Dean Mighell and the Australian Labor Party

Dean Mighell is the Victorian State Secretary of the Electrical Trades Union. He was forced to quit the Labor Party by leader Kevin Rudd on May 30 following the disclosure to the capitalist media of private comments in which he had boasted of getting extra money off the bosses for his members.

Mighell’s comments had been secretly taped at a meeting of construction workers six months ago, probably by the Australian Building and Construction Commission, an organization created by the Howard Government to destroy construction unions and their militancy.

Mighell was referring to a 1993 victory in which he won extra gains for his members by engaging in “pattern bargaining” where claims are won across an entire industry by extracting concessions from weaker bosses and using them as a precedent against the stronger.

These tactics were perfectly legal in 1993, but both Liberal (the current Federal Government) and Labor (positioning itself to win office in the next federal election) have declared them illegal.

Speaking to an audience of adult workers, Mighell let the “fuck” word drop a few times in the course of his talk. For better or worse, any child can hear that word these days on television, on CDs and DVDs, but it became an issue for Mr “Sqeaky Clean”, Labor leader Kevin Rudd and his senior colleagues, Julia Gillard (Deputy Leader) and Wayne Swan (shadow Treasurer).

The temperate trio then remembered that Dean Mighell had said some nasty things about Australian Prime Monster John Howard a few weeks ago at the Labor Party Conference (“…Howard is a skidmark on the bedsheets of Australian politics”) and decided that he would have to be expelled from the Labor Party.

Rudd (and remember that his wife is a multimillionaire, one of whose companies had recently been found to have underpaid workers by 45 cents an hour) declared Mighell’s comments “obscene at every level”. Get the full flavour of his outrage here: http://www.alp.org.au/media/0507/tviloo300.php

Gillard accused Mighell of “going over the line”. Pleeease do yourself a favour and look at her radio interview on the subject here: http://www.alp.org.au/media/0507/ridlop310.php It’s the best belly laugh you’ll have in years.

Swan described Mighell’s views as “repugnant…he should his mouth out with soap”. Don’t believe it? It’s here: http://www.swanmp.org/swanmp/2007/05/transcript_pers.html

The irony of Mighell’s expulsion is that it came virtually five years to the day from his own walkout from the ALP on March 17, 2002 in protest against the State and Federal ALP’s adoption of economic rationalist policies and their “desertion” of the working class.

He joined the Greens for a while, but then rejoined the ALP.

His in-again-out-again history of ALP membership invites some comment on the nature of the ALP.

In his book “The Labor Party?”, E.F. (Ted) Hill noted that it had multiple origins.

On the one hand, “It arose in the particular historical conditions of Australia where the young colonies in which capitalism was developing had by no means established even nominal independence from England…Australian capitalists were seeking greater independence. The historic task to unify Australia fell upon the Australian Labor Party.”

On the other hand, “The Labor Party …bears the name ‘Labor’…because its origins go back to the birth and struggle for existence of the trade unions and because there is a good deal of interchangeability in the personnel of the leaders of the ALP and the trade unions (and it) presents itself as a workers’ party.”

These two features of its origins and development confused many in the working class movement. For a long time, the old Communist Party of Australia depicted the ALP as a “two class party”. Only with the formation of the Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist) was a clear analysis made of the nature of the ALP, which was subsequently characterized by Hill as “…in fact a party of capitalism”.

Hill added: “Because of its Labor appearance, the bourgeoisie uses it to impose bourgeois policies on the workers in the name of Labor. This is based on the assessment (correct to a degree and in certain circumstances) that the workers will accept from a Labor government anti-popular actions which they will not accept from a party like the Liberal-Country Party.”

It should therefore come as no surprise that a multimillionaire husband can explain away his wife’s theft of money from her workers, yet describe as “obscene on every level” the words and actions of a trade union leader who has won extra gains for his members.

It should come as no surprise that the multimillionaire husband, whom media baron Rupert Murdoch has said “would make a pretty good Prime Minister”, should stay as leader of the Labor Party whilst the trade union boss (“a thug” according to Gillard) should be shown the door.

This is more than a factional clash, although the ALP is the party of factional clashes.

Hill’s October 1974 book, from which I have quoted, explains the turbulence and factional strife inherent in the ALP: “Instability is a characteristic of the Labor Party. Its instability is born of the instability of capitalism and its institutions and born of the conflict between the bourgeoisie whom it really serves and the working class whom it pretends to serve.”

As for Mighell, he has vowed to fight on for his members.

‘I make no apologies for fighting for my members. And it's what I'll continue to do, regardless of which political party is in Government.”

Only through a genuine party of the working class, a Marxist-Leninist party, can this genuine class attitude become not just a force for the good of this or that union and its members, but a force for the liberation of the entire working class and for the genuine anti-imperialist independence of the country, protected by a socialist state and government.

Defend Malalai Joya!

“The USA is not concerned with the main cause behind terrorism in Afghanistan. That is why our people don't consider the US as "liberator" of our country. The US itself killed thousands of our innocent civilians during its so-called "war on terror" and continue to target civilians.

… my country is still in chains of bloody and terrorist fundamentalists. The situation in Afghanistan and conditions of its ill-fated women will never change positively as long as the warlords are not disarmed and both the pro-US and anti-US terrorists are removed from the political scene of Afghanistan.

I think that no nation can donate liberation to another nation. Liberation is not money to be donated; it should be achieved in a country by the people themselves. The ongoing developments in Afghanistan and Iraq prove this claim. People of other countries only can give us a helping hand and support.”

These were the words of the courageous anti-imperialist, anti-fundamentalist Malalai Joya, Member of the Afghan parliament, in Adelaide on March 13 2007.

Malalai was here as part of a world tour to expose the continuing oppression of Afghan women by the thugs and criminals helped into power by the US imperialists.

Now this brave fighter for the rights of her people has been thrown out of the Afghan parliament and has restricted freedom of movement.

Death threats, which she has endured before, continue to be made by her enemies.

Please read the full text of her Adelaide speech here.

Visit her website for further information.

Below is a proposed letter of protest to be sent to the Afghan authorities. Please use the text (amend it as you feel appropriate) and email it to the following addresses:

President Hamid Karzai
khaleeq.ahmad@gmail.com
president@afghanistangov.org

Supreme Court of Afghanistan
mailto:hidayatr@moj.gov.af
Feedback Form of the Supreme Court

Afghanistan's Parliament
hasib_n786@yahoo.com

Interior Ministry
moinews@gmail.com
mailto:wahed.moi@gmail.com+

Justice Ministry of Afghanistan
info@moj.gov.af
hidayatr@moj.gov.af

Defense Committee for Malaia Joya
webmaster@malalaijoya.com

---------------------------------------------

May 2007

Dear sir,

I was shocked and distressed when I heard that on 21st May 2007, after an interview on TV in which she once more exposed the war criminals that are present in the Parliament, Afghan MP Malalai Joya was suspended from the Parliament of Afghanistan and the Interior Ministry has been directed to restrict her movements within the country. I also learnt that the Parliament ordered the High Court to file a case against her.

Malalai Joya is known throughout the world for her indefatigable support of ordinary Afghan people against the actions of warlords, drug barons and criminals. She has repeatedly demanded that those responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths during the last 30 years be tried before an independent court.

I express my support for and solidarity with Ms. Malalai Joya, member of the Wolesi Jirga, ardent defender of human and women's rights and outstanding example of resistance of women against fundamentalism.

Since her famous speech of 2003, when she spoke at the Loya Jirga accusing many of the elected members of being war criminals, Malalai Joya has suffered four attempts on her life and many death threats and even physical aggression in Parliament. This is hardly the freedom of expression that Afghanistan claims to have established.

I urge you to do your best to cancel the resolution of the Parliament that expelled Malalai Joya from the assembly and do your best to guarantee her security, which is further compromised after the last events.

Yours sincerely,

………………………………………………

The Afghan masses are responding to Malalai Joya’s defence. The photo below shows a demonstration in Kabul yesterday (May 30, 2007).

Democratic Socialism is Capitalism Part 2

(This is the second part of Wu Bing's reply to Xie Tao on the question of democratic socialism. Earlier sections can be accessed by scrolling down)

2. Violent revolution is the only way to realise socialism

Opposing violent revolution and advocating “peaceful evolution” is one of the main fallacies of democratic socialism and revisionism. In the “Preface”, Mr Xie Tao takes great pains to play the same old tune again. He says: “The relationship between socialism and capitalism is a relationship of continuation and development, and is not a relationship of overthrow and elimination,” “this truth already proves the shining rise to prominence of Western European democratic socialism and the eclipse of the violent socialism of the former Soviet Union.” He believes that democratic socialism “turns the socialist movement into a peaceful, rational evolutionary process,” and lies that “Social Democrats have successfully created in the democratic framework of the developed capitalist countries a path for the peaceful transition to socialism”, thus, “the working class has no need to rise in revolution, and can be ‘liberated’ along with the development of the advanced productive forces.”

The replacement of capitalism by socialism is merely “a relationship of continuation and development” - but is it not “a relationship of overthrow and elimination”? Was socialism actually realised by way of “peaceful evolution” or by way of “violent revolution”? What is the law of human historical development? How should we look upon the differences between Marxism and democratic socialism on these major questions of principle? This author thought, there were two points like this – this is probably a platitude, but in order to clarify the rights and wrongs, there is still need for discussion.

Firstly, looking at it from the theoretical level. Marxism believes that the proletariat requires complete liberation to establish a socialist system without exploitation and oppression, and after that to realise the broad ideals of communism. The proletariat must first of all, by way of violent revolution and the armed seizure of power, replace capitalism with socialism, but it simply must not take the reformist path of “peaceful evolution to socialism”. On this question, the written works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong all contain brilliant expositions, which occupy an important place. So as to deepen my ideological knowledge there is no harm in taking several excerpts:

Marx said: “Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one.” (Marx, Capital, Vol 1 p. 828, 1963 Chinese ed.) “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” “The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.” (Marx, Engels, The Manifesto of the Communist Party.)

Engels said: “That force, however, plays yet another role in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument through the aid of which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilized political forms…” (Engels, Anti-Duhring, 1957 Chinese ed., p 190). “Revolution is without doubt the most authoritative thing in the world. Revolution is one part of the people using the rifle, the bayonet and the cannon in an extremely authoritative way to force another part of the people to accept its will.” (Engels, On Authority, Marx, Engels Complete Works Vol 18 p. 344 Chinese ed.) “The working class deeply believes, on the basis of its own experience, that to arrive at any lasting improvement in their status, that they are unable to rely on others, but must strive for it themselves, and the first method they must adopt is the seizure of political power.” (Engels, The 10 Hour’s Question, Marx and Engels, Complete Works, Vol 7 p. 247).

Lenin said: “…to renounce the revolutionary seizure of power would be madness on the part of the proletariat, both from the theoretical and the practical-political points of view; it would mean nothing but a disgraceful retreat in the face of the bourgeoisie and all other propertied classes. It is very probable - even most probable – that the bourgeoisie will not make peaceful concessions to the proletariat and at the decisive moment will resort to violence for the defence of its privileges. In that case, no other way will be left to the proletariat for the achievement of its aims but that of revolution.” (Lenin, A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy, Collected Works Vol 4 p. 242 Chinese ed.) “Indeed, what is revolution from the Marxist point of view? The violent break-up of the obsolete political superstructure, the contradiction between which and the new relations of production caused its collapse at a certain moment.” (Lenin, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, The Lenin Anthology, Vol 1 p. 691, 1965 Chinese ed.)

Stalin said: “In order to overthrow capitalism it was not only necessary to remove the bourgeoisie from power, it was not only necessary to expropriate the capitalists, but also to smash entirely the bourgeois state machine and its old army, its bureaucratic officialdom and its police force, and substitute for it a new, proletarian form of state, a new, Socialist state.” (Stalin, Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), Problems of Leninism, p. 752 Chinese cloth ed.)

Mao Zedong said: “The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution. This Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds good universally, for China and for all other countries.” (Mao Zedong, Problems of War and Strategy, Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol 2 p. 529 Chinese ed.) “Defending the path of Marxism-Leninism opened up by the October Revolution, under the present international circumstances is of especially great significance. Imperialism declares that it wants to “change the nature of world communism”, and what they must change is precisely this revolutionary path. For the past several decades, everything proposed by the revisionists or the anti-Marxist-Leninists, all the right opportunism that has been spread around is precisely to avoid this sole path for the liberation of the proletariat. All the tasks of the communists focus on uniting the proletariat, uniting the people, firmly repelling the fierce attacks by the imperialists on the socialist world, and firmly advancing along the path opened up by the October Revolution.” (Manuscripts of Mao Zedong Since the Founding of the Nation, Vol 6 p. 283-284, Chinese ed.)

This author believes that it is not necessary to further quote from the Marxist classics, that these passages of brilliant exposition can completely demolish the cliches of Mr Xie Tao.

As for all of Mr Xie Tao’s talk of “proof from historical and textual research that Marx and Engels in their later years were democratic socialists, that they were the first to advocate ‘peaceful evolution to socialism’, that democratic socialism is legitimate Marxism”, this is obviously a groundless fabrication.

Look at it again from the practical level. History has already confirmed the correctness of the Marxist theory about “violent revolution”. From the victory of the October Revolution led by Lenin in the early 20th Century to the success of the Cuban socialist revolution in the 70’s of the 20th Century, we can say that all countries practising socialism without exception have relied on the barrel of the gun and on the military for the seizure of political power, and that up until now, the world still does not have any country whatsoever that is socialist by “peaceful evolution”, nor will it have one in the future.

Democratic Socialism is Capitalism Pt. 1

(This is the first section of Wu Bing's "Democratic Socialism is Capitalism". For the introduction and chapter headings, scroll down on this blog)

1. The real features of democratic socialism

As soon as it begins, Mr Xie Tao’s article clearly places democratic socialism in the position of the “pinnacle of human theory in the 20th Century”. According to him, since the most intense class struggles of the 18th Century, not only is there “competition for the public choice of the most advanced social system”, moreover “the result of the competition is a victory for democratic socialism, even with developed capitalism and developed communism, it is democratic socialism that is changing the world.”

Therefore, democratic socialism is already regarded as different to both socialism and the “third path” of capitalism.

And which countries are those that have had this “victory” of democratic socialism? Mr Tao has listed the United States, England, France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Portugal, Holland, Italy, Denmark, Greece, Belgium, Luxembourg and so on. Mr Xie Tao is quite particular in pointing out that of the 15 European countries, 13 are democratic socialist countries, and thus it can be seen that its battle formation is huge, its momentum is developing, and it has an unlimited future. As Mr Xie Tao describes with such excitement, Europe is already in a “surging red tide”, “an economically booming, politically stable and socially harmonious new Europe” has appeared, and he flatters them for having “added some bright colours to the world”.

What actually is this treasure that Mr Xie Tao boasts is so dangerous and which he holds so highly? Let us see how in the political domain of world history, the decision already taken on this is annotated: “Democratic socialism: flaunted socialism, publicly opposed the ideological trend of Marxist reformism. It came about after the First World War. After the Second World War, the English Labour Party and the right wing leading cliques of some other countries’ socialist parties, in order to oppose Marxism and the proletarian revolutionary movement, and in order to make democratic socialism the slogan of their own guiding principles, convened the 1951 Frankfurt Congress of the Socialist International and publicly proposed in the manifesto of their publication “The Goals and Tasks of Democratic Socialism” that they use democratic socialism to oppose scientific socialism, to deny that classes and class struggle exist in capitalism, to oppose the proletarian revolution, and to oppose the destruction of the system of the private ownership of the means of production. They believe that in democratic Europe, Marxism would never again act as the effective strength of the theory of proletarian revolution. “Instruct them in the theory of evolutionary socialism”, “never again be able to take Marx’s famous maxim ‘expropriate the expropriators’ as their goal”. They spread a kind of special “third path” that was different to capitalism and to the “democratic socialism” of communism. They thought they could “strip the political category of revolution of any practical content”, that “as long as there was continuing reform, society could undergo changes.” They spoke highly of the “socialisation” of the functions of capital and the national economy. They proposed a “Second Industrial Revolution”. They declared that under the leadership of governments of Social Democratic parties, public ownership under capitalism was already a socialist system of ownership.” (“Concise Sociological Dictionary”, Shanghai Dictionary Publishing House, 1982, p 2292.) Referring to the Dictionary’s explanation, to sum up, we can clearly see that the essence of so-called democratic socialism is: in politics, to oppose socialism and pass off the so-called “new capitalism” and “the third path” as scientific socialism; in economics, oppose “expropriating the expropriators” and pass off reformist private ownership as socialist public ownership; in theory, oppose the theory of surplus value and historical materialism and pass off opportunism as Marxism; in questions of class struggle, use class reconciliation, cover up the class struggle and oppose violent revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. To summarise it in a single sentence: democratic socialism is imperialism in the moribund stage of capitalism; it does not even remotely connect with socialism.

Comparing Mr Xie Tao’s “Preface”, we can clearly see what the “Preface” promotes, and on the whole it is in the field of these several “opposes”. The “Preface” puts forward the so-called “mixed private ownership” of “the pattern of constitutional democratic socialism”, which is just private ownership; the so-called “democratic constitution” which is just the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie; the so-called “socialist market economy” and the “system of welfare protection”, which is the capitalist economic system.

SCHOOLS FACE EXTRA COSTS, MINISTERS GET EXTRA MINDERS

Two pieces of information reveal the self-serving hypocrisy of our elected leaders in South Australia.

Today’s capitalist press has revealed that the State’s Labor Party Government has increased the number of minders appointed to Ministerial offices by 44 per cent over five years. Nearly 100 extra staff have been appointed to work in the personal offices of Ministers, most as advisers and media monitors.

That is, they provide the spin that enables Ministers to look good. They exist to protect Ministerial butt.

Their role is to serve the political needs of Ministers, as distinct from public servants who work in Government Departments and who are meant to be “above politics” and of service to the Government of the day, regardless of which party constitutes that Government.

So we have an expense growth of perhaps $25 million on additional party political salaries over four years paid, not by the Party, but by the taxpayer.

Compare this with the same Government’s commitment to quality public education.

So-called “savings measures” required from the Education Department, called for in the last State Budget, are now being identified by an Education Efficiency and Effectiveness (EEE) Group whose only role is to decide whether to cut off an arm or a leg.

They have been told by Education Department officials of a number of measures to cut Department costs by transferring costs to schools.

South Australian schools are now “locally managed” with a “global budget” that includes staff salaries. Out of that global budget is now to come a 1% levy on the salaries component to cover staff workers compensation payments.

Note that schools are not the employers of their teaching and support staff. The Department remains the central employing authority and has until now accepted responsibility for workers compensation (WorkCover) claims.

But now, claims costs will be attributed to the sites where the injury occurred. Sites will pay for the first four weeks of lost time wherever there is any new accepted claim but will not be provided with additional temporary relieving teachers to cover the absence of the injured staff member.

School Governing Councils, the majority of whom are parent volunteers, will be responsible for the WorkCover levy and must register separately with WorkCover. They will be responsible for paying injured workers their salaries as required by WorkCover.

This should be a matter for great concern on the part of any parent who has a child in a Government school in South Australia.

It follows closely on the heels of other Government cuts, for example to the small schools grant, and the proposed axing of swimming and instrumental music programs.

Parents of children in Government schools in SA should ring their child’s principal, ask how much the transfer of WorkCover responsibility to their school is likely to cost, both financially and in terms of workload, and then write to their local Member of parliament to express their concerns.

As for the Principals, if they have any guts and any sense at all, they will work through their respective Associations and alongside the Australian Education Union and get out into the streets and onto the steps of Parliament House and tell the Department to do its job, and let them get on with theirs.

Democratic Socialism Is Capitalism - Introduction

(Some time ago I came across this article on www.maoflag.net - one of the websites maintained with apparent official sanction by supporters of Mao Zedong Thought in China today. The article reminds me of the series initiated by Chairman Mao in the early stages of the skirmish with the Soviet revisionists and published under the title The Polemic on the General Line of the International Communist Movement in Beijing in 1965, a year before the launching of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. I am not a translator - I have fulltime job and lots of comittee memberships - but I know a little bit of Chinese, and I've decided to try my hand at translating the 80 or so pages of the original of this article. Where I just can't understand a reference, or where I just can't get at what the Chinese original is trying to say, I'll add a little note of my own so that you'll know I've run into trouble. But I hope enough of what follows is clear so that some idea of current ideological struggle in China comes through. You might like to look at my post Chinese Marxist-Leninists Oppose the Sale of Xu Gong in the December 2006 archive (see link opposite and scroll down to article) so that you can see a practical example of how the restorationists are dismantling the socialist state established in Mao Zedong's time and handing it over to the capitalists and the imperialists. I'm not a quick translator: some days I get a couple of sentences done, and maybe on a weekend I can do a page or so, so don't hold your breath waiting for each new section t be completed. The table of contents (below) will give you some idea of the scope of this work, so if you're interested, keep coming back and seeing how far I've got up to. Mike)

Democratic Socialism Is Capitalism
A criticism of Xie Tao’s "Only Democratic Socialism Can Save China"
Wu Bing
Contents:

1. The real features of democratic socialism
2. Violent revolution is the only way to realise socialism
3. The superiority of socialism over capitalism cannot be denied
4. The main difference between socialism and capitalism is public ownership and private ownership
5. Antagonism between socialist and capitalist systems of distribution
6. On how the question of the two systems of ownership and the two systems of distribution are compared
7. Shamelessly tampering with and distorting the fundamentals of Marxist theory
8. Distorting the New Economic Policy and attacking Leninism
9. Misrepresenting "The Three Big Transformations", Negating Mao Zedong Thought
10. Promoting the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and wanting China to take the path of Western constitutional government
11. Confusing black and white and reversing the verdict on new and old revisionism
12. Be sure not to forget the mistakes of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries
…………………………………………………………………….
Early last December, the author saw People’s University former Deputy Principal Mr Xie Tao’s preface written for Mr Xin Ziling’s "Mao Zedong: A Century of Merits and Faults", on the internet, entitled "Only Democratic Socialism Can Save China" (hereafter referred to as "The Preface"). This "Preface" was reprinted in the February 2007 edition of "Yan Huang Chun Qiu". This magazine possibly considered it should "play it safe", and made a slight change to the title renaming it "The Pattern of Democratic Socialism and China’s Future", besides concealing Mr Xin Ziling’s title "Mao Zedong: A Century of Merits and Faults" and engaging in "technical processing" of some individual barefaced words and sentences. However, no matter how this magazine tries to conceal it, Mr Xie Tao is completely unmasked for opposing socialism, opposing Marxism, opposing the proletarian revolution and the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It can be said that everyone who has read this article has the same kind of response: this is one of the wildest and most undisguised reactionary articles in our domestic open publications. This article touches on several major theoretical and practical questions: what is socialism, and should China continue along the socialist road; what is Marxism, and should China continue under the direction of Marxism; what is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and should China continue to persist with the dictatorship of the proletariat? What is most annoying and also most laughable is that this trumpeter of capitalism unexpectedly resorts to all means of fabricating rumours about and attacks on the teachers and leaders of the proletarian revolution, talking rubbish about Marx and Engels being some sort of "social democrats", some sort of originators of "peaceful evolution to socialism" in their old age; talking rubbish about Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong being the "greatest revisionists"; and moreover legitimising the founder of revisionism, Bernstein, as "Marxism"?! Shameless slander like this that distorts the facts floods through the article from beginning to end. Chairman Mao said: "All mistaken ideas, all poisonous weeds, all monsters and demons should be subjected to criticism and under no circumstances be allowed to spread unchecked." Following this guidance, the author makes some superficial analyses and commentaries on several of the main points of view and falsehoods respectively, of this "strange piece of writing".

Remembering Alex

For S., with thanks

Last night, more than 50 comrades gathered to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the passing of a mate and comrade.

That mate was Comrade Alex, who was shot and killed on the Cooper Pedy opal fields on April 14, 1982.

Alex was one of the first of our generation of youthful Marxist-Leninists who, in the late 1960’s, rallied to the call of the Party and united to fight capitalism and imperialism.

Alex stood out. For a start, he was a tall bloke (first from right in photo above, looking at camera), but his presence went beyond his height. He could light up a room with his dry sense of humour, his famous one-liners and ascerbic wit.

Alex was a practical bloke and made the smoke bombs for demos, handing out recipes for molotovs and generally looking for ways to push the envelope against the coppers. If they were there taking photos of marchers, Alex was there taking photos of them.

One of the coppers who specialised in harassing young left-wing opponents of the US imperialist war of aggression against Vietnam was "Curly" Marshall. "Curly" wasn’t big for a copper, but he let us know that he was on our tail night and day, often brushing past us in a pub and asking casually about something we had said or done the previous day.

One of those at the commemoration recalled how he had been helping Alex with an offset printer one day when "Curly" and another Special Branch copper arrived and started niggling Alex, trying to bait him into saying or doing something to warrant an arrest. For over half an hour this kept up, with Alex keeping his cool throughout, defusing their antagonism with his humour until they left.

When the situation was in his favour, Alex wasn’t quite the gentleman as far as the cops went. A number of them wore bruises that corresponded to the shape of Alex’s big knuckles after having rashly waded into lines of anti-war demonstrators.

Unfortunately for Alex, he was very much influenced by one particular friend who had a dominant personality and a tendency to commit a few too many political mistakes. One of those mistakes was not taking the women’s movement seriously. But there were other major errors on this friend’s part too. The straw that broke the camel’s back was when the friend arrived a day late for a conference of the Worker-Student Alliance, entered disruptively, refused to heed warnings of the Chair, and responded to a female comrade with "I think you might find the dictatorship of the proletariat a bit too physical". In the end it was decided that the friend and Alex should be expelled from a particular organisation which expected a higher level of discipline and understanding. To the friend, this was water off a duck’s back; to Alex, it was devastating. He had not thought that silly behaviour could carry such consequences, and he wept as the decision was delivered.

Within WSA, it was only the friend who was expelled. Alex bounced back and continued to make his valuable contributions to the revolutionary socialist movement.

However, it was clear that Alex was a marked man in Adelaide and that the cops would make it difficult for him to keep a job and provide for the family that he was building.

So Alex left for Cooper Pedy, a frontier town in the outback where law and order was pretty much provided by the miners themselves.

Alex had some success and started building a small business. Despite the remoteness of Cooper Pedy from Adelaide, Alex remained devoted to the cause of the people. I remember when WSA members at the big Chrysler plant in Adelaide were involved in a rank and file dispute with the management. There had been a strike, an occupation, and several arrests. Alex sent down two thousand dollars to the rank and file to help see them through the dispute, a characteristically selfless act of genuine commitment.

Those of us who met yesterday to remember Alex – and there were some from interstate and overseas – did so with great love and respect for the man.

He died too young in a lawless town.

He left a gap in all of our lives, and it was fitting that Henry Lawson’s poem "The Glass on the Bar" should have been read in his memory:

Three bushmen one morning rode up to an inn,
And one of them called for the drinks with a grin;
They’d only returned from a trip to the North,
And, eager to greet them, the landlord came forth.
He absently poured out a glass of Three Star,
And set down that drink with the rest on the bar.

"There, that is for Harry," he said, "and it’s queer,
‘Tis the very same glass that he drank from last year;
His name’s on the glass, you can read it like print,
He scratched it himself with an old piece of flint;
I remember his drink – it was always Three Star" –
And the landlord looked out through the door of the bar.

He looked at the horses, and counted but three:
"You were always together - where’s Harry?" cried he.
Oh, sadly they looked at the glass as they said,
"You may put it away, for our old mate is dead;"
But one, gazing out o’er the ridges afar,
Said, "We owe him a shout – leave the glass on the bar.

They thought of the far-away grave on the plain,
They thought of the comrade who came not again,
They lifted their glasses, and sadly they said:
"We drink to the name of the mate who is dead."
And the sunlight streamed in, and a light like a star
Seemed to glow in the depth of the glass on the bar.

And still in that shanty a tumbler is seen,
It stands by the clock, ever polished and clean;
And often the strangers will read as they pass
The name of a bushman engraved on the glass;
And though on the shelf but a dozen there are,
That glass never stands with the rest on the bar.

1889

DUSTBOWL - Environment vs Capitalism

April 14 1935 is the day, so Woody Guthrie reminds us, that the Great Duststorm swept over Kansas and Oklahoma as the dustbowl took its vengeance on capitalist farming in the United States.

John Steinbeck chronicled that double disaster - the disaster of nature and the disaster of capitalism -in his powerful novel The Grapes of Wrath; Guthrie captured both disasters and the sweep and import of the novel in his Dustbowl Ballads, some of which namechecked Preacher Casey and Tom Joad, characters from the novel.

Woody was a communist who never joined the Party. He is famous for the slogan "This machine kills fascists!" that he emblazoned on his guitar.

On this day we commemorate Woody and the tragedy of the Dustbowl by reprinting the lyrics to The Great Duststorm (Great Storm Disaster).

Dust Storm Disaster(The Great Dust Storm)

On the 14th day of April of 1935,
There struck the worst of dust storms that ever filled the sky.
You could see that dust storm comin', the cloud looked deathlike black,
And through our mighty nation, it left a dreadful track.

From Oklahoma City to the Arizona line,
Dakota and Nebraska to the lazy Rio Grande,
It fell across our city like a curtain of black rolled down,
We thought it was our judgement, we thought it was our doom.

The radio reported, we listened with alarm,
The wild and windy actions of this great mysterious storm;
From Albuquerque and Clovis, and all New Mexico,
They said it was the blackest that ever they had saw.

From old Dodge City, Kansas, the dust had rung their knell,
And a few more comrades sleeping on top of old Boot Hill.
From Denver, Colorado, they said it blew so strong,
They thought that they could hold out, but they didn't know how long.

Our relatives were huddled into their oil boom shacks,
And the children they was cryin' as it whistled through the cracks.
And the family it was crowded into their little room,
They thought the world had ended, and they thought it was their doom.

The storm took place at sundown, it lasted through the night,
When we looked out next morning, we saw a terrible sight.
We saw outside our window where wheat fields they had grown
Was now a rippling ocean of dust the wind had blown.

It covered up our fences, it covered up our barns,
It covered up our tractors in this wild and dusty storm.
We loaded our jalopies and piled our families in,
We rattled down that highway to never come back again.

Support the Struggle of the Nandigram Peasants

The Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) has recently released its report on the second wave of killings of peasants in the Nandigram region. Nandigram is approximately 150 kilometres south of Kolkata (Calcutta), the state capital of West Bengal.

The killings have been carried out by thugs organised by the revisionist CPI (Marxist)-led Left Front Government, which has sought to create a series of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) as a means of attracting foreign investment capital into West Bengal.

The Nandigram area was previously very pro-CPI(M). The only reason why this very strong mass base suddenly turned against the CPI(M) was the proposed land acquisition for an SEZ to built by the Indonesian MNC Salem International.

The founder of the Salim Group is Liem Sioe Liong. Reportedly the richest man in Indonesia, Liem owes much of his fortune to privileges granted him by the fascist dictator Suharto, whom he befriended in the 1940s.

It was precisely because Nandigram was emerging as a model for anti-SEZ, anti-corporate-land grab resistance that it invited such horrible repression. It had become a sore spot and a source of concern and anxiety, not just for local CPI(M) leaders or the LF Government, but for all Governments all over the country.

The repression started with a massacre of villagers on January 7, 2007. In Singur, police arrested nearly 500 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation activists at a January 8 solidarity protest.

Then the goons came back on March 14 and conducted a further massacre over a three-day period. On March 23, the CPI(ML) launched a nationwide campaign in solidarity with the Singur and Nandigram struggles.

An excellent in-depth analysis of this struggle can be found here on the Marxist-Leninist Lists website.

The Right to Food website has asked all concerned people to write letters of protest to the national and state authorities in India and West Bengal:

Recipient of letter:

Shri Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee
Chief Minister
Government of West Bengal
Writers' Building,
Kolkata 700001
India

Shri Abdur Rezzak Mollab
Minister In Charge
Land and Land Reforms Department,
Government of West Bengal
Writer's Building
Kolkata - 700001
India

Hon'ble Justice Shri Shyamal Kumar Sen
Chairperson
West Bengal Human Rights CommissionIndia

Dr. Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister of India
South BlockRoom No. 152
New Delhi- 110001
India

Rat

I know it is the prerogative of editorial cartoonists to caricature their subjects, but surely this depiction of the Australian Prime Minister as a rat goes too far. My son had a pet rat which was decent and clean, and to compare it to the Prime Minister is most unfair.

Howard is Australia's worst Prime Monster.

Couldn't say "Sorry" to the Stolen Generation (indigenous children stolen from their parents by Government "welfare" officers mid-last century).

Wouldn't say "Welcome" to asylum seekers (demonising them as illegal immigrants, placing them in concentration camps for years on end, depriving them of all rights).

Didn't ask "Why?" - just said "how high?" when told to join Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.

Attacked the working class by legislating for "unAustralian Workplace Agreements" that have stripped workers of defence against unfair dismissal, slashed overtime and penalty rates, and taken away holiday and sick leave.

Was the originator of the racist policies of Pauline Hanson's "One Nation Party" with his "one nation, one people" bullshit.

Grovelled to Dick Cheney for the early trial of David Hicks, held for five years at Guantanamo, when it became evident that Australian public opinion was strongly behind Hicks being given a "fair go"; achieved that and an order that will see Hicks in goal in Australia until just after this year's Federal election, and unable to comment to the media for a year. What a gift from the US overlords!

Even members of his own Government have allegedly described him as a "lying rodent":

Mr Galt told Channel 9 that Senator Brandis said Mr Howard was a "lying rodent" and that the party would have to "cover his arse" again over the children overboard affair. Mr Galt has given the network a signed statutory declaration of his version of events at the meeting.
It quotes Senator Brandis as saying of Mr Howard: "He is a lying rodent" and "we’ve got to go off and cover his arse again on this".

But then, I've never heard a rodent lie, have you?

Eternal Mao Zedong

(Reverence for Comrade Mao Zedong still runs high in China despite, or perhaps because, of the activities of the restorationists to deny his proletarian revolutionary legacy. I have translated the poem below from the "maoflag" website. My Chinese is not too good, but I think I've got the gist of it)

By Ren Ping
5/9/2006

No military strategist can
Compare to you in courage:
You led an army of 30,000
And walked the most difficult 25,000 li
From then on
The Long March became
The eternal motif of the Chinese Revolution

"On Protracted War"
Showed how a small force
Can defeat a strong,
Became a marvel of military matters,
Winning the admiration of foreigners.
From then on
Asian, African and Latin American peoples
Began to raise the curtain
On their independence and liberation.

No leader can
Compare to you as a thinker.
Your family sacrificed
Six young lives for the revolution,
Your lovely wife
Even your beloved son.
Your tears flowed
Your grief lying quietly in
The depths of your heart.

No ancient Chinese emperor can
Compare to your lofty dignity.
You are a leader of a nation
Keeping in your mind
From beginning to end
The broad masses of the people.
The power and strength of the nation
The sufferings of the people
Down to the final moment of your life
You were still pondering deeply.

Who can be rated as a great person?
Inspiration in the waving hands.
No explanation is necessary
In the hearts of the people
You are the eternal leader.

Notes:

"Your lovely wife": Yáng Kāihuì (Traditional Chinese: 楊開慧; Simplified Chinese: 杨开慧; courtesy name: Yúnjǐn 云锦; 1901 – November 14, 1930) was the second wife of Mao Zedong from 1920 to 1927. She was born in Bancang village, Changsha, Hunan and was the daughter of Yang Changji, head of the Hunan First Normal School and one of Mao's favorite teachers. She joined the Communist Party of China in 1921. In October 1930, the Kuomintang captured her with her son, Anying. The KMT put them in prison. Anying, then 8, was forced to watch as the KMT tortured and killed her. (Source: Wikipedia)

"Even your beloved son": Mao Anying (Chinese: 毛岸英, Pinyin: Máo Ànyīng) (October 24, 1922 – November 25, 1950) was the eldest son of Mao Zedong and Yang Kaihui. Educated in Moscow, he was killed in action by an air attack during the Korean War. (Source: Wikipedia)

Photo L-R: Mao Zedong, daughter Li Na, son Mao Anying and his wife Liu Songlin

More Struggles Against US Military Bases

I've recently commented on the opposition that exists in Australia to established US military bases like Pine Gap, and to the growing opposition to the proposed US base at Geraldton.

US imperialism is running into opposition everywhere.

On February 17 2007, tens of thousands of Italians took to the streets of Vicenza to demand that plans to build a new US military base in the city be scrapped. Police estimated that 25,000 participated; march organisers said 100, 000.

Vicenza already has a US military base on the city's northwest outskirts. Now the US plans to build a second, in the southeast, doubling the number of its personnel to 4500.

Meanwhile, opposition has been growing in the Czech Republic to plans for a US radar base in that country. On March 17, 150 people demonstrated abogainst the base in Prague's Wenceslas Square. The small numbers at the rally don't do tribute to the widespread opposition to the planned base, established through polls and petitions.

The following piece provides some background to circumstances in the Czech Republic. It comes from the Communist Youth Union (KSM) which was declared illegal by the Czech Republic on October 12, 2006 because it proclaimed the necessity of replacing the private ownership of the means of production with collective ownership of the means of production. The KSM is allied with the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moldavia, the former ruling revisionist party of Czechoslovakia.

The KSM struggles against US military base in the Czech Republic

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:39:57 -0800No military bases of imperialism on our territory!

The KSM struggles against US military base in the Czech Republic

The Communist Youth Union (KSM) in the Czech Republic has launched a campaign against a plan to construct a US military missile base in the Czech Republic. This base would be a part of the missile defence system of the USA. The campaign was launched before the parliamentary elections in summer 2006. The KSM was the first organization in the country to take such a stand.

Negotiations about this plan were started by the government of the USA and the government of the Czech Republic led by the Social Democratic Party in secrecy several years before information about them were published thanks to MPs of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia. The KSM subsequently started its struggle against this plan and was gradually joined by a number of organizations.

The KSM leads its campaign against the US military base on two lines: 1/ the KSM organizes its own communist campaign together with the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia and a couple of other civic associations and 2/ the KSM actively participates in a wider initiative called "No to military bases"
which is a politically more diverse coalition of forces.

The situation in the Czech Republic after the 2006 parliamentary elections was very complicated. After 7 months of political crisis without a government backed by a majority in the parliament, a new majority right-wing government led by the strongest right-wing political party in the country - Civic Democratic Party (ODS) has been installed.

It is relevant to mention that the government of the USA waited until the right-wing government led by the ODS gained its majority in the House of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic to announce officially its decision to ask the Czech Republic’s government for agreement with the building of the US military base in the country. This announcement of the USA government was published just SEVERAL MINUTES after the Czech right-wing government received majority support in the parliament (winning 2 of the Social Democratic MPs). The KSM demanded in its campaign publication of all the documents on the secret negotiations about the plan to construct the US military base in the country, resolutely opposed this plan and asked for a referendum on this crucial issue concerning the whole country and all its inhabitants.

The position of the relevant political parties on the question of the US military base and to the referendum on this matter differs significantly. The right-wing Civic Democratic Party (ODS) refuses the democratic institution of referendum generally, states that the people are not competent to decide about questions of national security like this crucial issue and eagerly struggles for the interests of the USA to show its loyalty to its ally.

Another government right-centrist party Christian Democratic Party- Czechoslovak People’s Party has not engaged itself so visibly in this issue but generally supports the line followed by the ODS. The third ruling party - the Green Party, which originally advocated the institution of referendum in its pre-elections expressions very vehemently and profiled itself as a non-militarist political party, dropped its previous promises which attracted a significant number of especially young people. Together with its anticommunism, it preferred its government position to result in an unprincipled stance supporting the US base under a precondition that the US base should be officially part of a NATO system. The position of the Green Party in the Czech Republic on the issue of military bases as well as its anticommunist behaviour makes this political party an object of critical views from its foreign Green fellow-parties.

Also positions of the Czech Social Democratic Party concerning the issue of the US military base are worthy of a more detailed comment. The negotiations about the plan to construct a US military base in the Czech Republic were started during the period of the government led by Social Democrats. Also chairman of the Social Democratic Party Jiri Paroubek, after his initial unclear statements, declared that he would support the US base in the country. Nevertheless, when the social democratic party was ousted from power it officially declared a negative attitude to the US military base plan and supported the idea of a referendum on the issue. Simultaneously, significant voices from inside of the Social Democratic Party speak out in favour of the construction of the US military base.

Generally it may be summed up that the Social Democratic Party’s position was determined by its non-government position. It followed the logic of maximisation of its political capital in the situation where a vast majority of society opposes the US military base to plan its new opposition position to win political points. The only consistent opponent of the US military base is the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, which also proposed a bill on the referendum on the US military base that was nevertheless defeated in the parliament. The attitude to the demand of a national referendum documents the real attitude to democracy of relevant political parties in the Czech Republic where the Communist Party is in debates repeatedly accused by the other political parties of its alleged lack of democratic character - an argument which is instrumentally used as a tool for delegitimization of their principal political opponent.

There have also been demands to organize local referenda on the issue of the US military base in the municipalities that are potential neighbours of the US military base. Such a referendum has been organized in the municipality of Trokavec where a vast majority of its inhabitants opposed the US military base plan. It is also relevant to mention that in 3 out of 4 municipalities in the close neighbourhood of the potential US military base the mayors are representatives of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia.

Originally the official plan was to build the US military base either in the Czech Republic or in Poland. Later the plan was modified, as it was presented because of a strong opposition to the plan from the mobilised public opinion in the Czech Republic where approximately 80% of the people oppose the US military base in their country. The new proposal was to build a missile base in Poland and a radar base as a part of this military base in the Czech Republic.

The KSM’s anti-base campaign has been very successful. The KSM has organized a number of public protests, demonstrations, debates with citizens and also a very successful petition for which 80,000 signatures have been gathered so far. This is a great success taking into consideration that it is a petition organized by the KSM - an organization of young people which has been officially dissolved by the state. (A simultaneously organized petition of the large initiative "No to military bases" has so far gathered 20 000 signatures.)

The work of the KSM among the people on the streets is important also because it shows them that this banned youth organization struggles in the front line for the concrete demands of the majority of people.

Radim Gonda
Vice-chairman of the KSM
Czech Republic

KATHMANDU

for haisanlu

I dreamed I saw the Spirit of Mao
Rising from the marble mausoleum
"Where you going and watcha gonna do?"
I asked as he went by
"I once set out for Anyuan," he said,
"Now I’m setting out for Kathmandu."

Youthful grace shone from the face
Of the Spirit of Mao Zedong
"Why are you going, can this be true?"
I asked the red, red sun
"The reason I went to Ruijin," he said,
"Is why I’m going to Kathmandu."

A cloud whisked him off ten thousand li
Across the land he loved
"You’re up so high, how is the view?"
I asked and the ether replied
"Just as good as from Jinganshan," he said,
"And just as good as from Kathmandu."

There’s rich again in China
Corruption stalks the land
"I’m going to see what Prachanda can do,"
The solemn voice went on
"I’m going to retrieve the spirit of Yan’an
And bring it back from Kathmandu.
I’ll be coming back from Kathmandu!"

100th Mao Badge Posted on Flickr

For anyone interested in an aesthetic and ideological history of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, there is no better primary source than the thousands of differently-designed badges of Chairman Mao Zedong.

I buy a bunch every time I go to China, adding them to the ones I started wearing as a teenager in the late 1960s.

Where I can, I provide a brief description of the front image of the badge, and a translation of the inscription on the rear, which often identifies the event commemorated by the badge and/or the issuing authority.

If you got to Flickr through the "Mike's Mao Badges" link opposite, you'll now see one hundred badges of Chairman Mao.

The information I've provided on each is similar in format to that for badge no. 100 (above):

Aluminium
Diam: 40mm
Red, gold
Front: Mao Zedong against red background, golden waves below
Rear: 国庆 inside red lantern
欢庆国庆十九周年 1968.10.1 (Huanqing Guoqing shijiu zhounian – Celebrate the 19th Anniversary of National Day 1st October 1968)

Preserve the people's history!

For a revolutionary aesthetics!

DOWN WITH JAPANESE MILITARISM!

LET THE JAPANESE PEOPLE ACT!

The Japanese people learned much from the adventures of their militarist regime in the 30’s and 40’s of the previous century.

They also learnt about the cruelty of Western imperialism when the US attacked two of their cities with atom bombs to force a surrender before Soviet troops could arrive in the country and be involved in shaping its future.

They were then betrayed by the MacArthur regime, which protected both the huge zaibatsu corporate regimes like Mitsubishi and Sumitomo, and the criminal Emperor Hirohito.

The zaibatsu should have been nationalised, if not socialised; Hirohito should have been jailed for life, if not executed.

Instead, the germ of militarism and the festering sore of capitalist industry and finance were left to grow and enjoy good and long-lasting life.

The monarchy has been given a prettier, if no less reactionary, face.

Japanese industrial corporations and financial institutions plunder much of the world.

A succession of Prime Monsters pay their respects to dead war criminals in annual pilgrimages to the Yasukuni Shrine.

There is strict control over text books so that young Japanese people are not taught the criminal history of Japanese imperialism and its numerous crimes like the Rape of Nanjing, the sex slavery of the so-called "comfort women", the live experimentation on humans of chemical and biological weapons, the Bataan Death March and countless other glories of the Bushido spirit.

For every gain that is made by the victims of these crimes, the organised Japanese Right fights tooth and nail to divest its ruling class of responsibility.

There is a refusal to formally apologise to the comfort women.

There is the weird logic of the Tokyo High Court, which two days ago overturned Niigata District Court’s landmark ruling that had ordered the Japanese Government and a Japanese company to pay compensation to the Chinese who were made to work as slave labourers during World War 2.

And yet this is the "great Asian democracy" to which Australian Prime Monster John Howard has tied Australia’s military fortunes in the interests of a declining US imperialism.

The only positive out of all this is that it will further develop the emergence of those conditions that will allow the Japanese people to act with responsibility towards themselves and the people of the whole world.

They are the key to exposing and defeating US imperialism and Japanese militarism.

Let the Japanese people act!

DOWN WITH THE AUSTRALIA-JAPAN SECURITY PACT

Japan and Australia have just announced that they have signed a joint declaration on "security"

The "security" they are talking about is the security of US imperialism.

The overlords of the earth have come unstuck in Iraq and Afghanistan and are looking to farm out some of the responsibility for maintaining US global supremacy to those who are under its control (Australia) or benefiting, for the moment, from its military might (Japan).

Their much-vaunted "full spectrum dominance" was recently challenged by China’s demonstration of its ability to shoot down a satellite. "Full spectrum dominance" was originally coined by the United States Air Force to describe its goal of completely controlling outer space as a sphere for military operations, and then came to be used to describe its stated intention of crushing any opposition to, or independence from, its complete control of global resources, markets and investment opportunities.

It is the most naked expression of imperialist arrogance and bluster, and the Chinese literally shot it out of the skies.

By way of retaliation, US imperialism has decided to increase the antagonistic aspect of its contradiction with China. Hence the Australia-Japan joint declaration on "security".

The joint declaration is Japan’s first on military ties with a country other than the United States. Australia’s Prime Monster Howard has tried to ease Chinese concerns about the nature of the pact, denying that it is aimed at that country.

The signing of the agreement is likely to lead to intelligence sharing and the participation of Japanese troops in exercises on Australian soil. They could possibly participate in the Talisman Sabre exercise in Queensland, beginning in May and already scheduled to involve 20,000 US and Australian troops. If they do, it will boost the growing alliance of anti-imperialists, peace activists and environmentalists who are opposing these war games.

Other recent developments, which suggest a growing role for Australia and Japan in US plans to secure its interests in the East Asian region, include the announcement in February of a new US satellite base at Geraldton in WA. The base will be a critical link in a network of satellites that will enhance US combat communications and specifically, its ability to wage wars in the Middle East and Asia (see previous post:For Australian Independence - No More US Bases).

Visiting Fellow at the Australian Defence Force Academy, Philip Dorling, has stated that "once (the base is) operational, it would be almost impossible for Australia to be fully neutral or stand back from any war in which the US was involved."

Japan, for its part, upgraded its Defense Agency to full ministerial status in January, indicating a move away from the role assigned to its troops following the defeat of its aggressions in World War 2.

Both countries showed their closeness to the US by sending troops to support its illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Japan’s ground forces, which Australian troops had been protecting, were withdrawn last year, but air force personnel were left in Kuwait to transport supplies to US forces in Iraq.

These developments have been closely orchestrated by the US imperialists. Howard faces an election soon and his fortunes are fast fading, so he has to act fast to render his final services to his masters. One of those, US Vice-President Dick Cheney, recently "visited" (doesn’t that sound friendly!) Australia and Japan, and pushed for India to join the new "security arrangement" to "offset China’s emerging power". This was reported on Thursday 15 March by ninemsn staff under the heading "Australia security pact to encircle China".

Of course, a nation of 20 million people can’t physically encircle a nation of 1.3 billion, but Australia can host sophisticated US military bases like Pine Gap, and now Geraldton. It is small militarily, but has a large landmass to place at the disposal of the US imperialists and their militarist Japanese partners.

China’s reaction to these developments has been polite, but pointed.

Commenting on the same day, China’s PLA Daily saw the pact as "paving the way for more overseas deployment of Japan’s Self-Defence Forces in the future."

In response to Japanese and Australian assurances that the security pact does not target China, Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said he "hoped the Japanese and Australian leaders are true to their word."

The PLA Daily called on the two countries to "do things to promote the trust among countries in the region and refrain from doing anything which would harm regional peace and security."

The world’s people call for opposition to imperialism, for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalist regimes and say "Down with the Australia-Japan Security Pact!"

Juan Garrido-Salgado

Juan Garrido-Salgado, a former political prisoner in Chile, now lives in my home town of Adelaide. He came with his family to Australia from Chile under the Humanitarian Programme in 1990, fleeing from a regime which burned his poetry and imprisoned him for his political activism. Last year, he attended this city’s annual Writers’ Week Festival, where he heard Robert Fisk talking about his book "The Great War for Civilisation".

The following poem was the result:

Sonnet (Writers’ Week in Adelaide, 2006)

I am sitting in different shadows.
Chairs are the roots of trees,
the white tents a nest of words and creation.
I am listening to the sound and face of vowels.
Names and authors are beings of the image world.
Stories of lands, struggles, deaths,
beauty and ugliness an equal part of the journey.
Foreign sounds are rare birds under native trees.
A kookaburra sings to the wind and the heat of the evening.
Yahia Al-Samawy reads his poem in Arabic:
Leave my country.
The helmet of occupiers can never be a pigeon’s nest
I am listening to the rhythm of hearts next to a tree.
I am listening to Robert Fisk’s flesh,
wounded lines,
Baghdad and Gaza his home,
ancient cities without rivers,
only dried dreams of the oppressors.

Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution

YOUTUBE video on Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution

I’ve just come across this great video (above) full of proletarian imagery. Not only is it an interesting video, but the following comments from people who have viewed it on Youtube are worth reading.

It's important that we honour the proletarian past without lapsing into passive nostalgia. The task that we all face is how to remain embedded in the working class whilst striving to continually raise the level of struggle going on around us.

Long live Mao Zedong Thought!

xxfireb0ixx (2 days ago)
this is a great video. The East is Red.. beautiful song
sanvera18 (5 days ago)
Most of this "I know everything bird brains" have not really studied the the true history and struggles of the Great Proletarian Revolution, truly there have been grave mistakes, but this mistakes have been recognized. There was a need at that time to for the Cultural revolution it was a means of cleansing, against the growing number of opportunists in the party. Same as the need for a Second Proletarian Cultural Revolution in modern China.
xgreatking (4 days ago)
I don't really endorse a "Second Proletarian Cultural Revolution", because I don't feel that it is necessary right now. Many people in China have grown more nationalistic, as a result of our economic success as of late. But you're right, the Cultural Revolution did have achieve some of its goals back then.
xgreatking (6 days ago)
(cont) Everyone went through this tough time together, knowing that the Communist Party was doing the best for not only China, but other struggling nations as well. Many 3rd world developing nations at that time were in need of assistance, and China commonly supplied them with foodstuffs and other needs. I do agree with you that Deng Xiaoping brought about the means for modern China, but the successes of the early Communist party also cannot be forgotten.
xgreatking (6 days ago)
If you have ever read about the history of China from 1949 forward, you would know that there was a period of great droughts, and of great famines during the period of the 60s and 70s. My parents, who are from Beijing and Shandong countryside have told me stories about their first-hand experiences, and they say, yes it was a difficult time and sometimes there was nothing to eat but plain rice, but they lived through it together with the nation as a whole.
xgreatking (1 week ago)
Chairman Mao was the one who originally turned China around. Sure, some of his ideas may have turned out bad (Great Leap Forward) and even the Cultural Revolution was not as successful as it is portrayed here, but you cannot deny that his intent was for the advancement of the Chinese people. If it was not for Mao, I doubt China would have seen as much reform as they have in the last 50 years...it is incredible how much China has improved since the founding of the People's Republic.
vickymouf (1 week ago)
Awesome!!! But a little too glowing. Doesn't mention that the GPCR actually failed to get rid of the "Thermidorians", despite its attempts. Did the person who made this actually forget about Deng and the capitalist roaders?
Asguitar (1 week ago)
LONG LIVE TO CHAIRMAN MAO
markma5511 (1 month ago)
this is the best video in youtube.
Lycan87 (1 month ago)
To a New Great Proletarian Revolution!
Vlader75 (3 months ago)
The core force leading our cause is the Chinese Communist Party.The theoretical base guiding our thinking is Marxism-Leninism.(Shouting) Long live the Communist Party!Long live Chairman Mao! Long live the Communist Party!A long, long life!
Xuemangong (4 months ago)
Excellent work. a gigantic experiment such as Cultural Revolution, people still will talk about it 1000 years later
arobotar (5 months ago)
I'm glad someone is finally presenting this perspective -- surely the perspective of the millions and millions of individuals who democratically participated in the Cultural Revolution. Though I do have some reservations with regards to the GPCR, this video rather accurately summarizes the attitude of the time.
MaoTzu (5 months ago)
Long Live Marxism Leninism Mao Tse Tung Thought!

REDGUM: I Was Only 19

Back in the 1970’s Brian Medlin, Greg O’Hair and others in the Flinders University Philosophy Department created a course in Marxism-Leninism into which a number of anti-war and anti-imperialist activists enrolled.

One of the issues tackled by the course was the applicability of Chairman Mao’s theories on art to the situation in an advanced capitalist nation, albeit one itself oppressed by imperialism.

Out of this came the band Redgum.

The three originators of the band, John Schumann, Mick Atkinson and Verity Truman were all active in the anti-war movement.

I first new Mick when he was at Underdale High, where there was a group of students keen to find out what was happening at my school, where we had established a student underground movement and were bringing out leaflets on a regular basis.

Verity was a very good comrade, and identified with the CPA(M-L) and the Worker-Student Alliance.

Redgum's first album was "If You Don't Fight You Lose". The title was the fighting slogan of the Builders Laborers Federation, the most militant Australian union at the time, led by CPA(M-L) Vice-Chairman Norm Gallagher. The album cover art featured an Aussie battler taking an axe to a US base in the outback (see recent posts on US bases in Australia).

After several very successful albums, John was inspired by discussion with a Vietnam vet to write the song "I Was Only 19", a damning condemnation of the use by the imperialists of Australian youth as cannon fodder in Vietnam. (Access Redgum mp3's and lyrics here.)

It would have been easy to have written something sloganistic in the atmosphere that prevailed amongst anti-imperialists at that time; instead John wrote a piece that expressed the viewpoint of the boys who went off to war, and then suffered afterwards through their exposure to Agent Orange.

The song was a number 1 hit and prompted an enquiry into the effects of Agent Orange on Australian servicemen who had been in Vietnam.

From time to time some right-wing idiot will write to the capitalist press to remind us all that Vietnam vets were spat on by anti-war protesters when they came back from Vietnam.

Personally, I never heard of this happening, although it would be silly to deny that it may have happened on the odd occasion.

The fact remains, though, that the most eloquent plea for understanding the plight of the ordinary soldier came from the ranks of the anti-war and anti-imperialist movement.

Listen and reflect.

Redgum I was only 19

Redgum:I Was Only 19.

Bring Hicks Home!

David Hicks is an Australian citizen who has been held at Guantanamo base for five years by the US imperialists.

Hicks was captured by Northern Alliance soldiers in Afghanistan and handed over to the US imperialists.

Hicks was born in a working class satellite suburb just to the north of Adelaide. The suburb was created for the US multinational General Motors and named (to our everlasting national shame) Elizabeth, after the then youthful British monarch.

Hicks had something of a "troubled" youth, as did many of his peers out at Elizabeth.
He left school early, passed through several labouring jobs and several relationships, rode horses at rodeos, became a horse-breaker, has a child by an indigenous woman whose whereabouts are unknown, got a job in a Japanese stable as a horse trainer, converted to Islam, ate rotting chicken to prepare his body for a life of deprivation as a fighter overseas for the fascist wing of Islam, fought for a short while with the Kosovo Liberation Front, trained with the Taliban, and maybe with Al-Quaeda, and is now in solitary confinement in a concentration camp whose location is a flagrant denial of the territorial integrity of socialist Cuba.

Given that he espouses values and lives by beliefs that the average Australian, living somewhere within John Howard’s "mainstream Australia", would find repugnant, it is amazing to see the unfolding of a mass campaign to bring David Hicks home.

The iconic Australian sentiment of the "fair go" is the unifying factor in this campaign. I’ve just watched Ray Martin’s Sunday national TV show, which has added to the clamour for Hick’s release for precisely that reason – he may be a "terrorist", but he’s one of us and he’s not been given a fair go.

Once again the calmly heroic visage of Hick’s US-appointed defence lawyer, Major Michael Mori, was there, telling us Aussies that the US simply wouldn’t allow any of their citizens to be charged before the revamped military commissions because they didn’t protect the rights to which US citizens were entitled. Nor, he said, would the British.

So why was Hicks physically and emotionally rotting in his cell? (Ray Martin had used the services of an identikit artist in Melbourne to draw a haunting picture of Hicks, left, which, according to his Adelaide lawyer, resembled the man he had seen a few weeks ago.)

Self-made millionaire Dick Smith, as iconic an Aussie as you can get for a capitalist, had no doubts. "He’s in Guantanamo because he’s a working class kid from a working class suburb. If he was a politician’s son or from some well-off family, he would have been released from there long ago," he told Martin. Putting some money where his mouth was, Smith then kicked in $60,000 to Hicks’ defence campaign.

From the very first day of his incarceration, Hicks has been something of an oddity at Guantanamo: a white, Anglo-Saxon from one of "our" countries turned Muslim and allegedly an Al-Quaeda trained terrorist.

As a counter to the charge that the US might be persecuting Arabs in its "war on terror", Hicks is worth his weight in gold for US propaganda purposes.

And "How high?" Howard, and "Do nothing" Downer (Australian Prime Monster and Monster for Foreign Affairs respectively) have offered up his scalp to the Empire which has their total loyalty.

They have conceded that Hicks has broken no Australian law, and would have to be set free if brought home. So they endorse the military commissions later ruled to be illegal by the US Supreme Court, and place him at the mercy of the revamped commissions that are described as "in some ways worse than the original" by Mori. They are happy for him to be charged under retrospective legislation, for coerced testimony to be used, for his legal team to be denied access to evidence, and all for the sake of having what former Liberal Party Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser described last week as "a guaranteed verdict of guilty".

At first this sat well with the Australian public, but it’s now wearing very thin.

No one has done more (with the exception, perhaps of Mori), to bring about this change than Hicks’ father, Terry. The grizzled features of this humble, but resolute worker, are a constant reminder of the ordinariness of David Hicks, of the "family next door" that produced an alleged "terrorist". Terry has had himself put in a Guantanamo-like cage on the streets of New York, and has had a film made of his efforts in Pakistan and Afghanistan to discover the truth of his son’s circumstances prior to his capture.

Terry has so much sympathy and support that he has been suggested as Australian Father of the Year on several occasions, for doing the right thing by his son, for sticking by him no matter what.

His simple loyalty to a member of his family stands in stark and very public contrast to the Australian Government’s perceived betrayal of one of its citizens.

After five years in Guantanamo, charges have now been tabled against Hicks. Perhaps more worrying than the shortcomings of the revamped military commissions already identified, given the length and circumstances of his imprisonment, is that there is no requirement for Hicks to be of sound enough mind to be able to deal with all the pressures of contesting a case in what is still little more than a kangaroo court.

The US imperialists have refused to allow an independent psychological assessment of Hicks. Howard and Co. cravenly assert that he’s been well-looked after. His lawyer, who recently spent three hours with him, says he has a hollow, sunken look. In a brief statement, Hicks himself says that he is not well.

Hicks may or may not have fought for the clerical fascists of the Taliban. Murderous rabble that they are, they were the legitimate Government of Afghanistan when Hicks is alleged to have entered their service. Had Bush and Co not invaded Afghanistan in support of the Northern Alliance, Hicks would not have become a potential "enemy combatant" of the United States.

The cause of a "fair go" for Hicks is a just one.

The US imperialists and their lickspittle Australian accomplices will not give him a fair trial or a fair go.

Get him out of the concentration camp and bring him home!