual homeowners’ payments. “The banking and securities industries… are fighting the change with all their might, as they did when it came up with the housing bill that was adopted in July”. (International Herald Tribune, 24 September)
Paulson’s current proposal is completely different from the measure used to rescue the savings and loans banks (thrifts) in the early 1990s. At that time, the US government effectively nationalised the failing thrifts, and sold off their remaining assets over a period, before returning the thrifts to private ownership. The robust growth of the economy after 1994 restored the value of mortgaged property and allowed the government to recover part of the cost of the rescue.
A similar measure was taken by the Swedish government after the collapse of the housing bubble in 1991-92. The government nationalised a large section of the Swedish banking sector, cutting out the shareholders of these failed institutions and, subsequently again, any sellable assets were sold off and the banks were later returned to the private sector. The rescue, however, cost about 4% of Sweden’s gross domestic product (though some of this was recovered over time). The US capitalist class, however, would undoubtedly strongly resist full-scale nationalisation of the US banking sector.
The current Paulson rescue proposal, costing around $700 billion, is the equivalent of about 5% of GDP. However, Paulson has no intention of taking over the failed US banks, merely bailing them out by buying up their toxic debts, thus allowing them to replenish their capital and carry on as usual. Paulson is not even demanding shares in the banks in return for buying their bad debt.
Will Paulson get congressional approval for his package? Given the strength of congressional opposition, there is likely to be some delay, and Paulson may be forced to accept some modifications, particularly to the extraordinary, unchecked powers he is claiming. However, faced with the threat of further falls in financial markets and the possibility of new convulsions, it seems likely that Congress will accept the package in one form or another before dispersing for the November elections.
A socialist alternative
Paulson claims that people do not care who owns the banks. Millions of homeowners, however, will care that the government is using taxpayers’ money to bail out the banks which have sold and securitised toxic mortgages while millions are facing penal interest rates and the threat of foreclosure. In fact, millions of Americans are already incensed at Paulson’s plan.
Community organisations, unions, and all those who defend the interests of working people should demand that, instead of the nationalisation of finance capital’s toxic assets and bad debts, the banks and financial institutions (insurance companies, hedge funds, etc) should be nationalised and run in a democratically planned way under workers’ control and management. Compensation for small shareholders and depositors should be on the basis of need only.
The banking sector should be run to promote the interests of industries providing goods and services needed by the majority of the population, not funding the speculative activities of a hyper-rich minority of financiers. The banks should provide cheap mortgages for personal home buyers (with a ceiling to exclude luxury houses for the wealthy). They should also provide cheap credit to small businesses and small farmers serving the needs of local communities.
Such measures, of course, would for many raise the question of ownership and control of wider sectors of the economy, and the need for democratic planning to replace the anarchy of the market and the naked pursuit of personal profit. The US government, for instance, is currently considering a package of state-guaranteed loans to the big auto companies, Ford, Chrysler and GM. These corporations are in deep crisis and should also be taken over and run under democratic workers’ control and management to meet the needs of society.
Unions and community groups should totally oppose all foreclosures. Where dodgy mortgages have been sold through fraud or deception, they should be cancelled. Home buyers who cannot meet their mortgage repayments should have the right to rent the property at an affordable, social rent. Where, through foreclosures and the bankruptcy of builders and property companies, there are empty houses, state and municipal government should take over unoccupied homes and rent them out at affordable rents. Decisions regarding mortgage defaults, foreclosures, and home owners’ rights in general, should be taken not by government officials or bankruptcy courts, but by popular, elected committees which will safeguard the rights of working people.
A new period
If passed by Congress, Paulson’s package, probably with some modifications, may avert a financial crash. There will still be serious wrangles over the detailed measures to be implemented. However, the rescue plan will not in itself revive the finance sector. The US housing crisis, the root of the credit crunch, is far from over. Huge losses in the financial sector mean that the credit crunch will continue for years, even if the toxic waste is taken over by the government.
The rescue of the finance sector will not avert a recession in the US economy, which is already gathering pace. Moreover, the US slowdown, combined with financial crisis in many other economies, is pushing the world towards an economic downturn. There is now a sharp recession in the European economies. Japan, after a weak recovery in recent years, has once again lapsed into zero growth. China, still seen as a dynamo of the world economy, is expected to slow down from 11-12% growth to around 8% during 2008. Though 8% is relatively high, this would have serious effects within China, economically and politically.
The underlying crisis of capitalist production and profitability has been postponed several times since the 1980s through a series of financial bubbles that have fuelled debt-based consumer spending in the US and elsewhere (driving the production of cheap goods in China and other low-cost economies). But now is the time of reckoning. The collapse of the extreme debt mountain almost certainly means a prolonged period of weak growth in the world capitalist economy. Undoubtedly, there will still be an economic cycle, but it is not likely that there will be a return to the kind of global boom that was experienced between 2001-07.
The recent phase of accelerated globalisation and unfettered neo-liberal policies is drawing to a close and an entirely new period of developments is opening. Massive state intervention in the finance sector has wider implications for trade, international currency flows and industrial policy. There will be even deeper tensions between the major capitalist powers. Prolonged stagnation, punctuated by weak recoveries and renewed recession, will provoke social crisis and mighty political struggles. The economic crisis of capitalism is also an ideological and political crisis, and this unavoidably places Marxism back on the political agenda.
08年9月26日
世界经济
大爆炸
资本主义金融体系接近崩溃
社论，当今社会主义， 2008年10月
最近几年，我们常常被人指责为“劫数难逃论者” 。这是因为我们预测由高利润，高风险金融资本主义所主导下的债务驱动的泡沫经济将在某个时刻崩溃，继而导致世界经济严重的衰退。回顾一下我们的文章，我们从来没有在任何之处宣布过一项'大灾难'，只是对发展的每一阶段作出认真的，均衡的分析。而目前的情势正在充分证明我们的分析的正确性。
不幸的是，左翼的一些人接受了如下观点，即在加速推进的全球经济一体化和超自由市场政策基础上，世界资本主义的繁荣可能会无限期地继续下去。美国房地产泡沫崩溃和次优抵押贷款危机产生严重后果之后的最近几个星期的事件完全改变了面貌。现在在严肃的资本主义新闻媒体的大字标题上显示出来的也是'劫数难逃论' 。金融时报（ 9月20日）的标题是“混乱的资本主义”。
政府资助解救并接管贝尔斯登，房利美、房地美以及美国保险集团等等后，约翰普伦德写道，布什试图用数十亿的美元来拯救金融系统是“以严重损害美国模式的自由市场资本主义为代价的” （金融时报， 9月20日）。这对于把金融机构“社会化”或“国有化”的诉求而言是老生常谈。在现实中，金融资本主义之具有掠夺性的和不计后果的巨大的债务正落在工人阶级的肩上。
当美国财政部长汉克·保尔森宣布他的7,000亿美元资产困境救援方案时，评论员保罗·克鲁格曼（自由民主党）评论说： “保尔森同志占领了制高点” 。作为一个自由市场论者的金融交易商比尔·帕金斯在纽约时报上做了一个广告，说布什、保尔森和美国联邦储备委员会主席伯南克是“新的共产党人，他们在‘私营企业'和‘资本主义'的坟墓前举起美国国旗。帕金斯认为经营失败的银行就应允许其倒闭，不能让纳税人来承受负担来使其出离困境。他说：“我认为这是一种社会主义或共产主义的滴入式版本” “你们比委内瑞拉国有化了更多的机构” （9月25日卫报）。
然而几天里布什，保尔森和伯南克正在面临的前景是新的1929年型崩溃的金融体系。如果他们象美联储和当时的政府于1929年做的那样允许这种情况发生，这将威胁到资本主义制度的生存。从资本主义的角度来看，他们别无选择，只能进行干预，以试图稳定金融体系。保尔森的整套方案能否成功，仍有待观察。一连串的危机还远远没有结束。
然而，救援的国有资金的累积和事实上的国有化，再加上现在的7,000亿美元拯救计划，这些都毁了美国资本主义和自由市场思想的声誉。
当然布什政府的国有化并不意味着真正的'社会主义' 。其目的是利用国家的资源，包括大量增加公共债务，以稳定资本主义以及为在以后的日子里的恢复作好基础性的准备。贡献给美国政府最大份额税款的工人阶级将为该救援计划买单。此外，数以百万计的工人阶级的家庭已被诱骗人的金融公司骗入抵押贷款陷阱，许多人现在正在失去家园。由于金融危机把美国经济推入更深地衰退，数百万人将面临失业和贫乏的工资。
真正的社会主义将意味着由工人阶级的政府接管金融部门和经济的制高点，并在创造财富的人的控制下民主地运行这些部门和经济。民主计划将取代市场的无政府状态。生产将用来满足社会的需要而不是为了少数人的利润。然而，正如马克思和恩格斯指出的那样，甚至资本主义国家为自己的目的而采取的国有化措施展现出了私人所有制的多余和具有替代性的更先进的经济体系的可能性。
金融资本的支配
许多人现在指责当前的危机是由金融市场上的银行家、对冲基金经理，交易商等等的'贪婪'和'恐惧'导致的。这些人无疑发挥了掠夺的和寄生的作用。他们的投机活动使得财富和利润集中到一小撮超级富裕的少数人手里。举例来说，去年，金融部门的首席执行官平均获得的收入是一个普通工人的275倍。然而，他们自私的动机只是该制度的一种症状而不是发展的原因。
在过去30年里，美国，英国和其他地方的资产阶级远离于生产活动的投资，既多数人所需要的商品和服务的生产。他们无论是在发达资本主义国家还是在中国和其他发展中经济体的金融部门寻求更高的盈利性。随着苏联和东欧斯大林主义的崩溃，20世纪80年代工人阶级的失败使得资产阶级得以加强剥削工人阶级，特别是在不发达世界的新殖民主义国家。资本主义制度作为一个整体变得越来越具有寄生性。
这是寄生的金融资本主义占支配地位的基础。这是全球化和超自由市场（新自由主义）的政策所允许的自由的范围。但是随着世界范围内工人阶级分配到的财富份额的减少，极端不平等的增长越来越限制资本主义的市场。资产阶级，特别是那些以盎格鲁-美国模式运作的资产阶级，在债务史无前例的增长的基础上维持着相对较高的增长水平。在1980年，全球债务大约相当于全球国内生产总值。但是，自此以后，全球债务已经膨胀到超过全球产量的3.5倍。与此同时，作为为利润而进行的债务交易的渠道的金融资本主义获得了资本主义利润的大约三分之一。
我们已经多次指出这种趋势是不可持续的。整个大厦倒塌只是一个时间问题。这就是现在正在发生的事。影子银行系统(shadow banking system)，不受管制的投资银行、对冲基金和银行自身帐外融资的网络已经爆炸。影子网络是为了绕开受管制的商业银行而发展出来的。但是，仍然构成金融体系的核心的各大银行都没有逃脱这场流动性和资本的可获得性的危机。如果不消除风险，衍生出来的一系列奇特的金融工具理所当然要蔓延，正如守旧的金融家巴菲特所警告的，这些衍生物已被证明是“具有大规模杀伤性的金融工具” 。
在美国和国际上，对资本主义危机和针对腐朽的金融资本的救援活动将产生深刻的反应。除了经济矛盾，这场危机无疑将产生一个比以前的安然丑闻更大规模的巨大的腐败行径如诈骗和盗窃的丑闻。工人将被迫组织起来并回击资本主义危机的影响。这些事件将创造出肥沃的土壤使得对真正的社会主义和马克思主义感兴趣的人大量的增加。
崩溃倒计时
9月里发生的这些事件标志着这场全球金融体系的危机进入一个新的关键阶段。世界被带到1929年型崩溃的边缘。
9月7日，美国财政部不得不进入并接管以直接经营两个巨大的政府赞助的抵押贷款提供商房利美、房地美。紧随着7月时的政府干预以担保它们的5万亿美元抵押贷款，得到的回报是获得这些机构的股份-实际上是部分国有化。即使如此也没有成功使这些巨头稳定下来。保尔森的“火箭炮”已被证明不能足够地使外国投资恢复信心，特别是亚洲各国的中央银行，它们已经售出了房利美和房地美的债券。政府的完全接管和有效地国有化这些机构，是唯一剩下的措施了。
然后（ 9月14日至15号）五大华尔街投资银行之二的雷曼兄弟公司和美林证券面临破产。在没有得到政府担保雷曼兄弟和美林不良资产的情况下，其他华尔街银行拒绝介入。保尔森和伯南克拒绝担保。他们已受到巨大的政治压力以避免把更多的纳税人的美元拿出来。此外，自由市场论者要求他们避免造成进一步的“道德风险” ，即发出自己的愚蠢的盲目投机将保证得到政府挽救的另一个信号。通过拒绝支持政府救援雷曼兄弟和美林证券，保尔森和伯南克希望发出一个信息，既除了贝尔斯登获得政府担保外，不会有更多的经营失败的银行会得到政府担保。雷曼兄弟公司申请破产，巴克莱国际和其他贪婪者开始逐食潜在的有利可图的雷曼兄弟的资产。另一方面，美林证券急忙把自己买给带有更大的资本储备的作为存款银行的美国银行（Bank of America）。
然而保尔森和伯南克犯了巨大的错误。他们以为他们可以划清界限，但他们拒绝支持拯救雷曼兄弟或美林引发了银行股的普遍不景气。这暗示大批银行要步雷曼兄弟和美林的后尘。其中受到最大威胁的是剩下的两个投资银行，摩根士丹利和高盛。整个“影子银行系统” ，不受管制的债务融资的高投机性的投资银行和对冲基金网络正在爆炸。由于它们和大银行的多重联系，这些银行也操作资产负债表外的投资工具，投资银行可能击到许多其他机构。如果保尔森和伯南克支持救援雷曼兄弟和美林，这不会停止它们的腐烂（正如其后的华盛顿互惠[Washington Mutual]银行的破产所昭示的） ，但站他们在雷曼兄弟和美林的沉没旁边不管不问却加快了银行业的危机。
在英国，作为一个主要的银行和抵押贷款供应商的HBOS（苏格兰的哈利法克斯银行）面临破产。在英格兰银行的推动下，它只是通过迅速地和劳埃德TSB的联姻而得到挽救。
经营失败的雷曼兄弟和美林对短期货币市场产生了直接的连锁效应。银行用来拆借的货币市场基金通常被视为几乎和现金一样安全。信贷紧缩的一个关键方面是由于银行囤积现金以避免给其他银行的任何潜在的风险贷款而导致的短期货币市场的失灵。尽管美国联邦储备大幅度削减利率，银行间拆借利率，通常是略微高于美联储的利率，已经上升到一个前所未有的水平。在雷曼和美林破产的影响下，严重的信贷紧缩转变成至关重要的货币市场的完全瘫痪。
美国联邦储备委员会被迫与其他主要央行合作注入全球银行系统1800亿美元（在此之际，货币掉期，美元对欧元，英镑等）。在随后的几天里，他们注入系统额外的1000亿美元，英国和日本的中央银行以及欧洲的中央银行也注入额外的流动资金。此外，美联储和其他中央银行同意接受更广泛的证券作为贷款的担保品，包括股票，公司债券等，换句话说，比他们曾坚持的政府债券具有更多的风险的资产。（自那时以来，中央银行注入以短期贷款形式存在的更多的流动资金。 ）
保尔森允许雷曼兄弟和美林证券的崩溃，但面临着大保险公司美国保险集团公司（ AIG ）的可能的崩溃，政府被迫介入.美国国际集团危机的起因是评级机构降低其安全状态。这可能触发抛售AIG的股票，从而进一步消耗其资本储备。这个问题和美国国际集团在美国，欧洲和亚洲的大规模保险业务无关。这场危机源于其通过其全球信贷违约掉期的业务参与影子银行系统，信贷违约掉期是用来担保广泛的证券（住房抵押贷款证券，公司债券，市政债券等）投资等级地位的保险的一种形式。美国国际集团发出了4470亿美元的这种保险（包括发向欧洲机构的3000亿美元）。
AIG的信用状况的下降自动意味着由AIG发行的信贷违约掉期担保的证券的降级。反过来这将造成任何用AIG金融保险证券作为担保品为自己贷款筹资购房的问题。换句话说，美国国际集团的崩溃将意味着全球金融体系里不良债务的大量的增加。损失将是绝对惊人的（有人估计对全球金融部门来说，这将意味着至少1800亿美元） 。与此同时，美国国际集团的崩溃也将意味着全球保险业的崩溃。为了避免灾难性垮台，保尔森不得不介入，用850亿美元来担保美国国际集团的资产以换取该保险公司的优先股。
在9月15-19日的关键的一周，世界证券交易所暴跌。政府挽救美国国际集团未能稳定股票市场。与此同时，最近几周已趋于下降的石油价格开始上升-可能因恐慌性购买石油期货。保尔森和伯南克显然意识到他们面临着一个严峻的1929年的情况。如果他们站在一旁，无疑将是全球金融体系的崩溃，这反过来会促使世界资本主义经济大萧条。在吸取了1929年崩溃的教训后，当时美联储和美国政府站在一旁，并允许金融多米诺骨牌的倒塌，保尔森和伯南克决定，他们别无选择只能介入挽救资本主义制度。
9月19日，保尔森宣布他的困境资产救济方案(Tarp) ，一个7,000亿美元的计划，在正在崩溃的金融机构下筑好基底和重新稳定美国和全球的金融体系。保尔森的声明至少在一段时间里避免了一场全球性崩溃。但是，这的确是治标不治本的措施，本身不能克服银行系统的信贷紧缩和瘫痪。
当我们把目光投向报刊，可以看到华盛顿互惠破产的消息，美国历史上最大的银行倒闭。 华盛顿互惠银行（WaMu）被管制者没收（ 9月25日） 并出售给摩根大通。
欧洲银行遭受了其不良抵押贷款证券带来的巨大损失的打击。受影响最严重的是瑞士银行，瑞银华宝（UBS）总减记约500亿美元（超过美林） 。金融时报评论说，许多欧洲银行现在不仅'太大而不能失败' ，而且“太大而无法挽救” 。 “举例来说，德意志银行负债总额（融资率超过50 ！ ）共约€ 2000亿欧元（超过房利美）或超过德国国内生产总值的80 ％。这对央行（Bundesbank）甚至德国整个国家来说简直是太多了... “ （苟延残喘的欧洲银行，金融时报， 9月24日）
保尔森的一揽子方案
雷曼兄弟公司和美林证券危机爆发和短期货币市场失灵（尽管由联邦储备委员会和其他中央银行持续，大规模注入流动资金）后，保尔森被迫宣布（ 9月18日）一揽子拯救计划，既TARP。没有提供任何细节，保尔森建议花费7,000亿美元纳税人的钱建立一个仍然在金融机构名册上的卖不掉的不良证券垃圾箱。
据报道5000亿美元的损失已被注销，但有人估计来自住房市场的剩余证券更多达1万亿美元。随着保尔森的声明，全球股市交易立即恢复。然而，国会领导人，无论民主党和共和党几乎立即开始抗议保尔森的救援计划之清场的性质和他作为一个财政部长的特别权力。
保尔森建议应给予财政部长（最初为两年）根据他的判断力以任何价格从任何人那里购买证券的无限的权力。此外，他还要求免受法院或政府行政机构的任何形式的起诉。起初，他提议只购买美国银行的证券，但很快扩大到包括外国银行的美国子公司。
如果美国国会接受这个建议，保尔森将是美国历史上最强大的财政部长。新闻周刊（Newsweek）的封面上称他为“国王亨利”。实际上，财政部长将成为美国资本主义的没有监督（仅仅是每年向国会报告两次）的经济主管人员，可以和总统本身的权力相匹敌。
如同布什9 / 11事件后一样，在伯南克支持下，保尔森正试图以全球金融崩溃的威胁来促使国会在没有彻底讨论其内容的情况下迅速批准他的建议。举例来说保尔森要求这一揽子方案应该是“干净利落”的，也就是说它不应该受制于任何建议，如政府获得股份以换取购买不良债务，或限制银行家的薪酬，或屋主免于面对丧失抵押品赎回权。热衷于挽救破产的银行家，保尔森残酷地拒绝购房人士的合法权益。
保尔森提议支付大约接近不良证券的票面价值，以美元计超过60美分，而不是其20或30美分的当前市场价值。此外，不同的银行，金融公司和其他公司正在游说以便扩大救援的范围。举例来说，要求把市政债券，信用卡债务和汽车购买债务包括进来。华尔街的公司已经期待从执行保尔森方案的业务中收费。
那么，金融公司的负责人对保尔森的建议很热心就不足为奇了。然而，一些自由市场主义的共和党强烈谴责该计划为“债务社会化”。 来自肯塔基州的共和党参议员吉姆·邦宁（Jim Bunning）宣称： “在美国，适合于所有意图和目的的自由市场死了。”他说，保尔森的计划将“把华尔街的痛苦带给纳税人...它是金融社会主义，它是非美国式的” 。
另一方面，民主党领袖要求采取措施帮助哀伤的业主。保尔森拒绝了这一要求，其理由是这批不良证券过于复杂以至于不能减少个体业主的付款额。 “银行和证券业... 正极其所能地和变化战斗，正如他们提出住房法案（7月份通过的）时所做的” （9月24日国际先驱论坛报）。
保尔森目前的建议完全不同于20世纪90年代初挽救储蓄和贷款银行（thrifts[储蓄]）时采取的措施。当时，美国政府有效地国有化了经营失败的thrifts[储蓄]，并在把thrifts[储蓄] 返回为私人所有之前的一段时期里出售了其剩余资产。1994年后强劲的经济增长恢复了抵押资产的价值，并使得政府可以收回部分救援的成本。
在1991-92年房地产泡沫破裂后瑞典政府采取了类似的措施。政府国有化了瑞典银行部门的一大部分，削减了这些经营失败的机构的股东，随后再次出售了所有可以售出的资产，后来，银行回到了私营部门。可是，救援成本约达瑞典的国内生产总值（虽然随着时间的推移捞回来了一些成本）的4 ％ 。毫无疑问美国资产阶级将坚决抵制大规模国有化美国银行业。
目前保尔森的救援建议，耗资约7,000亿美元，相当于GDP的5 ％ 。然而，保尔森无意接管经营失败的美国银行，只是通过全买他们的不良债务使他们脱困，从而使它们能够补充其资本和像往常一样运行下去。保尔森甚至不能要求获得银行股份以换取购买其坏帐。
保尔森的一揽子方案会得到国会的批准吗？鉴于国会反对的力量，有可能会有一些拖延以及保尔森可能会被迫接受一些修改，特别是他所主张的超常的不受制止的权力。但是，面临着金融市场进一步下跌的威胁和新的社会动乱的可能性，看来国会将在因11月的选举而分崩离析前以这种或那种的形式接受这一揽子方案。
社会主义替代
保尔森声称，人们不在乎谁拥有银行。但数以百万计的房主会在乎政府使用纳税人的金钱来使已把不良抵押贷款出售和证券化的银行摆脱困境，而数百万人面临违约利率和丧失抵押品赎回权的威胁。事实上，数以百万计的美国人已经被保尔森的计划激怒了。
社会团体，工会，以及所有那些捍卫劳动人民利益的人士应该要求国有化银行和金融机构（保险公司，对冲基金等）并在工人的控制和管理下以民主计划的方式运行，而不是国有化金融资本的不良资产和坏账。只在必要的基础上补偿小股东和存款人。
银行部门的运行应促进能提供大部分人口所需要的商品和服务的行业的利益，而不是为少数超级富裕的金融资本家的投机活动提供资金。银行应提供廉价的抵押贷款以供个人购房（有一个排除富人的豪宅的上限） 。它们还应向小企业和小农户提供廉价信贷以便他们能为当地社区的需要服务。
当然这些措施将令许多人面临对更广泛的经济部门的所有权和控制权的问题，并需要用民主的计划来取代市场的无政府状态和赤裸裸的惟利是图。例如，美国政府目前正在考虑给大汽车公司福特、克莱斯勒和通用汽车公司一揽子国家担保贷款。这些公司处在严重的危机中，应该把它们置于工人的民主控制和管理下来运行以便满足社会的需要。
工会和社会团体应完全反对所有丧失抵押品赎回权。应该取消凡通过欺诈行为或欺骗手段已售出的抵押贷款。没有能力按揭还款的购房者应有权以负担得起的社会的租金租借房屋。通过丧失抵押品赎回权和建设者和房地产公司的破产，产生了一些空房，州和市的政府应接管无人居住的房屋并且以负担得起的租金出租出去。关于抵押贷款违约，丧失抵押品赎回权和房屋所有者的权利的决定，一般不应由政府官员或破产法院来作出，而应由全民选举出来的将维护劳动人民的权利的委员会来作出。
一个新的时期
如果国会通过可能带有一些修改的保尔森的一揽子方案，金融崩溃或可避免。在付诸实施的具体措施上仍然会有严重的争吵。然而，营救计划本身不会恢复金融部门。美国住房危机，信贷紧缩之根本，还远远没有结束。即使政府接管不良资产，金融部门的巨额亏损意味着信贷紧缩将持续多年。
金融部门的拯救将不会使美国经济避免衰退，美国经济正在放缓。此外，美国经济放缓加上在许多其他经济体的金融危机正把世界推向经济衰退。现在欧洲的经济有一个急剧的衰退。日本，近年来开始有些微弱的恢复，但再次陷入零增长。中国，仍然被视为世界经济的动力，预计将放慢，从11-12 ％的增长降到2008年的约8 ％ 。虽然8 ％的比例相对较高，但是这将在中国产生严重的经济上和政治上的影响。
20世纪80年代以来通过在美国和其他国家助长债务为基础的消费开支（驱使在中国和其他低成本经济体生产廉价商品）的一系列的金融泡沫，资本主义生产和盈利能力的潜在的危机已被推迟数次 。但是，现在得到清算的时候了。极度的债务之山的崩溃几乎肯定意味着长时间的世界资本主义经济增长疲软。毫无疑问，仍然有一个经济周期，但很可能不会返回到2001-07之间经历的那种全球繁荣了。
加速全球化和不受约束的新自由主义政策的最近阶段即将结束并且将打开一个全新的发展时期。针对金融部门的大规模的国家干预对贸易，国际货币流通和产业政策将具有广泛的影响。主要资本主义势力之间的关系将更紧张。长期的停滞、断断续续的微弱复苏和再次的衰退将引起社会危机和激烈的政治斗争。资本主义的经济危机同时也是意识形态和政治的危机，这不可避免地会重新把马克思主义提到政治议程上来。
World Economy
pdf version
The great implosion
Capitalist finance system nears meltdown
Editorial, Socialism Today, October 2008
Over recent years, we have often been accused of being ‘catastrophists’. This is because we predicted that the debt-driven bubble economy, dominated by high-profit, high-risk finance capitalism, would at a certain point collapse, resulting in a serious downturn in the world economy. As a review of our articles will show (see box), we have never proclaimed a ‘catastrophe’ at every point, but have presented a careful, balanced analysis of each stage of development. And our analysis is now being amply borne out.
Unfortunately, some on the left succumbed to the idea that the world capitalist boom, based on accelerated globalisation and ultra-free-market policies, could continue indefinitely. The events of recent weeks, following the collapse of the US housing bubble and the severe repercussions of the subprime mortgage crisis, have completely changed the picture. Now the headlines in the serious capitalist press are ‘catastrophist’. “Capitalism in convulsion”, read a headline in the Financial Times (20 September).
George Bush’s attempted multi-billion dollar rescue of the financial system, wrote John Plender, is “at the cost of inflicting severe damage on the US model of free-market capitalism”. (Financial Times, 20 September) After the government-financed bail-outs and takeovers of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, American Insurance Group, etc, it has become commonplace to refer to the ‘socialisation’ or ‘nationalisation’ of financial institutions. In reality, the colossal debts of reckless, predatory finance capitalism are being offloaded onto the shoulders of the working class.
When US treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, announced his $700 billion Troubled Asset Rescue Programme, the commentator, Paul Krugman (a liberal Democrat), commented: “Comrade Paulson is taking over the commanding heights”. One financial trader, Bill Perkins, a free-marketeer, placed an advert in the New York Times. It shows Bush, Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, the ‘new communists’, raising an American flag on the grave of ‘private enterprise’ and ‘capitalism’. Perkins believes that failed banks should be allowed to collapse, and not be bailed out at the taxpayers’ expense. “I think it’s a kind of trickle down version of socialism or communism”, he said. “You have the government nationalising more institutions than Venezuela”. (Guardian, 25 September)
For a few days, however, Bush, Paulson and Bernanke were facing the prospect of a new 1929-type crash of the financial system. If they allowed it to happen, as the Federal Reserve and the government did in 1929, it would threaten the survival of the capitalist system. From a capitalist standpoint, they had no choice but to intervene to try to stabilise the financial system. Whether Paulson’s package succeeds remains to be seen. There is a chain of crisis that is far from played out.
Nevertheless, the accumulation of state-finance bail-outs and de facto nationalisation, and now the $700 billion rescue plan, is a shattering blow to the prestige of US capitalism and the ideology of the free market.
Nationalisation by the Bush regime, of course, does not mean real ‘socialism’. Their aim is to use the state’s resources, including a massive increase in public debt, to stabilise capitalism and prepare the ground for a recovery at a later date. The bill for the bail-outs will be handed to the working class, who contribute the biggest share of taxes to the US government. Moreover, millions of working-class families have been ensnared by crooked finance companies into the subprime mortgage trap, and many are now losing their homes. Millions will face unemployment and poverty wages as the financial crisis pushes the US economy deeper into recession.
Real socialism would mean the taking over of the finance sector and the commanding heights of the economy by a government of the working class, to be run democratically under the control of those who produce the wealth. Democratic planning would replace the anarchy of the market. Production would be to meet the needs of society, not the profits of the few. Nevertheless, as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels pointed out, even nationalisation measures carried out by the capitalist state for its own ends demonstrate the redundancy of private ownership and the possibility of an alternative, more advanced economic system.
Domination of finance capital
Many are now blaming the current crisis on the ‘greed’ and ‘fear’ of bankers, hedge fund managers, traders on financial markets, and so on. These people have undoubtedly played a predatory, parasitic role. Their speculative activities have concentrated wealth and profits into the hands of a tiny, super-rich minority. Last year, for instance, the average chief executive in the finance sector gained an income 275 times that of an average worker. Their egotistical motives, however, are a symptom of the system, not the cause of developments.
Over the last 30 years, the capitalist class in the US, Britain and elsewhere moved away from investing in productive activity, the production of goods and services required by the majority of people. They sought higher levels of profitability in the finance sector, both in the advanced capitalist countries and in China and other developing economies. The defeats of the working class in the 1980s, followed by the collapse of Stalinism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, allowed the capitalist class to intensify the exploitation of the working class, especially in the neo-colonial countries of the underdeveloped world. The capitalist system as a whole became increasingly parasitic.
That was the basis on which the parasitic finance capitalism became dominant. It was allowed free scope by globalisation and ultra-free-market (neo-liberal) policies. But the growth of grotesque inequality, with the worldwide reduction in the share of wealth taken by the working class, increasingly restricted the market for capitalism. The capitalist class, especially those operating on the Anglo-US model, have sustained relatively high levels of growth on the basis of ever growing volumes of debt. In 1980, global debt was approximately equal to global GDP. Since then, however, global debt has ballooned to over 3.5 times global output. At the same time, finance capitalism, the channel through which this debt is traded for profit, took around a third of capitalist profits.
This trend, as we have pointed out many times, was unsustainable. It was only a matter of time before the whole edifice collapsed. That is what is happening now. The shadow banking system, the network of unregulated investment banks, hedge funds, and the banks’ own off-balance sheet vehicles, has imploded. The shadow network was developed to bypass the regulated commercial banks. But the major banks, which still form the core of the finance system, have not escaped the crisis of liquidity and capital availability. Derivatives, a whole array of exotic financial instruments that were supposed to spread if not abolish risk, have indeed turned out to be “financial instruments of mass destruction”, as the old-fashioned financier, Warren Buffett, warned.
There will be a profound reaction in the US and internationally to the capitalist crisis and the state bail-out of rotten finance capital. Apart from the economic contradictions, the crisis will undoubtedly produce a monumental scandal of corrupt practices, fraud and theft on an even bigger scale than the earlier Enron scandals. Workers will be forced to organise and fight against the effects of capitalist crisis. These events will create fertile ground for the growth of interest in genuine socialism and Marxism.
Countdown to meltdown
Events in September marked a new, critical stage of the crisis in the global finance system. The world was brought to the brink of a 1929-type collapse.
On 7 September, the US treasury was forced to step in and take over the direct running of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two giant government-sponsored mortgage providers. This followed the government intervention in July, when it guaranteed their $5 trillion mortgage debt in return for shares in these institutions – in effect, a partial nationalisation. Even that failed to stabilise these giants. Paulson’s ‘bazooka’ had not proved enough to reassure foreign investors, particularly Asian central banks, which have been selling off Fannie and Freddie bonds. A complete takeover by the government, effectively nationalising the institutions, was the only measure left.
Then (14-15 September) Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, two of the five giant Wall Street investment banks, faced bankruptcy. Other Wall Street banks refused to intervene without a government undertaking to guarantee Lehman and Merrill toxic assets. Paulson and Bernanke refused. They had come under tremendous political pressure to avoid handing out any more taxpayers’ dollars. Moreover, free marketers were demanding that they avoid creating further ‘moral hazard’, that is, sending out another signal that reckless speculators would be protected from their own folly by the assurance of a government bail-out. By refusing to back a government rescue of Lehman and Merrill, Paulson and Bernanke hoped to send a message that there would be no more Bear Stearns-type government-sponsored bail-outs for failing banks. Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, and Barclays International and other vultures began to cherry-pick the potentially profitable Lehman assets. Merrill Lynch, on the other hand, rushed to sell itself to the Bank of America, a deposit bank with much greater capital reserves.
Paulson and Bernanke, however, made a monumental miscalculation. They thought they could draw a line, but their refusal to back a rescue of Lehman or Merrill triggered a general slump in bank shares. This signalled that a whole swathe of banks were about to follow Lehman and Merrill into the dust. Among the most threatened were the two remaining investment banks, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The whole ‘shadow banking system’, the unregulated, debt-financed, highly speculative network of investment banks and hedge funds, was imploding. Because of their multiple links with the major banks, which also operated off-balance sheet investment vehicles, the investment banks threatened to bring down many other institutions. If Paulson and Bernanke had backed a rescue of Lehman and Merrill, it would not have stopped the rot (as the subsequent bankruptcy of Washington Mutual shows), but by standing back as Lehman and Merrill sank, they accelerated the pace of the banking crisis.
In Britain, HBOS (Halifax-Bank of Scotland), a major bank and mortgage provider, faced bankruptcy. It was only saved by a rapid marriage of convenience, pushed by the Bank of England, with Lloyds TSB.
The failure of Lehman and Merrill had an immediate knock-on effect on the short-term money market. Money market funds, used by the banks to finance their short-term borrowing, have usually been regarded as almost as safe as cash. A key aspect of the credit crunch was the seizing up of this short-term money market, as banks hoarded cash and avoided making any potentially risky loans to other banks. Despite the Federal Reserve’s drastic interest rates cuts, the inter-bank lending rate, usually fractionally higher than the Fed’s rate, has soared to an unprecedented level. Reeling under the impact of the Lehman and Merrill bankruptcies, the severe credit crunch turned into a complete paralysis of this vital money market.
The Federal Reserve, cooperating with other major central banks, was forced to pump $180 billion into the global banking system (on this occasion, currency swaps, dollars for euros, pounds, etc). In the following few days, they pumped in another $100 billion into the system, and the central banks of Britain and Japan, and the European Central Bank also pumped in additional liquidity. Moreover, the Fed and other central banks agreed to accept a wider range of securities as collateral for the loans, including shares, company bonds, etc, in other words, much more risky assets than the government bonds they had previously insisted on. (Since then, more liquidity in the form of short-term loans have been pumped in by central banks.)
Paulson had allowed Lehman and Merrill to collapse, but faced with the possible collapse of a giant insurance company, American Insurance Group (AIG), the government was forced to step in. The AIG crisis was triggered by the downgrading of its security status by a rating agency. This threatened to trigger a run on AIG’s shares, thus further depleting its capital reserves. The problem was not with AIG’s massive insurance business in the US, Europe and Asia. The crisis arose from its involvement in the shadow banking system through its worldwide business in credit default swaps, a form of insurance used to guarantee the investment grade status of a wide range of securities (mortgage-backed securities, company bonds, municipal bonds, etc). AIG had issued $447 billion of such insurance (including $300bn to European institutions).
The downgrading of AIG’s credit status automatically meant a downgrading of securities insured by AIG-issued credit default swaps. This would, in turn, create problems for any finance house using AIG-insured securities as collateral for their own borrowing. In other words, a collapse of AIG would mean a huge increase in the quantity of toxic debt in the global finance system. The losses would be absolutely staggering (one estimate is that it would mean at least $180bn for the global financial sector). At the same time, AIG’s collapse would also mean the collapse of its worldwide insurance business. To avoid a catastrophic crash, Paulson was forced to step in by guaranteeing $85 billion of AIG assets in return for preference shares in the insurance company.
During the critical week, 15-19 September, world stock exchanges plunged. The government bail-out of AIG failed to stabilise share markets. At the same time, the price of oil, which had been tending to fall over recent weeks, began to rise – probably due to a panicky buying of oil futures. Paulson and Bernanke evidently realised that they were faced with a stark 1929 situation. If they stood aside, there would undoubtedly be a collapse of the global finance system which, in turn, would provoke a major slump in the world capitalist economy. Having learned the lessons of the 1929 crash, when the Federal Reserve and the US government stood aside and allowed the financial dominoes to collapse, Paulson and Bernanke decided that they had no choice but to step in to save the capitalist system.
On 19 September, Paulson announced his Troubled Asset Relief Programme (Tarp), a $700 billion ‘plan’ to place a floor under collapsing financial institutions and re-stabilise the US and world banking system. Paulson’s announcement averted a global crash, at least for the time being. But it is really a palliative measure that will not in itself overcome the credit crunch and the paralysis of the banking system.
As we go to press, there is news of the bankruptcy of Washington Mutual, the biggest bank failure in US history. WaMu was seized by the regulator (25 September) and sold to JP Morgan Chase.
European banks have also been hammered by their huge losses from toxic subprime mortgage securities. The hardest hit is the Swiss bank, UBS, which has made total write-downs of around $50 billion (more than Merrill Lynch). The Financial Times has commented that many European banks are now not only ‘too big to fail’, but “too big to save”. “For example, the total liabilities of Deutsche Bank (leverage ratio over 50!) amount to about €2000 billion (more than Fannie Mae) or more than 80% of the gross domestic product of Germany. This is simply too much for the Bundesbank or even the German state…” (European Banking Lives on Borrowed Time, Financial Times, 24 September)
Paulson’s package
After the crisis with Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, and the seizing up of the short-term money market (despite continuing, massive injections of liquidity by the Federal Reserve and other central banks) Paulson was forced to announce (18 September) a rescue package, the Tarp. Without giving any details, Paulson proposed to spend $700 billion of taxpayers’ money to establish a toxic waste dump for the unsellable securities still on the books of financial institutions.
A reported $500 billion of losses have already been written off, but some estimates put remaining securities from the housing market at a further $1,000 billion. Global stock exchanges immediately revived following Paulson’s announcement. Almost immediately, however, congressional leaders, both Democrat and Republican, began to protest at the sweeping character of Paulson’s rescue plan and the extraordinary powers that he was claiming as treasury secretary.
Paulson proposed that the treasury secretary should be given (initially for two years) unlimited powers to buy securities from anyone at any price according to his discretion. Moreover, he was claiming immunity from any kind of action by courts or administrative agencies of the government. Initially, he proposed buying the securities from US banks only, but soon widened this to include the US subsidiaries of foreign banks.
If this were accepted by Congress, Paulson would be the most powerful treasury secretary in US history. On its cover, Newsweek dubbed him ‘King Henry’. In effect, the treasury secretary would become the economic executive of US capitalism, with no oversight (merely reporting to Congress twice a year), a rival source of power to the presidency itself.
Like Bush after 9/11, Paulson, backed by Bernanke, is attempting to use the threat of global financial collapse to get rapid congressional approval of his proposals without a thorough discussion of their content. Paulson, for instance, is demanding the package should be ‘clean’, meaning that it should not be encumbered by any proposals such as the government acquisition of shares in exchange for buying toxic debt, or limits on the remuneration of bankers, or relief to homeowners facing foreclosure. Keen to bail out bankrupt bankers, Paulson brutally rejects the legitimate claims of home-buyers.
Paulson is proposing to pay something near the face value of toxic securities, over 60 cents in the dollar, as opposed to their current market value of 20 or 30 cents. Moreover, a variety of banks, finance houses and other companies are lobbying to widen the scope of the rescue. For instance, there are demands for municipal bonds, credit card debt and car-purchase debt to be included. Wall Street firms are already looking forward to the fees they hope to collect from being drawn in to administer the operations of Paulson’s programme.
It is hardly surprising, then, that the heads of finance companies are enthusiastic about Paulson’s proposals. However, some free-market Republicans have vehemently denounced the plan as the ‘socialisation of debt’. Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky, proclaimed: “The free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America”. He said that Paulson’s plan would “take Wall Street’s pain and spread it to the taxpayers… It’s financial socialism, and it’s un-American”.
Democrat leaders, on the other hand, are demanding measures to help distressed homeowners. Paulson has rejected this demand on the grounds that the bundles of toxic securities are too complex to allow the reduction of individual homeowners’ payments. “The banking and securities industries… are fighting the change with all their might, as they did when it came up with the housing bill that was adopted in July”. (International Herald Tribune, 24 September)
Paulson’s current proposal is completely different from the measure used to rescue the savings and loans banks (thrifts) in the early 1990s. At that time, the US government effectively nationalised the failing thrifts, and sold off their remaining assets over a period, before returning the thrifts to private ownership. The robust growth of the economy after 1994 restored the value of mortgaged property and allowed the government to recover part of the cost of the rescue.
A similar measure was taken by the Swedish government after the collapse of the housing bubble in 1991-92. The government nationalised a large section of the Swedish banking sector, cutting out the shareholders of these failed institutions and, subsequently again, any sellable assets were sold off and the banks were later returned to the private sector. The rescue, however, cost about 4% of Sweden’s gross domestic product (though some of this was recovered over time). The US capitalist class, however, would undoubtedly strongly resist full-scale nationalisation of the US banking sector.
The current Paulson rescue proposal, costing around $700 billion, is the equivalent of about 5% of GDP. However, Paulson has no intention of taking over the failed US banks, merely bailing them out by buying up their toxic debts, thus allowing them to replenish their capital and carry on as usual. Paulson is not even demanding shares in the banks in return for buying their bad debt.
Will Paulson get congressional approval for his package? Given the strength of congressional opposition, there is likely to be some delay, and Paulson may be forced to accept some modifications, particularly to the extraordinary, unchecked powers he is claiming. However, faced with the threat of further falls in financial markets and the possibility of new convulsions, it seems likely that Congress will accept the package in one form or another before dispersing for the November elections.
A socialist alternative
Paulson claims that people do not care who owns the banks. Millions of homeowners, however, will care that the government is using taxpayers’ money to bail out the banks which have sold and securitised toxic mortgages while millions are facing penal interest rates and the threat of foreclosure. In fact, millions of Americans are already incensed at Paulson’s plan.
Community organisations, unions, and all those who defend the interests of working people should demand that, instead of the nationalisation of finance capital’s toxic assets and bad debts, the banks and financial institutions (insurance companies, hedge funds, etc) should be nationalised and run in a democratically planned way under workers’ control and management. Compensation for small shareholders and depositors should be on the basis of need only.
The banking sector should be run to promote the interests of industries providing goods and services needed by the majority of the population, not funding the speculative activities of a hyper-rich minority of financiers. The banks should provide cheap mortgages for personal home buyers (with a ceiling to exclude luxury houses for the wealthy). They should also provide cheap credit to small businesses and small farmers serving the needs of local communities.
Such measures, of course, would for many raise the question of ownership and control of wider sectors of the economy, and the need for democratic planning to replace the anarchy of the market and the naked pursuit of personal profit. The US government, for instance, is currently considering a package of state-guaranteed loans to the big auto companies, Ford, Chrysler and GM. These corporations are in deep crisis and should also be taken over and run under democratic workers’ control and management to meet the needs of society.
Unions and community groups should totally oppose all foreclosures. Where dodgy mortgages have been sold through fraud or deception, they should be cancelled. Home buyers who cannot meet their mortgage repayments should have the right to rent the property at an affordable, social rent. Where, through foreclosures and the bankruptcy of builders and property companies, there are empty houses, state and municipal government should take over unoccupied homes and rent them out at affordable rents. Decisions regarding mortgage defaults, foreclosures, and home owners’ rights in general, should be taken not by government officials or bankruptcy courts, but by popular, elected committees which will safeguard the rights of working people.
A new period
If passed by Congress, Paulson’s package, probably with some modifications, may avert a financial crash. There will still be serious wrangles over the detailed measures to be implemented. However, the rescue plan will not in itself revive the finance sector. The US housing crisis, the root of the credit crunch, is far from over. Huge losses in the financial sector mean that the credit crunch will continue for years, even if the toxic waste is taken over by the government.
The rescue of the finance sector will not avert a recession in the US economy, which is already gathering pace. Moreover, the US slowdown, combined with financial crisis in many other economies, is pushing the world towards an economic downturn. There is now a sharp recession in the European economies. Japan, after a weak recovery in recent years, has once again lapsed into zero growth. China, still seen as a dynamo of the world economy, is expected to slow down from 11-12% growth to around 8% during 2008. Though 8% is relatively high, this would have serious effects within China, economically and politically.
The underlying crisis of capitalist production and profitability has been postponed several times since the 1980s through a series of financial bubbles that have fuelled debt-based consumer spending in the US and elsewhere (driving the production of cheap goods in China and other low-cost economies). But now is the time of reckoning. The collapse of the extreme debt mountain almost certainly means a prolonged period of weak growth in the world capitalist economy. Undoubtedly, there will still be an economic cycle, but it is not likely that there will be a return to the kind of global boom that was experienced between 2001-07.
The recent phase of accelerated globalisation and unfettered neo-liberal policies is drawing to a close and an entirely new period of developments is opening. Massive state intervention in the finance sector has wider implications for trade, international currency flows and industrial policy. There will be even deeper tensions between the major capitalist powers. Prolonged stagnation, punctuated by weak recoveries and renewed recession, will provoke social crisis and mighty political struggles. The economic crisis of capitalism is also an ideological and political crisis, and this unavoidably places Marxism back on the political agenda.
2008年9月2日星期二
我译国际工人委员会（CWI)的俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚
俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚
5天战争的影响
战争对高加索地区和其他地方意味着什么？
Rob Jones， 工人国际委员会CWI ，莫斯科 2008年8月23日
由于俄罗斯和高加索格鲁吉亚共和国在很小的分离地区南奥塞梯上的冲突突然升级为一场恶梦般的军事冲突，世界各地媒体的关注焦点转离了中国的奥运会。
南奥塞梯的首府茨欣瓦利在数周的日趋紧张后，格鲁吉亚总统米哈伊尔萨卡什维利出兵夺取了该地区。在8月6日和8月7日的晚上，格鲁吉亚军队用自动武器和火炮袭击了茨欣瓦利和其他五个市镇。对于在最初阶段战斗中死亡的人数，有着不同的说法。
一名俄罗斯记者说，南奥塞梯的首府已严重受损。来自茨欣瓦利的Zaid Tsarnayev告诉路透社说“城市被摧毁，有许多人员伤亡，许多人受伤。” “昨天我在医院，我看到了许多平民受伤。医院后来被格鲁吉亚喷气式飞机摧毁，我不知道是否受伤者仍然在那里” 。南奥塞梯的总统，爱德华科科伊季和俄罗斯外长拉夫罗夫都声称有超过1500人，主要是平民在袭击期间被炸死，至少有15个驻茨欣瓦利的俄罗斯的“维持和平部队”士兵被打死。
随着格鲁吉亚部队夺取城镇，俄罗斯军队以表面上保卫该地区的人民的名义开着一群重型坦克越过俄罗斯进入南奥塞梯的山区。在茨欣瓦利，战斗再次爆发，几天来，无论是俄罗斯还是格鲁吉亚方面的军事发言人都声称他们自己控制了该城镇。双方都使用了自己的空军。
扩大着的破坏
俄罗斯军队随后离开南奥塞梯，占领了哥里市并且袭击了格鲁吉亚其余整个军事和经济目标。哥里市和茨欣瓦利一样遭受了重创。许多人在袭击中丧生或受伤。格鲁吉亚还声称，俄罗斯飞机轰炸了格鲁吉亚在黑海港口的船舶而且还袭击了穿越该国的石油和天然气管道。
萨卡什维利宣称格鲁吉亚进入战争状态，宣布征召预备役军人，并立即撤出了该国驻伊拉克的特遣队。在伊拉克，格鲁吉亚有2000名军人，是继美国和英国后的第三大队伍。双方承受了巨大的要求缓和冲突的外交压力。美国出来并公开地和俄罗斯敌对起来，事实上在整个冲突中，赖斯握着萨卡什维利的手。欧盟试图更加的中立，默克尔和萨尔科齐穿梭于两国首都之间试图找到一种妥协。与高加索地区相邻的伊朗充当了争端斡旋者的角色，而中国呼吁停火，“ 这是奥运会期间传统的回应” ！
现在，虽然许多俄罗斯军队继续留在格鲁吉亚，战争似乎结束了。但是，世界已经发生急剧变化。
地区紧张局势升级
2006年末格鲁吉亚周边地区长期的紧张局势的升级，与之相应的是国际上美国和俄罗斯关系越来越紧张。由于多项因素，俄罗斯政府所谓的“冻结的冲突”升温起来。今年7月第比利斯附近的军事演习中投入了超过一千名美国海军陆战队，格鲁吉亚继续试图加入北约，（虽然今年年初其最后的尝试被拒绝）以及格鲁吉亚公开支持美国导弹防御系统部署在东欧，这些因素都发挥了作用使得冲突越来越深。
不凑巧的是可能因为格鲁吉亚拘捕四名俄罗斯间谍，2006年年底俄罗斯当局发起了针对居住在俄罗斯的格鲁吉亚人的恶劣的种族主义运动。政府实施了对格鲁吉亚的货物主要是葡萄酒和白兰地的经济抵制。结果是很多咖啡厅和酒吧都“干涸了” 。同时，生活在莫斯科的格鲁吉亚人受到的骚扰戏剧性地增加-不断进行护照和工作许可证的检查。俄罗斯电视显示，数百名格鲁吉亚人，在假定'非法'的情况下被载入“紧急情况部“的飞机驱逐出境。数百人通过列车被驱逐出境。
北约的问题使得双方的观点两级化。萨卡什维利把格鲁吉亚加入北约作为他的政府的一个基本政策。因此，令他感到强烈失望的是今年早些时候格鲁吉亚加入北约的申请在布加勒斯特会议上被拒绝了（同乌克兰一起）。一些分析家曾暗示他因此想通过攻击南奥塞梯以便让北约采取行动站在格鲁吉亚一边。这是一个不太可能的说法。萨卡什维利的政府一直面临着越来越多的经济困难。对于大多数的人来说，玫瑰革命的承诺和希望，即格鲁吉亚将加入西方世界将带来较高的生活水准和自由，已落空。
越来越多的反对
随着对其统治反对的增多，示威者开始走上街，2007年11月初，萨卡什维利使用警察和军队打击第比利斯的示威者并宣布国家进入紧急状态。那时，为了能越过这一日益严重的反对声浪，今年1月萨卡什维利宣布提前进行总统大选和决定何时举行议会选举的公民投票。同时，他再次当选，反对党指责萨卡什维利“巧妙操纵”一月的选举。这些事件至少导致一些欧洲列强开始试图和萨卡什维利拉开距离。因此，这更可能是萨卡什维利垂死挣扎，而不是经过深思熟虑的战略计划。
对俄罗斯政府而言，一个关键的转折点是在今年二月对科索沃独立的承认。这是俄罗斯在巴尔干地区的利益的一个打击，因为它看到了一个公开亲美的科索沃政府，该政府是不符合俄罗斯的历史上的盟友塞尔维亚的意愿的。俄罗斯的统治精英恨得咬牙切齿。当时仍是俄罗斯总统的普京指出， “科索沃的做法是一个可怕的先例，实际上这将冲击整个国际关系体系，该冲击的发展不至几十年，而且要几个世纪。他们没有想过他们所做事情的结果。事已做完的时候，这是一个双节棍，其第二节会折回打在他们自己的脸上“ 。
俄罗斯派往北约的特使，民族主义的政客，好久以来一直是克里姆林宫的重要人物的德米特里罗戈津表示的更是明确。他表示这一决定意味着： “我们也不得不从如下观点来办事，即为了得到尊重，我们必须使用蛮力，换句话说用武力” 。此评论紧跟着他先前的关于北约东扩的评论，罗戈津指出： “一旦格鲁吉亚得到华盛顿允许其加入北约的承诺，第二天这两个地区从格鲁吉亚分离出来的进程将马上开始” 。
随着承认科索沃的独立，俄罗斯取消了它曾经对阿布哈兹和南奥塞梯施加的经济限制以便在该共和国加强对它的支持。今年2月至8月的六个月里双方的挑衅行为不断升级，包括飞入禁飞区和枪击事件。在萨卡什维利攻击茨欣瓦利的几个星期之前，俄罗斯派出数十名“铁路”部队进入南奥塞梯，表面上是为了恢复与莫斯科铁路连接。这被第比利斯视为对其领土主权实施的敌对行为，而事实上它有助于解释为什么俄罗斯军队可以这么快地把坦克和军队推进茨欣瓦利。
虚伪——战争的一个症象
正如俄罗斯领导人指出的，美国指责俄罗斯进入格鲁吉亚是令人难以置信的虚伪。毕竟，伊拉克战争是非法的而且残酷。但8月的第二个星期公开战争的爆发见证了双方更令人难以置信的虚伪和宣传。
突然，美国反对起自决权，虽然它支持科索沃独立。俄罗斯支持自决权，虽然它已发动两次残酷的战争以阻止车臣独立。西部亲格鲁吉亚的媒体新闻几乎完全站在支持萨卡什维利的立场上。几乎完全忽略格鲁吉亚部队对茨欣瓦利的首先发动的攻击。城市遭到重炮轰击导致许多平民死亡。后果之一是有12名俄罗斯“维和”士兵也被打死。当俄罗斯派出坦克进入格鲁吉亚后，新闻界主导的消息是俄罗斯侵占该地区。最初的五天战争已经结束之后，才出现文章，例如在位于英国的报纸卫报上，片面地暗示美国应对冲突负责。
俄罗斯媒体站在克里姆林宫一边。专栏只报道茨欣瓦利人民的苦难，而一字不提俄罗斯军队进入格鲁吉亚，或对哥里市狂暴袭击。在没有独立的检查的情况下，夸大其词和谣言漫天飞。他们报道着科科伊季和俄罗斯外长拉夫罗夫声称的在格鲁吉亚的最初攻击中有1600到2000名的平民被炸死的消息。不过，人权观察，在医院调查后，说不超过100名被杀害。
不过这足以使俄罗斯派进部队了。在五天里面，在整个格鲁吉亚，随处可见俄罗斯坦克纵队。同时，亲俄罗斯的目击者盲目地宣称他们看到了成队的北约部队通过格鲁吉亚。双方的试图“客观地”报道的记者成了受害人。俄罗斯国际广播“今日俄罗斯”的一名记者试图从第比利斯发送有关俄罗斯袭击的报告而被迫辞职。企图通过俄罗斯前往南奥塞梯的来自西方的记者受到解雇的威胁。双方抛出了不同的术语，如“法西斯主义者”萨卡什维利，对奥塞梯人的“种族灭绝”， “侵略者”或“斯大林主义的”克里姆林宫来发泄情绪和隐藏真正问题以及分散人们对发生着的人类的严重灾难的注意力。
因此，社会主义者会说些什么呢？
社会主义者立足于什么是有利于或不利于劳动阶层和穷人上。我们反对用经验主义的方法来分析情况的做法——也就是'谁开了第一枪？ ' 我们也不把我们的立场放在伪装的国家利益上。因此，我们只是看到了一些疑问： “谁是亲美帝国主义的或反美帝国主义的？ ” ，而其他人问： “谁是亲俄或反俄的？ ” 但这些问题没有看到如下这一点：这冲突的真正原因是华盛顿和莫斯科的统治阶级间竞争着的帝国主义利益。这就是为什么双方的工人运动必须保持其独立性的原因。
许多左派人士 ，特别是源自斯大林主义的传统的左派，选择了给予俄罗斯的资本主义关键性的支持的做法，他们这样做的基础性认识是在当今世界上俄罗斯及其盟国是对美帝国主义的肆无忌惮最好的防御。这是基于如下悲观的评估：国际工人阶级是没有能力团结起来斗争以推翻资本主义的。他们还相信他们正在支持一个“较小的邪恶” 。
带有改良主义倾向的左派人士和其他人谈及到了在有争议的地区需要一个“中立”部队以监督维持和平，呼吁使用联合国（UN）或欧安组织（OSCE）的部队。然而，正如前南斯拉夫或卢旺达的经历所显示的，这些特遣队也捍卫他们自己的政府的政策并且没有能力维持和平。事实上，巴尔干地区冲突中最严重的大屠杀在斯雷布雷尼察发生时，联合国维和部队无动于衷。
在俄罗斯，革命的马克思主义者所面对的形势是特别困难的。社会上有令人难以置信的要求支持俄罗斯的行动的压力。摆在我们面前的有各种各样的问题——“我们应该如何捍卫俄罗斯护照持有人的权利？ ” “为什么俄罗斯不应该勇敢地抵抗美帝国主义及其傀儡格鲁吉亚萨卡什维利？ ” “当然，如果南奥塞梯的人民要与北奥塞梯统一起来，他们应该有这个权利吗？ “ ”俄罗斯军队进入格鲁吉亚以确保格鲁吉亚军队被解除武装而使他们不可以再攻击我们？ “ ”社会主义是抽象的，现在必须做些什么， “这些问题都需要回答的，但我们也明白，有时社会主义者必须采取长远的看法和采取站在工人阶级的利益上的坚定立场。
应保护谁？
苏联的崩溃和资本主义之恢复的整个悲剧是没有独立的工人阶级的组织能够提供一个方案以结束斯大林主义和资本主义的恐怖。后果之一是，工人阶级分崩离析，社会退化和民族分裂已成为一种规范，这是毫不奇怪的，这是资本主义的本质。即使是“现代的，文明的”的国家，如比利时，英国和西班牙都没有成功地解决民族问题。但在前苏联，新生的资本主义精英自觉无恐地在用种族冲突来达到其目的。
社会主义者需要出来说话，不仅是为了受到攻击的民族，而且是在保卫所有民族的广大劳工阶层反对他们的压迫者的权利。这意味着，尽管萨卡什维利政府的侵略政策，我们也不应该支持南奥塞梯科科伊季（kokoiki）政府，该政府建立在克格勃和军代表以及通过走私和黑市交易筹措财政资金的基础上的政府，该政府得到俄罗斯老板的支持。正如萨卡什维利是一个亲美的走卒，科科伊季政府是一个黑手党的政府，捍卫黑手党的利益与支持俄罗斯的帝国主义。因此，我们呼吁奥塞梯，俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚工人阶级的团结以维护他们的共同利益。
享有自决权意味什么？
正如在南奥塞梯（和科索沃）发生的事件中看到的，自决权的问题被双方虚伪地利用着。所谓的领导人，并不意味着工人阶级和穷人的自决权，只是那些拥有军队和强大的朋友的人的自决权。作为真正的社会主义者，我们通过组织工人阶级和国际性的团结来捍卫我们的自决权和打击一切形式的民族歧视和压迫。正如科索沃和南奥塞梯所证明的，在资本主义下，一个民族的真正独立是没有可能性的。寻求这一个或另一个帝国主义力量的支持不是解决办法。发展一个能挑战和推翻资本主义的独立的工人阶级的力量-在国内和国际上-是保证享有自决权唯一的出路。在另一方面，社会主义者始终不主张工人阶级的分离，我们甚至要做工作以便各民族的劳动阶层在行动上能相互团结起来和联合起来。
在南奥塞梯，我们要问，哪个南奥塞梯有自决的权利？南奥塞梯应在俄罗斯联邦的框架下加入北奥塞梯，或作为一个独立的实体呢？南奥塞梯的一部分应脱离另一部分（沿民族线），既把格鲁吉亚的一部分留在格鲁吉亚和奥塞梯的一部分留在俄罗斯吗？或居住在南奥塞梯的人民应该被迫返回到“现状” ？对于这些变化的每一个，我们可以清楚表明，除非推翻资本主义，该地区基本的经济问题和社会问题将不会得到解决，只要资本主义仍然存在着，该地区仍然会因为世界帝国主义势力为了控制石油和天然气管道而冲突不断，压迫性的民族主义政府为了富人和有权有势的人而将沿民族界限把人们分离开来。
我们支持一个基于社会上的工人和穷人有权决定他们希望生活在什么地方的真正的民族自决权。这只有当劳动阶层和穷人建立起有能力捍卫自己的利益的自己的组织时方能实现。同时，一个自决权不应该以牺牲另一个自决权为代价。因此，我们支持在一个联邦或邦联结构下的任何团体的自治或独立的权利，如果他们愿意的话。工人阶级为真正的而不是斯大林主义意义上的社会主义斗争的最高的团结是我们的目标，我们对民族情绪是敏感的。因此，举例来说，如果南奥塞梯决定独立，其中的格鲁吉亚的人口也应该有权自主或独立，如果他们希望这样做的话。
谁可以维护工人的权益呢？
许多人认为现在至少俄罗斯军队将捍卫南奥塞梯的权利。但在过去20年里，军队（无论是以其常规的形式或非正规的形式）表明，它对该地区的介入是为了这部分或那部分俄罗斯统治精英的利益而以各民族的普通百姓的牺牲为代价的。在阿布哈兹的背景下，它参与了对格鲁吉亚人的大屠杀，仅仅因为他们住在错误的地方。他们并不试图反对科科伊季的如下声明：居住在南奥塞梯的格鲁吉亚人不应被允许返回。决不能说俄罗斯军队通过两次残酷的战争保护了车臣人的权利，它也没有能够确保印古什或北奥塞梯的和平。事实上，军队首领的笨拙的做法恶化了别斯兰市的灾难。
在目前的冲突中，俄罗斯军队占领哥里市和攻击格鲁吉亚港口的船只已显示出它是维护俄罗斯的寡头资本家的石油和天然气的利益的。
短期内，有可能为了创造一个稳定的形象，将看到军队在保护当地人口（至少那些没有被阻止返回的人），但它不久将回到其通常的捍卫俄罗斯的统治阶级利益的角色上来。
在其他此类冲突中，我们已提出要建立工人的防卫力量。但在这些条件下，他们不应该仅仅是成立保卫某一特定地区的居民的“ narodnii opolchentsi ” （人民的捍卫者）。这样他们只会成为以民族为基础的民兵。我们必须主张工人的防卫力量应是多民族的，在工人的民主控制下建立这样的力量以保护工人和穷人免受攻击，不论其民族是什么。
在资本主义下，问题能得到解决吗？
只说在高加索地区的民族和种族冲突完全是资本主义的产物就显得太粗糙了。很清楚斯大林主义的遗产及其处理这些问题的官僚主义的方法在该地区留下了痕迹。但恢复资本主义是导致该地区在以控制石油和天然气路线为目的的派系斗争以及帝国主义列强的无休止的冲突的支配下变得极端贫穷。如果不论其民族是什么，能提供所有人适当的住房和就业机会，像样的卫生服务和教育以及退休金，那么争取自决的斗争必须和与资本主义的斗争联系起来。如果工人能被充分地组织起来并在该地区的任何一个共和国取得政治权力，那么，民族的地图将引人注目地重画，因为生活水平的改善和真正的自决的可能性将意味着各民族将能够合作而不是相互冲突。
这是现实吗？
有人会说： “没错，那很好，但现在我们需要做一些事情！”问题是只要该地区被像萨卡什维利，科科伊季或kadyrev这样的人以及他们的华盛顿和莫斯科帝国主义支持者的支配，就没有实际的解决办法。当然，我们欢迎任何短期的缓和问题的做法，但要警告说，一个真正的解决办法是把资本主义赶出该地区。
要达到这个目的，社会主义的纲领必须基于如下几点：
呼吁俄罗斯，格鲁吉亚和南奥塞梯，当然包括其他国家的所有的工人和左翼活动家一起来要求立即停止军事活动。工人不能依靠他们的政府和外交官的不受控制的行动，或一些外部势力的干预来解决冲突，他们只能依靠他们自己的力量。
所有的俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚军队撤出南奥塞梯以及反对其他资本主义国家派送的部队。我们呼吁在工人阶级的民主控制下建立跨民族的工人的防卫部队而不是以所谓的维持和平部队来保护工人和穷人（不论其民族如何）免受攻击。
为南奥塞梯和其他未被承认的共和国得到没有军事干预的自决权。
号召格鲁吉亚，俄罗斯和南奥塞梯的劳工大众采取联合行动以推翻对普通百姓发动战争的这些国家的政府和把帝国主义赶出该地区。
在工人民主的控制和管理下国有化该地区的石油，天然气和其他自然资源以及运送用的管道，把相关收入用来解决该地区的贫困问题。
在民主选举产生的委员会的控制之下，制定一个紧急的建设计划和创造就业机会为该地区的所有民族的所有难民提供住房和收入。
建立将捍卫工人的利益、克服贫困和确保和平的政府。
一个高加索地区的民主的社会主义联邦-没有它，不可能有任何长期解决土地和资源上的冲突的方案。
该地区面临着什么样的未来呢？
无论目前的军事调遣的最后的结果是什么，没有什么问题能得到解决。格鲁吉亚继续被迫使阿布哈兹和南奥塞梯违背它们的意愿回到格鲁吉亚的集团统治下。萨卡什维利以他的的方式攻击南奥塞梯是犯了一个严重的错误。现在许多西方领导人都意识到他是一个不可靠的盟友。美国无法使得北约同意完全支持他，如果奥巴马赢得美国总统大选，美国外交政策的策略可能会改变。萨卡什维利会发现自己的国内支持率的下降和被世界大国控制。格鲁吉亚的一些反对派领导人已发出呼吁进行新的选举以取代萨卡什维利，但如果萨卡什维利只是被另一个新自由主义政治家取代的话，这些不会有任何的效果。有迫切需要在格鲁吉亚建立真正的左翼来替代萨卡什维利。
在俄罗斯， “梅德韦杰夫与普京的”双簧赢得了得不偿失的胜利。这不会是他发动第二次车臣战争后普京总统成功的一个重复。一方面由于这些事件，整个高加索地区将更加不稳定，需要更大的资源来“控制”该地区。而且经济再增长十年的条件已不复存在。美国，欧盟和日本正经历经济减速或经济衰退。石油价格的进一步严重下跌将重重地打击俄罗斯经济。甚至在这些事件之前，外国对俄罗斯的投资已急剧下降。
财政部部长库德林说，由于战争，160亿美元的外国投资已逃离该国。虽然一段时期内，政权可能会得到暂时的加强，这不大可能成为永久性的。如果经济条件恶化，几年后，人们可能回顾并指出南奥塞梯的战争是一个转折点。唯一的问题是是否有能得到群众支持的真正的左翼替代能发展起来。
在作为一个整体的高加索地区，形势是可怕的。帝国主义列强为了控制该地区而进行的斗争将会更痛苦。现在建设天然气管道是个问题，因为投资者对不稳定的不满。俄罗斯使得萨卡什维利得到惩罚的明显的成功可能会鼓励阿泽（Azeri）政权尝试夺取纳戈尔诺-卡拉巴赫，使之回到其控制下。整个高加索地区现有的状况将爆发一场巴尔干类型的战争，不仅涉及区域势力，而且包括主要的帝国主义势力。
国际反响
在国际上，老帝国主义列强发现自己处在一个更为困难的境地。二十年来帝国主义者一直在试图逐步发展与俄罗斯的关系，同时保持自己的优势。现在它认为它创造了一个难以控制的怪兽。北约在如何作出反应上出现了分歧。一方面，波兰，乌克兰和波罗的海国家忙着保卫格鲁吉亚。现在美国反导弹防御系统将在波兰和乌克兰推进部署。
作为回应，白俄罗斯和俄罗斯已经宣布，它们将建立自己的反制系统。八国集团内已呼吁再次返回到七国集团。美国发现在如何对付俄罗斯上，它遭到了一些欧洲资本家的反对。在联合国，美国将在坚持自己的立场上更为困难，俄罗斯将更为有意愿去使用其否决权。由于国际组织如联合国和欧安组织都不情愿把他们的维和部队派往高加索地区，拒不允许俄罗斯去控制。帝国主义列强将被拖入高加索火药库。
但国际条件和1990年代初巴尔干战争时不一样。当时苏联刚刚垮台，资本主义似乎已经赢得了意识形态的斗争，世界经济稳步增长以及工人运动失去方向感并且缺乏领导。现在，人们已开始越来越多地质疑资本主义的问题，世界经济正处于一个可怕的状态，国际上工人运动已开始施展其力量。必须从高加索地区的这场恶梦般的情况中汲取教训和为新的一代在高水平上建立社会主义合作关系开辟道路。
23 August 2008
Russia and Georgia
Implications of a five day war
What does the war mean for the Caucusus and beyond?
Rob Jones, CWI, Moscow
The world’s press had their attention diverted from the glitter of China’s Olympic Games as the conflict between Russia and the Caucasian republic of Georgia over the small breakaway region of South Ossetia suddenly escalated into a nightmarish military conflict.
After weeks of growing tension in South Ossetia’s capital, Tskhinvali, Georgia’s President Mikhail Saakashvili sent troops to seize the region. Over the night of 6th and 7th August Georgian troops attacked Tskhinvali and five other towns with automatic weapons and artillery. Claims vary on the number killed in the initial stages of the fighting.
A Russian journalist said the South Ossetian capital had been badly damaged. "The town is destroyed. There are many casualties, many wounded," Zaid Tsarnayev told Reuters from Tskhinvali. "I was in the hospital yesterday where I saw many civilian wounded. The hospital was later destroyed by a Georgian jet. I don't know whether the wounded were still there". Both South Ossetia’s president, Eduard Kokoiti, and Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, have claimed that over 1500 people, mainly peaceful residents were killed during the attacks. At least 15 Russian “peacekeeping troops” based in Tskhinvali were killed.
With the Georgian troops having initially seized the town, Russian troops, headed by a huge column of heavy tanks, crossed the mountain passes from Russia into South Ossetia, ostensibly to defend the people of the area. Fighting again broke out in Tskhinvali and for days, both Russian and Georgian military spokesmen claimed control of the city. Both sides used their airforce.
Unfolding destruction
Russian troops then moved out of South Ossetia, occupying the city of Gori and attacking military and economic targets throughout the rest of Georgia. Gori ended up in the same state of destruction as Tskhinvali. Many were killed or wounded in these attacks. The Georgians also claim that Russian aircraft bombed ships in Georgia’s Black Sea Ports and that the oil and gas pipelines crossing the country were also attacked.
Saakashvili declared that Georgia was in a state of war, announced the call up of reservists and the immediate withdrawal of the country’s contingent from Iraq. Georgia has 2,000 troops there, the third biggest contingent after the US and Britain,. Huge diplomatic pressure was put on both sides to tone down the conflict. The US came out openly hostile to Russia, with Condoleezza Rice in effect holding Saakashvili’s hand throughout the conflict. The EU tried to be more bi-partisan, with Merkel and Sarkozy shuttling between the two capitals trying to find a compromise. Iran, which borders on the Caucasian region, offered to arbitrate in the dispute, whilst China called for a ceasefire “which is the traditional response during the Olympic Games”!
Now, although many Russian troops remain in Georgia, the fighting war appears to be over. But the world has dramatically changed.
Regional tensions escalated
Long-running tensions in the region around Georgia escalated considerably after the end of 2006 in parallel with the increase in tensions between the US and Russia internationally. What the Russian government called the “frozen conflict” heated up as a result of a number of factors. Military exercises near Tbilisi in July of this year, involving over a thousand US marines, Georgia’s continued attempts to join NATO, (although the last attempt was pushed back at the beginning of this year) and Georgia’s open support for the US missile defence system based in Eastern Europe have all played a role in bringing the conflict closer.
Not coincidentally a nasty racist campaign had been launched by the Russian authorities against Georgians living in Russia towards the end of 2006, supposedly after the Georgians arrested four Russian spies. The government imposed an economic boycott of Georgian goods, mainly wine and brandy. As a result many cafes and bars “ran dry”. At the same time harassment of Georgians living in Moscow was stepped up dramatically – passports and work permits constantly checked. Russian TV showed hundreds of Georgians, who were supposedly ‘illegal’, being loaded onto ‘Ministry of Emergencies’ aircraft for deportation. Many hundreds more were sent by train.
The question of NATO has acted to polarise opinions on both sides. Saakashvili had made the entry of Georgia into NATO a key policy of his administration. He was therefore bitterly disappointed that the application was pushed back (together with the Ukraine’s) at the Bucharest Conference earlier this year. Some analysts have suggested that he therefore decided to attack South Ossetia in order to attempt to push NATO into action on Georgia’s side. This is an unlikely explanation. Saakashvili’s government has been meeting increasing economic difficulties. For the majority of the population, the promises and hopes of the Rose Revolution that somehow Georgia would join the West with its high living standards and freedoms, have been dashed.
Growing opposition
As opposition to his rule grew, protesters began to come out on the streets Saakashvili, in early November 2007, used police and troops to attack demonstrators in Tbilisi and declared a state of emergency. Then, in an attempt to cut across this growing opposition, Saakashvili announced an early presidential election and a referendum on when to hold parliamentary elections in January this year. While he was re-elected the opposition accused Saakashvili of “subtly rigging” January’s election. These events led at least some European powers to begin to try and distance themselves from Saakashvili. It is therefore more likely that Saakashvili, rather than following a well thought out strategic plan, was actually desperately trying to find a way out of the corner into which he had been forced.
A key turning point for the Russian government was the recognition of Kosovo independence in February of this year. This was a blow to Russian interests in the Balkans as it saw an openly pro-US Kosovan government granted recognition against the wishes of Russia’s historical ally Serbia. Russia’s ruling elite reacted with venom spitting through clenched teeth. The then still Russian president, Putin, stated that, “The precedent of Kosovo is a terrible precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of international relations, developed not over decades, but over centuries. They have not thought through the results of what they are doing. At the end of the day it is a two-ended stick and the second end will come back and hit them in the face".
Russia’s envoy to NATO, nationalist politician and long time Kremlin insider Dmitri Rogozin was even more explicit. This decision, he stated means that: "We too would then have to proceed from the view that in order to be respected we must use brute force, in other words armed force". This comment follows on from his earlier comments concerning NATO expansion, in which Rogozin stated: “As soon as Georgia gets the promise to join NATO from Washington, on the next day the real process to separate these two territories from Georgia will begin.”
Following the recognition of Kosova, Russia lifted the economic restrictions it still had in place against Abkhazia and South Ossetia and activated its attempts to strengthen its support in the republics. The sixth months from February to August this year saw a steady increase in incidents provoked by both sides including flights into the no fly zone and shooting incidents. In the weeks before Saakashvili’s attack on Tskhinvali, Russia sent scores of “railway troops” into South Ossetia, ostensibly to restore the rail link with Moscow. This was interpreted by Tbilisi as a hostile act on sovereign territory, and indeed it helps to explain how the Russian army could get tanks and troops into Tskhinvali so quickly.
Hypocrisy – the first sign of war
As the Russian leadership point out, the US is unbelievably hypocritical when it attacks Russia for going in to Georgia. After all the war in Iraq is illegal and just as brutal. But the outbreak of open warfare in the second week of August saw even more incredible hypocrisy and propaganda on both sides.
Suddenly the US is against self-determination, although it supports Kosovo independence. Russia supports self-determination although it has waged two brutal wars to prevent Chechen independence. The western pro-Georgian press put almost purely the pro-Saakashvili position. Almost no attention was paid to the initial attack by Georgian troops on Tskhinvali. The town was subjected to heavy artillery bombardment leaving many of the civilian population dead. As a result 12 Russian “peacekeeping” troops were also killed. After the Russians sent tanks into Georgia, the press was dominated by the Russian occupation. Only after the initial five days war was over did articles start appearing, for example in the Guardian, a British-based newspaper, suggesting, in a one-sided way, that the US was responsible for the conflict.
The Russian press towed the Kremlin line to a man. Columns reported on the suffering of the population in Tskhinvali but not a word was said about Russian troops moving into Georgia, or the vicious attacks on Gori. Exaggerations and rumours were reported with no independent checking. The claims of Kokoiti and Russian foreign minister Lavrov that between 1,600 and 2,000 civilians were killed in Georgia’s initial attack are taken as read. However Human Rights Watch, after surveying hospitals, talks of less than a hundred being killed.
But this was enough for Russia to send the troops in. During the five days, Russian tank columns were spotted throughout Georgia. At the same time pro-Russian witnesses swore blindly they had seen columns of NATO troops moving through Georgia. Reporters on both sides who tried to be “objective” were victimised. A reporter for Russia’s world service, “Russia today”, tried to send reports from Tbilisi reporting on Russian attacks but was forced to resign. Reporters from western papers who attempted to go to South Ossetia through Russia were threatened with the sack. Varying terminology on both sides such as the “fascist” Saakashvili, the “genocide” of the Ossetian people, “aggressors” or the “Stalinist” Kremlin are thrown around to play on emotions and hide the real issues and distract from the grave human catastrophe taking place.
So what would socialists say?
Socialists base themselves on what is beneficial or detrimental to the working class and poor people. We reject attempts to analyse the situation in an empirical way – that is, ‘Who fired the first shot?’ Nor do we base our standpoint on questions that can be used to disguise national interests. Thus we see some asking simply “Who is pro- or anti-US imperialism?”, while others ask “Who is pro- or anti-Russian?” But these questions miss the point that the real reason for this clash is the competing imperialist interests of the ruling classes in both Washington and Moscow. This is why the workers’ movement must maintain its independence from both.
Many lefts, especially from a Stalinist tradition, have chosen to give critical support to Russian capitalism, on the basis that Russia and its allies are the best defence there is in the world today against unbridled US imperialism. This is based on the pessimistic assessment that the international working class is incapable of uniting and struggling to overthrow capitalism. They still imagine they are backing a “lesser evil”.
Lefts with a reformist leaning and others speak of the need for a “neutral” force to oversee peace-keeping in the disputed regions. Calls are made for UN or OSCE troops to be used. However, as the experience of the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda show, these contingents also defend the policies of their own governments and are not capable of maintaining peace. Indeed the worst massacre of the conflicts in the Balkans, at Srebrenica took place while UN peacekeepers looked the other way.
In particular, the position facing revolutionary Marxists in Russia is hard. There is incredible pressure in society to support the Russian actions. All sorts of questions are thrown at us - “How else are we supposed to defend the rights of the Russian passport holders?” “Why shouldn’t Russia stand up to US imperialism and its Georgian puppet Saakashvili?” “Surely if the people of South Ossetia want to unite with North Ossetia, they should have the right?” “Russian troops are in Georgia just to ensure that the Georgian army is disarmed and can no longer attack us?” “Socialism is abstract, something has to be done now.” These questions have to be answered, but we also understand that sometimes socialists must adopt the longer view and take a firm position in the interests of the working class.
Who should be defended?
The whole tragedy of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism is that there was no independent working class organisation capable of offering a programme to end the horrors of Stalinism and capitalism. As a consequence, the working class has become divided; social degradation and ethnic division have become the norm. This is no surprise. This is in the nature of capitalism. Even “modern, civilised” states such as Belgium, Britain and Spain have not succeeded in solving the national question. But in the former Soviet Union the newly developed capitalist elites have not baulked at consciously using ethnic conflict to further their aims.
Socialists need to speak out, not only in favour of the ethnic group under attack, but also in defence of the rights of the working class of all ethnic groups against their oppressors. This means, notwithstanding the aggressive policies of the Saakashvili government, we should give no support to the Kokoiki government in South Ossetia, based on KGB and army representatives and financing itself through smuggling and the black market, with the support of its Russian paymasters. Just as Saakashvili is a pro-American stooge, the Kokoiti government is a mafia government, defending mafia interests with the backing of Russian imperialism. We therefore call for the unity of the Ossetian, Russian and Georgian working class in defence of their common interests.
What does the right of self-determination mean?
As seen in the events around South Ossetia (and Kosova), the question of self-determination is used hypocritically by both sides. So-called leaders do not mean self-determination for the working class and poor, just for those who have armies and powerful friends. As genuine socialists, we defend the right of self-determination and fight against all forms of national discrimination and oppression through organising working class and international solidarity. As Kosovo and South Ossetia demonstrate, under capitalism there is no possibility of a nation being genuinely independent. Seeking the support of one or another imperialist power is no solution. Developing an independent working class force capable of challenging and overthrowing capitalism – nationally and internationally – is the only way to guarantee the right of self-determination. On the other hand, socialists do not always advocate separation and even when we do work to build the solidarity between and unity in action of the working class of all nationalities.
In South Ossetia, we have to ask which South Ossetia has the right to self-determination? Should South Ossetia join with North Ossetia, within the Russian Federation or as an independent entity? Should part of South Ossetia break away from another part (along ethnic lines) leaving the Georgian part in Georgia and the Ossetian part in Russia? Or should the people who live in South Ossetia be forced to return to the “status quo”? In each of these variations, we can say clearly that the fundamental economic and social problems of the region will not be solved unless capitalism is overthrown, So long as capitalism remains the region will still be subject to the permanent conflict of the world’s imperialist powers for control of the oil and gas pipelines, that repressive and nationalist governments will attempt to divide people along ethnic lines in the interests of the rich and powerful.
We support a genuine right to self-determination based on the rights of the working class and poor in society to decide where they wish to live. This can only be determined when the working class and poor have established their own organisations capable of defending their interests. At the same time self-determination of one group should not be at the expense of another. We therefore support the right to autonomy or independence of any groups within a federal or confederal structure if they so desire. While the maximum unity of the working class in the struggle for socialism, in the genuine and not Stalinist meaning, is our aim we are sensitive to national feelings. Thus if, for example, South Ossetia decided to become independent, the Georgian population within it should have the right to be autonomous or independent, if they so wish.
Who can defend the rights of workers?
Many now argue that at least the Russian army will defend the rights of South Ossetia now. But during the course of the last twenty years, the army (either in its regular form or through irregular units) has shown that it intervenes in the region in the interest of one section or another of the Russian ruling elite at the cost of ordinary people of all nationalities. In the Abkhazia context, it participated in the massacre of Georgians, for no other reason than that they lived in the wrong place. No attempt has been made to counter the recent statements of Kokoiti that Georgians living in Ossetia should not be allowed to return. In no way can the Russian army be said to have defended the rights of Chechens through two brutal wars, nor has it been able to ensure peace in Ingushetia or North Ossetia. Indeed it was the bungling of the army chiefs that worsened the Beslan catastrophe.
During the present conflict, by occupying Gori and attacking ships in Georgian ports, the Russian army has shown it is defending the oil and gas interests of Russia’s capitalist oligarchs.
It may be possible that for a short period, to create an image of stability, the army will be seen to defend the local population (at least those who have not been prevented from returning) but it will soon return to its normal role of defending the interests of the Russian ruling class.
In other such conflicts, we have raised the need to establish workers’ defence forces. But in these conditions they should not be simply “narodnii opolchentsi”, (people’s defenders) formed to defend residents of a particular area. As such they would just become ethnically-based militias. We need to argue that workers’ defence forces should be multi-ethnic, formed to defend workers and the poor from attack, whatever their nationality and under the democratic control of the working class.
Can the question be solved under capitalism?
It is too crude to say that the national and ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus are entirely the result of capitalism. The legacy of Stalinism and its bureaucratic approach to the question of nationalities has clearly left its mark in the region. However it has been the restoration of capitalism that has left the region so desperately poor, under the control of warring factions struggling to control oil and gas routes and subject to the never ending conflict between imperialist powers. If proper homes and jobs, a decent health service and education, pensions are to be provided for all, irrespective of nationality, then the struggle for self-determination has to be linked to the struggle against capitalism. If workers were to be sufficiently organised to take political power in any of the republics in that region, then the nationalities map would be dramatically re-drawn as the improvement in living standards and the possibility of genuine self determination would mean that ethnic groups would be able to cooperate and not be in conflict with each other.
Is this realistic?
Some will say, “Yes, that’s nice but we need to do something now!” The problem is that there is no realistic solution as long as the region is dominated by the likes of Saakashvili, Kokoiti or Kadyrev and by their imperialist backers in Washington and Moscow. Of course we would welcome any short-term easing of the problems but have to warn that, to reach a genuine solution, capitalism has to be driven out of the region.
To achieve this the socialists’ programme is based around:
• a call on all worker and left activists in Russia, Georgia and South Ossetia, and of course in other countries, to demand that military activities are immediately halted. Workers cannot rely on the uncontrolled actions of their governments, diplomats or intervention by some outside forces to solve the conflict, they can only rely on their own forces.
• the withdrawal of all Russian and Georgian troops from South Ossetia and oppose troops supplied by other capitalist states. We call for the formation of trans-ethnic workers’ defence forces to defend workers and poor people from attack, whatever their nationality, and under the democratic control of the working class rather than so-called peace-keeping forces.
• for the right of South Ossetia and the other unrecognised republics to self-determination without military intervention.
• for united action by the working masses of Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia to overthrow those governments who wage war against ordinary people and to drive imperialism out of the region.
• the nationalisation under democratic workers’ control and management of the oil, gas and other natural resources in the region and the pipelines through which they are transported and for the use of the income from these for overcoming poverty in the region.
• an emergency construction programme and job creation to provide homes and incomes for all refugees of all nationalities in the region, under the control of democratically elected committees.
• the establishment of governments which will defend workers’ interests, overcome poverty and ensure peace.
• for a democratic socialist federation of the Caucasus - without this there can be no long-term solution to the conflict over land and resources.
What future now faces the region?
Whatever the final outcome of the current military manoeuvrings, nothing has been resolved. Georgia continues to be ruled by a clique set on forcing Abkhazia and South Ossetia against their will back into Georgia. Saakashvili has made a serious error in attacking South Ossetia in the way he did. Now many western leaders are realising that he is an unreliable ally. The US could not get NATO to agree to fully back him, and, if Obama wins the US Presidential election, US foreign policy tactics may change. Saakashvili will find himself with declining support at home and held at arm’s length by the world powers. Some opposition leaders in Georgia have issued the call for elections to replace Saakashvili, but these will have no purpose if Saakashvili is just replaced by another set of neoliberal politicians. There is an urgent need in Georgia to build a genuine left wing alternative to Saakashvili.
In Russia, the “Medvedev-Putin” tandem has won a Pyrrhic victory. This will not be a repeat of the success of Putin’s presidency after he waged the second Chechen war. On the one hand the whole Caucasus region will be more unstable as a result of these events, demanding even greater resources to “control” the area. But also the conditions no longer exist for a further ten years of economic growth. The US, EU and Japan are now experiencing a slow-down or recession. A further major fall in oil prices would hit the Russian economy hard. There was already a sharp decline in foreign investment into Russia even before these events.
Finance Minister Kudrin says that as a result of the war $16 billion of foreign investment has fled the country. Although for a period there may be a temporary strengthening of the regime, this is unlikely to be permanent. If economic conditions worsen, in a couple of years people could well look back and say that the South Ossetia war was a turning point. The only question is whether a serious left wing alternative capable of building mass support can develop in time.
In the Caucasus as a whole, the situation is dire. The struggle by imperialist powers for control will be even more bitter. The building of the gas pipeline is now under question as the investors are unhappy about the instability. The apparent success of Russia in bringing Saakashvili to book may encourage the Azeri regime to try and wrest Nagorno Karabakh back under its control. The conditions now exist throughout the Caucasus for the explosion of a Balkan type of war, involving not only the regional powers but the major imperialist ones as well.
International repercussions
Internationally, the older imperialist powers find themselves in a much more difficult position. For two decades imperialism has been trying to gradually develop relations with Russia while maintaining their own superiority. Now it finds it has created a monster that is difficult to control. NATO is divided on how to react. On the one hand, Poland, the Ukraine and the Baltic States rushed to Georgia’s defence. The US anti-missile defence system will now go ahead in Poland and the Ukraine.
In reply, Belarus and Russia have announced they will build their own system in opposition. Calls have been made within the G8 to once again return to G7. The US is finding itself in opposition to some of the European capitalists over how to deal with Russia. And in the United Nations the US will find it much harder to carry its position, as Russia will be more willing to use its veto. Whilst the international organisations such as the UN and OSCE are reluctant for their peacekeeping troops to be pulled into the Caucasus, refusal will leave Russia in control. The imperialist powers are being dragged into the Caucasian powder keg.
But the conditions internationally are not the same as those at the start of the nineteen nineties, when the Balkan wars started. Then the Soviet Union had just collapsed, capitalism appeared to have won the ideological war, the world economy was growing steadily and the workers’ movement was disorientated and leaderless. Now, people are beginning to question capitalism more and more, the world economy is in a dire state, the workers movement internationally is beginning to flex its muscles. The lessons of this nightmare situation in the Caucasus must be learned and the way opened for new generations to establish socialist cooperation on the highest scale.
5天战争的影响
战争对高加索地区和其他地方意味着什么？
Rob Jones， 工人国际委员会CWI ，莫斯科 2008年8月23日
由于俄罗斯和高加索格鲁吉亚共和国在很小的分离地区南奥塞梯上的冲突突然升级为一场恶梦般的军事冲突，世界各地媒体的关注焦点转离了中国的奥运会。
南奥塞梯的首府茨欣瓦利在数周的日趋紧张后，格鲁吉亚总统米哈伊尔萨卡什维利出兵夺取了该地区。在8月6日和8月7日的晚上，格鲁吉亚军队用自动武器和火炮袭击了茨欣瓦利和其他五个市镇。对于在最初阶段战斗中死亡的人数，有着不同的说法。
一名俄罗斯记者说，南奥塞梯的首府已严重受损。来自茨欣瓦利的Zaid Tsarnayev告诉路透社说“城市被摧毁，有许多人员伤亡，许多人受伤。” “昨天我在医院，我看到了许多平民受伤。医院后来被格鲁吉亚喷气式飞机摧毁，我不知道是否受伤者仍然在那里” 。南奥塞梯的总统，爱德华科科伊季和俄罗斯外长拉夫罗夫都声称有超过1500人，主要是平民在袭击期间被炸死，至少有15个驻茨欣瓦利的俄罗斯的“维持和平部队”士兵被打死。
随着格鲁吉亚部队夺取城镇，俄罗斯军队以表面上保卫该地区的人民的名义开着一群重型坦克越过俄罗斯进入南奥塞梯的山区。在茨欣瓦利，战斗再次爆发，几天来，无论是俄罗斯还是格鲁吉亚方面的军事发言人都声称他们自己控制了该城镇。双方都使用了自己的空军。
扩大着的破坏
俄罗斯军队随后离开南奥塞梯，占领了哥里市并且袭击了格鲁吉亚其余整个军事和经济目标。哥里市和茨欣瓦利一样遭受了重创。许多人在袭击中丧生或受伤。格鲁吉亚还声称，俄罗斯飞机轰炸了格鲁吉亚在黑海港口的船舶而且还袭击了穿越该国的石油和天然气管道。
萨卡什维利宣称格鲁吉亚进入战争状态，宣布征召预备役军人，并立即撤出了该国驻伊拉克的特遣队。在伊拉克，格鲁吉亚有2000名军人，是继美国和英国后的第三大队伍。双方承受了巨大的要求缓和冲突的外交压力。美国出来并公开地和俄罗斯敌对起来，事实上在整个冲突中，赖斯握着萨卡什维利的手。欧盟试图更加的中立，默克尔和萨尔科齐穿梭于两国首都之间试图找到一种妥协。与高加索地区相邻的伊朗充当了争端斡旋者的角色，而中国呼吁停火，“ 这是奥运会期间传统的回应” ！
现在，虽然许多俄罗斯军队继续留在格鲁吉亚，战争似乎结束了。但是，世界已经发生急剧变化。
地区紧张局势升级
2006年末格鲁吉亚周边地区长期的紧张局势的升级，与之相应的是国际上美国和俄罗斯关系越来越紧张。由于多项因素，俄罗斯政府所谓的“冻结的冲突”升温起来。今年7月第比利斯附近的军事演习中投入了超过一千名美国海军陆战队，格鲁吉亚继续试图加入北约，（虽然今年年初其最后的尝试被拒绝）以及格鲁吉亚公开支持美国导弹防御系统部署在东欧，这些因素都发挥了作用使得冲突越来越深。
不凑巧的是可能因为格鲁吉亚拘捕四名俄罗斯间谍，2006年年底俄罗斯当局发起了针对居住在俄罗斯的格鲁吉亚人的恶劣的种族主义运动。政府实施了对格鲁吉亚的货物主要是葡萄酒和白兰地的经济抵制。结果是很多咖啡厅和酒吧都“干涸了” 。同时，生活在莫斯科的格鲁吉亚人受到的骚扰戏剧性地增加-不断进行护照和工作许可证的检查。俄罗斯电视显示，数百名格鲁吉亚人，在假定'非法'的情况下被载入“紧急情况部“的飞机驱逐出境。数百人通过列车被驱逐出境。
北约的问题使得双方的观点两级化。萨卡什维利把格鲁吉亚加入北约作为他的政府的一个基本政策。因此，令他感到强烈失望的是今年早些时候格鲁吉亚加入北约的申请在布加勒斯特会议上被拒绝了（同乌克兰一起）。一些分析家曾暗示他因此想通过攻击南奥塞梯以便让北约采取行动站在格鲁吉亚一边。这是一个不太可能的说法。萨卡什维利的政府一直面临着越来越多的经济困难。对于大多数的人来说，玫瑰革命的承诺和希望，即格鲁吉亚将加入西方世界将带来较高的生活水准和自由，已落空。
越来越多的反对
随着对其统治反对的增多，示威者开始走上街，2007年11月初，萨卡什维利使用警察和军队打击第比利斯的示威者并宣布国家进入紧急状态。那时，为了能越过这一日益严重的反对声浪，今年1月萨卡什维利宣布提前进行总统大选和决定何时举行议会选举的公民投票。同时，他再次当选，反对党指责萨卡什维利“巧妙操纵”一月的选举。这些事件至少导致一些欧洲列强开始试图和萨卡什维利拉开距离。因此，这更可能是萨卡什维利垂死挣扎，而不是经过深思熟虑的战略计划。
对俄罗斯政府而言，一个关键的转折点是在今年二月对科索沃独立的承认。这是俄罗斯在巴尔干地区的利益的一个打击，因为它看到了一个公开亲美的科索沃政府，该政府是不符合俄罗斯的历史上的盟友塞尔维亚的意愿的。俄罗斯的统治精英恨得咬牙切齿。当时仍是俄罗斯总统的普京指出， “科索沃的做法是一个可怕的先例，实际上这将冲击整个国际关系体系，该冲击的发展不至几十年，而且要几个世纪。他们没有想过他们所做事情的结果。事已做完的时候，这是一个双节棍，其第二节会折回打在他们自己的脸上“ 。
俄罗斯派往北约的特使，民族主义的政客，好久以来一直是克里姆林宫的重要人物的德米特里罗戈津表示的更是明确。他表示这一决定意味着： “我们也不得不从如下观点来办事，即为了得到尊重，我们必须使用蛮力，换句话说用武力” 。此评论紧跟着他先前的关于北约东扩的评论，罗戈津指出： “一旦格鲁吉亚得到华盛顿允许其加入北约的承诺，第二天这两个地区从格鲁吉亚分离出来的进程将马上开始” 。
随着承认科索沃的独立，俄罗斯取消了它曾经对阿布哈兹和南奥塞梯施加的经济限制以便在该共和国加强对它的支持。今年2月至8月的六个月里双方的挑衅行为不断升级，包括飞入禁飞区和枪击事件。在萨卡什维利攻击茨欣瓦利的几个星期之前，俄罗斯派出数十名“铁路”部队进入南奥塞梯，表面上是为了恢复与莫斯科铁路连接。这被第比利斯视为对其领土主权实施的敌对行为，而事实上它有助于解释为什么俄罗斯军队可以这么快地把坦克和军队推进茨欣瓦利。
虚伪——战争的一个症象
正如俄罗斯领导人指出的，美国指责俄罗斯进入格鲁吉亚是令人难以置信的虚伪。毕竟，伊拉克战争是非法的而且残酷。但8月的第二个星期公开战争的爆发见证了双方更令人难以置信的虚伪和宣传。
突然，美国反对起自决权，虽然它支持科索沃独立。俄罗斯支持自决权，虽然它已发动两次残酷的战争以阻止车臣独立。西部亲格鲁吉亚的媒体新闻几乎完全站在支持萨卡什维利的立场上。几乎完全忽略格鲁吉亚部队对茨欣瓦利的首先发动的攻击。城市遭到重炮轰击导致许多平民死亡。后果之一是有12名俄罗斯“维和”士兵也被打死。当俄罗斯派出坦克进入格鲁吉亚后，新闻界主导的消息是俄罗斯侵占该地区。最初的五天战争已经结束之后，才出现文章，例如在位于英国的报纸卫报上，片面地暗示美国应对冲突负责。
俄罗斯媒体站在克里姆林宫一边。专栏只报道茨欣瓦利人民的苦难，而一字不提俄罗斯军队进入格鲁吉亚，或对哥里市狂暴袭击。在没有独立的检查的情况下，夸大其词和谣言漫天飞。他们报道着科科伊季和俄罗斯外长拉夫罗夫声称的在格鲁吉亚的最初攻击中有1600到2000名的平民被炸死的消息。不过，人权观察，在医院调查后，说不超过100名被杀害。
不过这足以使俄罗斯派进部队了。在五天里面，在整个格鲁吉亚，随处可见俄罗斯坦克纵队。同时，亲俄罗斯的目击者盲目地宣称他们看到了成队的北约部队通过格鲁吉亚。双方的试图“客观地”报道的记者成了受害人。俄罗斯国际广播“今日俄罗斯”的一名记者试图从第比利斯发送有关俄罗斯袭击的报告而被迫辞职。企图通过俄罗斯前往南奥塞梯的来自西方的记者受到解雇的威胁。双方抛出了不同的术语，如“法西斯主义者”萨卡什维利，对奥塞梯人的“种族灭绝”， “侵略者”或“斯大林主义的”克里姆林宫来发泄情绪和隐藏真正问题以及分散人们对发生着的人类的严重灾难的注意力。
因此，社会主义者会说些什么呢？
社会主义者立足于什么是有利于或不利于劳动阶层和穷人上。我们反对用经验主义的方法来分析情况的做法——也就是'谁开了第一枪？ ' 我们也不把我们的立场放在伪装的国家利益上。因此，我们只是看到了一些疑问： “谁是亲美帝国主义的或反美帝国主义的？ ” ，而其他人问： “谁是亲俄或反俄的？ ” 但这些问题没有看到如下这一点：这冲突的真正原因是华盛顿和莫斯科的统治阶级间竞争着的帝国主义利益。这就是为什么双方的工人运动必须保持其独立性的原因。
许多左派人士 ，特别是源自斯大林主义的传统的左派，选择了给予俄罗斯的资本主义关键性的支持的做法，他们这样做的基础性认识是在当今世界上俄罗斯及其盟国是对美帝国主义的肆无忌惮最好的防御。这是基于如下悲观的评估：国际工人阶级是没有能力团结起来斗争以推翻资本主义的。他们还相信他们正在支持一个“较小的邪恶” 。
带有改良主义倾向的左派人士和其他人谈及到了在有争议的地区需要一个“中立”部队以监督维持和平，呼吁使用联合国（UN）或欧安组织（OSCE）的部队。然而，正如前南斯拉夫或卢旺达的经历所显示的，这些特遣队也捍卫他们自己的政府的政策并且没有能力维持和平。事实上，巴尔干地区冲突中最严重的大屠杀在斯雷布雷尼察发生时，联合国维和部队无动于衷。
在俄罗斯，革命的马克思主义者所面对的形势是特别困难的。社会上有令人难以置信的要求支持俄罗斯的行动的压力。摆在我们面前的有各种各样的问题——“我们应该如何捍卫俄罗斯护照持有人的权利？ ” “为什么俄罗斯不应该勇敢地抵抗美帝国主义及其傀儡格鲁吉亚萨卡什维利？ ” “当然，如果南奥塞梯的人民要与北奥塞梯统一起来，他们应该有这个权利吗？ “ ”俄罗斯军队进入格鲁吉亚以确保格鲁吉亚军队被解除武装而使他们不可以再攻击我们？ “ ”社会主义是抽象的，现在必须做些什么， “这些问题都需要回答的，但我们也明白，有时社会主义者必须采取长远的看法和采取站在工人阶级的利益上的坚定立场。
应保护谁？
苏联的崩溃和资本主义之恢复的整个悲剧是没有独立的工人阶级的组织能够提供一个方案以结束斯大林主义和资本主义的恐怖。后果之一是，工人阶级分崩离析，社会退化和民族分裂已成为一种规范，这是毫不奇怪的，这是资本主义的本质。即使是“现代的，文明的”的国家，如比利时，英国和西班牙都没有成功地解决民族问题。但在前苏联，新生的资本主义精英自觉无恐地在用种族冲突来达到其目的。
社会主义者需要出来说话，不仅是为了受到攻击的民族，而且是在保卫所有民族的广大劳工阶层反对他们的压迫者的权利。这意味着，尽管萨卡什维利政府的侵略政策，我们也不应该支持南奥塞梯科科伊季（kokoiki）政府，该政府建立在克格勃和军代表以及通过走私和黑市交易筹措财政资金的基础上的政府，该政府得到俄罗斯老板的支持。正如萨卡什维利是一个亲美的走卒，科科伊季政府是一个黑手党的政府，捍卫黑手党的利益与支持俄罗斯的帝国主义。因此，我们呼吁奥塞梯，俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚工人阶级的团结以维护他们的共同利益。
享有自决权意味什么？
正如在南奥塞梯（和科索沃）发生的事件中看到的，自决权的问题被双方虚伪地利用着。所谓的领导人，并不意味着工人阶级和穷人的自决权，只是那些拥有军队和强大的朋友的人的自决权。作为真正的社会主义者，我们通过组织工人阶级和国际性的团结来捍卫我们的自决权和打击一切形式的民族歧视和压迫。正如科索沃和南奥塞梯所证明的，在资本主义下，一个民族的真正独立是没有可能性的。寻求这一个或另一个帝国主义力量的支持不是解决办法。发展一个能挑战和推翻资本主义的独立的工人阶级的力量-在国内和国际上-是保证享有自决权唯一的出路。在另一方面，社会主义者始终不主张工人阶级的分离，我们甚至要做工作以便各民族的劳动阶层在行动上能相互团结起来和联合起来。
在南奥塞梯，我们要问，哪个南奥塞梯有自决的权利？南奥塞梯应在俄罗斯联邦的框架下加入北奥塞梯，或作为一个独立的实体呢？南奥塞梯的一部分应脱离另一部分（沿民族线），既把格鲁吉亚的一部分留在格鲁吉亚和奥塞梯的一部分留在俄罗斯吗？或居住在南奥塞梯的人民应该被迫返回到“现状” ？对于这些变化的每一个，我们可以清楚表明，除非推翻资本主义，该地区基本的经济问题和社会问题将不会得到解决，只要资本主义仍然存在着，该地区仍然会因为世界帝国主义势力为了控制石油和天然气管道而冲突不断，压迫性的民族主义政府为了富人和有权有势的人而将沿民族界限把人们分离开来。
我们支持一个基于社会上的工人和穷人有权决定他们希望生活在什么地方的真正的民族自决权。这只有当劳动阶层和穷人建立起有能力捍卫自己的利益的自己的组织时方能实现。同时，一个自决权不应该以牺牲另一个自决权为代价。因此，我们支持在一个联邦或邦联结构下的任何团体的自治或独立的权利，如果他们愿意的话。工人阶级为真正的而不是斯大林主义意义上的社会主义斗争的最高的团结是我们的目标，我们对民族情绪是敏感的。因此，举例来说，如果南奥塞梯决定独立，其中的格鲁吉亚的人口也应该有权自主或独立，如果他们希望这样做的话。
谁可以维护工人的权益呢？
许多人认为现在至少俄罗斯军队将捍卫南奥塞梯的权利。但在过去20年里，军队（无论是以其常规的形式或非正规的形式）表明，它对该地区的介入是为了这部分或那部分俄罗斯统治精英的利益而以各民族的普通百姓的牺牲为代价的。在阿布哈兹的背景下，它参与了对格鲁吉亚人的大屠杀，仅仅因为他们住在错误的地方。他们并不试图反对科科伊季的如下声明：居住在南奥塞梯的格鲁吉亚人不应被允许返回。决不能说俄罗斯军队通过两次残酷的战争保护了车臣人的权利，它也没有能够确保印古什或北奥塞梯的和平。事实上，军队首领的笨拙的做法恶化了别斯兰市的灾难。
在目前的冲突中，俄罗斯军队占领哥里市和攻击格鲁吉亚港口的船只已显示出它是维护俄罗斯的寡头资本家的石油和天然气的利益的。
短期内，有可能为了创造一个稳定的形象，将看到军队在保护当地人口（至少那些没有被阻止返回的人），但它不久将回到其通常的捍卫俄罗斯的统治阶级利益的角色上来。
在其他此类冲突中，我们已提出要建立工人的防卫力量。但在这些条件下，他们不应该仅仅是成立保卫某一特定地区的居民的“ narodnii opolchentsi ” （人民的捍卫者）。这样他们只会成为以民族为基础的民兵。我们必须主张工人的防卫力量应是多民族的，在工人的民主控制下建立这样的力量以保护工人和穷人免受攻击，不论其民族是什么。
在资本主义下，问题能得到解决吗？
只说在高加索地区的民族和种族冲突完全是资本主义的产物就显得太粗糙了。很清楚斯大林主义的遗产及其处理这些问题的官僚主义的方法在该地区留下了痕迹。但恢复资本主义是导致该地区在以控制石油和天然气路线为目的的派系斗争以及帝国主义列强的无休止的冲突的支配下变得极端贫穷。如果不论其民族是什么，能提供所有人适当的住房和就业机会，像样的卫生服务和教育以及退休金，那么争取自决的斗争必须和与资本主义的斗争联系起来。如果工人能被充分地组织起来并在该地区的任何一个共和国取得政治权力，那么，民族的地图将引人注目地重画，因为生活水平的改善和真正的自决的可能性将意味着各民族将能够合作而不是相互冲突。
这是现实吗？
有人会说： “没错，那很好，但现在我们需要做一些事情！”问题是只要该地区被像萨卡什维利，科科伊季或kadyrev这样的人以及他们的华盛顿和莫斯科帝国主义支持者的支配，就没有实际的解决办法。当然，我们欢迎任何短期的缓和问题的做法，但要警告说，一个真正的解决办法是把资本主义赶出该地区。
要达到这个目的，社会主义的纲领必须基于如下几点：
呼吁俄罗斯，格鲁吉亚和南奥塞梯，当然包括其他国家的所有的工人和左翼活动家一起来要求立即停止军事活动。工人不能依靠他们的政府和外交官的不受控制的行动，或一些外部势力的干预来解决冲突，他们只能依靠他们自己的力量。
所有的俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚军队撤出南奥塞梯以及反对其他资本主义国家派送的部队。我们呼吁在工人阶级的民主控制下建立跨民族的工人的防卫部队而不是以所谓的维持和平部队来保护工人和穷人（不论其民族如何）免受攻击。
为南奥塞梯和其他未被承认的共和国得到没有军事干预的自决权。
号召格鲁吉亚，俄罗斯和南奥塞梯的劳工大众采取联合行动以推翻对普通百姓发动战争的这些国家的政府和把帝国主义赶出该地区。
在工人民主的控制和管理下国有化该地区的石油，天然气和其他自然资源以及运送用的管道，把相关收入用来解决该地区的贫困问题。
在民主选举产生的委员会的控制之下，制定一个紧急的建设计划和创造就业机会为该地区的所有民族的所有难民提供住房和收入。
建立将捍卫工人的利益、克服贫困和确保和平的政府。
一个高加索地区的民主的社会主义联邦-没有它，不可能有任何长期解决土地和资源上的冲突的方案。
该地区面临着什么样的未来呢？
无论目前的军事调遣的最后的结果是什么，没有什么问题能得到解决。格鲁吉亚继续被迫使阿布哈兹和南奥塞梯违背它们的意愿回到格鲁吉亚的集团统治下。萨卡什维利以他的的方式攻击南奥塞梯是犯了一个严重的错误。现在许多西方领导人都意识到他是一个不可靠的盟友。美国无法使得北约同意完全支持他，如果奥巴马赢得美国总统大选，美国外交政策的策略可能会改变。萨卡什维利会发现自己的国内支持率的下降和被世界大国控制。格鲁吉亚的一些反对派领导人已发出呼吁进行新的选举以取代萨卡什维利，但如果萨卡什维利只是被另一个新自由主义政治家取代的话，这些不会有任何的效果。有迫切需要在格鲁吉亚建立真正的左翼来替代萨卡什维利。
在俄罗斯， “梅德韦杰夫与普京的”双簧赢得了得不偿失的胜利。这不会是他发动第二次车臣战争后普京总统成功的一个重复。一方面由于这些事件，整个高加索地区将更加不稳定，需要更大的资源来“控制”该地区。而且经济再增长十年的条件已不复存在。美国，欧盟和日本正经历经济减速或经济衰退。石油价格的进一步严重下跌将重重地打击俄罗斯经济。甚至在这些事件之前，外国对俄罗斯的投资已急剧下降。
财政部部长库德林说，由于战争，160亿美元的外国投资已逃离该国。虽然一段时期内，政权可能会得到暂时的加强，这不大可能成为永久性的。如果经济条件恶化，几年后，人们可能回顾并指出南奥塞梯的战争是一个转折点。唯一的问题是是否有能得到群众支持的真正的左翼替代能发展起来。
在作为一个整体的高加索地区，形势是可怕的。帝国主义列强为了控制该地区而进行的斗争将会更痛苦。现在建设天然气管道是个问题，因为投资者对不稳定的不满。俄罗斯使得萨卡什维利得到惩罚的明显的成功可能会鼓励阿泽（Azeri）政权尝试夺取纳戈尔诺-卡拉巴赫，使之回到其控制下。整个高加索地区现有的状况将爆发一场巴尔干类型的战争，不仅涉及区域势力，而且包括主要的帝国主义势力。
国际反响
在国际上，老帝国主义列强发现自己处在一个更为困难的境地。二十年来帝国主义者一直在试图逐步发展与俄罗斯的关系，同时保持自己的优势。现在它认为它创造了一个难以控制的怪兽。北约在如何作出反应上出现了分歧。一方面，波兰，乌克兰和波罗的海国家忙着保卫格鲁吉亚。现在美国反导弹防御系统将在波兰和乌克兰推进部署。
作为回应，白俄罗斯和俄罗斯已经宣布，它们将建立自己的反制系统。八国集团内已呼吁再次返回到七国集团。美国发现在如何对付俄罗斯上，它遭到了一些欧洲资本家的反对。在联合国，美国将在坚持自己的立场上更为困难，俄罗斯将更为有意愿去使用其否决权。由于国际组织如联合国和欧安组织都不情愿把他们的维和部队派往高加索地区，拒不允许俄罗斯去控制。帝国主义列强将被拖入高加索火药库。
但国际条件和1990年代初巴尔干战争时不一样。当时苏联刚刚垮台，资本主义似乎已经赢得了意识形态的斗争，世界经济稳步增长以及工人运动失去方向感并且缺乏领导。现在，人们已开始越来越多地质疑资本主义的问题，世界经济正处于一个可怕的状态，国际上工人运动已开始施展其力量。必须从高加索地区的这场恶梦般的情况中汲取教训和为新的一代在高水平上建立社会主义合作关系开辟道路。
23 August 2008
Russia and Georgia
Implications of a five day war
What does the war mean for the Caucusus and beyond?
Rob Jones, CWI, Moscow
The world’s press had their attention diverted from the glitter of China’s Olympic Games as the conflict between Russia and the Caucasian republic of Georgia over the small breakaway region of South Ossetia suddenly escalated into a nightmarish military conflict.
After weeks of growing tension in South Ossetia’s capital, Tskhinvali, Georgia’s President Mikhail Saakashvili sent troops to seize the region. Over the night of 6th and 7th August Georgian troops attacked Tskhinvali and five other towns with automatic weapons and artillery. Claims vary on the number killed in the initial stages of the fighting.
A Russian journalist said the South Ossetian capital had been badly damaged. "The town is destroyed. There are many casualties, many wounded," Zaid Tsarnayev told Reuters from Tskhinvali. "I was in the hospital yesterday where I saw many civilian wounded. The hospital was later destroyed by a Georgian jet. I don't know whether the wounded were still there". Both South Ossetia’s president, Eduard Kokoiti, and Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, have claimed that over 1500 people, mainly peaceful residents were killed during the attacks. At least 15 Russian “peacekeeping troops” based in Tskhinvali were killed.
With the Georgian troops having initially seized the town, Russian troops, headed by a huge column of heavy tanks, crossed the mountain passes from Russia into South Ossetia, ostensibly to defend the people of the area. Fighting again broke out in Tskhinvali and for days, both Russian and Georgian military spokesmen claimed control of the city. Both sides used their airforce.
Unfolding destruction
Russian troops then moved out of South Ossetia, occupying the city of Gori and attacking military and economic targets throughout the rest of Georgia. Gori ended up in the same state of destruction as Tskhinvali. Many were killed or wounded in these attacks. The Georgians also claim that Russian aircraft bombed ships in Georgia’s Black Sea Ports and that the oil and gas pipelines crossing the country were also attacked.
Saakashvili declared that Georgia was in a state of war, announced the call up of reservists and the immediate withdrawal of the country’s contingent from Iraq. Georgia has 2,000 troops there, the third biggest contingent after the US and Britain,. Huge diplomatic pressure was put on both sides to tone down the conflict. The US came out openly hostile to Russia, with Condoleezza Rice in effect holding Saakashvili’s hand throughout the conflict. The EU tried to be more bi-partisan, with Merkel and Sarkozy shuttling between the two capitals trying to find a compromise. Iran, which borders on the Caucasian region, offered to arbitrate in the dispute, whilst China called for a ceasefire “which is the traditional response during the Olympic Games”!
Now, although many Russian troops remain in Georgia, the fighting war appears to be over. But the world has dramatically changed.
Regional tensions escalated
Long-running tensions in the region around Georgia escalated considerably after the end of 2006 in parallel with the increase in tensions between the US and Russia internationally. What the Russian government called the “frozen conflict” heated up as a result of a number of factors. Military exercises near Tbilisi in July of this year, involving over a thousand US marines, Georgia’s continued attempts to join NATO, (although the last attempt was pushed back at the beginning of this year) and Georgia’s open support for the US missile defence system based in Eastern Europe have all played a role in bringing the conflict closer.
Not coincidentally a nasty racist campaign had been launched by the Russian authorities against Georgians living in Russia towards the end of 2006, supposedly after the Georgians arrested four Russian spies. The government imposed an economic boycott of Georgian goods, mainly wine and brandy. As a result many cafes and bars “ran dry”. At the same time harassment of Georgians living in Moscow was stepped up dramatically – passports and work permits constantly checked. Russian TV showed hundreds of Georgians, who were supposedly ‘illegal’, being loaded onto ‘Ministry of Emergencies’ aircraft for deportation. Many hundreds more were sent by train.
The question of NATO has acted to polarise opinions on both sides. Saakashvili had made the entry of Georgia into NATO a key policy of his administration. He was therefore bitterly disappointed that the application was pushed back (together with the Ukraine’s) at the Bucharest Conference earlier this year. Some analysts have suggested that he therefore decided to attack South Ossetia in order to attempt to push NATO into action on Georgia’s side. This is an unlikely explanation. Saakashvili’s government has been meeting increasing economic difficulties. For the majority of the population, the promises and hopes of the Rose Revolution that somehow Georgia would join the West with its high living standards and freedoms, have been dashed.
Growing opposition
As opposition to his rule grew, protesters began to come out on the streets Saakashvili, in early November 2007, used police and troops to attack demonstrators in Tbilisi and declared a state of emergency. Then, in an attempt to cut across this growing opposition, Saakashvili announced an early presidential election and a referendum on when to hold parliamentary elections in January this year. While he was re-elected the opposition accused Saakashvili of “subtly rigging” January’s election. These events led at least some European powers to begin to try and distance themselves from Saakashvili. It is therefore more likely that Saakashvili, rather than following a well thought out strategic plan, was actually desperately trying to find a way out of the corner into which he had been forced.
A key turning point for the Russian government was the recognition of Kosovo independence in February of this year. This was a blow to Russian interests in the Balkans as it saw an openly pro-US Kosovan government granted recognition against the wishes of Russia’s historical ally Serbia. Russia’s ruling elite reacted with venom spitting through clenched teeth. The then still Russian president, Putin, stated that, “The precedent of Kosovo is a terrible precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of international relations, developed not over decades, but over centuries. They have not thought through the results of what they are doing. At the end of the day it is a two-ended stick and the second end will come back and hit them in the face".
Russia’s envoy to NATO, nationalist politician and long time Kremlin insider Dmitri Rogozin was even more explicit. This decision, he stated means that: "We too would then have to proceed from the view that in order to be respected we must use brute force, in other words armed force". This comment follows on from his earlier comments concerning NATO expansion, in which Rogozin stated: “As soon as Georgia gets the promise to join NATO from Washington, on the next day the real process to separate these two territories from Georgia will begin.”
Following the recognition of Kosova, Russia lifted the economic restrictions it still had in place against Abkhazia and South Ossetia and activated its attempts to strengthen its support in the republics. The sixth months from February to August this year saw a steady increase in incidents provoked by both sides including flights into the no fly zone and shooting incidents. In the weeks before Saakashvili’s attack on Tskhinvali, Russia sent scores of “railway troops” into South Ossetia, ostensibly to restore the rail link with Moscow. This was interpreted by Tbilisi as a hostile act on sovereign territory, and indeed it helps to explain how the Russian army could get tanks and troops into Tskhinvali so quickly.
Hypocrisy – the first sign of war
As the Russian leadership point out, the US is unbelievably hypocritical when it attacks Russia for going in to Georgia. After all the war in Iraq is illegal and just as brutal. But the outbreak of open warfare in the second week of August saw even more incredible hypocrisy and propaganda on both sides.
Suddenly the US is against self-determination, although it supports Kosovo independence. Russia supports self-determination although it has waged two brutal wars to prevent Chechen independence. The western pro-Georgian press put almost purely the pro-Saakashvili position. Almost no attention was paid to the initial attack by Georgian troops on Tskhinvali. The town was subjected to heavy artillery bombardment leaving many of the civilian population dead. As a result 12 Russian “peacekeeping” troops were also killed. After the Russians sent tanks into Georgia, the press was dominated by the Russian occupation. Only after the initial five days war was over did articles start appearing, for example in the Guardian, a British-based newspaper, suggesting, in a one-sided way, that the US was responsible for the conflict.
The Russian press towed the Kremlin line to a man. Columns reported on the suffering of the population in Tskhinvali but not a word was said about Russian troops moving into Georgia, or the vicious attacks on Gori. Exaggerations and rumours were reported with no independent checking. The claims of Kokoiti and Russian foreign minister Lavrov that between 1,600 and 2,000 civilians were killed in Georgia’s initial attack are taken as read. However Human Rights Watch, after surveying hospitals, talks of less than a hundred being killed.
But this was enough for Russia to send the troops in. During the five days, Russian tank columns were spotted throughout Georgia. At the same time pro-Russian witnesses swore blindly they had seen columns of NATO troops moving through Georgia. Reporters on both sides who tried to be “objective” were victimised. A reporter for Russia’s world service, “Russia today”, tried to send reports from Tbilisi reporting on Russian attacks but was forced to resign. Reporters from western papers who attempted to go to South Ossetia through Russia were threatened with the sack. Varying terminology on both sides such as the “fascist” Saakashvili, the “genocide” of the Ossetian people, “aggressors” or the “Stalinist” Kremlin are thrown around to play on emotions and hide the real issues and distract from the grave human catastrophe taking place.
So what would socialists say?
Socialists base themselves on what is beneficial or detrimental to the working class and poor people. We reject attempts to analyse the situation in an empirical way – that is, ‘Who fired the first shot?’ Nor do we base our standpoint on questions that can be used to disguise national interests. Thus we see some asking simply “Who is pro- or anti-US imperialism?”, while others ask “Who is pro- or anti-Russian?” But these questions miss the point that the real reason for this clash is the competing imperialist interests of the ruling classes in both Washington and Moscow. This is why the workers’ movement must maintain its independence from both.
Many lefts, especially from a Stalinist tradition, have chosen to give critical support to Russian capitalism, on the basis that Russia and its allies are the best defence there is in the world today against unbridled US imperialism. This is based on the pessimistic assessment that the international working class is incapable of uniting and struggling to overthrow capitalism. They still imagine they are backing a “lesser evil”.
Lefts with a reformist leaning and others speak of the need for a “neutral” force to oversee peace-keeping in the disputed regions. Calls are made for UN or OSCE troops to be used. However, as the experience of the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda show, these contingents also defend the policies of their own governments and are not capable of maintaining peace. Indeed the worst massacre of the conflicts in the Balkans, at Srebrenica took place while UN peacekeepers looked the other way.
In particular, the position facing revolutionary Marxists in Russia is hard. There is incredible pressure in society to support the Russian actions. All sorts of questions are thrown at us - “How else are we supposed to defend the rights of the Russian passport holders?” “Why shouldn’t Russia stand up to US imperialism and its Georgian puppet Saakashvili?” “Surely if the people of South Ossetia want to unite with North Ossetia, they should have the right?” “Russian troops are in Georgia just to ensure that the Georgian army is disarmed and can no longer attack us?” “Socialism is abstract, something has to be done now.” These questions have to be answered, but we also understand that sometimes socialists must adopt the longer view and take a firm position in the interests of the working class.
Who should be defended?
The whole tragedy of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism is that there was no independent working class organisation capable of offering a programme to end the horrors of Stalinism and capitalism. As a consequence, the working class has become divided; social degradation and ethnic division have become the norm. This is no surprise. This is in the nature of capitalism. Even “modern, civilised” states such as Belgium, Britain and Spain have not succeeded in solving the national question. But in the former Soviet Union the newly developed capitalist elites have not baulked at consciously using ethnic conflict to further their aims.
Socialists need to speak out, not only in favour of the ethnic group under attack, but also in defence of the rights of the working class of all ethnic groups against their oppressors. This means, notwithstanding the aggressive policies of the Saakashvili government, we should give no support to the Kokoiki government in South Ossetia, based on KGB and army representatives and financing itself through smuggling and the black market, with the support of its Russian paymasters. Just as Saakashvili is a pro-American stooge, the Kokoiti government is a mafia government, defending mafia interests with the backing of Russian imperialism. We therefore call for the unity of the Ossetian, Russian and Georgian working class in defence of their common interests.
What does the right of self-determination mean?
As seen in the events around South Ossetia (and Kosova), the question of self-determination is used hypocritically by both sides. So-called leaders do not mean self-determination for the working class and poor, just for those who have armies and powerful friends. As genuine socialists, we defend the right of self-determination and fight against all forms of national discrimination and oppression through organising working class and international solidarity. As Kosovo and South Ossetia demonstrate, under capitalism there is no possibility of a nation being genuinely independent. Seeking the support of one or another imperialist power is no solution. Developing an independent working class force capable of challenging and overthrowing capitalism – nationally and internationally – is the only way to guarantee the right of self-determination. On the other hand, socialists do not always advocate separation and even when we do work to build the solidarity between and unity in action of the working class of all nationalities.
In South Ossetia, we have to ask which South Ossetia has the right to self-determination? Should South Ossetia join with North Ossetia, within the Russian Federation or as an independent entity? Should part of South Ossetia break away from another part (along ethnic lines) leaving the Georgian part in Georgia and the Ossetian part in Russia? Or should the people who live in South Ossetia be forced to return to the “status quo”? In each of these variations, we can say clearly that the fundamental economic and social problems of the region will not be solved unless capitalism is overthrown, So long as capitalism remains the region will still be subject to the permanent conflict of the world’s imperialist powers for control of the oil and gas pipelines, that repressive and nationalist governments will attempt to divide people along ethnic lines in the interests of the rich and powerful.
We support a genuine right to self-determination based on the rights of the working class and poor in society to decide where they wish to live. This can only be determined when the working class and poor have established their own organisations capable of defending their interests. At the same time self-determination of one group should not be at the expense of another. We therefore support the right to autonomy or independence of any groups within a federal or confederal structure if they so desire. While the maximum unity of the working class in the struggle for socialism, in the genuine and not Stalinist meaning, is our aim we are sensitive to national feelings. Thus if, for example, South Ossetia decided to become independent, the Georgian population within it should have the right to be autonomous or independent, if they so wish.
Who can defend the rights of workers?
Many now argue that at least the Russian army will defend the rights of South Ossetia now. But during the course of the last twenty years, the army (either in its regular form or through irregular units) has shown that it intervenes in the region in the interest of one section or another of the Russian ruling elite at the cost of ordinary people of all nationalities. In the Abkhazia context, it participated in the massacre of Georgians, for no other reason than that they lived in the wrong place. No attempt has been made to counter the recent statements of Kokoiti that Georgians living in Ossetia should not be allowed to return. In no way can the Russian army be said to have defended the rights of Chechens through two brutal wars, nor has it been able to ensure peace in Ingushetia or North Ossetia. Indeed it was the bungling of the army chiefs that worsened the Beslan catastrophe.
During the present conflict, by occupying Gori and attacking ships in Georgian ports, the Russian army has shown it is defending the oil and gas interests of Russia’s capitalist oligarchs.
It may be possible that for a short period, to create an image of stability, the army will be seen to defend the local population (at least those who have not been prevented from returning) but it will soon return to its normal role of defending the interests of the Russian ruling class.
In other such conflicts, we have raised the need to establish workers’ defence forces. But in these conditions they should not be simply “narodnii opolchentsi”, (people’s defenders) formed to defend residents of a particular area. As such they would just become ethnically-based militias. We need to argue that workers’ defence forces should be multi-ethnic, formed to defend workers and the poor from attack, whatever their nationality and under the democratic control of the working class.
Can the question be solved under capitalism?
It is too crude to say that the national and ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus are entirely the result of capitalism. The legacy of Stalinism and its bureaucratic approach to the question of nationalities has clearly left its mark in the region. However it has been the restoration of capitalism that has left the region so desperately poor, under the control of warring factions struggling to control oil and gas routes and subject to the never ending conflict between imperialist powers. If proper homes and jobs, a decent health service and education, pensions are to be provided for all, irrespective of nationality, then the struggle for self-determination has to be linked to the struggle against capitalism. If workers were to be sufficiently organised to take political power in any of the republics in that region, then the nationalities map would be dramatically re-drawn as the improvement in living standards and the possibility of genuine self determination would mean that ethnic groups would be able to cooperate and not be in conflict with each other.
Is this realistic?
Some will say, “Yes, that’s nice but we need to do something now!” The problem is that there is no realistic solution as long as the region is dominated by the likes of Saakashvili, Kokoiti or Kadyrev and by their imperialist backers in Washington and Moscow. Of course we would welcome any short-term easing of the problems but have to warn that, to reach a genuine solution, capitalism has to be driven out of the region.
To achieve this the socialists’ programme is based around:
• a call on all worker and left activists in Russia, Georgia and South Ossetia, and of course in other countries, to demand that military activities are immediately halted. Workers cannot rely on the uncontrolled actions of their governments, diplomats or intervention by some outside forces to solve the conflict, they can only rely on their own forces.
• the withdrawal of all Russian and Georgian troops from South Ossetia and oppose troops supplied by other capitalist states. We call for the formation of trans-ethnic workers’ defence forces to defend workers and poor people from attack, whatever their nationality, and under the democratic control of the working class rather than so-called peace-keeping forces.
• for the right of South Ossetia and the other unrecognised republics to self-determination without military intervention.
• for united action by the working masses of Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia to overthrow those governments who wage war against ordinary people and to drive imperialism out of the region.
• the nationalisation under democratic workers’ control and management of the oil, gas and other natural resources in the region and the pipelines through which they are transported and for the use of the income from these for overcoming poverty in the region.
• an emergency construction programme and job creation to provide homes and incomes for all refugees of all nationalities in the region, under the control of democratically elected committees.
• the establishment of governments which will defend workers’ interests, overcome poverty and ensure peace.
• for a democratic socialist federation of the Caucasus - without this there can be no long-term solution to the conflict over land and resources.
What future now faces the region?
Whatever the final outcome of the current military manoeuvrings, nothing has been resolved. Georgia continues to be ruled by a clique set on forcing Abkhazia and South Ossetia against their will back into Georgia. Saakashvili has made a serious error in attacking South Ossetia in the way he did. Now many western leaders are realising that he is an unreliable ally. The US could not get NATO to agree to fully back him, and, if Obama wins the US Presidential election, US foreign policy tactics may change. Saakashvili will find himself with declining support at home and held at arm’s length by the world powers. Some opposition leaders in Georgia have issued the call for elections to replace Saakashvili, but these will have no purpose if Saakashvili is just replaced by another set of neoliberal politicians. There is an urgent need in Georgia to build a genuine left wing alternative to Saakashvili.
In Russia, the “Medvedev-Putin” tandem has won a Pyrrhic victory. This will not be a repeat of the success of Putin’s presidency after he waged the second Chechen war. On the one hand the whole Caucasus region will be more unstable as a result of these events, demanding even greater resources to “control” the area. But also the conditions no longer exist for a further ten years of economic growth. The US, EU and Japan are now experiencing a slow-down or recession. A further major fall in oil prices would hit the Russian economy hard. There was already a sharp decline in foreign investment into Russia even before these events.
Finance Minister Kudrin says that as a result of the war $16 billion of foreign investment has fled the country. Although for a period there may be a temporary strengthening of the regime, this is unlikely to be permanent. If economic conditions worsen, in a couple of years people could well look back and say that the South Ossetia war was a turning point. The only question is whether a serious left wing alternative capable of building mass support can develop in time.
In the Caucasus as a whole, the situation is dire. The struggle by imperialist powers for control will be even more bitter. The building of the gas pipeline is now under question as the investors are unhappy about the instability. The apparent success of Russia in bringing Saakashvili to book may encourage the Azeri regime to try and wrest Nagorno Karabakh back under its control. The conditions now exist throughout the Caucasus for the explosion of a Balkan type of war, involving not only the regional powers but the major imperialist ones as well.
International repercussions
Internationally, the older imperialist powers find themselves in a much more difficult position. For two decades imperialism has been trying to gradually develop relations with Russia while maintaining their own superiority. Now it finds it has created a monster that is difficult to control. NATO is divided on how to react. On the one hand, Poland, the Ukraine and the Baltic States rushed to Georgia’s defence. The US anti-missile defence system will now go ahead in Poland and the Ukraine.
In reply, Belarus and Russia have announced they will build their own system in opposition. Calls have been made within the G8 to once again return to G7. The US is finding itself in opposition to some of the European capitalists over how to deal with Russia. And in the United Nations the US will find it much harder to carry its position, as Russia will be more willing to use its veto. Whilst the international organisations such as the UN and OSCE are reluctant for their peacekeeping troops to be pulled into the Caucasus, refusal will leave Russia in control. The imperialist powers are being dragged into the Caucasian powder keg.
But the conditions internationally are not the same as those at the start of the nineteen nineties, when the Balkan wars started. Then the Soviet Union had just collapsed, capitalism appeared to have won the ideological war, the world economy was growing steadily and the workers’ movement was disorientated and leaderless. Now, people are beginning to question capitalism more and more, the world economy is in a dire state, the workers movement internationally is beginning to flex its muscles. The lessons of this nightmare situation in the Caucasus must be learned and the way opened for new generations to establish socialist cooperation on the highest scale.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)
