Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Class Struggle 98
Editorial
Class Struggle 98
The rise in inequality that resulted from Rogernomics, Ruthonomics and the return of National to office in 2008, proved beyond doubt that NZ remains essentially a semicolony in which the imperialist powers plunder raw materials and labour power to extract their super profits. NZs economy is devoted to rip, shit and bust - ripping out raw materials, depositing shit across the rest of society, and going bust as it gets deeper in debt. Its role is as a provider of raw materials and food for the imperialist countries. The period between 1935 and 1970s when NZ was a rich country is an aberration. Economic nationalism was always a temporary refuge in response to depression and war. The 100 years before 1935 and the 40 years since the oil shock of 1973 proves that in the long run NZ is a weak, dependent semi-colony on Britain, the US, Australia and now China. Thats the story. It explains why protectionism was short-lived so that since 1973 NZ has rapidly slid down the developed OECD countries league into so-called third world status.
Semi-colony inequality
The definition of a semi-colony is a country that is owned and controlled by imperialism but which is politically sovereign or independent. But what does political sovereignty amount to when the key sectors of the economy are foreign owned and controlled? It means that the nation state is nothing but the agent of imperialism and the national capitalist class a comprador class of agents of imperialism. That means that foreign capital owns the key sectors of the economy. The value that is created by the working class is largely exported as profits. The biggest drains are the Big four Banks owned by Australian banks which made $32billion in profits in 2011. Brian Gaynor reports: The Bank of New Zealand was sold to National Australia Bank (NAB) for $1.5 billion in 1992. Since then BNZ has distributed $5.2 billion in dividends to its Australian parent and is now worth an estimated $7.2 billion based on its 2010 net earnings of $602 million and a price/earnings ratio of 12. Thus NAB paid $1.5 billion for BNZ and the latter has delivered total shareholder value of $12.4 billion to its Australian owners since late 1992. .. Telecom was sold to overseas interests for $4.25 billion in 1990 and since then has made distributions to shareholders, in the form of dividends and capital repayments, of $14.6 billion... an estimated $8.8 billion of these $14.6 billion distributions went to overseas shareholders. Gaynor summarises the situation: A prosperous free enterprise
economy is based on a high domestic savings rate and a strong productive sector that is well governed and mainly domestically owned. Australia and other above-average growth countries have these characteristics but New Zealand doesn't. Our low savings rate and under-investment in productive assets have hindered long-term stability and growth. For example, almost all the assets owned by the 10 largest ASX listed companies at the end of 1987, which had BHP in the top spot and Westpac at number 10, are still Australian-owned, whereas our largest listed companies at the end of 1987 were as follows: Fletcher Challenge (paper, forest and energy assets in foreign ownership), Brierley Investments, NZI (Australian-owned), NZ Forest Products (Graeme Hart-owned), Bank of New Zealand, Petrocorp (bought by Fletcher Challenge and on-sold to overseas interests), Lion (Japanese-owned), Carter Holt Harvey (Graeme Hart), LD Nathan (merged with Lion and now Japanese-owned) and Robt Jones Investments (Hong Kong-owned). Almost all of the assets owned
So its this foreign ownership that determines the relations between classes in NZ. Income or wealth inequality is a symptom of this. The ruling class wealth increases in relation to its role as agents of international capital which requires NZ to be competitive. This means cutting costs, at all costs. The old class of national industrialists like Fletchers, Watties, Lion Breweries, Fisher and Paykel etc have been replaced as the dominant fraction of the ruling class by the upstart vulture capitalists, notably Brierley, Fay and Richwhite, Bob Jones, Alan Gibbs, Infratils Morrison, and CHHs Hart, who have asset stripped uncompetitive firms and restructured them as international corporations. The second rank comprises the financial and property parasites who speculate on already produced value. Most of their combined wealth is invested offshore and is part of NZs biggest exports profits. So while NZ industry has been restructured it is mainly at the expense of the working class. Jobs, wages, taxes, social spending all have to be cut. As industry is restructured plants are closed down and many jobs are lost. Government legislates for reforms to implement these cost cuts. Thus since the deregulation of the economy under Labour in the 1980s we have seen these policies pursued by every government, cementing in the openness of the economy. None of this was a surprise and was predicted by Marxists in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, it is an indictment of the lack of any serious political left in this country that a NZ Herald journalist Simon Collins has to rediscover the colonial causes of inequality in a series of articles. Yes it is colonisation that is the structural cause of poverty and discrimination and Maori child abuse.
Class Struggle 98
Grossman, who made her name by making clients pay for phone calls to claim benefits, and a new Secretary of Education whose former job in the UK was to set up Charter Schools. NZ has no shortage of right wing Think Tanks that spew out every toxic right wing concept in social services, management and labour relations. Not only that we have a Prime Minister who has direct links to Wall Street and the CEO of Ports of Auckland Tony Gibson who once worked for Maersk, the monopoly shipping line. Every policy the NACTs have in mind to attack workers living standards and cut taxes and social spending is called by the universal name the bosses give to making us pay for their crisis - "austerity". "Austerity" is what Mohamed Bouazizi faced when his fruit stall was trashed by the local authorities; what US workers face when they lose their homes to foreclosures; when their unions are smashed and unionists replaced by scab labour; when welfare cuts are blamed on welfare cheats; when student fees are bumped up; when workplaces close down and workers are sacked; when taxes and prices rise and wages fall. Austerity is what the Greek workers are facing when facing new taxes they are handing their kids over into state care. Austerity is what young Chinese workers face threatening mass suicide when their employer reneges on a wage increase. "Austerity" is simply a bullshit word to make it seem that for workers there is no alternative to the pain. TINA.
Austerity is Global
The attack on labour is global, since the bosses crisis is global and rapidly becoming an international depression. And as usual the NACTs are following the US and Britain in imposing these attacks on workers. They import new Departmental officials from Britain to head Social Development, Janet
Class Struggle 98
fear disappears. When the Arab Spring jumped the Mediterranean to Greece and Spain, the squares filled up with Generation Zeros. Governments fell but 'austerity' regimes were voted in or appointed by coalitions to drive through more attacks on workers. Right across southern Europe from Greece to pe Ireland, the masses are primed ready for a new social movement to unite and organise a powerful resistance. But they are contained and disorganised by the traditional party and union leaderships who are in the pay of the capitalists. They are waiting for the example of how to unite the global working class as an independent force to take control of their own lives. That movement began in Egypt, continued in n Greece and then jumped the Atlantic to take the form of Occupy Wall St. From its beginnings, the Occupy movement . has signalled that it has broken with the inst institutions of the bourgeois state by virtue of the symbolic occupation of public space against the rule of private property.
Class Struggle 98
1930s, in the same way that the Waterside Workers Union in New Zealand refused to load scrap iron to fascist Japan when it was occupying China. During the 1951 lockout in NZ, the ILWU and other dockers unions refused to handle ships loaded by scab labour. So from the days of the Red Feds when the Wobblies sailed all around the Pacific organising workers there has been a tradition of internationalist trade unionism between dockers/wharfies unions. Keep a close eye on the big fight at Longview, Washington State, where the big shipowners and corporates are trying to smash the ILWU and bring in scab labour to handle grain shipments. It will be a showdown between the capitalist monopolies and an emerging new force in the united working class. It will make or break the unions. That is why the working class on the West Coast is rallying behind this struggle on the basis of an 'injury to one is an injury to all'. More than ever, community groups like Million Worker March and Labor Black and Brown, Oscar Grant Committee, and migrant workers groups as well as Labor Councils are joining forces as never before. Similarly, the fight at Ports of Auckland against MUNZ Local 13 refusal to accept casualisation and contracting out, is a make-or-break fight. It has all the hallmarks of 1951 and a right-wing government determined to break the union movement. You can bet that the Labour Party will sit this one out preaching "neither for nor against" as Walter Nash did in 1951. Mayor Len Brown and Opposition leader Shearer do not want to get involved in a 'class war'. Nor will support and fundraising nationally and internationally determine the outcome. International solidarity is welcome but while it works within the labour law it wont stop the defeat of MUNZ. The ILWU refusal to handle ships loaded by scab labour in NZ didn't win the fight.
For a joint Strike Committee between MUNZ Local 13 and Occupy Auckland and all other working class organisations committed to the struggle! No to sackings, No to casualisation, No to contracting out, No to scabbing on the union! Solidarity with ILWU and the Occupy Movement resisting 'austerity regimes' everywhere! Build international action to hit the monopoly shipowners! Down with the bosses austerity regimes making workers pay for their crisis! We will not pay for their crisis, make the bosses pay! No confidence in Auckland City Council or Ports of Auckland who are in the pockets of the corporates! For strike action in solidarity with the MUNZ workers fight! Down with the NACT government and its anti-worker austerity policies! No to privatisation, part privatisation or PPPs of state owned assets! Whose Port! Our Port! Thats the cry of Occupy! No to privatisation, put the ports under workers management and control! For a General Strike to defeat the NACTs and for a mass Workers Party based on the rank and file of the unions! For a Socialist Aotearoa in a Socialist Asia/Pacific!
Class Struggle 98
Centrist Coup
It turned out that the majority of the 34 MPs were more concerned to find a leader that could win the popularity contest against John Key, than listen to the membership who clearly favoured Cunliffe over Shearer. Although to be fair, the Party has only itself to blame for having evolved over many years from a Party where MPs were mainly unionists and accountable to the rank and file membership into a Parliamentary machine where lawyers, teachers and union
Class Struggle 98
Left Behind
After the 2008 election defeat, Clark resigned to go to the UN leaving Goff as caretaker. Shearer flew in back from dodging bullets in Iraq! Nobody on the left apart from Te Atatu MP Chris Carter had the guts to challenge Goff for the leadership and his attempt led to his sacking from the Party. Goff tried to appeal to the middle ground by opposing asset sales, introducing a tiny Capital Gains Tax, and put up the age of retirement from 65 to 67. Labour stole the ACT Partys policy of making workers work longer and die earlier. Again Labour's Blairism was focussed on the centre and not the working class. Such was Goff's failure to challenge National that many Labour voters switched to NZ First or the Greens in desperation to provide a few more MPs to back up a Labour led government. In a defeat even worse than 2008, a million voters stayed home, a fifth of young voters failed to register, and National won the party vote even in the historic Labour bastion of South Dunedin. Yet not until the centrists staged a coup to replace Goff immediately after the election did the left take even a minimal stand in the form of the Cunliffe/Mahuta to challenge for the leadership. Cunliffe and Mahuta drew that conclusion that Labour had to reconnect with its working class roots and made it clear how they wanted to go about it. They began talking of policies to make this happen. Cunliffe's selection of Mahuta, a Maori woman, as his deputy was itself proof that they were serious about reaching out to the Maori, Pacifika and Pakeha working class. More than that, they said that the Labour Party constitution should be changed so that the members elected the leaders of the party. The defeat of the left then is also defeat for those disenfranchised workers because the victory of the right has junked even those tentative left moves to reconnect with the working class and to give that class a democratic voice in the party.
Failing that, Labour will finish its rightward shift in the post-war period and complete the transition into an open capitalist party. At that point, there will be no course open for workers but to form an independent working class party based on workers democracy within which revolutionaries will fight for a program for socialist revolution.
Class Struggle 98
The Most Dangerous Class: Chinese Workers and Farmers Confront Chinese Imperialism
The Wukan rebellion has focused world attention on the role of the Chinese workers and farmers. In reality it is one fight among many over land that happens to have come to international media attention. It has to be seen in the light also of the many labour disputes that have broken out in recent years especially since 2008 when China recovered from the slowdown of the global recession with a massive injection of state investment in infrastructure. We will not document these struggles other than to point out that they are proof of the growing strength and militancy of workers and farmers facing the extreme pressure to increase productivity to maintain profits as the emerging imperialist Chinese economy competes with other imperialist rivals to make its workers and farmers pay for the global crisis.
The left is in disarray over China. Many think this wave of peasant and worker militancy is a pro-democracy movement against the communist dictatorship inspired by the Jasmine Revolution. Others say labour disputes are the working class playing its role in bringing workers democracy and social equality which is lacking in Chinas market socialism. Yet others recognise that China has restored capitalism and a new capitalist class is super-exploiting its workers and peasants, and then there are those like ourselves who say that Chinas restored capitalism has developed into an emerging imperialism which has clear consequences for the class struggle. We propose to critique the various positions (we could call them post-Marxist since they abandon the law of value) to arrive at the truth about China today. The key to understanding Chinas recent history is to discover how it combines pre-capitalist, capitalist and post-capitalist modes of production into a new capitalist imperialism. We need to develop a Marxist critique of this uneven and combined development which can explain how Chinas transition from degenerate workers state back to capitalist state has been able to assert its economic independence to escape the trap of imperialist domination as an emerging imperialist power. Without such an analysis we cannot fully explain the historic leading role of the Chinese working class and peasantry in the current world situation. "Western post-Marxistsliving in countries where the absolute or relative size of the manufacturing workforce has shrunk dramatically in the last generation lazily ruminate on whether or not proletarian agency is now obsolete, obliging us to think in terms of multitudes, horizontal spontaneities, whatever. But this is not a debate in the great industrializing society that Das Kapital describes even more accurately than Victorian Britain or New Deal America...Two hundred million Chinese factory workers, miners and construction labourers are the most dangerous class on the planet. (Just ask the State Council in Beijing.) Their full awakening from the bubble may yet determine whether or not a socialist Earth is still possible. China is today the great industrialising successor to Victorian Britain and New Deal America, where Western postMarxists are awakening to the class struggle. However, China has long been recognised as being more advanced than the West. To see precisely why the Chinese working class is the most dangerous class for capitalism today we need to rewind and replay the historic scenario of its history as a revolutionary class. The Chinese working class played an important role in three revolutions, the bourgeois revolution of 1911, the workers revolution of 1925-1927, the Stalinist/Maoist revolution of 1949, and today after the restoration of capitalism it is once again centre-stage in the coming socialist revolution. Karl Marx was the first to understand that not all nations had to repeat the development of capitalism in Europe.Coming late to capitalism that was already a global system, backward nations could rapidly make the transition from capitalism to socialism ahead of the European states in what
Class Struggle 98
he called permanent revolution. Marx fully expected that China would rapidly catch up and surpass Europe in its bourgeois revolution. As in all backward countries colonised by European capitalist powers, Marx expected that the national bourgeoisies would become weak and reactionary allies of imperialism and lack the capacity or class interest to unify the nation and win independence from imperialism, making it necessary for the revolutionary working class to take the leadership of the bourgeois revolution and complete it as the socialist revolution. Writing in 1850, Marx says: Chinese Socialism bears much the same relation to European Socialism as Chinese philosophy does to Hegelian philosophy. It is, in any case, an intriguing fact that the oldest and the most unshakable empire in the world has in eight years by the cannon-balls of the English bourgeoisie been brought to the eve of a social revolution which will certainly have the most important results for civilisation. When our European reactionaries in their immediately coming flight across Asia finally come up against the Great Wall of China, who knows whether they will not find on the gates which lead to the home of ancient reaction and ancient conservatism the inscription, Chinese Republic liberty, equality, fraternity. What Marx was foreseeing was that once its reactionary Asiatic mode of production was opened to the modernising force of capitalism China had the potential to break free of European domination and make its bourgeois revolution without having to repeat European history. Not only was Marx correct in this prediction, he anticipated that in China the bourgeois revolution would be completed under the leadership of the working class as the socialist revolution. Marx was here making the point later taken up by Lenin, that the bourgeois revolutionary tasks were better expressed as the national revolution since they would be carried out by the proletariat not by the national bourgeoisie. Marx was also anticipating Trotsky who from 1906 understood that the logic of this process in the epoch of imperialism would require a permanent revolution in which the national and democratic tasks would be completed as part of an international socialist revolution. The Bolshevik Revolution put this theory to the test and proved that the national proletariat could begin to complete the national-democratic tasks, but that the permanent revolution would only be completed by the international socialist revolution. With the failure of the German Revolution in 1923, the Chinese Revolution became the next best hope for extending the Russian Revolution to the world. Lenin lived to see the First Chinese national revolution of 1911. Trotsky survived long enough to see this revolution prove the universality of the theory of permanent revolution as the working class rapidly took the leadership of the revolution and made the Second Chinese Revolution as a workers revolution between 1925 and 1927. Trotsky, by then in opposition, fought against the Stalinist policy that betrayed
10
Class Struggle 98
threat of the Chinese working class as part of the international proletariat that made the national bourgeoisie flee China forcing the Stalinist/Maoists to go further than they wanted, and to expropriate the bourgeoisie. Just as the Stalinists were obliged to defend workers property relations in the Soviet Union as the basis of their caste privileges, in China the Maoists were forced to create workers property relations to develop the forces of production where the bourgeoisie had failed. While the working class was denied a democratic role in the CCP and the state, its potential was as the only historic class that had the social power to produce material wealth. The proletariat is the only universal class that can replace the weak and declining bourgeoisie and lead an international socialist revolution against the decaying capitalist imperialist system. So while workers power was usurped by the Stalinist/Maoist bureaucracy in China, all that was required was a political revolution, in which the workers and peasants would smash the state machine, overthrow the parasitic bureaucratic caste and implement a genuine workers democracy and socialist plan. Failing that, the stagnation and decline of the DWS would lead inevitably to the restoration of capitalism and subordination of China once more to the existing capitalist imperialist powers.
11
Class Struggle 98
century later, the extreme bankruptcy of capitalism in the epoch of imperialism beset by structural crisis today is matched by the extreme bankruptcy of post-Marxist theories of capitalism dominated by the ideas of the ruling class.
12
Class Struggle 98
necessary changes to regulate the market when the conditions are ripe. The China Left Review presents this position clearly. Chinese workers are defending the rights won under socialism in their fight against the inroads of the market. In that sense this is the prevailing Menshevik view of the proletariat as the dangerous class forcing the market to adapt to Chinese characteristics. In China the market-socialists play the same role as social democracy in the imperialist powers. They represent the labour aristocracy and bureaucracy that collaborate with the Chinese ruling class and defend its imperialist foreign policy as social imperialism in the name state socialism in return for sharing the plunder of Chinas foreign imperialist superprofits. As we argue below however, the contradictions are so heightened in China today that the labour aristocracy will be squeezed between the new imperialist class and the most dangerous class as it sharpens its weapons of class struggle.
All these impressionistic theories fail to trace their origins to the material reality of China today as a unique combination of historically overlapping modes of production dominated by the capitalist mode of production and the law of value. They fail to show how uneven and combined development produced in China had a national bourgeois revolution that went further and faster than most other semi-colonies, but that the bourgeoisdemocratic revolution could only be completed by overthrowing bourgeois property relations and creating workers property relations that in the unique conditions took the form of a degenerate workers state where workers power was usurped by a Maoist bureaucracy whose
13
Class Struggle 98
dictatorship caused the stagnation of the economy. This forced the bureaucracy to reintroduce capitalism under the banner of market socialism which inevitably restored capitalist social relations in the whole economy but under conditions which allowed China to escape semi-colonial servitude and emerge as a new imperialist power. Only on the basis of this understanding is it possible to explain the dynamics of class struggle in China today as the basis for a revolutionary program to guide the masses to socialist revolution.
14
Class Struggle 98
Chinas rising living standards even if they are critical of the authoritarian state. Yet the so-called anti-crisis Keynesian policies to boost the economy in the world crisis are only possible given surplus capital. Such capital is not merely generated by banks and state policy, but by big balance of payments surpluses. Therefore accumulation of surplus capital is a feature not of market socialism or semi-colonial capitalism, both of which are usually bankrupt, but of imperialism. We can see then that it is not sufficient to explain labour unrest in terms of market socialism, DWS, or semi-colonial conditions. The most dangerous class in China today is the result of the emerging imperialist class structure. The conditions prevailing in China today demonstrate clearly that China has become a new imperialist power competing against other imperialist powers in a global crisis of overproduction. The differentiation of the peasantry and the proletariat as well as a growing bourgeoisie all testify to this. We will summarise the China Labour Bulletin report on the working class in China as proof of this point. The new generation of youthful migrant workers no longer see themselves as peasants. In other words they are now wage workers not dependent on subsistence on family or collective farming. As land is privatised migrant workers are forced to live entirely off their wage which means that they have no choice but to engage in labour struggles. They comprise 2/3rds of migrant workers and are the workers most involved in the waves of labour struggles in both foreign and Chinese owned manufacturing. The demands are mainly over wages which began from a very low point but have risen as China has rapidly invested in new technology to increase labour productivity. What this means is that while wages can rise and with it real living standards, the rate of exploitation is increasing and the share of new value produced is going mainly to capital as super profits. The upsurge in the period since 2008 is particularly significant. It represents the development of independent labour protests outside the official unions or party structures i.e. wildcats. The CCP has tried to revive the official union and impose state run collective contracts, but the wildcats continue. Increasing state expenditure on social stability is unable to contain these wildcat struggles. What this means is that in China today the extreme contradiction between labour and capital is materialising in the militant class struggle of the dangerous class the proletariat. This is not the same as the Jasmine Revolution in semi-colonial North Africa; nor the occupations of the indignados in the declining small imperialisms of Southern Europe. Chinas class struggle reflects a rapid development of the forces of production by an emerging imperialist power which can only fully emerge as other imperialists decline. Not all the aspects of imperialist class structures are present. The SOE workers like state workers everywhere have lost many jobs. There is no time for the formation of a classic labour aristocracy tied to statised unions or the CCP. The labour/capital contradiction is so exacerbated in China that as the skilled workers emerge to challenge for a share in Chinas super-profits they are at the same time being squeezed between the new layers of militant migrant workers and the imperialist ruling class. The most skilled and productive workers are the new educated migrant youth and that fact gives the Chinese working class more independence from the state and the employers than the older imperialist powers. These new layers of militant workers will not have the luxury of being bought off by colonial super-profits and will necessarily
15
Class Struggle 98
NZ History:
Neo-liberals/Conservatives
Neo-liberals are usually capitalists who see the individuals as sovereign and free classes as artificial divisions in the market introduced by state interference in market forces and/or invented by liberals, radical and Marxists. Conservatives may sometimes use the term class to mean status or social standing. Both tend to agree that individuals will find their place in the market and there is one law for all. The only class recognised by neo-liberals is the underclass a category of people who have failed to compete in the market and are dependent on the state for support, whereas ideally they should be freed from dependency and those who are deserving should be kept alive by private charity. Since individuals are free, workers who join unions introduce a labour monopoly (similar to an employers monopoly) into the market that prevents workers from competing for wages. Individual employers are justified in breaking this monopoly by employing other individuals to replace unionized workers. The 1951 lockout is regarded by the employers as a strike because the wharfies refused normal overtime i.e. they broke a contract between buyers and sellers of labour. This was the stand taken by the then National Government under Prime Minister Syd Holland. Hollands stand against the union was backed by the US which sent Secretary of State, Foster Dulles, to NZ to stress the need to take a strong stand against communist influence in the unions. (Dulles attended a Cabinet meeting sitting at the head of the table).The ship-owners were justified in colluding to lock out the workers and replace them with other workers. When the wharfies sought support from other unions this increased the monopoly of labour and justified the state stepping with the army to break the strike and suppress solidarity as sedition. The suspension of civil rights (banning meetings, street marches, publications, support for strikers etc) was justified to prevent the unions from halting production, distribution and exchange and therefore the threat to the property rights of the employers. The outcome, the defeat of the unions after 151 days, and the jailing and victimisation of the leaders over many years, was a victory for the employers /conservatives. It set the course for industrial relations over the next decades as the defeat of the radicals in the unions left the unions much weakened and incapable of pushing for a better share of the national income over the period up to the end of the post-war boom in the 1970s. When some of the unions recovered and began striking in the 1970s the conservatives returned to the red scare message and political cartoons of dancing Cossacks
Maori viewpoint
Marxists take the view that PreEuropean Maori society did not have class divisions between those who worked and those who lived off that work, although some other Polynesian societies such as Tahiti and Hawaii had developed classes (see Marshall Sahlins, What Natives Think, about Captain Cook for example.) However, with colonisation Europeans tried to impose a bourgeois concept of individual title onto Maori and so create a capitalist class system (Michael Bassett being a recent example). Capitalist colonisation has created classes within Maori society, whatever Euro-standpoint you use for neoliberals/Cons and underclass of welfare and Treaty beneficiaries as opposed to successful individuals who have escaped dependency (e.g. Alan Duff), for liberals a residue of poor and marginalised Maori and a minority of successful professionals and businessmen and women (e.g. Mason Durie, Massey University Assistant CEO), radicals mainly manual workers, some middle class, some small capitalists and a few big capitalists (e.g. Annette Sykes) or Marxists, wage workers, petty bourgeois (self-employed) some small capitalists and a few large capitalists. (e.g. Evan Te Ahu Poata Smith). But of course each of these standpoints has a distinct concept of what class means, and therefore what impact is has on Maori society. The 1951 Lockout showed that most Maori were manual workers working on the wharves, freezing works, railways, mines and heavy construction. They made up a sizable part of the workers who became involved in the Lockout and solidarity strikes. At that point we could say that as well as
16
Class Struggle 98
removed Labour from its one term in office in 1975. Muldoon spent the years up to 1984 attacking communists in the meat workers, drivers and boilermakers unions. The Fourth Labour Governments neo-liberal reforms of the 1980s were driven through with little resistance from a weakened and moderate labour movement. Nationals ECA of 1991 was able to exploit this passivity to legislate the neo-liberal dream of putting an end to collective bargaining, allowing employers and individual workers to enter into individual contracts without union involvement. By 2000 neo-liberals and conservatives could claim that employers and workers could buy and sell labour as individuals with almost no interference from the state. Classes (as monopolies) had been virtually abolished by free market forces. All that remained was the underclass dependent on state welfare.
1951 was the next major clash between workers and employers sparked less by economic hardship and more by the intensification of class confrontation referred to as the cold war. The hostile stand taken against the USSR by the US and its allies spread to NZ where the Holland government targeted reds under the beds in the unions. This polarisation between strong conservative anti-communism and radicals (very few reds) in the unions, left the liberals somewhat bemused like Walter Nash in no-mans land in the class war. The liberals class neutrality meant they criticised the British ship-owners use of the lockout, but they also criticised the radicals in the unions for breaking away from the moderate Labour Party-affiliated Federation of Labour to form the radical Trade Union Congress. The solution was always moderation and the video shows how even Dick Scott was critical of Jock Barnes leadership in keeping the dispute going well beyond the point where there was any hope of averting defeat. The liberals blame Barnes and the other militants in the unions for abandoning conciliation and arbitration and inflicting an unnecessary defeat on the union movement from which it would take decades to recover. But Barnes, a radical syndicalist, was not going to retreat. The hard right government was demanding the union submit to compulsory arbitration and give up basic rights and conditions, that is, union breaking. Barnes was backed by 2000 wharfies in Auckland until the very end, refusing to back down and sacrifice the gains of past struggles. Ironically, the Fourth Labour government benefited from the aftermath of this defeat when it imposed its shock Rogernomic reforms in the 1980s. National followed with the Employment Contracts Act in 2001 which strengthened the power of the employers at the expense of the unions. Labour returned to government in 1999 and tried to restore a class harmony to industrial relations with the Employment Relations Act (ERA) of 2000 and the amended ERA of 2005. Yet radicals said the workers share of wealth had still gone down and bosses gone up.
Liberal
In 1951 while the Government went on the attack, there was huge support among the majority of the people for the unions up against what they saw as the monopoly of wealth and power of the ship-owners. Liberals think that the power of employers and labour should be balanced in a state of industrial harmony. The Labour Party represented by Walter Nash came out in front of a mass meeting in the Auckland Domain standing firmly in the middle as neither for nor against the unions. As you would expect it sought to reconcile the classes by state negotiation and arbitration. The Labour Party and the majority of unionists were liberal. For them Aotearoa/NZ was a haven of equality and a refuge from the class-ridden UK represented by the ship-owners. Social classes only exist as a result of imbalances or monopolies of wealth and power. The state can redistribute wealth and power and reconcile classes. These policies would create upward social mobility of workers and a middle class country. That is why the colonial state recognised the right of workers to unionise in the 1880s as a social counterweight to the power of the employers. And then the forerunner to the Labour Party, the Liberals, following the great Maritime Strike of 1890, introduced the IC&A Act in 1894 to prevent future economic damage from industrial conflict. From henceforth the states Arbitration Court would reconcile the workers and employers classes by means of wage orders that would balance wages with profits. In practice the Court tended to favour employers and after a nil wage order in 1907 a number of unions including miners and seafarers left the IC&A and formed the syndicalist Red Federation. This led to a period of industrial upheaval which culminated in the Waihi Strike of 1912 (see Harry Hollands The Tragic Story of Waihi) and the general strike of 1913. The defeat of the militant unions and onset of WW 1 suppressed the militant labour movement and steered it into the newly formed moderate Labour Party until in the 1930s Depression widespread unemployment and poverty sparked worker demonstrations and the first so-called Queen St riot.
Radical
The Waterside Workers Union (WWU) was a bastion of radicalism. It contained many battlers from previous fights such as the General Strike in 1913 brought up with syndicalist, anarchist and socialist ideas (as were most of the first Labour Party leaders like Harry Holland). Its paper the Transport Worker (edited by Dick Scott) carried educational stories on the Red Federation. In 1951 the union officially supported the Labour Party but it was highly critical of its weak-kneed liberalism. Witness its criticism of the Fraser governments cold war politics (Fraser responded by calling the watersiders wreckers); its attacks on F.P. Walsh the rightwing leader of the FOL (who also owned a huge dairy farm); its political campaign to ban shipping iron ore to Japan when it invaded China; its opposition to conscription in 1949 and the All Black tours to South Africa. The union was on the left of the labour movement. It was working class conscious with
17
Class Struggle 98
an active social and sporting calendar involving the wives and families. Politically its program was for gender equity, subsidised housing for workers, the scrapping of Royal tours and spending on defence, and the nationalisation of key industries. The WWU politics fits the radical category of class based on unequal exchange where bosses profit from holding down wages and conditions. Some Marxists in its ranks also saw class in these terms. They saw the class struggle as a worldwide confrontation between employers and workers over the division of profits and wages. For example, Tom Bramble in his introduction to Jock Barnes book (Never a White Flag) talks of Dockers in East London, metalworkers in Melbourne, and carpenters in Auckland, in a common struggle with workers in the Nissan factories in Japan, farm labourers in southern Italy and railway workers in France (18). The two main classes were at loggerheads over which class would dominate the post-war world economy. The ship-owners, the government and the right-wing Walsh leadership of the FOL were out to smash the radical unions. But the militant wing of the labour movement in NZ and elsewhere was not about to lie down and die. At the height of the dispute 22,000 thousand workers were involved in industrial action in support of the WWU. This was made of up 8000 wharfies, 7000 freezing workers, 4000 miners, 1000 hydro workers and 500 drivers. Australian, Canadian and US unions refused to handle ships loaded by strikebreakers in NZ. Class lines were drawn in the dispute. University students endorsed the governments side, much as they had done against the rioters of the 1930s. Academic historians like Michael Bassett and Erik Olssen (see Brambles Introduction) in writing about the dispute were more or less hostile to Barnes and the radicals. But Maori and womens organisations came out in support for the wharfies showing that these members of the working class knew which side they were on. While unions in support eventually returned to work leaving the wharfies to fight alone, they did so under pressure and would have agreed with Barnes in 1972 who wrote in his review of Michael Bassetts book Confrontation 51. We had no option as unionists and men but to fight back and make our attackers pay as dearly as possible. In this we succeeded. The defeat of the radicals was not inevitable. They were not bound to lose. Other struggles have seen governments back down. But the stakes in this Lockout were huge. It was a test of which class controlled society. Bramble contrasts the 51 dispute with the collapse of union resistance in 91 to the ECA. He says the defeat of 51 did not destroy the unions or the class consciousness generated by the struggle. It could not be held responsible for the back down without a fight in 91 which almost destroyed the unions so that today union membership is less than 20% of the workforce.
Marxist
Unlike radical, for Marxists class is defined not by exchange relations but by the relations of production; as owners or non-
18
Class Struggle 98
Review:
Other Peoples Wars: New Zealand Afghanistan, Iraq and the war on terror
By Nicky Hager. (Craig Potton Publishing: Wellington, 2011)
in
"The 'war on terror' in Afghanistan and beyond has been the longest foreign war in New Zealand history, yet most New Zealanders know almost nothing about their country's part in it. For ten years, nearly everything controversial or potentially unpopular was kept secret, and obscured by a steady flow of military public relations stories. Based on thousands of leaked New Zealand military and intelligence documents, extensive interviews with military and intelligence officers and eye-witness accounts from the soldiers on the ground, Nicky Hager tells the story of these years." (Back cover)
Other peoples wars shows evidence of NZ state forces with blood on our hands in the recent wars of the U.S. (in its bloc with Britain, Australia, Canada) and any other allies they could gather. That is the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. His information sources are many and varied and include quotes of local public servants - sources inside various government and military agencies; as well as government papers, cabinet docs, briefing papers, Army, Navy & Airforce documents: including some released under the Official Information Act and others leaked to him. The US cables on Wikileaks support the book and Hager also found links through facebook networks of spies who had served in Afghanistan together. Chapter 19 brings together Hagers knowledge of spying capabilities with information from a pre-publication copy of a US agents memoirs Operation dark heart: special operations on the frontlines of Afghanistan and the path to victory. The uncensored version (before the NZ government deleted any reference to the NZ agent involved) details a NZ analysts role identifying targets including in Pakistan, which US drones targeted and murdered. NZ was directly involved in identifying targets for those across the border attacks into Pakistan. The targets were unlikely to be terrorists, unlikely to be Al Queda or Taliban; most likely they were tribesmen who happened to be refugees of an earlier US offensive, who had regrouped in Pakistan and may have been pissed off enough to want to fight back against the US. All of this exposes the state forces acting outside the limits set by the NZ government on NZ involvement in Afghanistan, instead acting in the interests of US imperialism. There were a number of inside stories about how both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Defence bureaucratically manoeuvred behind the public policy of the Clarke Labour government to able to continue a foreign policy agenda that was basically the agenda of the US government This fact was also backed by Wikileaks cables of US ambassadors comments on the NZ situation. The public was sold a reconstruction team. However the reality was war patrols under the commands of the US. The few reconstruction projects were token, ineffective, and overly promoted by the public relations spin from the Ministry of Defence. There was little exposure of the myth of peacekeeping, when the reality has been the US agenda. In fact the case of East Timor could have been highlighted as an example given that the NZ army role was to support the US-Australian imperialist grab for oil in the Timor Sea. Sold as peacekeeping to NZ public; defend the defenceless East Timorese against the Indonesian army (who until then were okay to occupy and exploit East Timor and continue to do so in West Papua). The NZ army trialled its electronic surveillance systems in East Timor under the Australian (and US) regime. Hager is empathic to the personal morality of those defence and other officials who he spoke to, too close to be dispassionately critical of their role as cogs in the US war machine partly bought by the privileges offered to them. Although their (the inside leaks) moral disquiet clearly motivated them to exposure the rottenness of the NZ states role for the US (Australia Britain Canada) alliance. Similarly he reproduces the war machines self description of the departments of military intelligence when reality is these agents are cogs in the US machine. Hagers book is simply a description of the reality of events with fully documented evidence. He does not analyse the information in anything near a radical or Marxist approach. In fact Hager allows the voices of his sources and the information to speak for itself than stating anything himself it is difficult to hear his opinion at all in this work. Perhaps he was trying to be scholarly and objective or neutral and allow the readers to form their own opinions. He does not draw the necessary conclusions: That NZ state force have been acting as the tail of the dog of the U.S. imperialist masters. Only smashing the NZ state and starting over could we break from imperialism although he quotes an intelligence agent who says the SIS needs to be thrown away and started over.
19
Class Struggle 98
Communist Workers Group of New Zealand/Aotearoa, in a Liaison Committee with Humanist Workers for Revolutionary Socialism. Online http://redrave.blogspot.com Phone 0064 0272800080 Email cwg006@yahoo.com http://communistworker.blogspot.co m/
20