Whitlam: lessons for the Australian people

The following is a comment from the CPA (M-L) on the passing of Gough Whitlam

The passing of Gough Whitlam is a time for reflection on the rich lessons to be learned from his period of government.

Those lessons embrace the nature of the Labor Party, the role of the state and imperialist interference in and control of Australia’s internal affairs.

The capitalist press keeps alive the myth that Labor is a party of the working class.  It is true that it has more support from the working class than its conservative rivals, and that it has enacted reforms that benefit the people.  This was particularly true of Whitlam.  He abolished conscription, tertiary fees, capital punishment, imperial honours and the White Australia Policy. He created Medibank, poured the earth of the country through the hands of its original owners and custodians, and recognised the People’s Republic of China.

Such reforms always have a dual character.  On the one hand, they serve the immediate needs of the people and have a progressive character.  On the other hand, they make capitalism more palatable for the working class and help prolong the life of a system that keeps the working class in its precarious and vulnerable existence.

The state is the apparatus that maintains the rule of the capitalist class.  Good people often make the mistake of saying that this or that political party gets into “power” when it wins an election.  This is a fundamentally mistaken view.  Power is held by the ruling class.  Political parties get into “office” and administer and regulate the power of the ruling class.  Whitlam, for all his charisma and vision, essentially kept his reforms within the bounds of a capitalist economy.  Marxist historian Humphrey McQueen tellingly noted that Whitlam’s “socialism required a larger public sector, never a reallocation of wealth.”

Nevertheless, US imperialism was scared by the mere rustle of Whitlam’s leaves in the winds.  Whitlam was lifted by a genuinely popular wave of demand for real independence from imperialism.  Riding that wave, his Christmas 1972 criticism of the US bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong was a shock to the Nixon administration.  He supported proposals for an Indian Ocean “zone of peace” opposed by the US. Whitlam also sought to end the outsourcing of US coup attempts in Cambodia and Chile to the Australian Security Intelligence Service (ASIS), threatened not to extend the agreements covering US bases in Australia, and challenged US corporations with vague plans to “buy back the farm”.  In 1973, his Attorney-General Lionel Murphy raided the offices of ASIO through which the US kept the Australian people under surveillance.

Destabilisation of Whitlam’s government became a priority for US imperialism.  Experienced coup master Marshall Green was sent as US Ambassador in 1973.  When Whitlam sought funds from the Middle East to finance nationalisation of multinational energy companies, all the tricks in the book were brought into play.  A fabricated letter was used to force the sacking of Treasurer Jim Cairns.  Various other forgeries were put together and leaked to the press.  Millions of dollars were channelled from the CIA to the Liberal and Country Parties through the Nugan Hand Bank, causing Whitlam to label them as “subsidised by the CIA”. 

In the end, there was no need for Marshall Green to repeat the slaughter he had visited upon the Indonesian people when he oversaw Suharto’s coup against Sukarno. Whitlam had stupidly appointed Clarrie O’Shea’s jailer, Sir John Kerr to the Governor-Generalship despite knowledge of Kerr’s ties to various “foundations” financed and controlled by the CIA.  A crisis around the Supply Bills was manufactured and on November 11, 1975, the very day when Whitlam was to inform Parliament everything he knew about the CIA and US bases in Australia, he was sacked by Kerr.

Whitlam had more than once declared proudly that he was bourgeois.  Now that class membership and his underlying fear of an independent, organised working class, kicked in.  He advised supporters to “maintain their rage”, but remained impotent himself, meekly accepting the transition by means of a semi-fascist coup, to the caretaker Prime Ministership of Malcolm Fraser.  Future Labor leader and ACTU head Bob Hawke kept the working class from a general strike.

The message was not lost on Labor.  As a party of capitalism that had adopted some of the policies and practices of a social-democratic party, Labor was to refashion itself under Hawke and Keating as an ardent supporter of neo-liberalism.  This corresponded with the ascendancy of finance capital over industrial capital and a change from Labor’s championing of manufacturing to its embrace of deregulation and privatisation.

Rather than advancing itself as a champion of independent nation-building, Labor’s former support for Australia’s national development was subsumed by its fundamental support for the US-Australian “alliance”, a relationship in which the demands of the stronger partner are willingly enacted by the weaker.

The parliamentary process can never buck the power of the ruling class.  The Labor Party cannot be the party through which the fundamental interests of the working class are pursued.

Only the development of a revolutionary movement for anti-imperialist independence and socialism, led by the working class through its own independent organisation, can realise the vision that the state and the imperialists conspired to drown when they deposed Whitlam.

The Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist) exists for that reason, and for that reason alone.

Building the Party of the working class is a challenge in Australian conditions, but understanding the significance of the Whitlam era encourages us to redouble our efforts to regroup, to rebuild, to resist and to rebel.

Ukraine: "Never forget your class enemy"

The article below is from the English language page of the Borotba website.  Borotba is a progressive working class organisation fighting for independence and socialism in Ukraine.


The page can be accessed here: http://borotba.su/newsen.html


Simferopol, Crimea — Svetlana Licht (above right) is a trade union activist and leader of the Marxist Union Borotba (Struggle) of Ukraine. Forced to leave Kiev after the U.S.-backed far-right coup, she went first to Kharkov, where she helped to lead the city’s anti-fascist protest movement, known as AntiMaidan. In May, a death squad attempted to kidnap Licht’s companion and fellow union activist Denis Levin. They fled to her native city of Donetsk, capital of the recently liberated Donetsk People’s Republic in the majority Russian-speaking Donbass region, where she lived through the brutal Ukrainian military siege this summer. Licht recently arrived in Simferopol, Crimea, where Workers World spoke with her in September.


Workers World: What was it like growing up in Donetsk after the destruction of the Soviet Union?

Svetlana Licht: Growing up in the Donbass was no different from any other industrial region of the former Soviet Union: widespread poverty, unemployment and collapse of production. I think that in many ways the period is very similar to the beginning of the decline of Detroit. Only there is one difference about the post-Soviet countries: the majority of people, for example, residents of Donbass, remember who built our industry, science and culture in the region. It was built by the Soviet people. They remember how life was in the Soviet Union, when there was work and social protection.

With the decline of industry, there was a decline of culture and education. History textbooks were rewritten several times. Every year, there were more and more myths of Ukrainian nationalism and vilification of the Soviet period. This was serious ideological indoctrination for the destruction of remaining social programs and to promote a full transition to capitalist market relations in all spheres of life. After all, nationalism — Ukrainian or Russian, it does not matter — is the chief defender of the commercialization of all spheres of life. In the first place, it is directed against the Soviet experience of building socialism.


WW: How did you experience the division between western and eastern Ukraine?

Svetlana Licht: I graduated in 2005 from the second Ukrainian language school in Donetsk. Most of the teaching staff came from western Ukraine. In 2004, most of the teachers began to espouse moderate nationalist positions. There were also outspoken nationalists who were not ashamed before anyone, not even children. For example, in the midst of the Orange Revolution [an earlier right-wing uprising] in 2004, my history teacher told us that those who live in the Donbass are only cattle and lumpen and similar social-racist stuff. But there were also those who, on the contrary, strongly emphasized their unwillingness to introduce this political agenda in the learning process. So my generation of Donetsk Ukrainian school graduates are skeptical of such things as nationalism and “revolutions of honor.”

In pre-war Ukraine, most people were sensitive to the difference between the views of people from different regions of the country. We have different histories, different economic development. People understood this, even in spite of the propaganda that attempted to divide inhabitants of different regions on territorial and cultural grounds. If people had more opportunities to travel around the country, they would see that the workers live the same everywhere, that all who sell their labor power share common problems and troubles that they can solve only by uniting as a class.


WW: Tell us about your activity in Kiev before the February coup.


Svetlana Licht: I worked as a union organizer, along with Denis Levin, in rail transport. One of our most successful campaigns was against the privatization of the Ukrainian railways, which managed to unite passengers, railway workers, civic organizations and trade unions.

In 2012, we began to organize actions and social networks on the topic. Together with the trade unions, we demanded that the government stop the looting and privatization of rail transport. And the government was going to negotiate and make concessions.

In 2013, we launched a campaign to establish independent trade unions for Kiev public transport workers. By the beginning of the Maidan movement [pro-imperialist protest movement led by fascist gangs and funded by Washington], we had already won a couple of small victories. After the destruction of the headquarters of Borotba in Kiev, we had to leave the city.


WW: After the February coup, you went east to Kharkov, Ukraine’s second-largest city. What was your work in the AntiMaidan movement? Why were you forced to leave Kharkov?


Svetlana Licht: We mainly engaged in propaganda activities. There were workers who undertook printing leaflets. We formed committees and organized people to campaign in the city, to spread the message. Together with Kharkov civil initiatives, we began to organize anti-war actions in early April, drawing many women anti-fascists. But in late April, the police attempted an illegal search of the Kharkov Borotba headquarters. Before that, there was a wave of arrests of those who took part in the second capture of the Kharkov Regional State Administration building — more than 100 people were arrested. Because of the repression, activities of Kharkovites began to fall sharply.

Then came the May 2 Odessa tragedy [when at least 48 anti-fascists were killed by neo-Nazis at the House of Trade Unions]. Fewer people came out onto the streets. On May 8 — just before Victory Day [anniversary of the Soviet victory over German fascism in World War II] — the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) illegally seized our headquarters, destroyed everything and took all the newspapers, leaflets, flags, sound-amplifying equipment and generator. This was done to prevent us from taking action on Victory Day. But we still participated in a citywide protest which attracted several thousand people.

Although the activity of the people receded, we still made leaflets. Many people in Kharkov had already become activists, and they began to organize help for political prisoners and conduct anti-war actions. By the end of May a more-or-less permanent core of Kharkovites had formed who continued to meet on Freedom Square under the statue of Lenin. The group ranged from 150 to 300 people.

In late May, SBU agents attempted, without charges, to kidnap Denis Levin directly from the square, and then we left the city. A small number of people continued going to the monument of Lenin all summer to protest against the war.


WW: How was life different in Donetsk when you were there during the so-called Anti-Terrorist Operation? How did people you know respond?


Svetlana Licht: Hundreds of thousands of people left Donetsk. Workers remained at only a few companies. Public utilities and municipal enterprise [workers] in the city worked hard, trying to provide water and electricity. But it was just a heroic job as attacks occurred every day.

Every day, dozens of people were killed.

Those who remained in the city had real courage. People were angry at the junta, but tried not to lose heart.

Almost every night, there was impenetrable darkness in my area of the city. People did not want to turn on the lights, read or watch the news — every day they could hear with their own ears what was happening in the city. And the lies of the bourgeois media only further inflamed their pain and anger.

Here is one of the most memorable days: One afternoon we heard loud explosions not far from our house. With terrible despair, our neighbor cried out, “These bastards bombed the hospital!” And from the news, we learned that several shells fell inside the dental clinic 500 meters from our house. The same evening in a house opposite ours, a man was loudly blasting Soviet pop music. He stood on the balcony and smoked. All his neighbors began to ask why he played this comforting music. To which he replied: “They want us to be afraid and stop enjoying life. This is my answer!”


WW: How do you see the civil war between the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk and the Kiev junta?

Svetlana Licht: I believe that the people’s republics are a response to the lies, violence and propaganda of the fascists, oligarchs and nationalists.


WW: What future do you see for the workers of Donbass and Ukraine?


Svetlana Licht: I believe that from a historical perspective, victory belongs to the working class and socialism, and I am looking forward to the future.

As long as the war drags on in Ukraine, the crisis will worsen. But those who believed the nationalist propaganda will see through the lies and realize that another world, another way, is possible.


WW: What is your message to the workers and youth of the United States?


Svetlana Licht: Unite everywhere and always. Never forget who your class ­enemy is.

By Greg Butterfield on October 11, 2014

Protest at Forrest Report

I joined a group of about 20 people protested this morning outside the State Administration Centre against SA Labor Premier Jay Weatherill’s endorsement of all 27 recommendations contained in the Forrest Report.

I was able to read a motion carried last night by the Australian Education Union’s SA Branch Executive.

The motion reads:

“That the AEU deplores the Weatherill Cabinet’s rushed embrace of the Forrest Report and communicate to the Premier its concern at the Report’s advocacy of financial penalties for welfare-recipient parents as a means of improving school attendance; its attack on TAFE funding and its replacement by vouchers that would only fund training for employer-approved courses; its call to block cash payments for welfare recipients via the Healthy Welfare Card; and its bland acceptance of increased crime in the community that will flow from the implementation of its recommendations.

“That the AEU Executive seeks support for this position by presenting it as a recommendation to the SA Unions Executive meeting on September 18.”

Prime Monster Tony Abbott commissioned billionaire miner Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest to conduct a review into closing the gap between outcomes for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians.

The report exceeded its mandate and recommended a series of measures  applicable to all welfare recipients.

In particular, it seeks to extend Compulsory Income Management (CIM) and its BasicsCard to all welfare recipients other than aged pensioners and those on veterans’ entitlements.

At the moment, volunteers for CIM have 50% of their welfare payments quarantined onto the BasicsCard, and those placed on CIM by various government agencies have 75% quarantined.  The quarantined money can only be spent on approved items at approved businesses and retail stores.

Forrest wants 100% of welfare payments placed onto a debit card, to be called the Healthy Welfare Card.  Purchases would again be restricted to approved items.

Forrest, who suffers from billionaire myopia, sees welfare as a “cash barbecue” and his solution is to “block the issue of cash” to people placed on welfare.

This is probably the nastiest of the 27 recommendations, so nasty that even Abbott has backed off a bit, saying that sometimes Twiggy’s ideas “run ahead of public opinion”.  His Minister for Social services, the reprehensible Kevin Andrews, has told the Murdoch media that “he is not convinced income management is appropriate for the many thousands of dole recipients who spend their money responsibly”.

Yet two weeks into a 6-week “consultation” period, Weatherill has persuaded State Cabinet to support the Report in its entirety.

This shows yet again the utter bankruptcy of social democratic politics and why an independent working class agenda continues to develop in spite of the ALP through continued mass rallies against Abbott’s budget and other measures.

...........

See also: http://vanguard-cpaml.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/labor-leader-endorses-attacks-on-poor.html