CombatIssue#: 3 Volume#: 31 Voice of the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) May/June 2010

COMBAT: May/June, 2010 Page One

THE MARTYRS’ LEGACY, THE REALITYTHE ENMORE FORUM 2010 STIMULATES HISTORICAL AND CURRENT CONSIDERATIONS

The 62nd Death Anniversary of the Enmore Martyrs was observed on June 16th 2010 with two commemorative ac-tivities at Le Repentir Cemetery and at Enmore Monument Square under the auspices of the Protocol Division of the Office of the President. This year’s observances provided a forum for the nation’s topmost leaders to reflect upon the significance of the legacy of that massacre and martyrdom. The first event saw Prime Minister Sam Hinds, other Gov-ernment Officials, members of the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU), leaders of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG) and other organizations in a march starting at 07:30h from the Square of the Revolution to Le Repentir cemetery where the five martyrs were interred. At the cemetery, the activity com-menced at 7:55h and wreaths were laid by the Prime Min-ister on behalf of the Government, relatives of the Martyrs and representatives of the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Agriculture, the People’s Progressive Party, the Progres-sive Youth Organisation (PYO), the Womens Progressive Or-ganisation (WPO) and the Rice Producers Association (RPA). Trade Unions which laid wreaths were the Guyana Agricul-tural and General Workers Union (GAWU), the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG), the Guyana Labour Union (GLU) and the National Association of Agricul-tural, Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE). Acting Labour Minister Irfan Ali, in delivering the feature address stated that the activity at the cemetery would en-able younger generations to understand the true history of

the country and the struggles and accomplishments of the martyrs. He reflected on the present period of rebuilding, modernisation and transformation of the country, which is attributed to government’s commitments to its policies and programmes to enhance the living conditions and working class of the country. Minister Ali noted that people must ac-knowledge the undoubted input of the government in ensur-ing that industries such as sugar and bauxite are sustained. President of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG) Carvil Duncan, stated that the sacrifices of the Enmore Martyrs contributed to the change of the land-scape of the socio-economic formation of the country and created a new page in history. He said that trade unions need strong, dedicated leaders who can represent the workers to-ward the realization of their economic, social and cultural need. He noted that all Guyanese have an obligation to en-sure that the memories of the martyrs are told to future gen-erations for them to learn about our past, bitter struggles. GAWU General Council Member, Cde Narda Mohamed in her remarks stated that the lives of the Enmore Martyrs were snuffed out in one of the just struggles by workers who suffered greatly in the heyday of colonialism in our country. She noted that out of the martyrs’ struggle we have seen the enactment of the Trade Union Recognition Act which, had it been in place in 1948, would have allowed the sugar workers by election to have a Union of their choice. She said since the Enmore tragedy the living and working conditions of sugar workers have significantly changed and they were

able to have a Union of their choice, twenty-eight (28) years after their demise. The second activity to commemorate the Enmore Martyrs took place at Enmore Monument Square. There were two interpreative dances from the Ministry of Youth, Culture and Sports Dance Troupe and the Indian Cultural Centre. The Po-lice Band provided appropriate renditions prior to the com-mencement and during the programme. The occasion, however, also proved to be appropriate for the leaders to make candid comments, sometimes stark analyses, relevant to today’s socio-economic realities, sixty-two (62) years after Enmore’s lasting moment in history. President Bharrat Jagdeo in his address underscored the critical need for partnership to ensure the survival of the sugar industry. He said without the partnership of the stake-holders the industry would not be able to survive. On the proposed takeover of the Corporation’s Health Services by the Ministry of Health, he said that to avoid conflict with the Union and the workers, the decision would no longer be pur-sued. In reference to the current slide of the Euro vis-à-vis the US dollar, President Jagdeo said that it would amount to an additional loss to the industry. He said that the price cut is result in a yearly loss of the Corporation’s revenue by G$9.8B and fluctuation of the Euro is costing the Corporation an ad-ditional G$840M per year. He said any country which has one of its main industries losing 15 per cent of its revenue is cer-tainly in trouble.

Continued on page two

L-R: President Bharrat Jagdeo, a section of the gathering and GAWU President Komal Chand at the Rally

INSI

DE

this

edi

tion

GAW

U la

unch

es

Ched

di J

agan

bo

okle

t se

e pa

ge 2

AND

MUC

H M

OR

E

Indi

an R

esis

tanc

ese

e pa

ge 8

Cham

pion

of t

he

Wor

kers

see

page

3

Guy

suco

fails

to

achi

eve

2010

firs

t cr

op ta

rget

see

bac

k pa

ge

Law

s of

Soc

ial

Dev

elop

men

tse

e pa

ge 1

1

COMBAT: May/June, 2010 Page Two

GAWU launches Cheddi Jagan Booklet

During World Environment Week on Wednesday June 2nd, 2010, the Guyana Agricultural & General Workers Union launched a special Booklet entitled “President Cheddi Jagan speaks on Environment and Development –Selected Speech-es 1992-1997” at the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre The General Secretary of GAWU Cde Seepaul Narine chaired the Launching Ceremony and the First Vice President, Cde Premchand Dass gave the vote of thanks. A glowing tribute to Dr Jagan’s ideas was given by the Am-bassador of Finland Mr Mikko Pyhala who as head of the GEF unit in UNEP, had been directly involved in the development of the interimphase of the Iwokrama Programme. The issues which Dr Jagan addressed in the Book were high-lighted by Principal of the GAWU Labour College, Cde Navin Chandarpal who compiled and edited the publication. Cde Chandarpal indicated that “Dr. Jagan is often remem-bered and recognised for his passionate speeches and ac-tions on major political, economic and social issues both at the national level and internationally. His outstanding pro-posals on the National Democratic Path for Guyana and the New Global Human Order for the Planet are the major hall-marks of his development writings.” “In such a setting, his contributions on environment and development can be easily over-looked in terms of their own specific strengths and significance. “But for those who were actively engaged in the period of his Presidency in areas of Natural Resources and Environ-mental Management, Dr Jagan’s leadership and achieve-ments in these areas were also monumental.” He added that “In shaping the rebuilding agenda, Dr Ja-gan demonstrated his deep understanding and acceptance of the essential principles of the sustainable development approach which had emerged just a few months before his election at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) and presented to the world in the form of the “Rio Declaration” and its Action Plan “Agenda 21.” Cde Chandarpal displayed many quotations from the publi-cation to give an indication of some of Dr. Jagan’s views.He highlighted the fact that Dr Jagan was able to emphasise the critical need for strong actions on Climate Change as ear-ly as 1993 when on World Environment day he stated:“The threats of the depletion of the ozone layer and the cat-astrophic effects of global warming are now important ele-ments in the thinking of mankind. But recognition of threats and dangers is a mere starting point. The urgent need is for coordinated deliberate action to stop the existing madness.”Cde Chandarpal stated that “In the hectic pace of the rapid

growth of the period, it was also very easy to overlook many of Dr. Jagan’s groundbreak-ing achievements in areas of environment and development.” He declared that “A major highlight of Dr Jagan’s Presidency was the development and passage of leg-islation creating the Environmental Protec-tion Act and the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency in 1996. At that time there were many strong voices who felt that the Act and the Agency would undermine the devel-opment agenda. Dr. Jagan recognised those concerns but felt that the alternative of no legislation would be a recipe for uncontrolled

environmental damage.”Cde Chandarpal also demonstrated Dr Jagan’s commitment and actions which led to the improvements through low im-pact logging and mining, the promotion of Renewable en-ergy to reduce fossil fuels use and the development of a Na-tional Protected Areas System. GAWU President Cde Komal Chand in his launching ad-dress said, “As a Union representing a sizeable section of the Guyanese working class, GAWU has always been inspired by Dr. Jagan’s placement of People at the center of all develop-ment. His unwavering commitment to the cause of the work-ing people is clearly brought out in the book as he shows with great clarity the dialectical link between the urgency of national development to improve the lives of the people and the need to protect the earth and its resources from the damage caused by uncontrolled production methods geared at increasing profits.” He added that “Dr Jagan was strongly committed to the sustainable use of Guyana’s forest. He recognized the special role of forests universally in the fight against global warming. He saw the necessity for the maintenance of our low levels of deforestation. “But he argued that Guyana could only do so if the debt payment pressure was removed. Without debt cancellation, there would be the alternative pressure to increase defores-tation in order to increase the countries revenues in order to make up for what is lost in the payment of debts.“Dr Jagan also linked the cancellation of debts to the re-lease of much needed funds for the undertaking of major initiatives to strengthen capacity to better monitor activi-ties in the forestry and mining sectors. Without such funds, the strong political will to better manage could not result in equally strong operational actions.” Cde Chand expressed GAWU’s confidence in the impact of the publication when he said “We have chosen to launch our Book “President Cheddi Jagan speaks on Environment and Development 1992-1997” in the middle of Environment week with the confidence that it will serve as a source of education and inspiration for all who cherish our global and local environment and wish to contribute to its protection.”The GAWU President explained the reason for the publica-tion when he concluded by saying, “We in GAWU feel that much has been said and written about Dr Jagan’s economic and political views and achievenments but a huge gap re-mained in relation to his contributions to the area of environ-ment and development. We hope that this book will contribute to the filling of some parts of that gap.”

A section of the audience at the launching of the booklet

THE MARTYRS’ LEGACY, THE REALITY

Continued from page one He went on to say “when it is necessary, Government will take tough management decisions and he needed the work-ers to understand this. Government has been working hard to make changes.” President Jagdeo said that persons must never allow the definition of the Enmore Martyrs to be just about bread and butter issues, and that it must also include freedom, dignity and respect. Speaking at the commemoration to make the 62nd anniversary of the shooting to death by colonial police of the five sugar workers at the Enmore Estate, the President said the sugar workers at that time lacked respect and dig-nity and they did not live in a free society. The President said that the current generation has to make a level of sacrifice “which is absolutely necessary,” since they will yield benefits in the future and the next generation will be the beneficiaries. Having said this, President Jagdeo said that wage increases at the expense of spending on education or some other social good is “short-sighted.” The Head of State said that Government cannot eat up all the money it earns in the payment of increased wages and salaries. “We are not going to leave for our children any bur-den of unsustainable debt…a living wage has to be earned…” the President said. GAWU President, Cde Komal Chand in his address identi-fied four targets the industry must accomplish to become vi-able. He stated that defects preventing the full functioning of the new Skeldon Sugar factory must be corrected before the start of the second crop, this year; increasing sugar produc-tion to 400,000 tonnes by 2012; getting the new packaging plant at Enmore operational by February, 2011, and the set-ting up a refinery. He lamented that since 2005 the industry has not been able to recover from loss in production. Average production has been at around 246,000 tonnes the past five years and charged that “Those who manage the industry have the re-sponsibility to put it right”. Cde Chand said, had the Corporation’s targets been real-ized despite the cut in the price of its sugar sold to Europe, significant profits would have accrued to the Corporation and it would have not suffered a loss during the past two (2) years. To illustrate his contention, he said that the shortfall of almost 50,000 tonnes in 2008 and 2009 has denied the Corporation of almost $6 billion in revenue. At Enmore, where the Corporation is setting up a modern agricultural industrial complex, Cde Chand called on the Cor-poration to ensure timelines are met noting our experience with the Skeldon project. He said the Corporation would be able to gain 45 percent per pound of packaged sugar than if it were sold in bulk and underscored the important contribu-tions this project could make to the industry and called on management to adhere to the timelines. Kenneth Joseph, General Secretary of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG), said that the five martyrs were in a struggle for their freedom and noted that there will continue to be various definitions of freedom and rights in a country. He said that the martyrs had no de-sire to enter into the pages of history and only wanted im-proved working conditions, better wages, and the right to be associated with the trade union movement of their choice. He said that today workers are still seeking these conditions.According to Joseph, the feeling among the workers is that the amalgamation of estates is not going to yield positive re-sults for the industry, nor is the transfer of managerial staff or the new system of salary targets for managers. He said too that ignoring the social interest of the workers is also not going the way it should. He said that some good will emerge should management take a look at the industry. He called for at least one trade union representative on the Board of the Guyana Sugar Corporation (Guysuco). The proceedings at both activities were attended by an ap-preciable crowd and the Graveside Activity was chaired by GAWU General Secetary, Seepaul Narine and the Monument Square Activity by FITUG’s President Carvil Duncan.

COMBAT: May/June, 2010 Page Three

CHAMPION OF THE WORKERSBy FITUG General Secretary Kenneth Joseph

COMBAT always remembers the life and work of Cheddi Ja-gan who was born and who died in the month of March. This edition continues the traditional tribute, highlighting the late leader’s role in our Labour Movement. The following is the continuation of an address by FITUG’s General Secretary Kenneth Joseph at a lecture on Cheddi Jagan’s contribution to the Labour Movement on April 22, 2010 at the Cheddi Ja-gan Research Centre.

CONTINUED FROM LAST EDITION

WHEN THE PPP FORMED THE GOVERNMENT – FOR 133 DAYS – IN 1953, THE CHEDDI JAGAN – LED ADMINISTRATION EN-SURED THE FOLLOWING:

1. The minimum wage of Sawmill Workers was increased by some 22½%.

2. Against the employers’ protests the 1953 government prescribed increased wages for cinema employees, hire-car chauffeurs and watchmen.

3. The PPP Government also agreed with the Nicholson Report to prescribe increases for employees in Drug Stores, Hardware stores, factories and dry Goods stores.

4. Holiday-with-pay regulations were extended to benefit sawmill workers.

5. Committees headed by Jessie Burnham and Jane Phil-lips-Gay were appointed to make recommendations to improve the conditions of domestic ser-vants and washers and to modify the Work-men’s Compensation Ordinance.

6. Reduction in the hours of work of firemen and training for local seamen also engaged the government’s attention of the 1953 government.

7. The government wrote off a TUC debt in-curred since 1945.

These examples point out the very early actions of Dr Jagan on behalf of the working people. In and out of Government, he consistently fol-lowed those principles. On November 2nd 1992 at Omai Gold Mines, less than one month after he was sworn in as President, Dr Jagan declared:

“But we don’t want just recognition. We feel that the workers must be involved in decision making and management wherever they’re working. Workers are not only muscle power. They have brains which must be utilized in making the place run as efficiently as pos-sible. This is how it must be.”

Then on June 24, 1993 at the 10th Conference of GPSU, President Jagan reassured the working class when he declared:

“I tell you once again, this government is rooted in the working class and if I am going to remain head of any Government, this one or any other one, you can be certain that the working class will always have its say in determining the policy of this country.”

His actions right on to the point of his untimely death were always true to the commitments that he made. One of Dr Jagan’s boldest efforts was to give workers the right to join a Union of their choice with the enactment of the Labour Relations Bill in 1953. The Bill was intended to make it compulsory for employers to recognise and negoti-ate with the trade union enjoying majority support. How-ever, the Bill, passed in the House of Assembly on October 08, 1953, did not see the light of day. The Constitution was suspended by the British Government on October 09, 1953. In 1963, again he attempted to pass the progressive Labour Relations Bill, his attempt also failed following Parlaiment be-ing prorogued. After his assumption as Head of Government in 1992, the Bill was foremost on his agenda and had it not been for the procrastination of the TUC, Cheddi Jagan would have seen the Bill in our statue books before his death, none-theless the Trade Union Recognition Act was passed in Octo-ber, 1997. Our reflection so far has shown the enormous contribution which Dr Cheddi Jagan has made to the improvement of the working and living conditions of the Guyanese working class during his five decades of active struggle on their behalf. But Dr Jagan’s contribution extends beyond his lifetime. He has also left for the working class many examples and principles which can and should be applied to the struggles of today. Secretary General of Caricom Secretary-General of Caricom, Edwin Carrington wrote:

“…He was not afraid to employ his considerable talents to forge innovative ideas and approaches in coming to grips with the problems of the region, particularly those

imposed by debt and poverty. Indeed Dr. Jagan, may well have left for us a blueprint for enhancing the human condition, in his several viable proposals, the wisdom of which will certainly help to guide the region in the imme-diate future and beyond… In all his endeavours, Dr. Ja-gan’s unparalleled humility and humanity saw no issue as being too large or too small when advancing the cause of the common folk… As a people , we are all the richer for the wisdom and contribution of Dr. Jagan.”

I wish to repeat the evaluation that “Indeed Dr. Jagan, may well have left for us a blueprint for enhancing the human condition, in his several viable proposals, the wisdom of which will certainly help to guide the region in the immedi-ate future and beyond… Dr Jagan did indeed leave us with two well considered com-ponents of that blueprint to guide the national process in Guyana and the international process globally. These are captured in his writings on “National Democracy” and “The New Global Human Order.” In his studied analysis, Dr Jagan found that:-

“The top leaders of the developed capitalist countries cannot present any prescriptions for curing the problems of the world economy. Symptoms, not the root causes, are treated. And the treatment is a palliative, a band-aid, like an aspirin to relieve the pain but not to cure it.“Modernization monopoly capitalism is unable to deal

with recession, unemployment, financial deficit, trade frictions, the global environmental question, and the wid-ening gap between the rich and the poor, the “included” and the “excluded”, in both the developed countries and the developing countries, as well as between them.“The “trickle-down” economy does not work, even in the most politically and militarily powerful and the economi-cally richest country, the United States of America.“The prevailing economic and social disparity provides a breeding ground for hunger, disease and poverty, and ul-timately constitutes a threat to international peace and security. “Economic tinkering with interest rates and structural adjustment are not enough. We need a correct theoreti-cal perception of events, not only of the development of productive forces, but also of the relations of production and their contradictions. Piece-meal management is not enough. Nor can everything be left to be regulated only by the market. Both the market and the state have irre-placeable, complementary roles.“We need our own agenda – a new agenda of sustain-able development. Past “models” of development have proven to be wanting.”“A feasible programme therefore must be based on radi-cal reforms – reforms, not as an end in themselves, but as a means towards a revolutionary goal of socialism. Such a programme in this era of globalization and modern-ization must be based on interdependence and genuine North/South partnership and cooperation.“For reconstruction and meaningful change, it is an im-perative for developing countries to establish a state of national democracy.”

According to Dr. Jagan, the State of National Democracy

must embark on an integrated programme of development based on:• Good Governance equity – a clean and lean government

– with equality;• Democracy in all its aspects – political, economic, in-

dustrial, social, cultural – and the empowerment of the people at all levels;

• The fullest exercise of human rights – civil and political, as well as economic, social and cultural, in keeping with the UN Covenants on Human Rights;

• A mixed economy;• Economic growth with social justice and ecological jus-

tice;• Balanced agricultural/industrial and rural/urban devel-

opment;• Integrated programme of human resource develop-

ment;• Multi-culturalism- unity in diversity.

Dr Jagan was very clear on the role of the state sector.“The role of the state in development is a source of great controversy. This is due to different conceptions by business-men and social scientists.

“Businessmen want a marginal role for the state. Their philosophy is less government in business and more busi-ness in government. On the one hand, they do not want

government to interfere; everything must be left to competition and market forces. On the other hand, they want the state to provide the unprofitable infrastructure facilities such as roads, sea defence, drainage and irrigation, etc. This has led to debt payment and balance of payment problems. “The PPP/CIVIC government sees the need for a mixed tri-sector – state, cooperative, private – economy and a genuine partnership arrange-ment with foreign capital and local capital and/or the state.“The State must not simply play a marginal role and be involved only infrastructure devel-opment. It must play a dynamic economic role, in a strategic sense.“The state must become involved in removing market imperfections. Generally, independent underdeveloped capitalist states, there is a lack of free market competition. A monopoly situ-ation and cartel arrangements facilitate profit gouging and high profit margin. Monopolies and collusive practices must be countered by state intervention.“The state must also curb the private sector’s unfair and illegal practices such as smuggling, under-invoicing, illegal exports, avoidance of payments of taxes through “cooking-the-books”. At the same time, the state must en-

sure a reduction in the cost of living.” We in the Trade Union Movement need to study and under-stand the requirements of the state of national democracy. We must make strong demands that the government stand firm to these principles. We must demand approaches that strengthen the working class and not those that facilitate the enrichment of the specially privileged who comprise a new segment of the capitalist class. Prof Clive Thomas summarised the qualities of Dr Jagan as follows:

“I will say, from those personal reflections, that I have no doubt whatsoever that Cheddi Jagan was an exceptional patriot, an exceptional trade-unionist with a heart readily committed to the working-class people and the working-class interests.”

The number of labour-friendly legislations passed - the Trade Union Recognition Act, the Prevention of Discrimina-tion Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Holidays with Pay Act (All workers are now covered; previ-ously only certain categories of workers enjoyed this benefit) and the Termination of Employment and Severance PayAct - passed in the National Assembly testifies to this. Dr Jagan’s legacy will also remain with us. He was a cham-pion of the working people and a true son of Guyana. He was a leader who stood unswervingly in his lofty principles and a leader who inspired us in battles and in periods of calm. From him, we have learnt that progress will come only from our united and principled struggles. In closing, I wish to make the appeal that this beautiful land of Guyana owes a great debt to Dr Cheddi Jagan which we can only repay if we use his wise advice as we seek to chart our way forward.

A section of the audience at the lecture

COMBAT: May/June, 2010 Page Four

Responding to Global Challenges throu gh Trade Union Initiatives and SolidarityGAWU President Komal Ch and May Day 2010 Address

On behalf of the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU), allow me to extend a hearty and fraternal welcome to those of you gathered here. I also wish to take the opportunity to salute all the workers of our country on this special day. It is pleasing to observe the overwhelm-ing turnout and I wish to express my Union’s appreciation to all of you who participated in the march from the Parade Ground through many streets in Georgetown preceding this Rally. Today, we are celebrating this red-letter day under the theme “Responding to Global Challenges through Trade Union Initiatives and Solidarity” and thus from this rostrum, I wish to extend greetings and solidarity with our fraternal brothers and sisters throughout the world. Comrades, May Day provides us with the opportunity to reflect on the situation confronting the working class, espe-cially the occurrences over the last year. Indeed, there have been positive developments in our country, in our region and in the world. There have also been setbacks. First of all, I wish to recall the origins of May Day starting in 1886 when 80,000 Chicagoans marched in the street, de-manding an eight (8) hour work day without any loss in pay. Their demonstration ignited hundreds of thousands of work-ers throughout the other states in the US to engage in strike actions and protests. The struggle for the eight (8) hour work-day gained prominence in 1889, when at the Congress of the Second International, an organization of socialist and labour parties, passed a resolution declaring that May 1st be celebrated as International Workers Day throughout the world. From that time, this day has come to be known as May Day, Workers Day or Labour Day. In Guyana, this day was first observed during the 1930’s on the initiative of Hu-bert Nathaniel Critchlow, who as head of the British Guiana Labour Union, orga-nized workers to observe this day. Labour Day became a National Holiday in our country, when in the Legislative Council in February, 1958, Janet Jagan, the then Minister of Labour, Health and Housing, supported a resolution by Rupert Tello, a former TUC General Secretary.

International

Comrades, this May Day mandates the working class and their organizations to consider new strategies as they face ever complex chal-lenges. Unemployment continues to soar, joblessness is the order of the day and those who hold on to jobs are forced to accept lower pay and less favourable working conditions. This has become the stark reality of workers especially since the latter months of 2008 when most of the developed econ-omies entered into a deep recession while recovery is not taking place as predicted. The belief in the virtues of the market economy is shattered. Those who have advocated, since the 1980’s, the righteous-ness of the neo-liberal model of development based primari-ly on privatization, have become disillusioned. The model en-couraged massive speculation and the creation of worthless paper being sold for billions by many financial institutions. There were warnings about the model. In 1999 Fidel Castro warned of the un-sustainability of what was taking place. He said “… While some … talk insistently of the need for a international financial architecture, our countries suffer the impact of a system that allows daily speculative operations amounting to three trillion US dollars. That architecture is be-yond repair. It is not a question of renovating it but rather of demolishing it and building a completely new one.“Can anyone explain the rationale behind this ghost econo-my, which produces nothing and is sustained by selling and

buying things that do not exist?...” The neo-liberal system has also aggravated the inequalities in the world. The massive disparity is so great that it boggles the mind. The richest 225 people in the world today control more wealth than the poorest 2.5 billion people. Moreover, the three richest people in the world control more wealth than the poorest 48 nations. The rich are getting wealthier where-as the poor are becoming more poverty-stricken and the middle class is becoming endangered. The rich people and the transnational corporations are dic-tating many government policies and actions in the world as they have become powerful octopuses. Now look at the irony. The banks and the large corporations who engendered the economic and financial crisises are rescued with billions of tax dollars. Most of them squandered the bailout dollars through huge bonuses they pocketed. New York Attorney General, Mr Andrew Como aptly de-scribed the sad situation when he said, “…When banks did well, its managers were paid well, when banks did poorly, its managers were paid well. And when the banks did very poorly, they were bailed out by tax payers, its employees were still paid well. Bonuses and overall compensation did not vary significantly as profits diminished…”

The Attorney General disclosed that, US banks lost 80 billion dollars, received 174 billion dollars in state support and with-out blinking an eye, dished out 30 billion dollars in bonuses to their executives. Comrades, we see that while the capitalists have benefited and are benefitting from the crisis, the workers are the chief and primary victims. Today, it is estimated that the real wages of workers in the US are at their 1970’s level. When the workers fight back their unions are targeted. Workers are being harassed and discouraged from joining unions and new strategies are be-ing developed to counter workers struggles. Despite their actions, workers struggles are gaining mo-mentum. Today, thousands are marching in Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain, France and other Euro zone countries struggling to defend their jobs and to halt the decline of their living standards. It is time that we uphold loftily Karl Marx’s famous call, “WORKERS OF ALL LANDS UNITE.” We have no doubt that proletarian internationalism must become an effective tool of workers organisations if the struggles of the workers worldwide are to become effective. Comrades, the situation in our region is becoming alarming with the growing militarization worldwide. The Republic of

Colombia has given approval to the United States to occupy many bases in that country, ostensibly to fight drug traffick-ing. Venezuela and several countries of the continent rightfully feel threatened. The recent military coup in Honduras and that of Haiti, supported by circles in the US has strengthened fears about real threats to democracy and democracy in our region. We have also seen the US reactivating its Fourth Fleet di-rected by its Southern Command to have a greater military presence not only in South America, but in the Caribbean. Further, the exploitation of our continental resources is be-ing intensified. It is noted, that the United Kingdom is explor-ing for oil in the South Atlantic, close to Argentina and Brazil in the disputed Malvinas islands. The developments have led to enormous expenditure on armaments which could further worsen the conditions of the working people in our continent. This sad situation is occurring at a time when Latin America and the Caribbean are deemed to have more than fifty million poverty-stricken people. Therefore, comrades, we have to be a part of the active struggle for general disarmament as a world of peace will redound to the betterment and safety of the working people

everywhere in the world. Comrades, before I turn to local issues, I wish to quickly touch on Cuba and the Palestinian situation. Fidel Castro’s Cuba has always stood by the struggling people everywhere. There are few third world countries, if any, which have given so much to the world’s poor and oppressed as Cuba. Hundreds of Cubans lost their lives in Africa fighting alongside the free-dom fighters in Angola, South Africa, Na-mibia etc making a decisive impact on those countries liberation. Cuban assis-tance to many countries in terms of edu-cation, health, training of specialists etc is unparalleled. What would our country’s health system been without the Cubans? Yet, Cuba for over four (4) decades is be-ing persecuted because of its ideology, its system and its international role. On this May Day, GAWU reiterates its call for the United States to comply with the sev-eral UN resolutions, to end the shameful trade embargo. We appeal to President Barrack Obama to act now. Viva Cuba!

Viva Cuba! In Palestine the situation is undoubtedly worst today than it ever was. Daily, Palestinians are harassed when not militar-ily attacked and bombed and ruthlessly evicted from their homes by the colonialist and apartheid practices of Israel. The situation wounds the conscience of the world. Since the British imposed partition of Palestine into two states in 1947, the Palestinians have been made to live virtually in hell. The US has recently criticized Israel, yet it refuses to sanction Is-rael although it has the leverage to halt the sad situation not-ing the massive military and financial aid it pours yearly to the warmongering Israeli ruling class. On this occasion, we take the opportunity to call on the United States and its President, Barrack Obama to exercise political courage and humanism in order to bring an end to the shameful and dastardly situation in Palestine.

Sugar Industry

Comrades, the sugar industry remains at the crossroads. Last October, the entire 36 per cent cut in the price of our sugar exported to Europe had been effected. The situation was aggravated with an extremely poor sugar production of 233,735 tonnes last year.

COMBAT: May/June, 2010 Page Five

Responding to Global Challenges throu gh Trade Union Initiatives and SolidarityGAWU President Komal Ch and May Day 2010 Address

The Corporation continues to recycle the same worn out excuses for the industry’s failures:- climate change, indus-trial action, worker absenteeism, etc. When the industry fared well in the past those factors were not absent. We take the opportunity to reiterate that the industry’s dismal per-formance is centered on neglectful and poor management, resulting particularly in inefficient practices in the fields. Our sugar industry, unlike those in the Caribbean, has an abun-dance of arable land, ample labour, fresh water, sufficient factory capacity, and other resources to perform efficiently, noting that it is an industry over three and a half centuries old. To illustrate our point about poor sugar production, we wish to take into consideration the last two (2) years. In 2008, production was 226,267 tonnes and in 2009, produc-tion was 233,735 tonnes. The sugar production in those years fell short of the Corporation’s last revised targets by 33,733 tonnes and 16,265 tonnes respectively. The almost 50,000 tonne shortfall would have yielded almost G$6B. Had the Corporation realized even its lowly revised targets, there would have been no losses and the situation in those years would have been vastly different. I cannot fail at this forum to denounce the three (3) per cent wage increase ordered by the Gobind Ganga Arbitral Tribunal last December. It was an act of spitefulness, we feel, because of the work-ers’ militancy and the stance of the Union in defending its members. Let our mem-bers be assured that their Union would not be daunted and cowered. It is the Union’s duty and responsibility to support the democratic rights of its members and to strive to improve their general welfare. Sooner than later, the Corporation will re-tire its Diamond cultivation notwithstand-ing the cogent arguments that the Planta-tion could be pivotal to the success of the presently constructed Enmore Packaging Plant, which would be capable of produc-ing 80,000 tonnes of packaged value add-ed sugar. The Diamond workers in reacting to the reorganization at Diamond have not found favour in accepting permanent de-ployment to LBI Estate. The long distance of travelling each working day would even-tually result in them abandoning their jobs and therefore losing their retirement benefits. Our Union stands firm to contest anywhere their right to Severance Pay. Another hot issue in the industry which is now emerging, surrounds the proposed acquisition of the Corporation’s Health Services by the Ministry of Health. The Union is seek-ing full and frank dialogue with Guysuco on this matter.

LCDS

Our people across the board ought to be enamored with our innovative Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS). We hold that this strategy has a positive dimension and that the benefits arising from the LCDS will redound to all Guya-nese. We have already seen this in the step taken by Norway. In recognizing the positive impact of the LCDS to our coun-try, we also recognize the role of President Bharrat Jagdeo’s persistent efforts to promote and sell this strategy nation-ally and internationally. We take the opportunity to add our congratulations to him on his prestigious international 2010 Champion of the Earth Award from the United National Envi-ronmental Programme (UNEP). We take this opportunity to thank the PPP/C Government and the team of dedicated experts who also played and are playing a significant role in advancing the strategy aimed at bringing about development as well as preserving over 40 million acres of our rainforest. Undoubtedly, this is a major

contribution by Guyana to prevent the ravages of Climate Change that today threatens the world.

CLICO Situation

More than a year has passed since the operations of CLICO were placed under Judicial Management. Billions of dollars belonging to workers and others through the investments of the National Insurance, savings, pension funds, etc are yet to be settled. While this issue is before the Court, the long awaited de-cision is a matter of deep concern. However, President Jagdeo’s commitment, supported by Resolution No 82 of the National Assembly, last year, assured all depositors that they would be repaid. Let us all hope long before the next May Day the way will be cleared for the liquidation of the Company’s assets in order for all depositors to secure their funds.

Local Government Elections

At our 19th Delegates Congress, last year, GAWU is on re-cord of being guarded critical of the Elections Commission on the question of Local Government Elections. This, May

Day, we express our despondency in learning that, yet again, these elections have been postponed. Apparently, all the major political parties are agreed on this. GAWU strongly subscribes to the view that these elections are an important aspect of the return and renewal of democracy which be-gun in 1992. Local democracy represents a major decision-making process, especially in matters affecting their village and daily lives. For too long, Local Government Election has been withheld. It is time to move forward. GAWU calls on all political parties to face up to this shortcoming and consid-ered concrete proposals for the holding of Local Government Elections within a feasible but early timeframe.

Trade Union Unity

Comrades, unity among workers and their unions is essen-tial to confront the challenges facing the working class in our country. Therefore, it is with great concern that I note that our two trade union centers - the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) and the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG), have not been able to reconcile their differences. GAWU fully supports a united Trade Union movement and would like to see one Trade Union centre to speak with one

voice on behalf of the workers in Guyana. We contend that if this cannot materialize then there should be established a Council or Committee comprising of representatives of both FITUG and the GTUC, to provide an opportunity for collabo-ration between the two bodies and thus their affiliates. Last year, we referred to the failed effort of a Regional Trade Union icon, Sir Leroy Trotman whose mediation efforts were not fruitful. Of course FITUG cannot be blamed for that. It is time that the GTUC recognizes the strength of FITUG. GAWU will play its role within FITUG to support reunification or collaboration. Comrade Chairman, comrades, one of our May Day slogans read as follows:- “Yesterday the Bauxite Union, Today CCWU, TOMMORROW, WHO NEXT?” In a statement dated April 16, 2010, the Union stated among other things “GAWU is now constrained, as a matter of prin-ciple and solidarity, to express this single simple view: that the Minister of Labour should reconsider his previous and current indifference with respect to this issue. GAWU agrees with those who have quoted the laws which provide the Min-ister with the authority to intervene. Section 4 of the Trade Union Recognition Act is instructive in the regard. Of course, no company or employer has any authority to “de-recognise” a duly recognized bargaining agent; that is the sole preroga-

tive of the country’s Trade Union Recog-nition and Certification Board. GAWU cannot stand by when Collective Labour Agreements are being flouted EVEN IF WE HAVE AN OPEN MIND ON THE NEW THINKING OF THE AFFECTED WORKERS THEMSELVES. Despite the perception by some that sugar workers are somehow a favoured lot we in GAWU know much differently and realize that the Labour Minister’s laxity could also make our members vic-tims one day. We, therefore, join the call for Minister Manzoor Nadir to shoulder his responsibilities in this issue.” GAWU wishes to reiterate that solidar-ity in the Labour Movement is crucial, especially when employers want to bust Unions. When GAWU considers a mat-ter important to receive its comments, it will do so as a matter of principle. We, therefore, reaffirm our support and soli-darity to workers to belong to a union of their choice and give respect to ILO Convention 87 - Freedom of Association

and Protection of the Right to Organise and Convention 98 - Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining. Comrades, developments in our day call for great vigilance of all working people and their organizations. Imperialism and its political hand-maidens in the developed countries and its puppets in the developed world continue along its war-path. It’s a path that perpetuates exploitation of workers, oppression of people plunder of countries, ag-gression of environmental disasters and wars. It is heartening to see the workers fight back in Europe and elsewhere. For us, we must stand ready to give our solidarity to those self-less struggles. We must do so, even as we stand guard or our interest and continue to struggle to expand our gains. Let us be alert but remain principled. Let us be highly organ-ised and frustrate attempts to weaken and further divide the working class. Let us be aware in our midst of the wolves in sheep clothing.

Long live GAWU!Long Live Workers Unity and Solidarity!The struggle continues!Long live May Day 2010!

COMBAT: May/June, 2010 Page Six

INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL

STOP LAND GRABBING NOW! State and private investors, from Citadel Capital to Goldman Sachs, are leasing or buying up tens of millions of hectares of farmlands in Asia, Africa and Latin America for food and fuel production. This land grabbing is a serious threat for the food sovereignty of our peoples and the right to food of our rural communities. In response to this new wave of land grabbing, the World Bank (WB) is promoting a set of seven principles to guide such investments and make them successful. The [UN’s] FAO, IFAD and UNCTAD have agreed to join the WB in collectively pushing these principles.Their starting point is the fact that the current rush of private sector in-terest to buy up farmland is risky. After all, the WB has just finalized a study showing the magnitude of this trend and its central focus on transferring rights over agricultural land in developing countries to foreign investors. The WB seems convinced that all private capital flows to expand global agri-business operations where they have not yet taken hold are good and must be allowed to proceed so that the corporate sector can extract more wealth from the countryside. Since these investment deals are hinged on massive privatization and transfer of land rights, the WB wants them to meet a few criteria to reduce the risks of social backlash: respect the rights of existing users of land, water and other resources (by paying them off); protect and improve livelihoods at the household and community level (provide jobs and social ser-vices); and do no harm to the environment. These are the core ideas behind the WB’s seven principles for socially ac-ceptable land grabbing. These principles will not accomplish their ostensible objec-tives. They are rather a move to try to legitimize land grab-bing. Facilitating the long-term corporate (foreign and do-mestic) takeover of rural people’s farmlands is completely unacceptable no matter which guidelines are followed. The WB’s principles, which would be entirely voluntary, aim to distract from the fact that today’s global food crisis, marked by more than 1 billion people going hungry each day, will not be solved by large scale industrial agriculture, which virtually all of these land acquisitions aim to promote. Land grabbing has already started to intensify in many countries over the past 10-15 years with the adoption of deregulation policies, trade and investment agreements,

and market oriented governance reforms. The recent food and financial crises have provided the impetus for a surge in land grabbing by governments and financial investors trying to secure agricultural production capacity and future food supplies as well as assets that are sure to fetch high returns. Wealthy governments have sought to lease agricultural lands for long periods of time to feed their populations and indus-tries back home. At the same time, corporations are seeking long term economic concessions for plantation agriculture to produce agro-fuels, rubber, oils, etc. These trends are also visible in coastal areas, where land, marine resources and water bodies are being sold, leased, or developed for tour-ism to corporate investors and local elites, at the expense of artisanal fishers and coastal communities. One way or the other, agricultural lands and forests are being diverted away from smallholder producers, fishers and pastoralists to com-mercial purposes, and leading to displacement, hunger and poverty. With the current farmland grab, corporate driven globaliza-tion has reached a new phase that will undermine peoples’ self-determination, food sovereignty and survival as never before. The WB and many governments see land and rights to land, as a crucial asset base for corporations seeking high returns on capital since land is not only the basis for pro-ducing food and raw materials for the new energy economy, but also a way to capture water. Land is being revalued on purely economic terms by the WB, governments and corpo-rations and in the process, the multi-functionality, and eco-logical, social and cultural values of land are being negated. It is thus more important than ever that these resources are defended from corporate and state predation and instead be made available to those who need them to feed themselves and others sustainably, and to survive as communities and societies. Land grabbing – even where there are no related forced evictions – denies land for local communities, destroys liveli-hoods, reduces the political space for peasant oriented ag-ricultural policies and distorts markets towards increasingly concentrated agribusiness interests and global trade rather than towards sustainable peasant/smallholder production for local and national markets. Land grabbing will accelerate

eco-system destruction and the climate crisis because of the type of monoculture oriented, industrial agricultural produc-tion that many of these “acquired” lands will be used for. Promoting or permitting land grabbing violates the Interna-tional Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and undermines the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Land grabbing ignores the principles adopted by the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD) in 2006 and the recommendations made by the International Assessment of Agricultural Sci-ence and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Land grabbing must be immediately stopped. The WB’s principles attempt to create the illusion that land grabbing can proceed without disastrous consequences to peoples, communities, eco-systems and the climate. This illusion is false and misleading. Farmer’s and indigenous peoples organizations, social movements and civil society groups largely agree that what we need instead is to:

1. Keep land in the hands of local communities and imple-ment genuine agrarian reform in order to ensure equi-table access to land and natural resources.

2. Heavily support agro-ecological peasant, smallholder farming, fishing and pastoralism, including participatory research and training programs so that small-scale food providers can produce ample, healthy and safe food for everybody.

3. Overhaul farm and trade policies to embrace food sov-ereignty and support local and regional markets that people can participate in and benefit from.

4. Promote community-oriented food and farming systems hinged on local people’s control over land, water and biodiversity. Enforce strict mandatory regulations that curb the access of corporations and other powerful ac-tors (state and private) to agricultural, coastal and graz-ing lands, forests, and wetlands.

No principles in the world can justify land grabbing!

Say NO to the principles of “responsible” agro-enterprise investment promoted by the World Bank

Greece’s Austerity Plan: Devastating Social Consequences

The Greek government has announced the implementation of an austerity plan which has the blessing of both the EU and the IMF. But in the view of Committee for the Abolition of Third World Debt (CADTM), the measures it contains are

wholly unacceptable. What the Greek government presents as a solution to the crisis is no more than the hijacking of the Greek people, who are being made to shoulder the cost of the ir-responsible acts of the financial players who aggravated this cri-sis. This austerity plan aims at sav-ing some €4.8 billion at the ex-pense of the Greek population, for the purpose of repaying cred-itors. The money saved will also be used to pay the fees of Gold-man Sachs, a bank which we now know helped the government conceal part of its debt. Among the measures to be taken: • a freeze on recruitment

and reduction of civil servants’ salaries (heavily reduced 13th and 14th months bonuses, coming after a 10 % de-crease in salaries decided in January);

• a freeze on retirement pensions;

• VAT increase from 19% to 21%, despite the fact that this is an unfair tax that hits poorer people harder;

• dramatic cuts in social budgets, including the Social Se-curity budget.

Such measures are not the solution but part of the problem. The current crisis is being used to get rid of dearly won social rights. Instead of learning from the crisis, the leaders of the major powers and the IMF are exerting intense pressure to enforce new neo-liberal measures, increase inequalities, and force the population into greater precarity. At the same time, no effective measure has been taken to ensure that the bur-den of the crisis is borne by those responsible for it and to prevent new crises from occurring. CADTM calls on the countries that have been hit by the fi-nancial crisis to shun the neo-liberal option that led the world into the present impasse, at a time when radically different choices are available. CADTM supports the Greek people who are massively mobilizing in favour of a break with the neo-liberal model. Socialization of losses and privatization of profits are principles that must be urgently rejected.

COMBAT: May/June, 2010 Page Seven

INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL

LABOUR UNIONS MAY HAVE TO ABANDON OBAMA TO BEAT CORPORATE AMERICA

As president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka is emerging as the voice of an increasingly irrelevant labor movement. As unionized work sinks to only 7 percent of the private sec-tor, the labor movement is losing its influence within the Democratic Party. To revitalize labor, Trumka must not only challenge Democratic leaders, but wage political battles out-side the bounds of party politics by bringing labor back to its working-class activist roots.

The failure of President Barack Obama to make a major push on the Employee Free Choice Act — let alone give even a single speech dedicated to the topic — is a telling sign of organized labor’s declining momentum inside the Beltway. As Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson noted in February, “For American labor, year one of Barack Obama’s presidency has been close to an unmitigated disaster.” Labor ranks so low on the president’s list of priorities that a new generation of Obama activists is now planning for a political environment altogether devoid of the labor movement. The Obama administration demonstrated a clear lack of concern for labor when it allowed nominations to the Na-tional Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to be ignored in Con-gress for a full 14 months. The vacant seats on NLRB prevent-ed the panel from issuing any decisions over this 14-month period, meaning there was no functioning court to protect unions from the illegal practices of big corporations. Need-less to say, this was a big problem for both labor and the country at large—imagine the president allowing a federal circuit court to sit inactive for more than a year. Most of the direct blame for the delay rests on the shoul-ders of Republican senators. But Obama’s timid negotia-tions with conservatives allowed the problem to fester. In March 2009, Obama appointed former union lawyer Craig Becker to the NLRB, but the nomination didn’t clear a Sen-ate Committee until October of that year. Republicans then filibustered Becker’s nomination, ultimately killing it in the Senate by Christmas. Organized labor responded by pushing for Obama to give Becker a recess appointment in February, which would have filled the NRLB seat without subjecting it to filibuster in the Senate. Obama’s initial response was a re-fusal: he wanted instead to cut a backroom deal with Senate Republicans in an effort to attain some variety of Obama’s ever-elusive Holy Grail of public policy goals, bipartisanship.

After Obama’s rejection, labor had two options. It could play nice with the administration and hope to be re-warded for their loyalty, or it could take a stand and criticize the White House for cutting this backroom deal. Trumka choose the latter. He blasted the secret deal with the Senate GOP as one that “left working people out in the cold.” He urged union members to bombard the White House with phone calls in protest – the first time the AFL-CIO had asked workers to do this during the Obama presidency. It worked. As a result of the pressure the AFL-CIO put on the White House, Obama was forced to grant Becker a recess appointment during the next recess in March. Trumka risked a lot, including much-coveted access to the White House, in order to pressure Obama on this issue. But the White House feared so open a denounce-ment from labor, and it folded quickly, appointing Becker as soon as it could.When labor suffered a massive loss on

the Employee Free Choice Act this year, Trumka learned an important lesson. Obama spent most of his first year in of-fice pretending EFCA did not exist, mentioning the bill only in occasional throw-away lines when he appeared before la-bor-dominated audiences. It was never an issue he even pre-tended to put political capital behind. But while labor fought for EFCA alone, labor leaders did not publicly criticize the White House for failing to push their top legislative priority. Instead, union leadership played an inside game with Obama, hoping that by cooperating with the White House on health care and other issues, labor would eventually get the support for EFCA it wanted. But despite this coopera-tion on Obama’s signature legislative efforts, EFCA was never scheduled for a Congressional vote, and died with barely a whimper.

In an August interview with Politico, Trumka criticized labor leaders, saying they hadn’t been nearly aggressive enough with Democrats on the issue. Trumka refused to let the mistake be repeated. He put Democrats who blocked EFCA on notice when the AFL-CIO backed a primary challenger, Lt. Governor Bill Halter, D-Arkansas, against the incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln. And whatever the results of the Arkansas primary, Lincoln has moved substantially to the left following the challenge, penning strong financial reform legislation cracking down on derivatives, the financial instru-ments that sunk AIG. Labor, in short, has already helped se-cure better financial reform by refusing to play nice.Labor is at a crossroads. Many in the movement fear de-nouncing the White House more openly and upsetting key relationships with the White House. While union support was critical to Obama’s election, everyone who watched Obama’s campaign contributions in 2008 knows that corpo-rate backers played a tremendous role in getting Obama into office. Last year, the Obama campaign’s own national finance director, Penny Pritzker, wrote the president a public letter urging him to kill the Employee Free Choice Act.If labor takes a more critical stance against the administra-tion, it could force Obama to rely more heavily on his cor-porate backers and set unions back even further. Labor has plenty of enemies within the Democratic Party that would like to push the unionzed percentage of the workforce down

from 7 percent all the way to zero. Obama has already made overtures to these factions, most notably when he applaud-ed the mass firing of union teachers at a school in Rhode Island. So labor really could pay a heavy political price for getting tough. But going bold and getting wiped out isn’t something union workers should fear. The labor movement has been wiped out many times in this country’s history with bullets. But each time, it has gone down fighting and risen up again.A third-generation union miner, Trumka grew up hearing tales of the fabled battle of Blair Mountain. In 1921, union miners went on strike throughout southern West Virginia, shutting down the coal industry. The coal companies went to war, and over 100 miners were killed at Blair Mountain, with the federal government even sending in airplanes to bomb union worker encampments. The battle of Blair Mountain was a heavy blow to the Unit-ed Mine Workers of America (UMWA) in West Virginia, but over time, it proved to be a pyrrhic victory. As a result of the struggle, the UMWA strengthened its resolve — workers knew they couldn’t cut any deals with the boss, so they fo-cused on organizing. It took years, but once the Wagner Act passed in 1936, the UMWA organized the entire coal indus-try workforce — hundreds of thousands of miners. It created an industry-wide contract that prevented mine owners from pitting one mine against another.

If bullets couldn’t kill organized labor, politics can’t either. The most serious threat to the labor movement is a leader-ship that insists on self-defeating compromises rather than strong demands. This was exactly how labor officials were acting when Trumka came into the labor movement in the early 1980s. Trumka was elected president of the UMWA in 1982, and made the union such a force to be reckoned with that anti-worker forces called in a bomb threat to his wedding. In 1989, he led the successful nine-month strike against Pittston Coal Group for cutting off medical benefits to pensioners and the disabled. The long strike led the UMWA to the brink of bank-ruptcy, and it was fined nearly $64 million during the strike. But the workers stood firm, and the Pittston Strike became a rallying cry against the tide of union busting that had swept the nation during the Reagan era. A full 37,000 miners went out on wildcat strikes in solidarity with the Pittston strikers.There are only two tools in the union negotiation toolbox: strike and solidarity. These are the forces that big corpora-tions fear, not Capitol Hill deal-makers. People join the labor movement out of a desire to feel a sense of dignity and re-spect on the job. They gain that sense of dignity by standing up for their rights. They form bonds of trust, dedication and solidarity that can become stronger even in defeat. Workers will always be willing to get back up and fight again if their fellow workers fight with them. All the political favors in the world won’t help workers if labor leaders don’t stand up and fight. Richard Trumka knows this and has chosen a bold, aggres-sive approach for organized labor. But Trumka is just one leader, and the economic battle is just beginning. Make no mistake: Wall Street is taking aggressive steps to wipe out the labor movement entirely, and Wall Street has many friends within the administration receptive to this message. If unions bow to those in the White House that want labor to remain silent amid this assault, the damage to the labor movement will be more severe and long-lasting than the fall-out from taking on the administration. Workers might not win in their political battles today, but the real fights don’t have to take place in Washington, D.C.—they’re in mines, fields and offices all over the country.

Left: AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and Right: US President Barack Obama

COMBAT: May/June, 2010 Page Eight

The abolition of slavery brought freedom to about 80,000 slaves; but this freedom would not have seen the light of day had it not been for African resistance. Slave revolts in Barba-dos in 1816, in Demerara in 1823, in Jamaica in 1824, in An-tigua in 1831, and again in Jamaica in 1831 together with the Anti-Slavery Movement, and fluctuating sugar profits, cre-ated the ingredients for the Abolition of Slavery Act in 1834. And by 1848, the African peasant class of villagers emerged. Around 1850, Indians replaced slaves on the sugar planta-tions, taking on the distinctiveness of a new rural working class; Indian resistance throughout the 19th century chal-lenged the might of the planters’ oligarchy and the colonial parliament, where each uprising, riot, or discontent laid the foundations for more disturbances, and where each disorder unleashed new dynamics in their quest to undermine the im-perialist stranglehold. By the 1850s, the slave-owning plantocracy came to an end. And limited liability companies became the new owners and controllers of the sugar plantations. But Indian resistance, constant sugar crises, the freeing up of crown lands in 1898, and the 1891 constitutional reform enabling the electorate to choose legislators, were pivotal forces advancing the final demise of a decaying planters’ oligarchy. The focus in this pa-per is to show how Indian resistance shaped Indian political evolution in this country; note that Indian working people were the key architects of this persisting resistance during indenture; and not the petty Indian merchants and the edu-cated Indian middle class who were in awe of the plantoc-racy. They demonstrated great inclinations to assimilate the planters’ value system and generally accepted and complied with cultural imperialism. Planters’ control over labor was total under slavery; with the end of slavery, plantation owners yearned for a ‘control-lable’ labor force as a surrogate for slaves on sugar estates. British plantation owners believed that India fitted the bill; India’s huge population was a ready-made labor pool; labor with agricultural skills; and India, a British Colony, negating the need for negotiations with foreign authorities. Indian arrival to the sugar plantations of the Caribbean as inden-tureds under such rationale became a reality, initiating in Hugh Tinker’s words, ‘a new system of slavery’.i

Indentureship gave total control of labor to planters; in-dentureship prohibited any individual or collective bargain-ing; and during indenture, strikes were deemed ‘uprisings’ or ‘disturbances’. A further enhancement of total control emanated through Ordinance Number 9, 1868 where wages were not released if planters determined the indentured’s work to be incomplete or unsatisfactory. In fact, this Ordi-nance produced and reproduced the most telling and recur-rent complaints by Indian indentureds. Indentured Indians inhabited a dehumanized total institu-tional environment, with no mobility, enslaved by the tyran-ny of the rule of law, and reduced to a history of humiliation parallel to conditions of African slavery; the neo-slave nature of indentureship is well established.ii White planters, Colored, and African lower status groups loathed the Indian culture, thus: “Their language was ‘out-landish’, they knew no English; their clothes were strange

and their religion was heathen. They lacked the cultural charac-teristics valued in the society, and in return the society withheld its rights and privileges from them.”iii Indians arrived in the Caribbean as outsiders and remained as ‘outsid-ers’ even today. Given the harsh treatment meted out to Indians, how did they man-age to maintain their culture? The answer has to do with their resis-tance and resilience. Their resis-tance to the White planters was a rallying point for cultural continu-ity and the genesis of Indian politi-cal evolution. Just a few examples would substantiate that Indian re-sistance was a characteristic feature of plantation life. Indians staged 88 strikes and disturbances between 1886 and 1888iv, and they received 65,084 convictions for labor con-tract violations between 1874 and 1895.v In 1881, 3,168 were labeled crimi-nals because of their struggles with planters. In fact, compared to other

British Colonies, British Guiana became the worst offender where planters used the criminal courts to enforce labor laws, as evidenced in the table for 1907vi:

Table: Indentured Adults & Convictions in 1907

Indentured Adults

Convictions under Labour Laws (no/%)

British Guiana 9,784 2,019 (20%)Trinidad 11,506 1,869 (16%)Jamaica 2,832 237 (8%)Fiji 10,181 2,091 (20%)Mauritius 47,000 1,492 (3%)

Disaffection among both indentured and unindentured Indi-ans produced intermittent violence representing one pole on the range of Indian assertiveness; their disaffection created the germ for political activism. In 1872, low wages at Planta-tion Devonshire Castle produced mass protests where police shot and killed five and wounded seven workers. The Par-liamentary Papers, No. 49 of 1873 claimed that Oederman, a Brahmin (upper caste), was the instigator of this uprising. Planters believed that upper-caste Indians were the source of constant instigations on the estates. The Sugar Planters’ Association even urged immigration authorities in Calcutta in 1889 not to recruit upper-caste Indians; and Alleyne Ireland, an overseer, referred to these upper castes as ‘…incorrigible rascals, sowing the seeds of discontent…’

Rigid labor laws produced criminal convictions for the slight-est violations. Medical doctors and magistrates operated in the ruling class interests, once they were paid off handsome-ly. Indian women became frequent targets for sexual assaults by White overseers. Although arrests were common, Indians continued to resist. There was the case in January 1882 of Narain Singhvii who went to the Immigration Agent-General (IAG) to lodge a complaint pertaining to his wages; he was advised to present his complaint to a magistrate; this he did and the magistrate then invited the manager of Plantation Providence to review Narain Singh’s complaint. The manager summoned Narain Singh and told him he was under an in-denture contract and that he left the job to proceed to the Immigration- Agent General (IAG) without appropriate per-mission; the magistrate then dismissed the case. Gooljar, a returnee, was the chief architect of the 1896 Non Pariel riots. Gooljar came under indenture in 1871, complet-ed his indenture, became a cloth seller, and worked with the police force. He took advantage of the return fare to India in 1890, but returned to Guyana in 1894 as a reindenture. Planters having already had their share of upper caste as in-stigators, now faced another type of recalcitrant, the rein-dentured; planters were reluctant to employ renidentureds, as these reindentureds already experienced and expressed bitterness for the ‘exploitative’ dynamics at play in plantation labor; making them even more motivated to advancing the

resistance effort.

Bechu, a Bengali immigrant, accorded upper-caste status by planters, was indentured to Plantation Enmore in 1894, but emancipated himself from indentureship in 1897. Be-chu aggressively articulated the abuses of indentureship; in November 1896, in penning his first among many letters to the newspaper, Bechu spoke about White overseers’ sexual exploitation of Indian females; refusal of estate hospitals to provide medical treatment to unindentured Indians; blatant encouragement of Indians to remain in Guyana, although they eagerly wanted to return to India; and planters’ fre-quent breaches of labor laws pointedly intended to exert total control of Indians. It is remarkable that Bechu was the first Indian to present evidence to a Royal Commission, the West India Royal Commission in 1897. Time-expired (free) Indian immigrants as Gooljar and Bechu, were those most likely to advance the resistance effort; on the other hand, newly-arrived immigrants, the indentureds, were perceived as very malleable. And planters sustained their malleability through a policy that intentionally sepa-rated them from free Indians. This ‘schism’ policy served to reduce free Indian resistance efforts whenever there was a large influx of new immigrants as between 1877 and 1881. Planters also eliminated any form of organized labor through fragmenting local leadership with transfers to other planta-tions. For instance, after the 1896 Non Pariel riots, the dep-uty manager informed the local immigration sub-agent of some small disgruntlement on the plantation, and requested that five immigrants be transferred; they then found their way to Georgetown. Notwithstanding the debilitating ca-pacity of the political struggle under these circumstances, resistance persisted; by the end of the 19th century, Indian resistance definitively began to undermine the power of the plantocracy.

Indian women, too, intensely suffered under indentureship; as victims of abuses, they sparked off protests and so too contributed to the resistance effort as their men folk. Spo-radic protests emanated from the weeding gang, largely the women’s domain. Salamea, an indentured woman worker was the ringleader of a major disorder at Plantation Friends in Berbice in 1903viii. Other cases of women’s role in the resistance effort abound. Interestingly, Indian worker resis-tance transcended gender, accelerated the resistance pace through this gender unification, rapidly limiting the planters’ monopolistic power, and casting the foundations for middle-class development.

Clearly, Indians were not docile during indentureship. Indi-ans demonstrated a remarkable history of active resistance. Labor unrest that facilitated Indian solidarity also simultane-ously was a remarkable method used for ensuring cultural persistence. The dynamic resistance to achieve and sustain cultural persistence and continuity created the ingredients for an Indian political evolution and mobilization. Indentured Indian working people, through their challenge to colonial hegemony, created the Indian political middle class; but that early political middle class idolized colonialism inimical to workers’ concerns; the later political middle class steeped in advancing its own ethnic group’s interests, blatant op-portunism, and imperialist intrigue, also neglected workers’ concerns.

References:

i Tinker, Hugh. A New System of Slavery: The Export of In-dian Labor Overseas, 1830-1920. Oxford, 1974.

ii Nath, Dwarka. A History of Indians in British Guiana. Lon-don, 1950, p. 16.

iii Jayawardena, Chandra. Conflict and Solidarity on a Gui-anese Plantation. London, 1963, p. 17.

iv Comins, D.W. Note on Emigration from India to British Gui-ana. Calcutta, 1893, p. 96.

v Ireland, W. Alleyne. Demerariana. Georgetown, 1897

vi The Sanderson Commission. Parliamentary Papers. 27, 1910, p. 13.

vii Court of Review, 1882.

viii Guyana National Archives., GD 190, May 20, 1903.

Indian Resistance by DR PRem mISIR

COMBAT: May/June, 2010 Page Nine

GAWU - On The Move, Despite Challenges INTERNATIONAL SUGAR NETWORKING -

GAWU-NAACIE-GMB: Launch One Year Project

- 180 shop stewards to be trained

The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) and the National Association of Agricultural, Com-mercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE) along with Brit-ain’s General Union (GMB), have begun a year-long project entitled “Promoting Legal Rights and Building Union Capacity in Guyana”. The Project aims to train 180 union representa-tives from late June 2010 to March, 2011 andwas launched at a Co-ordinating Workshop held on 20 May at the GAWU Labour College.

The training will address five identified pieces of labour legislations and some trade union issues.

Lecturers will conduct training sessions on the Trade Union Recognition Act, the Trade Union Act, the Termination of Em-ployment and Severance Pay Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Prevention of Discrimination Act. The objective is to provide participants with a practical un-

derstanding of the mentioned legislation with a view to enhance shop stewards or representatives ability in conducing rep-resentation on behalf of workers at the workplace. The majority of participants would be representatives or potential representatives. The second area of the training deals with union matters, including the history of NAACIE and GAWU, the role of Shop Stewards, Collective Labour Agreements, Gender and Trade Union Work, and HIV/AIDS in the workplace. A session on the Situation and Outlook of the Guyana Sug-ar Corporation (Guysuco), is also part of the agenda.

Six groups of participants have been identified and they are expected to work as a team through two sets of sessions (“A” and “B”), whichwould beare one-

week residential programmes. Participants of Session A will attend classes again as participants of Ses-sion B. There will be an interval of approximately three (3) months between Session A and B.

The Project is as a result of the ongoing sugar networking ac-tivities, which in the past six years helped resuming solidarity links between the GMB on one hand and GAWU and NAA-CIE on the other, in the context of the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) Global Sugar Program. The GMB organises workers at the Tate & Lyle refinery in London, where Guyana’s sugar is refined.

The training is also an example of our unions’ commitment to the sugar industry. Stronger unions make the industry stronger. Improved service to union members means more stable industrial relations in the industry.

GAWU President Komal Chand making a presentation at the workshop

The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) has submitted proposals to the Berbice River Bridge Inc (BBCI) to constitute the Collective Agree-ment between the Union and the Company on June 02, 2010. This follows the signing of the Recognition and the Avoidance and Settlement of Disputes which out-lines the conduct of relationship between the Union and the Company on April 13, 2010. The Union met with the workforce on April 23, 2010 determine its demands. The Union has tabled thirty-two (32) proposals, among which is a proposal for a fifteen (15) per cent across-the-board increase as well as increases in other allowances and benefits. The Union is currently awaiting the Company’s re-sponse to commence negotiations.

GAWU submits claims to Berbice Bridge Co.

Meet your Branch Executives

In keeping with the Union’s Constitution and practices, a number of Branch Conferences within the first two months of year were held. The Conference reviewed the activities of the Union particularly at the local level and identified issues which ought to be addressed. The Conferences are normally graced by a top Union Official, whose feature address and the Branch report would stimulate discussions. Committee members of the newly elected branches are:-

Uitvlugt Estate

Chairman: Nazir Baksh, Vice Chairman: Deonandan, Sec-retary: Awad Bhagwandin, Assistant Secretary/Treasurer: Lochan Sookram, and Committee Members: Royston Petty, Culbert Cummings, Pitamdai Arjune, Elaine Brooms, Avid Hussein, Rasheed Baksh, Phillip Trotz, Satwantie Ramlall and Ganga Shivnauth

Noble House Seafoods

Chairperson: Parbatie Budhu, Secretary: Valarie Tyrell, and Committee Members: Annette Marcus, Deborah Gittens, Colleen Duncan, Rold Smith, Rohinie Ram, Amolita Abrams, Reana Sadic

Demerara Timbers Limited

Chairman: Angela Henry, Secretary: Denese Smart and Com-mittee Members: Ron Beckles, Derick Tony, Anita Croft, Mal-com Smith, Clarance Craig

GAWU commences negotiations with BEV Processors Inc and Caricom Rice Mills

The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) has commenced negotiations with various employers on pay hikes and adjustments on fringe ben-efits with employers for year 2010.

The Union’s General Secretary, Cde Seepaul Narine and members of the Union’s BEV Branch which includ-ed the shop stewards have held four (4) meetings as at June 24, 2010 with the Managing Director of BEV Pro-cessors Inc, Cde Bruce Vieira and his colleagues.

The Union’s General Secretary and members of the negotiation team held a consultative meeting on June 24, 2010 with the Union’s rank and file on the Com-pany’s counter proposals to the Union’s claims.

GAWU became the bargaining agent in 1993 for the

Company’s workforce, which at the moment totals al-most five hundred (500) employees most of whom are women

The Union and the Caricom Rice Mills Limited (CRML) are also addressing adjustments in pay and improve-ment on certain benefits. As at June 24, 2010, the par-ties met once on June 18, 2010.

Members of the Union’s negotiating team are examin-ing a proposal from the Company for the creation of three scales namely Unskilled, Semi-Skilled and Skilled. The Union which has been the bargaining agent of the workplace numbering since approximately seventy (70) employees since July, 1992 is seeking to have a wage/salary hike of fifteen (15) per cent.

COMBAT: May/June, 2010 Page Ten

EXAMINATION AND EXPOSUREGuysuco’s Mismanagement

Continued from last edition

Uitvlugt Estate

A Review Committee comprising Guysuco Board of Direc-tors Member, Raj Singh (Chairman) and D. Seeraj and E. Vi-jayan (Members) found in 2007 that Uitvlugt Estate’s cultiva-tion was significantly rundown with a significant proliferation of weeds in the fields and in the canals of the Estate. Even more revealing was the testimony given by a previous Gener-al Manager to the Committee, whereby he confirmed that he was tasked by the Chief Executive, a Booker-Tate personnel, to prepare a Paper for the closure of the Estate despite the mandate of the Guysuco’s Board to maintain productively all eight (8) estates. The rumour that the Estate was slated for closure had a demoralizing effect on the Estate’s workforce as it was widely said that the Estate was going to be closed leading to high incidences of absenteeism and lack of com-mitment. Despite significant rehabilitation of the Estate’s cul-tivation production is nowhere near to what is was prior to it being prepared for closure. We wish to repeat some of the revealing findings of the Uitvlugt Estate Review Committee:-

Inability to Achieve Field Programmes

“The estate has claimed the imposition of varietal propa-gation by ARC resulted in lower pol% and cane yields. This

could not have been proven since the Research Centre only give guidelines and advice on varietal propagation on Estates. It has always been the estates responsibility to do the final programme for varieties extension since different estates has difference conditions.”

“Communication Failures (Perception of Closure)

A perception has grown over the years that the estate will be closed. This has apparently arising from certain International Monetary Fund discussions and exercises in connection with looking for alternatives for the survival of the industry in the face of EU price cuts. While these strategy level discussions, GM’s decision to conduct a closure exercise at Uitvlugt Es-tate in 2004 seems to have accelerated and confirmed this perception. The estate did nothing significant to dispel this perception and is considered a communication failure. This perception led to widespread de-motivation, absen-teeism, poor labour turn out and contractor interest. It is instructive that with the perception partially dispelled there has been increased morale and turnout in the estate. This clearly indicates that the ill effects of this perception. It is also recognized that the corporation has to paint a dire scenario publicly during 2005-06 to garner maximum aid/as-sistance from EU. But its internal repercussions should have been handled more professionally.”

“Management The team’s observations were that the estate’s manage-ment was disconnect and lacked the very basic principle of creating one them with the correct focus on an agriculture based industry. It was noted that many post mortem reports were prepared rather than preventative procedures put in place and auc-tioned on a timely basis. The team also observed (from the interviews conducted) that members of the management team spent more time ei-ther trying to defend their non-action, shifting the blame or shunning accountability. The team found it very strange that the chain of manage-ment was not working effectivelty/efficiently i.e. although some of the issues (contributing to the decline) were iden-tified no appropriate action was taken against defaulters at any of the approved levels. A culture of writing reports without any action or follow up was observed. The CEO and Operations Director both indicated their aca-demic discipline was not agriculture and therefore has a great level of dependency on the estate’s agriculture person-nel, General Manager and the Agriculture Services Director. Serious management deficiencies and neglect was not ar-rested on time, thus a prolonged dispute.”

FITUG’s SOLIDARITY WITH THE GREEK WORKERS & SUPPORTS INVESTMENT IN PEOPLEFITUG SUPPORTS GREEK WORKERS

The country’s largest umbrella Trade Union organization the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG), representing approximately 30,000 members, salutes and hereby offers its international, fraternal solidarity with the working people of Greece.

FITUG includes, especially the Greek Workers’ representa-tives, the ADEDY and the General Confederation of Workers (GSEE) in this missive of support from a Caribbean/ Guyanese trade union which is all too familiar with struggle; struggle for recognition, for members’ rights and welfare and for the socio-economic benefits and progress all workers deserve.

We have followed the “European Bailout” scenario in Greece. We in this part of the world could have suffered sig-nificantly from the 2008 American Wall Street/Real Estate avarice which precipitated an American/European financial crisis and its consequent recession. The fiscal systems of many European banks and governments, tied to American capital and risky investments, buckled, hence so – called bailout rescue plans. Greece is now a victim of that interna-tional capitalist – spawned scourge. But the EU/IMF auster-ity measures accepted by Mr Papandreou, directly ravages the immediate and long term good and welfare of Greece’s working–class, the farmers, the young and, alas the retired PENSIONERS.

How can a government accede to measures imposed to af-fect Greece’s workers’ social, labour, pension and economic rights? And if Prime Minister Papandreou “understands” the people’s outrage how can he preside over the collapse of Greece’s social security system? As with weak, timid gov-ernments the world over, whose primary purpose is their own survival, the EU/IMF austerity, anti-worker programme was never discussed with Greece’s workers’ representatives.

FITUG understands that the people accept that reforms are necessary to address the massive debt crisis, but a “bailout” replete ONLY with tax – hikes, public wage cuts and mea-sures to inflict hardships on retirees should not be exclusive to the poor.

FITUG understands that Greece’s rich – the shipping mag-nates, its industrialists and barbers are finding ways to avoid taxes and cuts; to stash their millions whilst the working – class bear the brunt of the austerity.

Against those realities, FITUG relates to the struggle in Ath-ens at this time. Across the oceans, our hand of friendship is extended to the people of Greece – now and throughout your struggle – until social and economic justice is achieved.

FITUG SUPPORTS INVESTMENT IN PEOPLE, Disagrees with Economic Freedom Report, Rejects Private Group’s Findings

Guyana’s largest umbrella organisation representing some 30,000 registered workers has come out in support of Gov-ernment’s investments in and expansion of its various peo-ple-oriented national development project.

The Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG) is, at the same time, recording its strong disagree-ment with the findings, conclusions and ranking of Guyana at a most low level on its so-called index.

As the majority representative of Guyana’s workforce could not sit idly by when a private organisation issues an “interna-tional” 2010 Index of Economic Freedom Report which lam-bastes the Government of Guyana for expanding vital sec-tors of Guyana’s economy. It is the working-class which will be the main beneficiary of national investment in drainage and irrigation, in hydro-electricity, in health care, education, housing and the other various vital social services.

FITUG is heartened and still hopeful with respect to the 2010 National Budget allocations with G$13.4B being allo-cated to Health, Education, G$20.8B, Water and Housing, G$5.8B and Poverty Alleviation, G$14.2B all told consum-ing G$54.2 or 37.9% of this year’s G$142.8B budget. On top of that millions are to be expended on Vulnerable groups and other targeted interventions. To us this reflects people-friendly investments and worker-oriented planning to cater for a reasonably satisfied work-force with necessary social security and safety-nets.

The private Foundation responsible for this latest “report” resides in a country which is grappling with unemployment, fiscal challenges and a general economic slump despite that country’s wealth. Who is this group to dare to assess and pass judgment on Guyana’s economic status, therefore? As has been pointed out by our Head of State, a prominent economist himself, the more reliable indicators of Guyana’s economic performance come from the International Mon-etary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the US Millennium Chal-lenge Corporation and other recognized International Devel-opment Banks.

Reports or no reports, a government anywhere must re-spond to its nation’s urgent priority needs, unmindful of how harshly private, overseas, right wing groups with their own agendas may seek to assess and rank local economic perfor-mance.

FITUG, however, recognizes the dangerous mischief mislead-ing criteria could cause to Guyana’s economic management and status especially when private foundations masquerade as credible international assessors. Guyana’s workers must be aware of those mischievous strategies from afar.

COMBAT: May/June, 2010 Page Eleven

EDUCATION CORNER: by Cde Navin Chandarpal, Principal GAWU Labour College

THE LAWS OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTThe following is extracted from the book: What Is Marxim ? by Emile Burns

The history of mankind is usually present-ed in the form of a record of wars between nations and the exploits of individual mon-archs, generals or statesmen. Sometimes the motives of these individuals are described in a purely personal way – their ambitions led them to conquer territory, or their moral or immoral outlook caused them to adopt cer-tain policies. Sometimes they are described as acting for the sake of the country’s honour or prestige, or from some motive of religion.Marxism is not satisfied with such an ap-proach to history. In the first place, it considers that the real science of history must deal with the peo-ples, and only with individuals in so far as they represent something much wider than themselves – some movement of the people.For example, Cromwell is important not be-cause of his own outlook and individual ac-tions, but because he played an important part in the movement of a section of the English people against the old order. He and his movement broke down the barriers of feudalism, and opened the way for the wide-spread development of capitalism in Britain. What matters is not the record of his battles and his religious outlook and intrigues. But the study of Cromwell’s place in the develop-ment of British production and distribution, the understanding of why, at that period and in Britain, the struggle developed against the feudal monarchy; the study of the changes actually brought about in that period – these are important; they are the basis of a science of history. By using the knowledge derived from such a study (along with the study of other periods and of other peoples), it is possible to draw up general theories – laws of the development of society, which are just as real as the laws of chemistry or any other science. And once we know these laws we can make use of them, just as we can make use of any scientific law – we can not only foretell what is likely to happen, but can act in such a way as to make sure that it does happen; or, as in the case of fascism, to stop it happening. So Marxism approaches the study of his-tory in order to trace the natural laws which run through all human history, and for this purpose it looks not at individuals but at peoples. And when it looks at peoples (after the stage of primitive society) it finds that there are different sections of the people, some pulling one way and some another, not as individuals, but as classes. What are these classes? In the simplest terms, they are sections of the people who get their living in the same way. In feudal society the monarch and the feudal lords got their living from some form of tribute (whether personal service or payments in kind) provided by their “serfs,” who actu-ally produced things, mainly on the land. The feudal lords were a class, with interests as a class – they all wanted to get as much as possible out of the labour of their serfs; they all wanted to extend their land and the number of serfs working for them. On the other hand, the serfs were a class, with their own class interests. They wanted to keep more of what they produced for them-selves and their families, instead of handing it over to their lords; they wanted freedom to work for themselves; they wanted to do away with the harsh treatment they received at the hands of their lords, who were also their law-makers and their judges. An Anglo-Saxon writer expressed the feelings of a serf who had to plough his lord’s land: “Oh, sir, I work very hard. I go out in the dawning, driv-ing the oxen to the field and yoke them to the, plough. Be the winter never so stark, I

dare not stay at home for fear of my lord; but every day I must plough a full acre or more (Quoted by Eileen Power in Medieval People, p. 22). Hence in every feudal country there was a constant struggle going on between the lords and the serfs, sometimes only on an individual basis, or a group of serfs against their particular lord; sometimes on a much wider basis, when large numbers of serfs act-ed together, in order to try to get their gen-eral conditions of life made easier. The revolt of 1381 in England, led by John Ball and Wat Tyler, is an instance of this. The full story is told in H. Fagan’s Nine Days that Shook Eng-land. Similar risings of serfs or peasants oc-curred in Germany, Russia and many other countries, while the struggle was continually going on on a smaller scale. In addition to the obligations to work their lord’s land, there were many forms of tribute to be paid in kind – not only a share of the produce of their own holding, but products of the handicraft of the serfs and their fami-lies. There were some specialised produc-

ers – for example, makers of weapons and equipment. And there were merchants who bought surplus products, trading them for the products of other regions or countries. With the increase of trade. these merchants began to need more than the surplus pro-duced by serfs and not required by their lords; they therefore began to develop or-ganised production for the market, using the whole-time labour of serfs who had been freed or had succeeded in escaping from their lords. Some of the freed serfs also man-aged to set themselves up in the towns as free craftsmen, producing cloth, metalware and other articles. So in a slow development, lasting hundreds of years, there grew up within feudal production for local consump-tion, also production for the market, carried on by independent artisans and employers of wage-labour. The independent artisans also gradually developed into employers of labour, with “journeymen” working for them for wages. So from the sixteenth century onwards there was coming into existence a new class, the industrial capitalist class, with its “shadow,” the industrial working class. In the countryside, too, the old feudal obliga-tions had broken down – personal service was changed into money rent, the serfs were transformed in many cases into free peas-ants, each on his holding, and the landowner began to pay wages for the labour-power he needed on his own farms; in this way, too, the capitalist farmer came into existence,

along with the farm labourer earning wages.But the growth of the capitalist class in town and country did not automatically put an end to the former ruling class of feudal lords. On the contrary, the monarchy, the old land-ed aristocracy and the Church did their ut-most to use the new capitalism for their own benefit. The serfs who had been freed or es-caped to the towns had also escaped from having to pay tribute (in personal service, in kind or in money) to the lords. But when the descendants of these serfs grew relatively rich, they began to find that they were not really free – the king and the feudal nobility made them pay taxes of all kinds, imposed restrictions on their trade, and prevented the free development of their manufactur-ing business. The king and the old landed nobility were able to do this because they controlled the machinery of the State – armed forces, judg-es and prisons; while they also made the laws. Therefore the growth of the capitalist class also meant the growth of new forms of class struggle. The capitalists had to engage

in a struggle against the monarchy and the feudal lords, a struggle which continued over many centuries. In some relatively backward countries it is still going on – but in Britain and France, for example, it has been com-pleted.

How did this come about? By the capitalist class taking power from the former feudal rulers, by means of an armed revolution. In Britain, where this stage was reached far earlier than in other countries. the continuous struggle of the growing capi-talist class against taxation and restrictions reached a high point in the middle of the seventeenth century. These restrictions were holding back the expansion of the capitalist form of production. The capitalists tried to get them removed by peaceful means – pe-titions to the king, by refusing to pay taxes, and so on; but nothing far-reaching could be won against the machinery of the State. Therefore the capitalists had to meet force with force; they had to rouse the people against the king, against arbitrary taxation and trade restrictions, against the arrests and penalties imposed by the king’s judges for all attempts to break through the feudal barriers. In other words, the capitalists had to organise an armed revolution, to lead the people to rise in arms against the king and the old forms of oppression – to defeat the former rulers by military means. Only after this had been done was it possible for the

capitalist class to become the ruling class, to break down all barriers to the development of capitalism, and to make the laws needed for this. It is perfectly true that this capitalist revo-lution in England is presented in most histo-ries as a fight against Charles I as a despotic, scheming monarch of Roman Catholic lean-ings, while Cromwell is represented as a high-ly respectable anti-Catholic, with great ideals of British freedom. The struggle, in short, is presented as a moral, religious fight. Marx-ism goes deeper than the individuals, and deeper than the watchwords under which the fight was carried on. It sees the essence of the struggle of that period as the fight of the rising capitalist class to take power from the old feudal ruling class. And in fact it was a clear turning-point: after that revolution, and the second stage of it in 1689, the capi-talist class won a considerable share in the control of the State. In England, owing to the early stage at which the capitalist revolution came, the vic-tory of the capitalists was not decisive and not complete. As a result of this, though the old feudal relations were largely destroyed, the landowning class (including rich recruits from the towns) to a great extent survived and itself developed as capitalist landlords, merging with the moneyed interests over the next two centuries, and keeping a con-siderable share in the control of the State.But in France, where the whole process came later, and the capitalist revolution did not take place until 1789, the immedi-ate changes were more far-reaching. To the Marxist, however, this was not due to the fact that Rousseau and other writers had written works proclaiming the rights of man, nor to the fact that the popular watchwords of the revolution were “Liberty-Equality-Fra-ternity.” Just as the essence of the Cromwell revolution is to be found in the class struggle and not in the religious watchwords, so the essence of the French revolution is to be found in the class relations and not in the abstract principles of justice inscribed on its banners. Marx says of such periods: “Just as we can-not judge an individual on the basis of his own opinion of himself, so such a revolution-ary period cannot be judged from its own consciousness.” What is important for the understanding of revolutionary periods is to see the classes struggling for power, the new class taking power from the old; even if, consciously or unconsciously, the leaders of the new class proclaim their fight to be for what are apparently abstract ideas or issues not directly connected with the question of class interests and class power. The Marxist approach to history sees the struggle between contending classes as the principal driving force in the development of human society. But along with the struggle of classes goes also the growth of science of man’s power over nature, man’s power to produce the things he needs for life. The discovery of power-driven machinery was an immense step forward in production; but it was not only this. It also brought with it the destruction of the producer owning his own spinning wheel and weaving-frame, who could no longer compete against rival pro-ducers using power-driven machinery which enabled a worker to spin and weave in one day more than the artisan could produce in a week. Therefore the individual producer, who owned and used his own instruments of production, gave place to two groups of people – the capitalist class, who owned the new power-driven machinery but did not work it; and the industrial working class, which did not own any means of production, but worked (for wages) for the owner.

COMBAT is a publication of the Guyana Agricultural & General Workers Union (GAWU)59 High Street & Wights Lane, Kingston, Georgetown, Guyana, S.A.Tel: 592-227-2091/2; 225-5321 , 223-6523 Fax: 592-227-2093

Email: gawu@bbgy.com Website: www.gawu.net

The Guyana Sugar Corporation (Guysuco) continues to be unable to achieve its modest production targets it sets itself. Sugar production over the last few years has been unaccept-ably low. Last year’s production, like the last few years lagged behind budgeted production; it fell short by 16,265 tonnes of its revised target and 56,625 tonnes as against its origi-nal target. This year, despite a low first crop target of 91,675 tonnes the Corporation only produced 81,862 tonnes sugar, the lowest first crop production since 1991. The table below reveals the performance of each estate:-

Estate Target Actual Production VarianceSkeldon 13,571 11,646 -1,925Albion 20,125 18,515 -1,610Rose Hall 11,951 8,431 -3,250Blairmont 12,364 12,111 -253Enmore 11,407 7,852 -3,555LBI 8,199 8,507 308Wales 8,041 8,076 35Uitvlugt 6,017 6,724 707Total 91,675 81,862 -9,813

The Corporation this time blamed the El Nino weather con-dition for its low production. The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) learnt that approximately 400 hectares of canes were not harvested. It was not neces-sarily due to the dry weather. The unharvested canes would have realized an additional 2,250 tonnes of sugar – still a sig-nificant production deficit of 7,563 tonnes.

- fails to achieve target by almost 10,000 tonnes

FIRST CROP PRODUCTION 2010

While the dry weather might have affected a few of the navigational canals which are used to transport canes from the fields to the factory it improved the sucrose content of the canes. Thus the Tonnes Cane to Tonne Sugar (TC/TS) ratio was better than forecasted and therefore the yield of sugar per tonne was to the Corporation’s advantage. Skeldon Es-tate through its new factory should have performed the best of all the estates. It turned out to be the worst, utilizing 14.7 tonnes of cane to produce a tonne of sugar. The other seven (7) factories utilized an average of 10.8 tonnes of cane to produce a tonne of sugar.

All attention will now be focused on the second crop pro-duction this year. The Corporation assured recently through its Deputy Chief Executive Officer that the Corporation would realize the year’s target of 280,000 tonnes. It is an uphill task noting the low production in the first crop. The sixty-four dol-lar question is, does the Corporation have enough canes in the fields to achieve the target?

Although sugar has been grown in Guyana for more than 350 years, the Corporation has been informing the nation, over the last five (5) years of production targets that it is un-able to achieve. Each year it was found that adequate canes were not in the field across the industry as claimed by the Corporation. Guysuco must be more accurate with its esti-mation/determination of the crop noting that it has been un-able to achieve its yearly targets by large percentage.

The importance of the industry to the economy and all Guy-anese requires the Guyana Sugar Corporation Inc (Guysuco) to be more responsible, noting the pivotal role sugar places in the livelihood of every single Guyanese.

GAWU Independence Day Message 2010 From a working-class perspective and in the context of the realities of confronting the challenged economy such as Guy-ana’s, the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) strives to be as objective and analytical as it could be in wishing Guyana a happy but reflective 44th Indepen-dence Anniversary. GAWU appreciates the, wisdom, nearly fifty years ago, of the objective of the anti-colonial struggle. It was to demand, win and welcome political independence from the British masters and their “Empire”. That Guyanese did in May, 1966. The symbols of independence adored every nook and cranny of the new State in May, 1966, as they still do today. GAWU is steeped in pride as history absolved the life’s work, up to then, of our inspirational anti-colonial fighter, the indomi-table Cheddi Jagan, who also inspired the establishment and work of the GAWU. Cheddi Jagan was preceded by another working-class leader, another son of workers who rose up as a tower of working-class, anti-colonial strength – Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow. Others followed – trade unionists and politicians – Latch-mansingh, Chase, Edun, Carter, Burnham - who all played a part in Guyana’s political liberation. But how have we, as workers, as a people, fared over the past 44 years. From whichever perspective Guyanese analyse their status and condition today, they, like GAWU, must admit to sig-nificant, unfortunate UNDERDEVELOPMENT for too many of those years. Consistent migration to other lands has di-minished our human resource capacity. Management of our

national and economic resources has left a lot to be desired in terms of the basic material benefits of citizens of a proud independent national should have enjoyed. GAWU chooses not to lay blame on this 44th Anniversary. Rather, we call on level headed patriots learn from the past. Eschew divisiveness, create indigenous opportunities even if government is viewed as an impediment. Indeed, use the rights and freedoms so evident now to scrutinize and moni-tor government stewardship and management of all national resources. Use real independence, and, this observance of its anniversary to assess just who should be leaders next year and after. GAWU urges all Guyanese to preserve the harmony we take for granted – Independence since 1966 – whatever the failed expectations, has provided us with a peaceful co-existence many other politically-independent peoples still do not en-joy in their fractured societies. It is for us to combine social peace with economic progress. Workers, especially, can do that by holding their leaders, trade unionists and politicians – accountable. Let us monitor, much more closely, the abili-ties, behaviours and performance of those who would be our leaders. This one assignment can make the 44th Independence An-niversary meaningful. If too many of those 44 years were wasted, this is not the time to waste more. A reflective and productive 44th Independence Anniver-sary to all workers and other Guyanese.

GAWU and National Parks Commission sign

Collective Agreement

It took the National Parks Commission many months to agree to certain proposals the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) sought to have included in the Collective Labour Agreement (CLA) cov-ering the Company’s workforce of approximately 100 persons at the National Park, the Zoological Park, the Botanical Gardens and elsewhere. The CLA was signed on April 29, 2010 following the signing of the Recognition and the Avoidance and Set-tlement of Disputes Agreement which was signed on January 09, 2009. The Agreement which was countersigned by Chief Occupational Health and Safety and Labour Officer Yo-ganand Persaud was signed by John Caesar, Yolanda Vaccancellos, Basdeo Dallu, Clement Trotz, Clayton Hall and Rajdendra Bissessar on behalf of the National Parks Commission, Komal Chand, Seepaul Narine, Mandat Singh, Twahir Azweem, Grace Charles, Rajdendra Per-saud, Neermala Khelawan and Cecil Macey on behalf of the Union and workers representatives. Some of the twenty-nine (29) clauses contained in the CLA which took many meeting to persuade the Com-mission to approve include:- Promotion, Overtime and Call Out Pay, Payment for Sundays and Public Holi-days, Annual Leave, Industrial Accidents and Maternity Leave. The Company and the Union, on appending the Agree-ment expressed their interests in the well-being of the workers and the development of the Company to the mutual advantage of both groups. They noted the need for a respected partnership between the union and the workers on one hand and the Company on the other It was an uphill task for the Union to secure recogni-tion. The majority of the employees and GAWU were seeking to displace the Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers (UAAW) since 1997 but the incumbent used the Courts to delay for years the holding of a poll under the Trade Union Recognition Act.

President of GAWU Komal Chand and Chairman of the NPC John Caesar shake hands after the signing of the agree-ment while Chief Occupational, Safety and Health and Labour Officer Yoganand Persaud looks on.