7 272006 86358

51

2

EDITORIAL

Since the Iraqi election of January 30, 2005, the Bushadministration has bragged about its record as a force fordemocracy and freedom. Images of Iraqi voters, their fingersdipped in purple ink, have flashed on TV screens. Pundits haveproclaimed that the war on Iraq was indeed really about liber-ation. A few commentators who have now abandoned the anti-war movement have been given ample air time.

But the notion that Bush and his ilk are serious democratsis nonsense. Nothing could be more disorienting for peoplewho want to change the world than the idea that the US andother Western states are promoters of democracy.

In Iraq—a country under bloody US military occupationafter a war condemned around the world—the US governmentdid not want the direct elections that happened last January. Itsoriginal plan was to draw up a constitution, have indirect elec-tions without mass participation and regulate political parties.Shiite Muslim leaders rejected this plan and organized majordemonstrations against it, forcing US leaders to accept elec-tions. Of course, Bush and the rest have tried to spin the elec-tions they didn’t want to their own advantage, but we should-n’t forget that these elections were never their Plan A and thatresistance to the occupation grows.

Allowing the people of Iraq to determine their own futurehas never been a plan for the Bush administration. They intendto keep a large permanent military presence in Iraq in order toshape it as a neoliberal paradise whose natural resources (espe-cially oil) and labour are ripe for exploitation by US multina-tional corporations, while using it as a platform to expand theirpolitical and economic interests in the region and globally.

In Venezuela, when a right-wing coup against nationalistPresident Hugo Chávez began in April 2002, the US govern-ment made its support for the coup clear. But popular mobi-lization defeated the plotters and restored Chávez to office,leaving the US administration embarrassed. Now that Chávez’sspeeches are growing more radical (and some in Venezuelansocial movements are demanding a real “revolution in the revo-lution”), Bush would love to see Chávez go the way of Haiti’sdeposed president Aristide or Chile’s Salvador Allende, killed inthe US-backed 1973 coup. However, Chávez’s referendumvictory in 2004 makes it hard for the US to paint him as unde-mocratic.

The governments of the US, France and Canada supported

the February 2004 coup in Haiti that put a vicious gang ofthugs in office, and have continued to back this regime despiteits repressive attempts to smash political opposition and socialmovements.

Iraq, Venezuela and Haiti point to two lessons alreadylearned at great human cost in the last century. One is thatWestern states that bray about democracy will readily act to getrid of democratically-elected governments that pursue policiescontrary to their interests. The other is that the kind of liberaldemocracy supported by everyone from George Bush to JackLayton is a very weak form of democracy indeed.

It is a terrible mistake to equate democracy with the parlia-mentary systems that exist today. While unquestionably prefer-able to outright dictatorships, these are versions of capitalistdemocracy that allow citizens to only vote every few years onwho will preside over a society in which most important deci-sions (in the workplace, for example) are made without anypretense of democracy. Balanced-budget laws, internationaleconomic agreements, and constitutions like the one proposedfor the European Union make not only capitalism but itsneoliberal version mandatory for elected governments.

In fact, the concept of “freedom” advanced by liberals hastypically meant free markets and the protection of capital—notfreedom for people at large. The US (and other) ruling classesare no different today: one doesn’t need to scratch too farbeneath the surface of their rhetoric about “freedom” (in Iraqor elsewhere) to find their true economic interests. Indeed, theUS National Security Strategy (2002) elevates free trade to a“moral principle,” and states that “free markets and free tradeare key priorities” in the US’s global pursuits.

Thankfully, this is not the only democracy imaginable. In2000, a popular uprising rooted in democratic grassrootsorganizations defeated the privatization of water in theBolivian city of Cochabamba. For a week, Cochabamba was inthe hands of its working people. This was just the most recentupsurge in the history of the struggle for far-reaching democ-racy from below whose most famous high-points are the ParisCommune (1871), the Russian Revolution (1917) and theSpanish Revolution (1936). In this kind of democracy lies aflicker of hope that humanity might be able to avert the socialand ecological disasters to which imperialist democrats likeBush and Paul Martin are steering us. ★

Their Democracy –and Ours

NEW SOCIALIST offers radicalanalysis of politics, socialmovements and culture in theCanadian state and internationally.Our magazine is a forum forpeople who want to strengthentoday’s activism and for those whowish to replace global capitalismwith a genuinely democraticsocialism. We believe that theliberation of the working class andoppressed peoples can be wononly through their own struggles.For more information about thepublisher of this magazine, theNew Socialist Group, please seethe inside back cover.

EDITORSTodd GordonSebastian LambHarold LavenderNick ScanlanTony Tracy

EDITORIAL ASSOCIATESRichard BannerJackie EsmondeDenise HammondClarice KuhlingAlex LevantMorgan MacLeodDavid McNallyDana MilneKeith O’ReganFrances PiperSandra SarnerHamid SodeifiJohn SimoulidisShiraz VallyIngrid Van Der KloetJeff Webber

DESIGN & COVERSColin Campbell (Front Image)Ryan Cherawaty (Front layout)Sandra Sarner (Design/Layout)

Signed articles do not necessarilyrepresent the views of the Editors ormembers of the New SocialistGroup. Send letters and othercontributions to newsoc@web.net.

New Socialist is a member of the CMPA.Printed at Journal Printing, a union shop

Box 167, 253 College St.Toronto, ON M5T 1R5

(416) 955-1581newsoc@web.net

www.newsocia l i s t .org

Issue #51: May / June 2005

★ HOMEFRONT ★

Isn’t marriage queer? A socialist take on same-sex unions . . . . . . . . . .Frances Piper 4

Grassy Narrows: Activists speak up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dave Brophy 6

★ INTERNATIONAL ★

Bolivia: Class struggle and popular indigenous rebellion . . . . . . .Jeffery R. Webber 8

China: Capitalism, socialism and class struggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Paul Burkett & Martin Hart-Landsberg 12

Iran: America’s next strategic target? . . . . . . . . . . . .Hamid Sodeifi & Hassan Varash 16

★ RELIGION AND POLITICS ★

Marxism and religion: Opium of the people? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Michael Löwy 19

Fundamentalism, US Style: Before and after 9/11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dianne Feeley 24

Sharia in Ontario? An interview with Amina Sherazee . . . . . . . . . . . .Neil Braganza 28

The Middle East under the reign of imperialism and fundamentalisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Shahrzad Mojab 32

★ REVIEWS ★

Pluggin’ Away: A thirst for pop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mark Connery 35

Judy Rebick’s Ten Thousand Roses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sandra Sarner 36

The Prophet Armed, Unarmed, Outcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dale Shin 38

The Assassination of Richard Nixon . . . . . . . . . . . . .Neil Braganza & Karen Ruddy 40

★ OBITUARY ★

Torvald Patterson (1964-2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Peter Drucker 42

★ TIME TO ORGANIZE ★ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

We wish to correct the following errors that appeared in issue 50 (Feb, Mar,April): the name is Marc Lepine, not Lapin (p.6, 7, 37), Anishinaabe notAnnihilable (p.9), and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, not People’sFront for the Liberation of Palesting (p.27). We apologize for these errors.

3

4

Isn’t marriage queer? A socialist take on same-sex unions

BY FRANCES PIPER

Iwonder what Matthiessen, a Christianand a socialist, would say today. In the36 years after New York’s Stonewall

riots ushered in the movement for queerliberation, the battle lines for civil rightshave been drawn and redrawn. While gays,lesbians, bisexuals, transgender and trans-sexual people are far from living free ofdiscrimination, they’ve nonetheless madesubstantial gains around such issues ascensorship, freedom of association, pensionentitlements, employment equity andAIDS treatment. And in the comingmonths, the Canadian government willvote on Bill C-38, which legalizes same-sexunions.

BILL C-38

For many on the left, the bill marks asignificant step forward, clearing the wayfor queers to be fully accepted into society.Others argue that demanding such accept-ance is more accurately viewed as capitulat-ing to the cultural norms and institutionsof a patriarchal capitalist society, and a stepbackward from the sexual radicalism thatonce characterized the movement for queerliberation. We should be knocking downpillars of the current social order, criticsargue, not rapping on the system’s doors,asking to be let in. Such a critique is power-ful, and has the merit of keeping thebroader goals of the movement for radicalchange in plain sight. It doesn’t engage,however, at the level on which the debate isactually occurring. As a result, though acrucial reminder of the need for radicaltransformation, on its own, this argumentfails to provide practical political directionin the face of the very real possibility thatthe bigotry of the religious right will winthe day.

The religious right is aligned in a waywe’ve not seen in Canada since the abor-tion issue came to a head in the late 1980s.Led by Primate Ouellet, archbishop ofQuebec and Canada’s Catholic Church,who claims same-sex marriage “threatens tounleash nothing less than cultural upheavalwhose negative consequences are stillimpossible to predict,” the SOS Marriagecoalition has flooded MP’s constituencyoffices with emails and phone calls, andundertaken a massive postcard mail-out to

congregations. On the political front,they’re backed by Stephen Harper and theConservatives. They’re also bolstered bytheir friends south of the border.Evangelical leader James Dobson—whomade headlines recently for his homopho-bic attack on SpongeBob SquarePants, anabsorbent cartoon character who holdshands with another male cartoon charac-ter—was quick off the mark. On theairways immediately after Prime MinisterPaul Martin introduced Bill C-38, heFrances Piper is an editorial associate

of New Socialist.

“Marriage! What a strange word to be applied to two men! Can’t youhear the hell-hounds of society baying full pursuit behind us?”

Letter from American artist F.O. Matthiessen to student and lover Russell Cheney, September 23, 1924.

5

urged Canadians to follow the lead of theUS. There, the 1996 Defense of MarriageAct defines marriage as a heterosexual insti-tution and shields states from having torecognize same-sex marriages from otherjurisdictions. And last fall, Dobson’s coali-tion Focus on the Family orchestrated aneleven-state ban on same-sex marriage (sixstates banned civil unions too).

As a result, Bill C-38 may not pass.Opinion polls reveal even splits amongpoliticians, or slender majorities in favourof the bill. Despite proclaiming that “youcan’t pick and choose the minority rights orthe fundamental rights that you are goingto defend,” Martin can hardly be said to berallying the troops. He’s insisted only thathis cabinet vote en bloc: other Liberals can“vote by conscience.” That is, they’ll dowhatever is politically expedient in theirriding. What should have been a slam-dunk—with the support of the governingLiberals and the NDP—has become atruly tenuous proposition.

The most forceful endorsements ofsame-sex marriage come from EGALE (the“respectable” face of the lesbian and gaymovement), Canadians for EqualMarriage, the New Democratic Party and ahandful of liberal religious groups. Theyargue, like Martin, that same-sex marriageis a human rights issue. In a letter toMartin, the General Council of the UnitedChurch of Canada, however, writes thatalongside unequivocal support for same-sexcivil marriage, it also “unequivocallysupports the right of communities of faithto decline to perform such marriages”—aprovision which is, in fact, embedded inthe bill. Such a position is disingenuous.Human rights are, by definition, universal.In introducing qualifications—be it a vote-by-conscience or an exclusionary policy—these “defenders” of same-sex marriagesignal their willingness to allow bigotry toexist in pockets.

QUEER LIBERATION

Still, is same-sex marriage worth fightingfor? Marriage is the cornerstone of patriar-chal capitalism, a powerful and pervasivemeans of regulating sexuality and genderrelations. It legitimates only one form ofunion (up until now, monogamous andheterosexual) as the best suited for raising afamily; in the name of marriage, womenhave been overworked, undervalued,berated, beaten and killed. It’s also theprimary mechanism through which the

responsibility, cost and labour involved infeeding, clothing and nurturing each otheris placed in the hands of individuals.Meanwhile, capitalists benefit from havinga workforce that is fed, rested and healthy.And let’s not forget that weddings are amulti-billion dollar industry, many ofwhich turn into grotesque carnivals ofconsumerism, with capitalists standing inthe wings, preying on and reinforcingpeople’s fantasies for eternal happiness.(South African diamond giant De Beers isa great example: just as Coke inventedSanta Claus, De Beers invented thediamond engagement ring and the slogan

“A diamond is forever.”) Allowing gays andlesbians to marry may push at the bound-aries of those sexual norms, but not in away that challenges the system itself.Rather, it encourages people to seemarriage as the only stable and legitimatefoundation of human relations. Moreover,as gay wedding trade shows, magazinefeatures or the upcoming TV realityprogram My Big Fat Gay Wedding attest, itinvites newlyweds to plow tons of moneyinto what writer Anne Kingston calls the“wedding industrial complex,” as they latchonto the myth that it’s a gateway to eternalbliss. Indeed, left-wing critics of same-sexmarriage are reacting in part to the retreatwithin queer communities from libertariansexual politics and their growing socialconservatism, through which the interestsof professional, well-heeled gays andlesbians dominate.

So, how can such an institution possiblybe part of the plan for queer liberation?Well, only in the limited, partial way thatall bourgeois rights are. Think, for instance,of same-sex pension benefits. Integrallywound up with capitalist power relationsand structures of legitimacy, they aresimply an individualist solution to a social

issue. Nonetheless, it’s important to fightfor queer access to private pensions if onlyto expand rather than limit the options andrights of individuals in the here and now.It’s also critical to acknowledge that social-ist-feminist and queer liberationist forcesare too weak to influence the terms ofpublic debate. We can only intervene,which in this case means intervening on aterrain shaped by a constitutional argu-ment on the one hand and bigotry on theother. If the religious right prevails (or evenmakes significant inroads) today, it will beemboldened to pursue its agenda further,attacking abortions, daycare, teaching

evolution in schools and more. And that—taking the wind out of the sails of theright—is one of the most importantreasons to support Bill C-38.

In the meantime, it is worth noting thatgays and lesbians aren’t exactly rushing tothe alter. While same-sex marriage has beenavailable for up to 85 per cent of Canada’spopulation for two years (since the 2003decision by an Ontario appeals court led tomarriage liberalization in six provinces),only 4,500 ceremonies have beenperformed, and the rate of marriage hasfallen in the last year. Clearly, the country’stens of thousands of same-sex couples don’tview marriage as the apotheosis of freedom.Many may in fact share Matthiessen’sperspective, who continues his letter to hislover: “We are beyond society. . . And so wehave a marriage that was never seen on landor sea! . . . Oh it is strange enough. It hasno ring, and no vows, no [wedding pres-ents] . . . And so of course it has none of thecoldness of passion, but merely the serenejoy of companionship. It has no threehundred and sixty-five breakfasts oppositeeach other at the same table; and yet itdesires frequent companionship, devotion,laughter. Its bonds indeed form the servicethat is perfect freedom.” ★

Weddings are a multi-billion dollar industry, many

of which turn into grotesque carnivals of

consumerism, with capitalists standing in the

wings, preying on and reinforcing people’s fantasies

for eternal happiness.

6

Areasonable starting point forsketching the historical back-ground to the present struggle

of Grassy Narrows is the hydro devel-opment on Anishinaabe lands in the1950s. Ontario Hydro built two majordams at Ear Falls and Whitedog,causing significant and unpredictablefluctuations in water levels whichaffected wild rice beds, the habitat offur-bearing animals and the localfishery.

In the 1960s Grassy Narrows was relo-cated by Indian Affairs so that it was moreaffordable to provide services to thecommunity. Although the move wasn’t farfrom the original site it had a considerableimpact on the community. For the firsttime, there was a school on-site, whichmeant the kids were no longer taken by thegovernment and sent to far-away residen-tial schools. But the move also meant thecommunity was now accessible by road,which caused considerable social upheaval.

In 1970 the community was faced withanother major upheaval, when the govern-ment publicly acknowledged that theEnglish-Wabigoon river system had beencontaminated by several tons of inorganic

mercury, which was being dumped into thewater upstream at the Dryden Pulp andPaper Company’s mill. Recent mediacoverage of the impact of the mercurypoisoning has drawn attention to thesevere, on-going health problems of manymembers of both Grassy Narrows andWhite Dog First Nations, the two commu-nities most adversely affected by thecontaminated river system. But the impactof the mercury poisoning on thelocal economy has not receivedattention for a long time, eventhough the high rate of unem-ployment that currently plaguesboth Grassy Narrows and WhiteDog can be largely traced backto it.

As noted in the previousarticle, despite extensive devel-opment throughout the Treaty 3area from the late 1800s onward,racist hiring practices limitedemployment opportunities forthe Anishinaabe. Employmentdiscrimination in white-con-trolled industries was com-pounded by the fact that thesteady degradation of the landcaused by outside developmentundermined traditional alterna-tives to waged work. Neverthe-

less, in the 1960s many members of theGrassy Narrows band were able to earn adecent livelihood as commercial fishers oras fishing and hunting guides for white-owned outfitters.

But this all changed dramatically as aresult of the mercury contamination. Theemployment rate plummeted from about90% to 10% when the governmentacknowledged the mercury poisoning anddeclared commercial fishing on theEnglish-Wabigoon river illegal.

The government was horrendously slowto provide any compensation to GrassyNarrows and White Dog for the enormouseconomic and health effects caused by themercury poisoning. Indeed, 15 years passedbefore Canada, Ontario and the corporatesuccessor of the company that dumped themercury coughed up about $10 million forthe people of Grassy Narrows and WhiteDog. This meagre offering, whichamounted to about $10,000 per person,

This is the second of three articles about Indigenous struggle in what isnow known as Northwestern Ontario. The first article, in theFeb/March/April 2005 issue of NS, briefly examined the relationshipbetween the Anishinaabe of the lake of the woods region and the Canadianstate during the years leading up to and following the signing of Treaty 3 in1873. The article described how the Canadian state violated the agreementand initiated a campaign to destroy the indigenous economy that hadhistorically allowed the Anishinaabe to be a prosperous people.

This article will examine how the Canadian state continues to underminethe livelihoods of the Anishinaabe and the political factors that are shapingGrassy Narrows’ present fight for their lands.

GRASSY NARROWS: HISTORY OF THE FIGHT

Mercury poisoning, clear-cuttingand government collusionBY DAVE BROPHY

Dave Brophy is a member of Friends ofGrassy Narrows Winnipeg

Anishinaabe activist blockading a logging truck atGrassy Narrows.

7

was to make up for destroying the commu-nities’ source of water, a major part of theirdiet and their most important source ofincome.

Bearing in mind the Dryden Pulp andPaper Company’s responsibility for themercury contamination, we can see thatclear cutting of the Whiskey Jack Forest byAbitibi-Consolidated, the most immediatereason for the current logging road block-ade at Grassy Narrows, is only the latestinstance of a forestry companies’ destruc-tion of Anishinaabe lands in the Treaty 3area. This should be no surprise. After all,the stakes are high. Across NorthwesternOntario an estimated 15,000 jobs arerelated to the forestry industry, which alsogenerates about $600 million in taxrevenue for governments.

GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY

The Canadian state is structured in sucha way that it undermines Native peoples’self-determination. For treaty peoples, thenation-to-nation agreements that theysigned with Canada provide a legal basis forasserting their Aboriginal rights. But whentreaty rights concerning traditional land areviolated, Natives’ demands that these rightsbe upheld are dodged by the Canadianstate through legal obfuscation.

The last article ended with a quote froma speech given in 1946 by Treaty 3 GrandCouncil spokesperson Tom Roy, addressingmembers of the federal parliament inOttawa:

“We contend that the terms of our treatywere violated…by the federal governmenton or about April 16, 1894 when, withoutnotifying the Indians, the federal govern-ment transferred the natural resources tothe provinces, with whose laws we have[had] to comply since then. The Indianshave tried to protest against this…. Theanswer has been: ‘This comes entirelyunder the provincial governments, andthere is no authority whatever vested in ourdepartment to change their laws’.”

The Grand Chief ’s words apply just aswell today. The blockade at GrassyNarrows went up in December, 2002 but adecade of protest against the clear cuttingthrough official channels preceded it.

The community’s concerns about clearcutting by Abitibi-Consolidated have beenrepeatedly ignored by the federal Ministryof Indian and Northern Affairs (INA) andthe Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources(OMNR). INA is officially responsible for

upholding the responsibilities of Canada assignatory to the treaties, while OMNR isdesignated official jurisdiction over landresources in the province of Ontario, and isthus responsible for issuing loggingpermits.

Before issuing these permits, OMNR isobliged to consult with First Nations, butdecisions are often made without thesupport of the communities affected. Thiswas the case with Grassy Narrows, whoseparticipation in the consultation processwith OMNR and Abitibi amounted totokenism. Despite the community’sstaunch opposition to clear-cutting,OMNR consistently approved plans thatallowed Abitibi to clear-cut on traditionallands.

GRASSROOTS STRUGGLE

When Aboriginal and treaty rights ofFirst Nations like Grassy Narrows are notrespected by the terms of logging permitsissued by OMNR, they are told to consultINA. But when they appeal to INA, thefederal ministry insists that Ontario’s juris-diction over land and resource allocationprevents them from taking action. Thecollusion of the two levels of governmentthus creates a situation in which corpora-tions gain easy access to resources in FirstNations’ territory.

Native peoples’ self-determination isfurther undermined by the Canadian state

from within. The Indian Act imposes theelective system of band government onFirst Nations, which deprives traditionalleaders of recognition by insisting that theonly spokespeople of the band are thoseelected according to the Indian Act.

In a community like Grassy Narrows,where there is mass unemployment becausepeople’s livelihoods have been taken awayfrom them, the main sources of income arewelfare checks and band council jobs, bothof which depend on government funds.Obviously, such deep economic depend-ence on a state that has waged a centuries-long campaign of genocide and assimila-tion against you is devastating in terms ofchronic poverty. But what is just as debili-tating is the social stratification that thissituation causes. The band council jobs arevirtually the only locally accessible meansof employment and adequate income, andtherefore those who control the bandcouncil, the local political class, wieldpower disproportionately in the commu-nity.

Not surprisingly, then, strong resistancefrom First Nations to exploitation andoppression has not often come from theofficial leadership. This was true in the1970s, when there was a major upsurge ofmilitant grassroots action among nativepeoples throughout North America. The

See GRASSY NARROWS: Page 11

8

BOLIVIA: OCTOBER OR JANUARY AGENDA?

Regional division, class struggleand indigenous rebellion

BY JEFFERY R. WEBBER

T he “Agenda de Octubre” (OctoberAgenda)—a list of popular demandsto remake Bolivia in the name of the

poor and the indigenous majority—emerged from the inspiring rebellion of theindigenous and popular classes of the alti-plano (high plateau), the shantytown of ElAlto and the neighbourhoods on the hill-sides of the capital city, La Paz, in the “GasWar” of October 2003.

January 2005 witnessed the ongoingstruggle for the October Agenda in the“Water War” of El Alto, led by theFederation of Neighbours of El Alto(FEJUVE), and the coca growers’(cocaleros) 10-day road blockade in theYungas region that was brought to anabrupt end by tear gas and rubber bullets.

However, we’ve also seen the first impres-sive counter-mobilization of the Right inthe massive, bourgeois-led demonstrationsfor “autonomy” in the city of Santa Cruz.As the social movements in the westerndepartments (provinces) of the countrypersist in their commitment to the OctoberAgenda, the departments of Beni, Tarija,and, most importantly, Santa Cruz havefortified the Right’s “Agenda de Enero”(January Agenda).

The regime of President Carlos DiegoMesa Gisbert—put in power by the forcesof October after the ousting of GonzáloSánchez de Lozada (Goni)—providedenough rhetorical support for the OctoberAgenda to pacify temporarily the radical-ized sectors of the altiplano and El Alto.But in practice it continued subservience toIMF dictates, the US “war on drugs” andthe neoliberal model first set in place in1985.

Meanwhile, the strongest leftist political

party, the MAS, led by Evo Morales, hasgenerally opted for passive support of theMesa administration. The historic windowof opportunity forced open by the Octoberrebellion is slowly closing as Mesa follows amiddle of the road path and Morales, whodreams of winning the presidential electionin 2007, moderates the MAS’s demandsand moves away from direct action in thestreets.

January’s almost three-week-long hungerstrikes, occupations of public buildings,airport blockade and massive marches inSanta Cruz—some say more than 300,000took to the streets—demonstrate thefrightening capacity of the “Cruceño” [thepeople of Santa Cruz are Cruceños—NS]elite to mobilize students, unions and thepopular sectors behind a bourgeois agenda,concealed beneath the banner of regional“autonomy.” In this case, the region’speople are asked to unite against the“centralism” of the capital city, La Paz.

ORIGINS OF OCTOBER AGENDA

To understand the current conjuncturewe need to look back. From the 1952National Revolution until the neoliberalcounter-reform of 1985, the tin miners,

working through the Trotskyist- and syndi-calist-influenced Bolivian Workers Central(COB), represented the vanguard of theBolivian Left. In 1985, the newly neolib-eral National Revolutionary Movementparty (MNR) unleashed orthodox shocktherapy. The neoliberal model continues tothis day.

The principal targets in 1985 were thestate-owned mines, more for politicalreasons than economic ones. The brutalprocess of privatization was facilitated bythe unlucky coincidence of a crash in theprice of tin on the world market. Morethan 25 000 of the 32 000 miners were laidoff. Many miners migrated to the cities(especially El Alto), or to the Chapareregion, near the city of Cochabamba,where they became coca growers. Theytook their Marxist traditions with them.US foreign policy and its “War on Drugs”helped spur to life an anti-imperialist,campesino-indígena [small farmer-indige-nous—NS] movement in the Chapareregion. The cocaleros emerged as the newvanguard of the left, mixing as they did thetraditions of the miners and the Indigenoustraditions of the longer-standing cocagrowers. The MAS emerged out of thecocaleros as a Leftist/Indigenous force inthe national panorama of political parties.

But it was not until 2000 that popularJeffery R. Webber is a PhD student at the University of Toronto and a member of the NewSocialist Group, currently in Bolivia. His regular updates are found at www.newsocialist.org.

ALL PH

OTO

S: JEFFREY

WEB

BER

Bolivian social movements are mobilizing to reclaim Bolivia’s natural resources and winreal power for the Indigenous majority.

9

forces took the offensive against neoliberal-ism. The February-April 2000 Water Warin Cochabamba successfully booted out amultinational consortium and reversed theprivatization of water. This revitalizedBolivian social movements, bringing asense of hope back into the struggle afterthe dark years of retreat.

This new cycle of contention reached itszenith in the dramatic mobilizations of theGas War of October 2003. It was a revoltagainst neoliberalism and the social conse-quences of economic restructuring. Itsought national sovereignty in the face ofpressure to adapt to a vicious new worldorder. It aimed to reclaim Bolivia’s naturalresources. It strengthened the class struggle.It demanded real power for the Indigenousmajority.

The most important, all-encompassingcomponent of the October Agenda is thecall for a Constituent Assembly. This repre-sents a potential threat to the largelandowners, the petroleum multinationalsand the business elite that run the show inSanta Cruz and used to run the wholecountry.

THE REBELLION OF SANTA CRUZ

To understand recent events in SantaCruz, one needs to appreciate what’s atstake for the Cruceño elite. The funnellingof state largesse to the region of Santa Cruz,in an effort to dynamize its oil, gas andagroindustrial export economies, begansoon after 1952. It reached exaggeratedproportions under the dictatorship ofHugo Banzer (1971-78).

Since 1985, the traditional politicalparties (MNR, ADN and MIR) have acted

as veritable channels of power for theCruceño bourgeoisie. Cruceño elites occu-pied key ministerial positions that definedthe political economy of the last 20 years,as well as the highest levels of the three keyneoliberal parties.

State support for the Cruceño elite hashad a considerable impact on Santa Cruz’srole in the Bolivian economy. As is commonwith corporate welfare bums, the Cruceñobourgeoisie has constructed an elaborateideological edifice that inverts their actualhistorical relationship with the state and therest of Bolivia: “we generate almost half ofthe national taxes, and carry on our backsthe major part of the economy.”

Over the last five years, however, thedominance of Cruceño capital has slowlybeen put in jeopardy. There was a declinein the ideology of free market capitalism atthe outset of the 2000s. There was theconsiderable collapse in the performance ofthe traditional neoliberal parties in the2002 presidential elections. These partiesfell still further from grace in the municipalelections of last year. Finally, and mostimportantly, the October Agenda chal-lenged the fundamental ethos of theCruceño elite and its material basis. TheJanuary Agenda is the answer to this threat.

MESA’S NEOLIBERAL REFORMISM

President Mesa, vice president under theGoni regime, was brought to power on thecrest of the October Rebellion afterdistancing himself from the violent repres-sion ordered by Goni. He then surroundedhimself with “gonistas” and other neolib-eral ministers.

Unlike Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, Mesahas never denounced neoliberal orthodoxywhen attending international forums. Hisadministration has agreed with the IMF tocontinue with the neoliberal model, torespect previous privatizations and topersist in paying the crushing externaldebt.

Indeed, it was an IMF dictate thatsparked the mobilizations that wouldbecome the January Agenda. In earlyDecember 2004, a Bolivian government

The Bolivian social movement organization FEJUVE, whose offices are pictured above, is working towards the expulsion of the water company Aguas del Illimani, owned byFrench multinational Suez. FEJUVE was heavily involved in recent strikes.

Bolivia has entered a time of uncertainty, a time of regional division in the class struggleand clearly delineated, conflicting national projects.

10

team travelled to Washington to finalizethe details of a loan, which was to comeinto effect on January 1, 2005 and tocontinue until the end of March 2005. Amedium-term plan was reached that calledfor measures to improve the precariousfiscal situation of the Bolivian state.

On December 29, the newspaper LaRazón reported that the IMF was explicitlyopposed to existing subsidies for diesel andgasoline. The next day Mesa ordered anincrease in the price of both. This sparkedmobilizations all over the country, includ-ing the business-led demonstrations inSanta Cruz, which morphed from a fight tomaintain subsidies on diesel and gas to theCruceño elite’s January Agenda.

THE CURRENT IMPASSE

In one sense the gigantic mobilization inSanta Cruz demonstrates the first signifi-cant counter-reaction to the OctoberAgenda. But the fact that the Cruceño elitehave regionalized their struggle and have,in a sense, temporarily forsaken the“national” struggle to control the Bolivianstate, is also a sign of their weakness. Itindicates that the October Agenda haseffectively crushed the bourgeois ideologyof the free market, foreign investment andracism outside of Santa Cruz (and Beni andTarija). The Right is stronger than theywere after October 2003, thanks to Mesa’s

neoliberal reformism, although their poweris restricted primarily to Santa Cruz.

Even in Santa Cruz itself the elite faceschallenges. On January 27, universitystudents and indigenous groups marchedagainst the January Agenda, mobilizingover 1000 people. Workers, some businesspeople, campesinos and others marched onthe same day in Sucre against the Cruceñorebellion. San Julián, on the road connect-ing the departments of Santa Cruz andTrinidad, was blockaded by peasant colo-nizers. Apparently the influence of theLandless Movement (MST) in this block-ade was impressive.

The next day, university students, theCivic Committee, market vendors, theFederation of Neighbours of La Paz, andothers marched in the capital against theJanuary Agenda. Morales’s MAS partyappears, haltingly, to be taking to streetpolitics once again. Morales announcedplans for a march, concentrated in the cityof Cochabamba, of campesinos, cocaleros,and others in defence of “dignity anddemanding the approval of a newHydrocarbons Law.” The march would alsobe in defence of the democratic process andagainst the Cruceño revolt, which he saidthreatened liberty and constitutionalgovernment in Bolivia. Marches took placeover these weeks in other cities as well.Finally, the mayors of all major cities apart

from Santa Cruz came out against theJanuary Agenda.

Bolivia has entered a time of uncertainty,a time of regional division in the classstruggle and clearly delineated, conflictingnational projects. The hope for theOctober Agenda lies in the radicalization ofthe social movements of the western part ofthe country which would pressure Mesa togrant reforms while emboldening thecourageous dissidents within the SantaCruz department

POSTSCRIPT—SUNDAY, MARCH 27, 2005

Much has happened since I wrote thisarticle in early February, but the basicpolarization between Left and Rightnational projects has not changed.

Undoubtedly, the event with the mostpolitical and social consequence in the lasttwo months was Mesa’s faked resignation.On the evening of March 6, Mesaannounced that he would present his (revo-cable) resignation before Congress the nextmorning.

Late that Sunday night and into the earlyhours of Monday morning I went to thePlaza Murillo, which hosts the PresidentialPalace, to witness thousands of sponta-neously organized middle-class right-wingers from La Paz work themselves intofrenzied chants of “Death to Evo!”(Morales), “Evo and Abel are theApocalypse!” (Abel Mamani is a key leaderof the Federation of United Neighbours ofEl Alto), and “mano dura” (“iron fist”).They asked Mesa to stay in governmentand repress the social movements that hadeffectively shut down most of the countrythrough blockades and strikes in thepreceding week.

In retrospect, it seems clear that Mesanever intended to resign. He announcedhis resignation for Congress to consider,expecting that they would rally behindhim. The un-elected President—Mesaholds office as a result of the October 2003popular insurrection—was looking for anew mandate from the political Right. Inhis manipulative speech of Sunday eveninghe named the enemies of the state—EvoMorales and Abel Mamani—andannounced the necessity of proceedingwith policies around natural resources thatwould be “viable” in the face of the “inter-national community” (in other words, theimperialist and sub-imperialist states, theinternational financial institutions,

The Bolivian state, in support of its bourgeoisie and conservative middle-class, seeks torepress mass mobilizations for democracy against capital.

11

nearby town of Kenora was in fact a focalpoint of this upsurge in 1974. With theupheaval and repercussions of the mercurypoisoning still reverberating acutelythrough Grassy Narrows and White Dog,protest led to the armed occupation ofAnishinaabe Park, which lasted over twoweeks in the summer of 1974.

Some of the activists involved in theAnishinaabe Park occupation went on toorganise the Native People’s Caravan thatcrossed the country from BC to Ottawa inSeptember of the same year, ending with amarch of almost a thousand native peopleon Parliament Hill. While the natives’anger was directed most forcefully at JeanChrétien’s Ministry of Indian Affairs, therewas also much frustration expressed at thegrassroots with band councils’ failure totake action that properly reflected theradical demands being made by membersof their communities.

This is not to say that the official leader-ship of First Nations in Canada are inher-ently corrupt. But it is important to notethe structural factors that cause band coun-

cils to sometimes follow a policy of conser-vatism that does not properly represent themajority of band member. Overt self-inter-est may be the cause of this, but most oftenband councils are simply faced with a greatchallenge. Given their dependency onIndian Affairs for funds to provide basicservices to their impoverished communi-ties, they have to make difficult decisionson if and how to make demands of thestate.

At Grassy Narrows, the current blockadewas initiated by three young people, whowere quickly supported by a core group ofother activists in the community. It was ayear before any meaningful response camefrom Abitibi-Consolidated or the govern-ments. Predictably, it was the GrassyNarrows Band Council, rather than theblockaders, who were approached, eventhough the former had nothing to do withinitiating the blockade and had largelyremained aloof from it during the first year.

The relationship between GrassyNarrows community activists who havespearheaded the blockade and the localBand Council has been perhaps similar tothe situation at Sun Peaks, where commu-nity activists have had to negotiate a deli-cate relationship with the official leadershipof the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council. The

blockaders at Grassy Narrows weresupported by their Band Council onlyreluctantly at first, and more recently havebeen excluded from talks with Abitibi andthe provincial and federal levels of govern-ment, while the official leadership hasgladly taken the opportunity to negotiate,with leverage, on behalf of the communitywith high-level representatives of thecompany and governments.

But Grassy Narrows’ fight for theirhomeland is far from over. Talks have so faryielded nothing but a rejection of scantofferings from Abitibi, with INA andOMNR participating solely as passiveobservers, in keeping with their typicalstrategy of non-intervention vis-a-visupholding aboriginal rights. Meanwhile,Abitibi is talking about making further jobcuts at the Kenora mill, and politicians arecalling for corporate welfare to prop up the forestry industry in NorthwesternOntario. ★

The final article in this three-part series,appearing in the July/August 2005 issue ofNew Socialist, will look at the struggles ofGrassy Narrows activists to address these andother recent developments and discuss strate-gies for activists trying to work as allies tonative, anti-colonial movements in Canada.

transnational corporations and the localbourgeoisie with extensive ties to interna-tional capital).

To do this the country needed to rallyaround Mesa, to clear the roads of block-ades and protect the “human right” of freetransit and commerce, and to denounce theAymara-indigenous social movement andLeftist political party leaders Mamani andMorales. As Mesa hoped, the middle classcame out in force, drawing on a long tradi-tion of racial hatred and fear of the lowerclasses. In Congress Mesa abandoned histacit 17-month old pact with Morales andMAS and built a new Right-wing coalitionwith the traditional parties MNR, MIRand NFR. This part went as Mesa planned.

What he didn’t predict was a radicalizedunity of Left forces. On March 9, an “anti-oligarchic” pact was signed in the historicLa Paz headquarters of the COB byMorales, Jaime Solares (leader of theCOB), Felipe Quispe and Román Loayza(leaders of the campesino union, theCSUTCB), Roberto de la Cruz (councillor

of El Alto, who played a central role in theOctober rebellion), Alejo Véliz (leader ofthe Trópico de Cochabamba, an associationof coca-growers), leaders of the MST,Oscar Olivera (a leader in Cochabamba’s“Water War”), and Omar Fernandez (fromthe irrigating farmers’ association inCochabamba) and others. Journalist LuisGómez has commented that these folksdon’t normally pass time comfortablytogether, never mind sign pacts of solidar-ity. So, at the time, the potential seemedgreat.

The unifying theme was the demandthat the new hydrocarbons law, then infront of Congress, would increase royaltiespaid by transnationals to the Bolivian stateon hydrocarbons (mainly natural gas) to50%. Blockades went up in force insupport of this demand, especially thoseled by the cocaleros, who are closelyaligned with MAS.

Then followed a complicated and bizarreset of events. As the blockades persistedand a “light” hydrocarbons law passed

through the lower house and moved to theSenate, on March 15 Mesa announced ontelevision that he wanted presidential elec-tions, scheduled for 2007, moved forwardto August of this year because it was impos-sible to govern. This was rejected as uncon-stitutional by Congress, and Mesa contin-ues as President (although now with signif-icantly less support from within the middleclass). The blockades were lifted, however,as Morales helped to de-radicalize thecocaleros, many of whom wanted tocontinue with blockades until the demandfor 50% royalties on gas was won.

The proposed hydrocarbons law is beforethe Senate, and the outcome remainsunclear. There are no roadblocks, and thecapital is eerily quiet given the tradition ofmany residents of La Paz to leave the cityfor religious vacations during Holy Week.The “tense calm” that everyone here refersto is likely to break in the near future, asthe extraordinary underlying tensions and social divisions within this countrypersist. ★

Grassy NarrowsContinued from Page 7

12

admirers of China generally treat theincreasing anti-market-reform struggles ofChinese working people as disruptive andthreatening to China’s future. Implicit inthis perspective is the belief that there is nopositive potential for popular struggles toinform our basic conceptions of develop-ment and policy.

Another important element underlyingthe consensus on China is the sharedacceptance of the nation as the primaryunit of analysis. In other words, individualcountry successes (such as China’s) are notseen as organically connected to the failuresof other countries (e.g., the 1997-98 EastAsian crisis). Rather than combining thesenational experiences into a vision of capi-talism as an organic, global, unevenlydeveloping system, the consensus approachtends to lead to a focus on unwise policiesas an explanation of individual countryfailures. Presumably if all governmentsadopted China-like policies then allnations would develop. One consequenceof this approach is that the capitalist system

THINKING ABOUT CHINA

Capitalism, socialism and class struggle BY PAUL BURKETT AND MARTIN HART-LANDSBERG

China’s economic transformation has stunned the world. The country hasbecome one of the world’s main exporters of manufactured goods and sitesfor transnational corporate investment, while purportedly lifting hundreds

of millions out of poverty. As a result, analysts across a wide band of the politicalspectrum have embraced China’s market reform strategy, promoting it as a modelfor other countries. Disagreements over policy do exist, but they are largely aboutthe appropriate sequencing and pacing of the reform process. Conservatives advo-cate a faster dismantling of barriers to the free operation of internal and externalmarket forces; progressives argue for caution in order to avoid a repetition of the“shock therapy” disaster in the USSR. Significantly, despite their differences overthe desired pace of reform, many on both right and left now share the view, basedlargely on the Chinese experience, that market reforms and insertion into the globalcapitalist economy can, when properly managed, offer tremendous opportunitiesfor achieving growth, development and poverty reduction.

Politically, the most crucial features ofthis consensus on China are its top-downvision of socio-economic change and ideal-ized view of markets and the reformprocess. Both left and right agree thatChina’s development successes reflect thewisdom of her government leaders. Thishelps explain the repeated paeans to the“smartness” of the Chinese leadership.Both groups recognize that China’s rapidgrowth has generated economic and socialproblems: macroeconomic instability,rising inequality, breakdowns in the healthcare and educational systems (especially inrural areas), worsening environmentalpollution and so on. But they tend to viewthese malfunctions and maladies largely assymptoms of institutional lags in themarketization process, not as organicoutgrowths of marketization itself.

Naturally, conservatives prefer thatChina modernize in the US mold andbuild cooperative relations with the US,while progressives more often championChina’s regional and global emergence as awelcome counterweight to US-style neolib-

eral and militarized capitalism. However,both groups see China’s continuedmodernization and democratization asnatural outcomes of the country’s market-driven economic development. This sharedperspective explains why both right and left

Paul Burkett and Martin Hart-Landsberg areauthors of China and Socialism: MarketReforms and Class Struggle.

1998 meeting where Chinese drivers voted overwhelmingly to organize an independentlabour union. The government-owned firm then refused to recognize it, calling it illegal.

13

escapes critical scrutiny.From a Marxist perspective, these trou-

bling methodological features of the right-left consensus on China have a commonbasis: the failure to take account of theclass-exploitative and alienated roots of themarket and of market-driven development,and the corollary failure to choose the sideof working people in the class struggle andconsider development policy from theirstandpoint. Correcting this failure leads toa very different picture of China’s experi-ence, one that illuminates the ongoingrestoration of capitalism and resultantskyrocketing of social and ecological costs.

The consensus emphasis on elite choicesis justified in one respect: it was theCommunist Party leadership’s decision tomove the country in a pro-market direc-tion. At the time Deng Xiao Pingsucceeded Mao Zedong there was growingworker unrest over the inefficiencies andimbalances in China’s system of productionand investment. But there was no massmovement seeking to solve these problemsthough market forces and private enter-prise. Rather, many peasants, workers andintellectuals, and their spokespersons in theParty, were calling for socialist renewalthough more grassroots cooperative-demo-cratic decision-making in economic, politi-cal and cultural arenas. Deng and hisfaction of the Party were threatened by, andsaw partial marketization as a safe alterna-tive to, this response. This was not statedopenly, of course. Rather, market reformswere presented as a more stable and effec-tive approach to socialist renewal than anygrassroots-oriented strategy of “puttingpolitics in command.”

CHINA AND THE FREE MARKET

However, while it may have been a Party-elite decision to begin marketization,market imperatives quickly became uncon-trollable. Each stage in the reform processgenerated new tensions and contradictionsthat could only be resolved (given the elite’sbias against worker-community centeredalternatives) through a further expansion ofmarket power. The “slippery slope” ofmarket reforms thus led to ever morereliance on the market at the expense ofplanning, and the privileging of privateenterprises over state enterprises and,increasingly, of foreign enterprises andmarkets over domestic ones. The generaldirection of the reform process is capturedby the following trends: the state enterprise

share of industrial output fell from 64percent in 1995 to 30 percent in 2002,while the foreign enterprise share rose to 34percent; the manufacturing workforce fellby fifteen million over the same period; thereal, as opposed to official, urban unem-ployment rate is now in double digits; realmanufacturing wages declined over the lastdecade; the urban-rural income gap, onceone of the lowest, is now one of the highestin the world; the share of exports producedby foreign enterprises rose from 17 percentin 1990 to 51 percent in 2001; and thecountry’s dependence on exports has grownto the point that export growth accountedfor 74 percent of China’s overall economicgrowth in 2002.

The specifics of the reform dialecticcannot be fully developed here (see ourbook China and Socialism for an overview),

Anti-occupation and socialist-feministT-SHIRTS FOR SALE

BOTH SHIRTS ARE NOW AVAILABLE IN BOTH “REGULAR” SIZING AS WELL AS WOMEN’S “FITTED” SIZES!

FEMINIST AND PROUD (red & white on black): “regular” sizing ❏ XS ❏ S ❏ M ❏ L ❏ XLFEMINIST AND PROUD (red & white on black): women’s “fitted” ❏ XS ❏ S ❏ M ❏ L ❏ XLEND THE OCCUPATION (white & yellow on black): “regular” sizing ❏ XS ❏ S ❏ M ❏ L ❏ XLEND THE OCCUPATION (white & yellow on black): women’s “fitted” ❏ XS ❏ S ❏ M ❏ L ❏ XL

_____Shirts @ $20.00 Cdn each = $+ $7.50 shipping (for up to two shirts) = $ 7.50

TOTAL = $Name: ____________________________________________________________________Address: ___________________________________________________________________Contact Phone Number and/or Email: _________________________________________

For shipping costs for orders of more than 2 t-shirts, or to arrange for pick-upin Toronto, contact us via email at: newsoc@web.net or phone: 416-955-1581.

Please make cheques or money orders payable to New Socialist Group and mail to: Box 167 • 253 College St. • Toronto, ON • M5T 1R5

Feminist t-shirt: front and back

Anti-Occupation / Anti-Imperialism t-shirt: front and back

but we can highlight some of its mainelements. First, increased reliance onmarket and profit incentives meant agreater emphasis on monetary profit andloss statements in the evaluation of enter-prise efficiency. Since state enterprises weresaddled with relatively high tax rates as wellas employment, investment and employee-welfare responsibilities (pensions, housing,health care), they appeared increasinglyinefficient compared to private enterprises.For the same reason, private enterprisesgrew much faster than state enterprises.Second, the imposition of employment“rationalization” policies in state enterprises(contract labour, for example) to promotegreater market efficiency encouraged theshedding of workers and increased theimportance of private enterprise for jobgrowth. Third, the falling profitability of

14

also mask the deteriorating situation ofworking women who have borne a highershare of state-enterprise lay-offs and longerspells of unemployment compared to men,as well as worsening job- and wage-discrimination, under market reforms.Women have also suffered more than menfrom the destruction of the social safetynet, which has increased their domesticworkload (e.g., care-giving for children andthe elderly), thereby undermining theircompetitive position in labour markets—accentuating their growing dependence onmale incomes. The expanded and uncom-pensated domestic duties of women—aresult of the reversal of progress towardsocialist production relations—arecompletely unaccounted for in the officialestimates of poverty reduction.

On a practical political level, it is obviousthat left agreement with the consensus onChina can only have a disastrous impact oninternational worker solidarity. Those whoadmire the “smart” reform policies under-taken by China’s Party-elite are implicitlyendorsing the efforts by that same elite tosuppress and fragment the slowly risingtide of worker resistance to China’s capital-ist restoration. Far from a wise or “realistic”modernization, that elite and its interna-tional supporters are on the backward-looking side of history—the side declaringthat “there is no alternative” to the marketand private profit as the main organizingprinciples of economic and cultural life.Insofar as such elitist thinking is posed as anew “socialist realism” it can only sowconfusion and suspicion among Chineseworker-community activists about themotivations of international socialists andeven the meaning of socialism itself.

China’s economic transformation hasnot only come at high cost for Chineseworking people it has also intensified (aswell as benefited from) the contradictionsof capitalist development in other coun-tries, especially in East Asia. Far fromsimply a positive sum experience replicableby other nations, China’s increasinglyexport-led growth is intensifying competi-tive pressures and crisis tendenciesthroughout the region. For example,China’s emergence as the leading exportplatform for transnational capital greatlyaccentuated the overproduction that was atthe heart of the 1997-98 East Asian crisis.China’s growing export prowess is nowdriving an even more profound restructur-ing of East Asian economic activity.

state enterprises led to a growing volume ofunpayable state enterprise debts, whichencouraged privatization of state enter-prises as a way for the government tounload these debts and increase revenues.Fourth, privatization encouraged greaterreliance on foreign investors, who wereoften the only ones with sufficient financialresources to purchase the targeted stateenterprises. Fifth, the growing resistance ofstate workers and managers to market andprofit driven behaviour encouraged greaterstate support for foreign organized produc-tion as a means to overcome this resistance.

Sixth, the growing inequality and overpro-duction generated by marketization meantthat exports had to take a leading role ifrapid growth was to continue, and this newemphasis on exports naturally meant stillgreater reliance on foreign enterprises,especially in high-tech industries. Seventh,the increasing centrality of exports andforeign investment meant that China’sgrowth increasingly depended on accessionto global trade and investment agreements,above all the WTO, which further intensi-fied market liberalization, privatization andexport pressures.

CHINA’S NEW REALITY

In sum, without denying the importanceof naked class interest, the key dynamicdriving China’s transformation was thepath-dependent channeling of policyoptions into pro-market, pro-capitalistdirections. The results were increasingalienation of economic priorities fromgrassroots needs and capabilities, and acorrosion of the state’s ability to plan anddirect economic activity, both of whichonly reinforced the growing dependence onmarkets, private enterprise, foreign capital

and exports. Given these inexorabledynamics, it is disingenuous for progressiveadmirers of the Chinese model to confi-dently proclaim that enlightened Partyleaders will implement social welfare andregulatory policies capable of amelioratingthe human and environmental costs ofmarket- and profit-driven behaviors. Thereality is that the reform process hasprogressively eroded the motivation andability of an increasingly bourgeois Partyelite to formulate and implement suchcountervailing policies. Moreover, therising unemployment, economic insecurity,

inequality, intensified exploitation, anddeclining health and education conditionsfor China’s non-wealthy majority are notonly inseparable from China’s economicsuccesses; they were and are essentialpreconditions for these successes.

It is not surprising to see the World Bankand conservative economists claimingmassive poverty reductions on the basis ofthe growing percentage of China’s popula-tion whose monetary incomes exceed $1 or$2 per day. What is shocking is that manyprogressives, and even some Marxists, haveechoed these claims. Apart from themassive distortions in the official Chinesedata and the highly imperfect purchasingpower conversions that underlie suchpoverty reduction figures, it makes no senseto say that people are no longer poor,regardless of their earnings, if they nolonger have access to affordable housing,health care, pensions, and education. Andthe mass disenfranchisement of workersand peasants from these basic necessitieswas a direct result of the break-up of thecommunes and of state-enterprise employ-ment reforms.

The official poverty-reduction figures

At present there is a population (some estimate around 200-300 million) of mostlyunemployed rural workers who are wandering throughout China looking for work.

15

Chinese export successes in advanced capi-talist markets, in particular that of the US,are forcing other East Asian producers outof those markets. They have responded byreorienting their export activity to theproduction of inputs for use by export-oriented transnational corporations operat-ing in China. Thus, all of East Asia is beingknitted together into a regional accumula-tion regime that depends on continuedChina-based export success. The muchslower post-crisis growth of the erstwhileEast Asian “miracle” countries compared tothe pre-crisis period, and the heightenedcompetitiveness pressures that are squeez-ing living standards throughout the region,suggest that this rearrangement of regionaleconomic relations is incapable of promot-ing a stable process of long term develop-ment. Meanwhile, China’s export explosionwas also enabled by, and has accentuated,the industrial hollowing out of the Japaneseand US economies as well as the unsustain-able US trade deficit: the two main sourcesof imbalances and potential breakdowns inthe contemporary global capitalisteconomy.

In short, while the search for nationaldevelopment models based on nationalcompetitive criteria suggests that differentcountries can achieve China-like successesbased on their simultaneous adoption ofChina-like economic policies, in reality thisis a fallacy of composition. China’s growthhas been both cause and effect of thegrowing problems of FDI- [foreign directinvestment -NS] and export-led growth inother peripheral nations along with thecontradictions of capitalist maturation inthe US and other developed countries.China’s export competitiveness should notblind us to the fact that its rapid industrial-ization has been part and parcel of theuneven development and overproductionof capital on a world scale. To ignore thiswider dynamic is to take the global capital-ist framework as a predetermined, naturalconstraint on development visions andpolicies.

Fortunately, working people in Chinaand the rest of East Asia continue tooppose attempts by their respective statesto force down their living conditions inorder to achieve greater national competi-tiveness. For example, despite intensivegovernment repression and ideologicalmanipulation, Chinese workers are resist-ing cuts in wages, pensions and healthbenefits, while Chinese peasants are fight-

ing against exploitative taxes and land grabsby private- and government-sector capital-ists. Throughout East Asia, popular move-ments have prevented capitalists, theirgovernments and the IMF from shifting allthe costs of the 1997-98 crisis ontoworking people and their communities.Indonesian and South Korean grassrootsand labor movements continue to press fordemocratic change and its extension frompolitical and cultural to socio-economicspheres.

If these struggles coalesce, their ability toenvision and fight for human need-basedforms of regional development will begreatly strengthened. In this connection,China’s capitalist transformation has servedto tie Chinese and other East Asian workersinto common transnational investment,production, trade and financial networks,thereby subjecting them to a common setof competitive pressures. In this way, capi-talist uneven development is creating acommon ground for nationally basedstruggles to merge into a regional move-ment from below pressing for moreworker-community centered economicrelations.

Socialists inside and outside East Asiacan assist this broadening and deepening ofworker-community struggle by demystify-ing all apologetic ideologies of capitalistdevelopment, including neoliberalism andso-called market-socialism. This meansuncovering the class exploitation and alien-ation that lie at the core of marketizationand privatization policies, and debunkingthe myth that there are no alternatives tothe market. In fact, collective/public provi-sion of health care, education, housing,transport, water, power, land use and manyother basic services has already provedmore cost-effective (in terms of the rate ofneed satisfaction per unit cost) than theirprivate- and market-based administrationin a broad range of circumstances. Thisexplains the deep popular opposition toprivatization and marketization policies inan equally broad array of national settings.The challenge is to bring this public sector

WOMENEDUCATE • RESIST

The NSG is sending at least one ofour women members to a week-longsocialist feminist school at theInternational Institute for Researchand Education (IIRE) in Amsterdam.This will be an opportunity to developpolitics, share experiences and makeinternational links.

But all this costs money. We need toraise over $2000 to cover air fare,tuition and expenses. So we areasking you, our readers, to help outwith financial donations. No contribu-tion is too small!

❏ $25 ❏ $50 ❏ $100 ❏ $____Please make cheques or money orderspayable to New Socialist and indicatethat it’s for the Women’s School initia-tive, and mail to:

Box 167253 College StToronto, ON M5T 1R5

under closer worker-community control,and then extend this control to other activ-ities. This extension can and should beinformed by studies of past efforts atworkers’ production control and self-management—a history that has beensuppressed or distorted by capitalist mediaand mainstream social science.

Socialists also need to critically engagewith existing popular struggles forimproved work and living conditions, evenwhen they do not explicitly demandworker-community control over produc-tion and investment. The limits, andhidden revolutionary potentials, of thesemovements need to be studied and inter-polated in a process linking reform strug-gles to structural economic transformationsthat gear production, exchange and distri-bution to socially agreed upon use valuesrather than the exploitative and destructiverequirements of competitive monetaryaccumulation. In short, far from under-mining the relevance of Marxism, theChinese experience highlights its criticalimportance as a framework for understand-ing and overcoming the dynamics ofcontemporary capitalism. ★

Despite intensive government

repression and ideological

manipulation, Chinese workers

are resisting cuts in wages,

pensions and health benefits

16

IRAN

US’s next strategic target?BY HAMID SODEIFI AND HASSAN VARASHThe terror masters in Washington

seem to be getting ready to moveon to their next target: Iran.

According to Seymour Hersh in a recentarticle in The New Yorker, intelligence andmilitary officials have confirmed that Iranis the US’s “next strategic target.” In thesame article Hersh goes on to say that the“administration has been conducting secretreconnaissance missions inside Iran at leastsince last summer.” In a speech in February,Scott Ritter, the ex-marine turned UnitedNations Special Commission weaponsinspector, alleged that “President Bush hasreceived and signed off on orders for anaerial attack on Iran planned for June”.

The Bush administration, for its part,has made it clear that so far as Iran isconcerned, it will keep all options open,including military attack. In recentmonths, the US government has ratchetedup its smear campaign against Iran in anunimaginative repeat—down to charges ofassisting international terrorists and pursuitof Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMD)—of the lead up to the Iraq war.Could they really be serious? After all, asBush himself put it recently, “Iran is notIraq” and the Americans are already havingserious difficulties in Iraq.

MIDDLE EAST AND PAX AMERICANA

As hard as it may seem at first sight,given the idiocy of their mascot GeorgeBush, the Neo-cons in charge of thecurrent US administration have always hada very coherent plan for the Middle East.The steps taken so far—invasion ofAfghanistan and Iraq—were not takenarbitrarily, nor were they responses toexternal imperatives like support for terror-ism by these countries or threats posed bythem to the US. They were deliberatemoves designed to ensure the hegemony ofthe American empire into the 21st century.There are many people in the West, includ-

Hamid Sodeifi is an editorial associate of New Socialist. Hassan Varash is author of Nationalismand Islam in Contemporary Iraq.

ing some on the left, who obstinately refuseto accept this proposition despite thewritten declarations to its effect by those incharge of the US government at the highestlevels .

The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq,and the situation in Lebanon, Syria andIran today can only be properly understoodin this broader context. Central to thisstrategy is securing control of the richestdeposits of carbon fuel in the globe—themost important source of primaryenergy—both to satisfy the US’s ownenergy requirements and, more impor-tantly, to control the flow of oil and naturalgas to its allies and adversaries. Two-thirdsof the known reserves of oil in the worldare in the Middle East, with potentiallyanother ten percent in the Caspian region.Middle Eastern countries also sit atop anenormous reserve of natural gas, increas-ingly an important source of primaryenergy.

As Robert Ebel of the Center forStrategic and International Studies put it toa State Department audience: “oil fuelsmilitary power, national treasuries, andinternational politics.” Petroleum, he

continued, “is a determinant of well being,of national security, and internationalpower for those who possess this vitalresource, and the converse for those whodo not”.

From the vantage point of the Neo-consin charge of the White House and thePentagon, there is an historic opportunityto cement the faith of the 21st century infavour of the US if it can take advantage ofits absolute military superiority to wrestcontrol of the vast energy resources of theMiddle East and Central Asia (as well asother parts of the world, of course). Thishas been the guiding principle of WhiteHouse foreign policy for the last four yearsand will remain so for the next four.

To seize this rich source of power andprofit, the Neo-cons in Washington haveundertaken to control the region directly,by establishing a large permanent militaryforce in its heart. This, of course, is at oncethe continuation and escalation of over 25years of US policy in the region—eversince the Carter Doctrine, shortly after thefall of the Shah of Iran, established that theUS considers access to the Gulf oil of “vitalinterest” to its national security. As formerUS President Carter put it, the US will use

17

“any means necessary, including militaryforce”, to keep the Gulf oil flowing. TheUS Central Command (Centcom) wasformed specifically to guarantee this flow ofoil. Centcom Commanders have been veryclear about their mandate over the years.Consider, for instance, the testimony ofCentcom commander-in-chief GeneralBinford Peay III to the US House subcom-mittee in 1997:

“With over 65 percent of the world’s oilreserves located in the Gulf states of theregion—from which the United Statesimports nearly 20 percent of its needs;Western Europe, 43 percent; and Japan 68percent—the international communitymust have free and unfettered access to theregion’s resources.” [Any disruptions in theflow of oil] “would intensify the volatilityof the world oil market [and] precipitateeconomic calamity for the developed anddeveloping world alike.”

The Carter Doctrine, however, could notbe fully implemented so long as the SovietUnion could keep the US plans in check.Shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union,Bush senior and Centcom commander-in-chief Norman Schwarzkopf executed thefirst Gulf War against Iraq. Despite theinsistence of the Neo-cons at that time tothe contrary, however, the US governmentdecided against direct occupation of Iraqafter the first Gulf War. The second GulfWar, so far as the Neo-cons are concerned,merely completed what should have beendone a decade earlier. This is why they were

so eager to invade Iraq from the beginningand were not going to be deterred either byfacts that disputed their claims aboutsupposed terrorist connections and theexistence of WMDs, or by internationallaw. The stakes were simply too high andthe US too powerful to worry about anykind of opposition.

But the Neo-cons plans do not end withIraq. They always saw the invasion of Iraqas part of a broader strategy to reshape theentire Middle East in line with long-term

US (and Israeli) interests. Their success inIraq has only whetted their appetite for themost important piece in the puzzle: Iran.

SUCCESS IN IRAQ?

Before turning to Iran, it may be neces-sary to clarify the matter of “success” inIraq. Surely, with the increasing death toll,lack of access to basic services and generallymiserable conditions for most Iraqis, lackof security and jobs, the continuing occu-pation and the sham elections, we cannotrefer to Iraq as a “success”. But the Neo-cons were never interested in the well-beingof Iraqis or a truly democratic outcome. Tobelieve otherwise is to fall into the trap of

White House propaganda. The Neo-conswere successful because despite the direwarnings before the invasion of Iraq aboutan Arab uprising throughout the region,potentially leading to the fall of pro-USregimes, no such thing happened. Theywere successful because the fears ofirreparable damage to the US’s relationswith its allies, especially the Europeans,proved to have been greatly exaggerated.They were successful because they had setout to establish a permanent military force

in Iraq and take control of Iraqi oil; andthey’ve done just that. And to top it all,they have won themselves another fouryears in office.

There were, of course, mistakes madealong the way, both political and military,and lessons to be learned. There remain, aswell, significant challenges for them inIraq, such as securing the Iraqi pipelines.The Neo-cons do not deny this. Indeed,they will use the lessons of the Iraqi occu-pation when it comes to Iran.

With its massive energy resources andcritical geo-strategic position, an obedientIran is vital to the success of the Neo-cons’plans. Conversely, they see a strong, poten-tially nuclear, Iran, with the ability tocontrol the Strait of Hormoz and thePersian Gulf and act as a regional power asa most undesirable outcome for both theUS and Israel. The fact is that the Neo-cons, under the direction of Douglas Feith,have been exploring potential militaryoptions against Iran for some time. Therecent hype about Iran’s nuclear energy ismerely the smokescreen to justify a poten-tial attack. Let’s remember, when there isconcern about nuclear arms in the hands of“uncivilized” nations, with its typicallyracist overtones, that only one country hasdemonstrated the barbarity to use nuclearweapons against a civilian population; notonce but twice. That country is the UnitedStates. More recently, the Neo-cons havebeen toying with the idea of developing“tactical nuclear weapons” to be used intheir “theaters of war”. The Neo-cons’anxiety is not so much about proliferationof nuclear weapons as it is with the mainte-

Anti-American mural artwork in Iran.

WW

W.SPIEG

EL.DE

Only one country has demonstrated the

barbarity to use nuclear weapons against a

civilian population; not once but twice. That

country is the United States.

18

nance of overwhelming military balance ofpower which certain weapons technologies(such as nukes) affords them.

They are thus deadly serious aboutkeeping Iran out of the nuclear weaponsgame and will do whatever they see fit tomake sure that it does not obtain them.One possible scenario under considerationby the Neo-cons is to attack a selectednumber of targets in Iran, including mili-tary and nuclear energy sites. Aside fromthe obvious military benefits, the Neo-conshope that such an attack will initiate apopular uprising against the much-dislikedtheocratic government of Iran. Theproblem, however, as the Neo-cons see it, isthe potential for asymmetrical response byIran through its network of supporters inthe region (including in Iraq) against USand Israeli interests. Lebanon is of particu-lar concern given the influence of Iranthere through groups like Hezballah.Hence, the recent developments inLebanon may be closely linked to possibleplans for attacks against Iran (and Syria).By creating an international incident(murder of Hariri), purportedly committedby the Syrian regime, the Israeli and USgovernments hope to force the removal ofSyria from Lebanon, making it easier forIsraeli backed forces to take control andsubdue militant Islamists and pro-Palestinian forces. This will not onlyachieve a long-standing policy objective ofthe Israeli state vis-à-vis Lebanon but alsoreduce the possibility of pro-Iranian forcesusing Lebanon as a staging ground for

attacks against Israeli positions. An attack on Iran may thus have to be

postponed until Lebanon and Syria aredealt with. Indeed, Syria may have movedhigher up in the Neo-cons’ plan of attack asa result. But the success of US/Israeli plansin Lebanon and Syria itself depends to alarge extent on subduing Iran and, no lessimportantly, on getting the approval ofRussia. Russia, for its part, has made it clearthat it will not agree to a US or Israeliattack against Syria, symbolized by itsrefusal to halt the delivery of mobile anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, as demanded byIsrael.

More troubling, so far as the Neo-consare concerned, is that none of their wargames against Iran have produced satisfac-tory results despite their ability to attack itfrom the east, west and south now that theyhave control of Afghanistan, Iraq and thePersian Gulf. Moreover, the idea that anattack against Iranian targets, includingnuclear energy facilities, would result in anuprising against the Iranian government isthe subject of ridicule by more seriousanalysts in the US and globally.

In the US, a powerful and influentialwing of the American ruling class, with amulti-lateralist outlook, has been arguingin favour of “a new approach” toward Iranby recognizing that the US “unilateralistsanctions has not succeeded in its statedobjective.” Instead, they argue, by denyingWashington greater leverage vis-à-vis theIranian government, this policy hasharmed US “interests in a critical region of

the world”. They also categorically rejectthe underlying assumptions of the Neo-cons and believe that an attack against Iranwould have serious negative repercussionsfor the US. Instead, they propose to engage“selectively with Iran to promote regionalstability, dissuade Iran from pursuingnuclear weapons, preserve reliable energysupplies, [and] reduce the threat of terror.”This section of the American ruling class isin constant struggle against the Neo-consover a whole host of issues in its quest forhegemony in the US.

The European states, while not necessar-ily opposed, at least at the moment, to letthe US play the role of global cop on behalfof international capital, are nonethelesssuspicious of the Bush administration’sunilateralism and military adventures inthe region. They depend on the MiddleEast for much of their oil requirements andhave, as well, a great deal of other trade andeconomic interests in the region. Theirinsistence on pursuing diplomatic optionsis motivated primarily by these considera-tions.

To make the situation even morecomplex, the Chinese and the Indiangovernments have recently signed major oiland natural gas deals with Iran, frustratingWashington’s plan for control of energysupplies and submission of Iran throughsanctions. The Neo-cons are thus stuck in adifficult place. Their vision of global domi-nation necessitates control of energy flowsfrom the Persian Gulf and the Caspianregions. This, in turn, requires that Iran bebrought into their orbit of direct influence.Yet, the options for achieving this are, atthe moment, limited. They lack any realorganization in Iran and their simulatedwar games have produced disastrousresults. To top it all, they face strong oppo-sition in the US itself and internationally.This is why they seem to have backed offfrom their belligerent stance by acceptingthe European’s proposed course of action tocontain Iran’s nuclear technology through aseries of so-called incentives, such as admis-sion to the World Trade Organization.

In the short run, therefore, a US attackagainst Iran seems unlikely. That said, weshould remain vigilant, as the Neo-cons area vicious bunch of ideologues whoseactions are not necessarily guided byrational analysis. They may yet take agamble on Iran which, regardless of theoutcome, will cost tens of thousands oflives. ★

19

Is religion still, as Marx and Engels saw it inthe nineteenth century, a bulwark of reac-tion, obscurantism and conservatism? To a

large extent, the answer is yes. Their view stillapplies to many Catholic institutions, to thefundamentalist currents of the main confes-sions (Christian, Jewish or Muslim), to mostevangelical groups (and their expression in theso-called “Electronic Church”) and to themajority of the new religious sects—some ofwhich, such as the notorious Moon Church,are nothing but a skilful combination of finan-cial manipulations, obscurantist brain-washing and fanatical anti-communism.

However, the emergence of revolutionaryChristianity and Liberation Theology in LatinAmerica (and elsewhere) opens a new histori-cal chapter and raises exciting new questionswhich cannot be answered without a renewalof the Marxist analysis of religion, the subjectof this article.

THE WELL-KNOWN PHRASE “RELIGION IS THE

opiate of the people” is considered as the quintessence of theMarxist conception of the religious phenomenon by most of itssupporters and its opponents. How far is this an accurate view-point? First of all, one should emphasize that this statement isnot at all specifically Marxist. The same phrase can be found, invarious contexts, in the writings of German philosophers Kant,Herder, Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer, Moses Hess and HeinrichHeine. For instance, in his essay on Ludwig Börne (1840),Heine already uses it—in a rather positive (although ironical)way: “Welcome be a religion that pours into the bitter chaliceof the suffering human species some sweet, soporific drops ofspiritual opium, some drops of love, hope and faith”. MosesHess, in his essays published in Switzerland in 1843, takes amore critical (but still ambiguous) stand: “Religion can makebearable...the unhappy consciousness of serfdom...in the sameway as opium is of good help in painful diseases.”

The expression appeared shortly after-wards in Marx’s article on the Germanphilosopher Hegel’s Philosophy of Right(1844). An attentive reading of the para-graph where this phrase appears, reveals thatit is more qualified and less one-sided thanusually believed. Although obviously criticalof religion, Marx takes into account the dualcharacter of the phenomenon: “Religiousdistress is at the same time the expression ofreal distress and the protest against realdistress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressedcreature, the heart of a heartless world, just asit is the spirit of an unspiritual situation. It isthe opiate of the people.”

If one reads the whole essay, it appearsclearly that Marx’s viewpoint owes more toleft neo-Hegelianism, which saw religion asthe alienation of the human essence, than toEnlightenment philosophy, which simplydenounced it as a clerical conspiracy. In factwhen Marx wrote the above passage he wasstill a disciple of Feuerbach, and a neo-

Hegelian. His analysis of religion was therefore “pre-Marxist,”without any class reference, and rather ahistorical. But it had adialectical quality, grasping the contradictory character of thereligious “distress”: both a legitimation of existing conditionsand a protest against it.

It was only later, particularly in The German Ideology (1846),that the proper Marxist study of religion as a social and histori-cal reality began. The key element of this new method for theanalysis of religion is to approach it as one of the many formsof ideology—i.e. of the spiritual production of a people, of theproduction of ideas, representations and consciousness, neces-sarily conditioned by material production and the correspon-ding social relations. Although he uses from time to time theconcept of “reflection”—which will lead several generations ofMarxists into a sterile side-track—the key idea of the book isthe need to explain the genesis and development of the variousforms of consciousness (religion, ethics, philosophy, etc) by thesocial relations, “by which means, of course, the whole thingcan be depicted in its totality (and therefore, too, the reciprocalaction of these various sides on one another).”

Opiate of the people?

Michael Löwy is a member of the Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire(LCR) in France and author of many books, including The War ofGods: Religion and Politics in Latin America.

FEATURE: MARXISM AND RELIGION

Marx’s phrase, “Religion is theopiate of the people,” is oftencited. Less often quoted is hisstarting point: “Religion is the sighof the oppressed... the heart of aheartless world, and the soul ofsoulless conditions.”

The Marxist view of religion has been greatly over-simplified, typically identified with the well-worn refrainthat it’s the “opiate of the people.” In this article, MICHAEL LÖWY challenges this misconception, and pres-ents us with a richly nuanced view of Marxism and religion.

20

After writing, with Engels, The GermanIdeology, Marx paid very little attention toreligion as such, i.e. as a specificcultural/ideological universe of meaning.One can find, however, in the first volumeof Capital, some interesting methodologi-cal remarks; for instance, the well-knownfootnote where he answers to the argu-ment according to which the importanceof politics in the Ancient times, and ofreligion in the Middle-Age reveal the inad-equacy of the materialist interpretation ofhistory: “Neither could the Middle-Agelive from Catholicism, nor Antiquity frompolitics. The respective economic condi-tions explain, in fact, why Catholicismthere and politics here played the dominantrole.” Marx will never bother to provide theeconomic reasons for the importance ofmedieval religion, but this passage is quiteimportant, because it acknowledges that, under certain histori-cal circumstances, religion can indeed play a decisive role in thelife of a society.

IN SPITE OF HIS GENERAL LACK OF INTEREST FOR RELIGION,Marx paid attention to the relationship between Protestantismand capitalism. Several passages in Capital make reference tothe contribution of Protestantism to the early emergence ofcapitalism—for instance by stimulating the expropriation ofChurch property and communal pastures. In the Grundrisse hemakes—half a century before German sociologist Max Weber’sfamous essay The ProtestantEthic and the Spirit ofCapitalism!—the followingilluminating comment on theintimate association betweenProtestantism and capitalism:“The cult of money has itsasceticism, its self-denial, itsself-sacrifice—economy andfrugality, contempt formundane, temporal and fleet-ing pleasures; the chase afterthe eternal treasure. Hence the connection between EnglishPuritanism or Dutch Protestantism and money-making.” Theparallel (but not identity!) with Weber’s thesis is astonishing—the more so since Weber could not have read this passage (theGrundrisse was published for the first time in 1940).

On the other hand, Marx often referred to capitalism as a“religion of daily life” based on the fetishism of commodities.He described capital as “a Moloch that requires the wholeworld as a due sacrifice,” and capitalist progress as a“monstrous pagan god, that only wanted to drink nectar in theskulls of the dead.” His critique of political economy ispeppered with frequent references to idolatry: Baal, Moloch,

Mammon, the Golden Calf and, ofcourse, the concept of “fetish” itself. Butthis language has rather a metaphoricalthan a substantial meaning in terms ofthe sociology of religion.

ENGELS DISPLAYED A MUCH GREATER

interest than Marx for religious phenom-ena and their historic role. Engels’s maincontribution to the Marxist study of reli-gions is his analysis of the relationship ofreligious representations to class struggle.Over and beyond the philosophicalpolemic of “materialism against ideal-ism,” he was interested in understandingand explaining concrete social and histor-

ical forms of religion. Christianity nolonger appeared (like in Feuerbach) as atimeless “essence,” but as a cultural systemundergoing transformations in different

historical periods: first as a religion of the slaves, later as thestate ideology of the Roman Empire, then tailored to feudalhierarchy and finally adapted to bourgeois society. It thusappears as a symbolic space fought over by antagonistic socialforces—for instance, in the sixteenth century, feudal theology,bourgeois Protestantism and plebeian heresies.

Occasionally his analysis slips towards a narrowly utilitarian,instrumental interpretation of religious movements: “each ofthe different classes uses its own appropriate religion... and itmakes little difference whether these gentlemen believe in theirrespective religions or not.”

Engels seems to findnothing but the “religiousdisguise” of class interests inthe different forms of belief.However, thanks to his class-struggle method, he realized—unlike the Enlightenmentphilosophers—that the clergywas not a socially homoge-neous body: in certain histori-cal conjunctures, it divideditself according to its class

composition. Thus during the Reformation, we have on the oneside the high clergy, the feudal summit of the hierarchy, and onthe other, the lower clergy, which supplied the ideologues of theReformation and of the revolutionary peasant movement.

While being a materialist, an atheist and an irreconcilableenemy of religion, Engels nevertheless grasped, like the youngMarx, the dual character of the phenomenon: its role in legiti-mating established order, but also, according to social circum-stances, its critical, protesting and even revolutionary role.Furthermore, most of the concrete studies he wrote concernedthe rebellious forms of religion.

Under certain historicalcircumstances, religion can play

a decisive role in the life of a society.

Engels recognized a dual character ofreligion: its role in legitimatingestablished order, but also its critical,protesting and even revolutionary role.

21

FIRST OF ALL, HE WAS INTERESTED IN

primitive Christianity, which hedefined as the religion of the poor, thebanished, the damned, the persecutedand oppressed. The first Christianscame from the lowest levels of society:slaves, free people who had beendeprived of their rights and small peas-ants who were crippled by debts. Heeven went so far as to draw an aston-ishing parallel between this primitiveChristianity and modern socialism: a)the two great movements are not thecreation of leaders and prophets—although prophets are never in shortsupply in either of them—but are massmovements; b) both are movements ofthe oppressed, suffering persecution,their members are proscribed andhunted down by the ruling authorities;c) both preach an imminent liberation from slavery and misery.To embellish his comparison Engels, somewhat provocatively,quoted a saying of the French historian Renan: “If you want toget an idea of what the first Christian communities where like,take a look at a local branch of the International Workingmen’sAssociation” (the multi-national network of working-classorganizations formed in 1864, also known as the FirstInternational).

According to Engels, the parallel between socialism and earlyChristianity is present in all movements that dream, through-out the centuries, to restore the primitive Christian religion—from the Taborites of John Zizka and the anabaptists of ThomasMünzer to (after 1830) theFrench revolutionary com-munists and the partisans ofthe German utopian com-munist Wilhelm Weitling.

There remains, however, inthe eyes of Engels, an essen-tial difference between thetwo movements: the primi-tive Christians transposeddeliverance to the hereafterwhereas socialism places it inthis world.

But is this difference asclear-cut as it appears at firstsight? In his study of thegreat peasant wars inGermany it seems to becomeblurred: Thomas Münzer,the theologian and leader ofthe revolutionary peasantsand heretic (anabaptist)plebeians of the 16th

century, wanted the immediate estab-lishment on earth of the Kingdom ofGod, the millenarian Kingdom of theprophets. According to Engels, theKingdom of God for Münzer was asociety without class differences,private property and state authorityindependent of, or foreign to, themembers of that society. However,Engels was still tempted to reduce reli-gion to a stratagem: he spoke ofMünzer’s Christian “phraseology” andhis biblical “cloak.” The specificallyreligious dimension of Münzerianmillenarianism, its spiritual and moralforce, its authentically experiencedmystical depth, seem to have eludedhim.

Engels does not hide his admirationfor the German Chiliastic prophet,

whose ideas he describes as “quasi-communist” and “religiousrevolutionary”: they were less a synthesis of the plebeiandemands from those times than “a brilliant anticipation” offuture proletarian emancipatory aims. This anticipatory andutopian dimension of religion—not to be explained in terms ofthe “reflection theory”—is not further explored by Engels but isintensely and richly worked out (as we shall see later) by ErnstBloch.

The last revolutionary movement that was waged under thebanner of religion was, according to Engels, the English Puritanmovement of the 17th century. If religion, and not materialism,furnished the ideology of this revolution, it is because of the

politically reactionary natureof this philosophy inEngland, represented byHobbes and other partisansof royal absolutism. Incontrast to this conservativematerialism and deism, theProtestant sects gave to thewar against the Stuart royaltyits religious banner and itsfighters.

This analysis is quite inter-esting: breaking with thelinear vision of history inher-ited from the Enlighten-ment, Engels acknowledgesthat the struggle betweenmaterialism and religiondoes not necessarily corre-spond to the war betweenrevolution and counter-revolution, progress andregression, liberty and

The struggle betweenmaterialism and religion

does not necessarilycorrespond to the war

between revolution andcounter-revolution,

progress and regression,liberty and despotism,oppressed and ruling

classes.

A Stalinist anti-religious propaganda poster produced in theSoviet Union by Cherepukhin in 1930. The text reads: “The roadto colonial oppression by capitalism and imperialism is paved bypriests and missionaries assisted by the poisonous narcotic ofreligion.” Labels on gas canisters: “Poison gas narcotic ofreligion.”

22

despotism, oppressed and rulingclasses. In this precise case, therelation is exactly the oppositeone: revolutionary religionagainst absolutist materialism.

Engels was convinced thatsince the French Revolution, reli-gion could no more function as arevolutionary ideology, and hewas surprised when French andGerman communists such asCabet or Weitling would claimthat “Christianity is Com-munism.” He could not predictliberation theology, but, thanksto his analysis of religiousphenomena from the viewpointof class struggle, he brought out the protest potential of religionand opened the way for a new approach—distinct both fromEnlightenment philosophy (religion as a clerical conspiracy) andfrom German neo-Hegelianism (religion as alienated humanessence)—to the relationship between religion and society.

MANY MARXISTS IN THE EUROPEAN LABOUR MOVEMENT WERE

radically hostile to religion but believed that the atheistic battleagainst religious ideology must be subordinated to the concretenecessities of the class struggle, which demands unity betweenworkers who believe in God and those who do not. Leninhimself, who very often denounced religion as a “mystical fog,”insisted in his article “Socialism and Religion” (1905) thatatheism should not be part of the party’s programme because“unity in the really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed classfor creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us thanunity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.”

Rosa Luxemburg shared this strategy, but she developed adifferent and original approach. Although a staunch atheistherself, she attacked in her writings less religion as such than thereactionary policy of the Church in the name of its own tradi-tion. In an essay written in 1905 (“Church and Socialism”) sheclaimed that modern socialists are more faithful to the originalprinciples of Christianity than the conser-vative clergy of today. Since the socialistsstruggle for a social order of equality,freedom and fraternity, the priests, if theyhonestly wanted to implement in the lifeof humanity the Christian principle “lovethy neighbour as thyself,” shouldwelcome the socialist movement. Whenthe clergy support the rich, and thosewho exploit and oppress the poor, theyare in explicit contradiction withChristian teachings: they do serve notChrist but the Golden Calf. The firstapostles of Christianity were passionatecommunists and the Fathers of the

Church (like Basil the Greatand John Chrysostom)denounced social injustice.Today this cause is taken up bythe socialist movement whichbrings to the poor the Gospel offraternity and equality, and callson the people to establish onearth the Kingdom of freedomand neighbour-love. Instead ofwaging a philosophical battle inthe name of materialism, RosaLuxemburg tried to rescue thesocial dimension of theChristian tradition for thelabour movement.

ERNST BLOCH IS THE FIRST MARXIST AUTHOR WHO RADICALLY

changed the theoretical framework—without abandoning theMarxist and revolutionary perspective. In a similar way toEngels, he distinguished two socially opposed currents: on oneside the theocratic religion of the official churches, the opiumof the people, a mystifying apparatus at the service of thepowerful; on the other the underground, subversive and hereti-cal religion of the Albigensians, the Hussites, Joachim de Flore,Thomas Münzer, Franz von Baader, Wilhelm Weitling and LeoTolstoy. However, unlike Engels, Bloch refused to see religionuniquely as a “cloak” of class interests: he explicitly criticizedthis conception. In its protest and rebellious forms religion isone of the most significant forms of utopian consciousness, oneof the richest expressions of the Principle of Hope.

Basing himself on these philosophical presuppositions, Blochdevelops a heterodox and iconoclastic interpretation of theBible—both the Old and the New Testaments—drawing outthe Biblia pauperum (bible of the poor) which denounces thePharaohs and calls on each and everyone to choose eitherCaesar or Christ.

A religious atheist—according to him only an atheist can bea good Christian and vice-versa—and a theologian of the revo-lution, Bloch not only produced a Marxist reading of millenar-

ianism (following Engels) but also—andthis was new—a millenarian interpretationof Marxism, through which the socialiststruggle for the Kingdom of Freedom isperceived as the direct heir of the eschato-logical and collectivist heresies of the past.

Of course Bloch, like the young Marx ofthe famous 1844 quotation, recognizedthe dual character of the religiousphenomenon, its oppressive aspect as wellas its potential for revolt. The first requiresthe use of what he calls “the cold stream ofMarxism”: the relentless materialist analy-sis of ideologies, idols and idolatries. Thesecond one however requires “the warm

Instead of waging a

philosophical battle in the

name of materialism, Rosa

Luxemburg tried to rescue

the social dimension of the

Christian tradition for the

labour movement.

Ernst Bloch did not view religion simplyas a “cloak of class interests”.

23

stream of Marxism,” seeking torescue religion’s utopian culturalsurplus, its critical and anticipatoryforce. Beyond any “dialogue,” Blochdreamt of an authentic unionbetween Christianity and revolu-tion, like the one which came intobeing during the Peasant Wars ofthe 16th century.

BLOCH’S VIEWS WERE, TO A CERTAIN

EXTENT, SHARED BY SOME of theGerman radical scholars known asthe Frankfurt School. MaxHorkheimer considered that “reli-gion is the record of the wishes,nostalgias and indictments ofcountless generations.” ErichFromm, in his book The Dogma ofChrist (1930), used Marxism andpsychoanalysis to illuminate the Messianic, plebeian, egalitarianand anti-authoritarian essence of primitive Christianity. Andthe writer Walter Benjamin tried to combine, in a unique andoriginal synthesis, theology and Marxism, Jewish Messianismand historical materialism, class struggle and redemption.

Lucien Goldmann’s work The Hidden God (1955) is anotherpath-breaking attempt at renewing the Marxist study of reli-gion. Although of a very different inspiration than Bloch, hewas also interested in redeeming the moral and human value ofreligious tradition. The most surprising and original part of hisbook is the attempt to compare—without assimilating one toanother—religious faith and Marxist faith: both have incommon the refusal of pure individualism (rationalist orempiricist) and the belief in trans-individual values: God forreligion, the human community for socialism. In both cases thefaith is based on a wager—the wager on the existence of Godand the Marxist wager on the liberation of humanity—thatpresupposes risk, the danger of failure and the hope of success.Both imply some fundamental belief which is not demonstrableon the exclusive level of factual judgements. What separatesthem is of course the suprahistorical character of religious tran-scendence: “The Marxist faith is a faith in the historical futurethat human beings themselves make, or rather that we mustmake by our activity, a ‘wager’ in the success of our actions; thetranscendence that is the object of this faith is neither super-natural nor transhistorical, but supra-individual, nothing morebut also nothing less.” Without wanting in any way to“Christianize Marxism,” Lucien Goldmann introduced, thanksto the concept of faith, a new way of looking at the conflictualrelationship between religious belief and Marxist atheism.

Marx and Engels thought religion’s subversive role was athing of the past, which no longer had any significance in theepoch of modern class struggle. This forecast was more or lesshistorically confirmed for a century – with a few importantexceptions (particularly in France): the Christian socialists of

the 1930s, the worker priestsof the 1940s, the left-wingof the Christian unions inthe 1950s, etc.

But to understand whathas been happening for thelast thirty years in LatinAmerica (and to a lesserextent also in other conti-nents) around the issue ofLiberation Theology weneed to integrate into ouranalysis the insights ofBloch and Goldmann onthe utopian potential of theJudeo-Christian tradition.

What is sorely lacking inthese “classical” Marxistdiscussions on religion is adiscussion of the implica-

tions of religious doctrines and practices for women.Patriarchy, unequal treatment of women, and the denial ofreproductive rights prevail among the main religious denomi-nations – particularly Judaism, Christianity and Islam – andtake extremely oppressive forms among fundamentalistcurrents. In fact, one of the key criteria for judging the progres-sive or regressive character of religious movements is their atti-tude towards women, and particularly on their right to controltheir own bodies: divorce, contraception, abortion. A renewalof Marxist reflection on religion in the twenty-first centuryrequires us to put the issue of women’s rights at the center ofthe argument. ★

One of the key criteria for

judging the progressive or

regressive character of religious

movements is their attitude

towards women, and

particularly on their right to

control their own bodies:

divorce, contraception,

abortion

24

In the cultural upheaval of the 1960sand ‘70s, while millions of Americansopposed war and marched for desegrega-tion and women’s right to full equality,many others found inspiration in thecertainties of their Christian faith. By 1976a Gallup Poll found one-third of allAmericans had experienced a conversion,or a process of being “born again.” Thesame poll found about half of allProtestants and about a third of allCatholics believed that the Bible was “to betaken literally, word for word.” Accordingto Steve Bruce in “Pray TV: Televangelismin America”, almost 60% of Protestantsand 40% of Catholics were evangelical,that is, eager to recruit others to theirbeliefs. This evangelicalism is not justlimited to the printed word, but has led tothe establishment of Christian radio andTV, much of which is controlled by theChristian right. In 1986 three of the topeleven Christian shows were hosted by theright-wing evangelicals: Pat Robertson’s700 Club, Jerry Falwell’s The Old TimeGospel Hour and Jim Bakker’s show.

A survey conducted in the late ‘80sfound that among the “baby boomer”generation (people born between 1946-63)one-third accepted the biblical version ofcreation over evolution and agreed that“temptations are the work of the devil.”Most considered themselves “moderate”but 13% classified themselves as “funda-mentalists.” It is this latter grouping that isthe cohesive core we can identify as theChristian right.

“Born again” Christians face the samestress and conflicts and are immersed in thesame culture as the rest of us. In fact, evan-gelicals have a slightly higher divorce ratethan the general population. And althoughthe religious right opposes abortion underany circumstance, one out of six womenwho have an abortion considers herself a“born again” Christian.

In fact, some of these women havecreated their own niche in the anti-abor-tion movement. “Silent No More” groupsbegan to emulate pro-choice speakouts bytestifying about abortions they now regret.At one recent public event there was adisplay of baby shoes labeled with thenames of the unborn. These women havealso testified at various public hearingsagainst abortion and claim it is a dangerousprocedure that can lead to cancer. Whenreporters point out that no scientific proofsupports this assertion they reply that thescientific “establishment” can’t tell thetruth because of the liberal strangleholdover society!

CULTURAL UPHEAVAL AND US PROTESTANTISM

Throughout US history important socialtensions have played out through religion.One cannot understand the Salem witch

trials or the battles over slavery andwomen’s rights without studying the devel-opment of US Protestantism. Over thecourse of the 19th century dominant USChristian religions replaced the Calvinistnotion of the sinner being helpless beforeGod and predetermined for either good-ness or evil, with one in which individualchoice was central. The individual couldchoose to respond to God’s plan of salva-tion by adjusting to social change ratherthan fighting to preserve the old ways.With few possessions and one’s Bible,youth would leave the family farm andhead for new opportunities. In this newworld hard work and thrift would lead tosuccess and therefore good standing in theeyes of God. The reality, of course, was farmore complex. Indeed, alcoholism becamea widespread social problem as the growingwork force attempted to adjust to the newrhythms of industrial and urban life. By thelate 19th century a new form ofProtestantism arose: fundamentalism. Itsroots were in the populist movement but it,

Dianne Feeley is an editor of the bi-monthly socialist magazine, Against the Current, and amember of US socialist group Solidarity.

RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM: US STYLE

Before and after 9/11BY DIANNE FEELEY

Massive evangelical gatherings for men, such as those organized by the Promise Keepers,are aimed at upholding patriarchal relationships of men as the “heads of households”,while many in the Christian Right claim that these gatherings challenge sexism andracism.

25

like many 19th century populists, quicklybecame conservative. This brand of conser-vative Protestantism proudly defined God’schosen people as white Anglo-Saxons.Early fundamentalist preachers such asBilly Sunday were convinced thatAmerican social and political structureswere superior because they had been builtby God’s chosen people. Thus fundamen-talism justified imperialism.

Along with the even greater emphasis onreading the Bible, fundamentalists havebeen preoccupied with pinpointing the endof the world. There are a variety of opin-ions about when and how Christ’s secondcoming will occur, but most believe Godhas divided human history into severalages, or “dispensations.” According to thisline of thinking, we are living in the finalstage, where current events like earth-quakes, tornadoes, floods, wars, politicalcrises and social decay are all warnings fromGod. Indeed, both the establishment of thestate of Israel in 1948 and the 1967 Six-Day War, in which Israel seized EastJerusalem and the West Bank, are viewed assigns that the end is near. For that reasonmost US fundamentalist Christians arestaunchly pro-Zionist.

Since the 1950s the more moderateProtestant denominations have declined asthe theologically conservative ones grewdramatically. Part of the reason for thiscontinuous growth of fundamentalism isits aggressive proselytizing, and its claims tohave answers to both the alienation, isola-tion and commodification in modern capi-talist society, as well as the changing role ofthe family. Within the fundamentalistcommunity there are supportive institu-tions in which one’s family can flourish safefrom the chaos and conflict outside. Thissiege mentality fuels political activism andis driven by the need to accomplish one’swork before the millennium brings suchpossibilities to a close. Fundamentalistsview themselves as a beleaguered groupunder attack by the establishment, whostands before them as a Goliath in opposi-tion to their role as David.

The specific evangelical churches that arethe fastest growing are the ones which arethe most adaptive, with worship servicesthat use popular rock music, have casualdress codes and cater to youth, newlywedsand singles. Mark Shibley, a sociologist ofreligion, concluded that these are growingbecause they have become more like thesurrounding culture, not less. These evan-

gelicals are undoubtedly a less supportivesubculture for the Christian Right than themore fundamental evangelical ones.

WHAT THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT WANTS

Christian fundamentalists are backed bya whole range of institutions and organiza-tions, from private schools and homeschooling networks to Bible Institutes,colleges, radio and TV programs, publish-ing houses and legal centers dedicated toadvancing a conservative agenda. (Note:Home schooling is not just a project of thefundamentalists, but they have built anetwork of fundamentalist educationalmaterials that reinforce their specificviews.) The Christian Right demandssociety accept and conform to its notion ofwhat it means to be a good family and agood citizen in God’s kingdom. It is asocial, political and religious movementthat wants the government to regulate andmaintain traditional hierarchical relations

between men and women and betweenparents and children. It sees the role of thestate as enforcer of “moral” (read: sexual)behavior. That’s why the right of homosex-uals to marry represents to them the begin-ning of the end of society. They ask, “whatnext? Polygamy? Bestiality?”

Yet, from this perspective, poverty is seennot as a moral issue but as the result ofindividual bad luck or bad behavior.Because the Christian Right views hierar-chy as natural and positive, it is not both-

ered by inequalities of wealth and power.The Bush administration has attempted toalter domestic government programs thataid poor or low-wage working families byfunding “faith-based” solutions to varioussocial problems. This has enabled theadministration to privatize services, rewardits conservative religious base, reach out toother church-based programs and hookthem into the network as well as fundparticular right-wing approaches to socialissues. Sexual education programs advocateabstinence. After-school reading and mathprograms teach specific skills that reflectthe kinds of tests the “No Child LeftBehind” legislation mandates. And the“faith-based” programs successfullycompete with the community-serviceprograms that already have a proven trackrecord in terms of social service provision.

According to Sara Diamond, who hasfollowed the evangelical Right for years, theChristian Right can be considered partlyoppositional and partly system-supportive.It is oppositional to mass culture, whichexplains why the United States has suchsharp culture wars. But it glorifiesAmerica’s past and more or less supports itspresent economic system. However, eventhough it “accepts” that America and itssocial institutions are good, this provincialnationalism does not coincide withCorporate America’s globalization project—even if Christian fundamentalist supportto Israel reinforces US policy in the MiddleEast. Thus there is an inherent contradic-tion in its alliance with the RepublicanParty.

According to the Christian Right, one ofthe big problems in society today is a lackof religion. In 1980 Tim LaHaye, afounder of the Moral Majority, publishedThe Battle for the Mind. Widely circulated,this book explains that there is a vastconspiracy involving Hollywood movieproducers, Unitarian churches, theAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),the National Organization for Women(NOW) and the National Association forthe Advancement of Colored People(NAACP). From a Christian right perspec-tive, these opinion-shapers are out to harmBible believers because they deny God’ssovereignty. That is, moral conditionsbecome worse because of people’s attemptsto solve their problems independently ofGod. Ultimately, it is the “secular human-ists” who are causing the problem.

To fix the problems of society, then,

26

requires the “moral majority” gettinginvolved in the electoral process and takingcharge, either as candidates or as workersassisting the right kind of candidate. TheChristian Right first developed severalsingle-issue campaigns against the EqualRights Amendment and against the liberal-ization of abortion. It also developed anetwork of organizations and Christianschools out of opposition to desegregationorders.

The Christian Right developed a “hitlist” of congressmen who it felt were partic-ularly anti-Christian, anti-family andagainst ‘traditional values’. By 1982, as aresult of the combined efforts of the NewRight and the Christian Right, two millionnew voters went to the polls. Not only wasRonald Reagan elected president, withwhite fundamentalists accounting for two-thirds of his lead, but 23 out of 27 opposi-tional congressmen targeted by the funda-mentalists lost.

However, the Christian Right didn’tmanage to get much from the Reagan andBush I tenure. Instead they were drawninto supporting right-wing militaryregimes in Central America. Not only didthe Christian Right identify with theseregimes because they carried out theirrepression under an anti-communistbanner, but right-wing evangelicals such asGuatemala’s Rios Montt led the militarycommand. The Christian Right mobilizedtheir constituency through publicationsand media programming, justifying deathsquads in Guatemala and El Salvador andterrorist contras in opposition to theSandinista government of Nicaragua. Theywere so eager to collaborate with the WhiteHouse in this anti-communist crusade thatthe battle for family values was relegated tostate and local fights.

However the local skirmishes had impor-tant national repercussions. These includeddefeat of the federal Equal RightsAmendment, where only 35 out of thenecessary 38 states ratified the amendmentbefore the deadline, as well as hundreds oflegislative restrictions on abortion.

ANTI-ABORTION ACTIVISM

During the 1980s grassroots anti-abor-tionists developed several dozen clinics thatadvertised themselves as abortion referralservices and offered free pregnancy tests.While women waited for their results, theywere forced to watch a presentation aboutthe alleged dangers of abortion. Severalwomen filed lawsuits and the clinics wereforced to cease their false advertising.Today, a network of about 3,000 “CrisisPregnancy Centers” advertising as abortionalternatives rely on their powers of persua-sion and narrowly circumscribed ‘help’which includes: offering free pregnancytests, legal and medical advice, adoptioninformation, and infant and maternityclothes. At least a third are operated by twoumbrella organizations, one Catholic andone Protestant.

But if one section of the anti-abortionmovement was willing to put energy intomanipulating pregnant women, andanother larger grouping was willing tolobby to restrict abortion at the state level,still another strategy included direct action.

As soon as abortion was legalized in1973, anti-abortionists developed a seriesof harassment tactics. These included pick-eting hospitals and clinics, where the bulkof all abortions were performed, andharassing clinic personnel by followingthem home, distributing flyers to theirneighbors, or picketing their houses.Joseph Scheidler, a Catholic from Chicago,

developed the tactic of deploying “sidewalkcounselors”—people who would attemptto convince any woman walking into theclinic not to have an abortion. But with thefounding of Operation Rescue in 1986 byRandall Terry, a graduate of the PentecostalElim Bible Institute and a used car sales-man, Catholic dominance of the anti-abor-tion movement dissolved. By 1990 Timemagazine estimated that anti-abortionactivists were two-thirds evangelicals andone-third Catholic.

Operation Rescue gained nationalpublicity in the summer of 1988 with itsfour-month siege of Atlanta, during whichover 1200 people were arrested. Staged tocoincide with the Democratic Party’snational convention in Atlanta, the actiongalvanized clinic blockades across thecountry. But the publicity also sparked pro-choice mobilizations and injunctions to barthe “rescuers” from blockading and enter-ing clinics. Between 1988-90 there weremore than 400 blockades. By 1991-93 thenumber had fallen to 170 although therewas an increase in incidents of propertydamage, hate mail and harassing phonecalls. Finding the strategy of mass arrestsdifficult to sustain and having lost a lawsuitbrought by the National Organization forWomen, Operation Rescue (OR) activistsswitched to a “No Place to Hide”campaign, targeting doctors whoperformed abortions.

The campaign developed “Wanted”Posters that contained a photograph of thedoctor and detailed her/his daily activities.The inflammatory rhetoric about doctorsbeing “baby killers” eventually culminatedin the murder of five clinic personnel in1992-93. However, the murders and subse-quent public reaction prodded Congressinto passing the Freedom of Access to Clinic

Emotionally-charged ceremonies mobilize the

constituency of the Christian Right.

27

Entrances Act in 1993. Previously, doctorswho performed abortions were usuallyforced to take elaborate precautions toensure their safety. But as public opinionreacted sharply against the murders, and asclinic violence was now made a federaloffense, attacks on clinics slowly declined.

STRATEGIES AND EXPERTISE

The Christian Coalition, under the lead-ership of Ralph Reed, created a network oflocal fundamentalist activists. Through itsannual Road to Victory conferences ittrained them in the nuts-and-bolts tech-niques of organizing. The Coalitionstressed working at the precinct level to geta majority of Christian conservativeselected as delegates to their stateRepublican parties. They aimed to run forcity councils, school boards and state legis-latures.

The Coalition also encouraged itsmembers to work within other conservativeorganizations. Most important has beenthe Concerned Women for America,founded by Beverly LaHaye in 1979. Sheorganized women into prayer chapters firstto oppose passage of the Equal RightsAmendment and then later to become“kitchen table lobbyists.” By 1991 theyworked hard to win Clarence Thomas’confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court,cheering him on when he arrived in theSenate hearing room to testify. They alsolobbied for Congressional passage of theDefense of Marriage Act, which allows statesto deny the legality of gay marriages(1996).

Another leading organization is theFamily Research Council (FRC) headed by

Gary Bauer, a domestic policy adviser forReagan who served as undersecretary in theDepartment of Education. By the mid-1990s the Council had a mailing list of250,000, a staff of seventy and a budget of$10 million. Bauer’s FRC works closelywith Dr. Dobson’s Focus on the Family.The two organizations provide congress-people with research on “pro-family” issues.

By the 1992 Republican Party conven-tion, an estimated 47% of the delegatesdescribed themselves as “born again”Christians. Of the 2,000 delegates, 300were members of the Christian Coalition.They secured, over the objection of other

delegates, a party platform demanding aban on all abortions, opposing civil rightsfor gays and lesbians, calling on the govern-ment to stop the sale of pornography andto condemn “obscene” art. The platformalso endorsed school prayer and homeschooling and opposed making contracep-tives available in public schools.

Bush’s defeat that November was widelyperceived as a rejection of that religiouswar. But without the support of theChristian right – indeed, the ChristianCoalition distributed forty million voterguides to 246,000 churches – Republicanswould have suffered even greater defeat, foraccording to Reed, evangelicals provided46% of Bush’s total vote.

THE CLINTON ERA

The Republican Party, with much helpfrom the Christian Right, was able todefeat some of Clinton’s earliest and mostimportant proposals and delayed or sabo-taged his appointments. Most importantly,despite the fact that Clinton carefullyavoided a single-payer health care plan, theChristian Right worked hard to defeat hisso-called reform. The victories of theChristian Right showed that they had thecapacity to work around issues withoutseeming to appear too dogmatic.

The 1994 elections were an incrediblebreakthrough for the Christian Right. In a

midterm election, where turnout is gener-ally low, they probably mobilized fourmillion activists and reached 50 millionvoters. Exit polls revealed that about 25%of those who voted were white evangelicals,70% of whom voted Republican.Congressional candidates backed by theChristian Coalition won 55% of theircampaigns and fully 25% of the electedfirst-term representatives were members ofevangelical churches.

The Republican agenda was the“Contract with America”. Although this10-point Contract didn’t seem to have thefingerprints of the Christian right all overit, Ralph Reed detailed the behind-the-scenes negotiations over its provisions inhis 1995 book, Active Faith. While Reedoriginally raised three proposals to beincluded—parental choice legislationaround abortion, a permanent ban ontaxpayer funding on abortion and a tax cutfor families with children – Newt Gingrichexplained that his goal was to have theContract signed by all incumbentRepublicans. Therefore, abortion and“other contentious issues” would have to beput on the back burner.

Reed reluctantly agreed provided theRepublicans move quickly on the tax cutand work on social issues after the firsthundred days in office. That is, the leadersof the Christian fundamentalist movementwere willing to bide their time in building

See US FUNDAMENTALISM: Page 31

The 1994 elections were an incredible breakthrough for the Christian

Right. In a midterm election, where turnout is generally low, they

probably mobilized four million activists and reached 50 million voters.

Has the Christian Right overplayed its hand in the Terri Schiavo case?Terri’s parents asked Randall Terry [founder of anti-choice group Operation Rescue—

NS] to act as their spokesperson and mobilize support in front of the nursing home. Butthe expected crowd never materialized. Anti-abortion zealots were interviewed at the site,but the size of the vigils peaked at roughly 100. Terri’s parents asked them to leave a fewdays before her death. Perhaps they were an embarrassment.

At first, the media spun the case in a way that associated it with the Christian Rightcrusade “for life”. But within a week, reporters shifted their focus to how the case was apersonal tragedy for the people involved and not part of a Christian Right cause.

In Congress, politicians repeatedly denounced the judiciary for accepting the findings ofneurologists and granting Michael Schiavo’s request not to prolong Terri’s life. But the lawthey passed didn’t stop the courts.

The Christian Right used the Terri Schiavo case to try to convince the population thatthe legal system is out of control and must be reigned in. The most prized target is the USSupreme Court, which has trimmed women’s right to abortion over the last thirty yearswithout actually banning it. The right feels it has earned the ability to influence publicpolicy, but it does not see its agenda being implemented. This frustration and impatienceis hopefully the sign of its coming downfall.—D.F.

28

Neil Braganza: What would shariaarbitration in Ontario involve? How would it work?

Amina Sherazee: To be honest, I don’tthink sharia arbitration is workable. Thereis a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty as tohow it would be implemented, monitoredand applied. The proposal is that shariaarbitration involve informal forums adjudi-cated by qualified arbitrators who aremembers of arbitration societies and havesome training in arbitration principles(though not necessarily formal legal train-ing). Arbitrators, of course, would alsohave to have some awareness of sharia law.

Now it is important to point out thatthere are different schools of thought inIslam. There are different interpretations ofthe various tenets of sharia by variousMuslims communities. There are differentreligious sects, with different religiousprecepts, and all this is complicated by

different cultural interpretations of thosereligious precepts. There is no one univer-sal codified Muslim law because the lawsvary according to different schools ofthought. There are the Shias, the Sunnisand the different branches of Sunnism andShiaism. Nevertheless, the proponents ofsharia arbitration are proposing that itinvolve the arbitration of family lawmatters, and inheritance matters, and ofcourse commercial arbitration.

NB: Why do people, especially those inMuslim communities, oppose the idea ofsharia civil arbitration? What is the concernabout the impact it might have on women?

AS: The organizations I represent and amfamiliar with are not opposed to the use ofsharia law for commercial arbitration. Theyhave no problem with two parties whoshare commercial interests and who aremore or less equal using sharia law to settlecommercial disputes. However, there is a

problem with using religious arbitration todeal with what should properly be seen aspublic and social issues. For example,though the regulations of family law, childwelfare, inheritance rights and so on allrelate to property rights and disputesbetween private citizens, those disputes—for instance, disputes over the division ofproperty and support for ex-spouses andchildren, the feminization of poverty andthe best interest of children—concern andimpact on the public at large. In oursociety, we try to regulate these issuesthrough law because it is widely recognizedthat these issues have an impact on thepublic and on how we relate to oneanother. People in Muslim communitieswho are opposed to sharia arbitration don’twant these public issues to become priva-tized. Rather, they understand and appreci-ate that aside from the law there are socialrelationships between people that deter-mine how (or whether) legal rights are exer-cised. These relationships—for example,gender inequality, or inequalities ofeconomic and financial power—are publicissues and problems because they cut across

On January 17th, 2005, former Ontario Attorney GeneralMarion Boyd recommended that the province of Ontarioallow religious law—such as Muslim law, also known as“sharia”—to be used in private arbitration to settlecommercial and family disputes if parties agree to it. Privatearbitration is toted as a wonderful voluntary alternative to thepublic court system. Boyd’s report examining the question ofreligious arbitration was commissioned by current AttorneyGeneral Michael Bryant. NEIL BRAGANZA interviewedToronto lawyer and human rights activist AMINA SHERAZEE

for New Socialist on March 23rd, 2005.

Amina Sherazee is a staff lawyer at Downtown Legal Services in Toronto and a human rightsactivist. Neil Braganza is a member of CUPE 3903 at York University and a member of the NewSocialist Group.

Amina Sherazee speaking at an anti-war rally.

SHARIA LAW

Religious arbitration and the privatization of law

An interview with Amina Sherazee

29

all cultural and religious communities. Wedon’t want people—who more likely thannot will be women—being put in the posi-tion of having to bargain away their rightsjust to acquire a standard of living forthemselves and their children.

Now, because we are dealing with shariawe have to look at the occurrence of theseinequalities within Muslim societies.There have been very conservative inter-pretations of sharia, and there is no way tomonitor the prevalence of such interpreta-tions in arbitration hearings. For thisreason sharia arbitration can have a veryadverse impact on women. Plus, becauseMuslim women often face cultural andlinguistic barriers, threats of stigmatiza-tion and pressures of assimilation—allmade worse by their economic inequal-ity—there is no reliable way to guaranteethat women’s legal rights will be protectedin sharia arbitration hearings.

Another reason for opposing sharia isthat it undermines the rule of law and thatit is a move to establish a different set oflaws for Canadians in the Muslim commu-nities. This raises major questions about

the marginalization and segregation ofMuslims from the rest of society. So theconcerns are twofold. The first concern ishow inequality is going to play out inperpetuating discrimination withinMuslim communities. The second concernis that the different application of differentlaws is going to ghettoize and excludeMuslims from the rest of society.

NB: In your opinion, why is the Canadiangovernment considering this now, and whoseinterests would be served with theintroduction of sharia arbitration?

AS: The Ontario government is dealingwith it now because there was a lot ofmedia controversy after the Islamic CivilInstitute announced that it was alreadyusing sharia law in binding arbitration offamily disputes. The announcement cameas a surprise to many of us. People startedasking why this is being allowed and whythis is occurring. The proponents of shariaresponded by saying that religious arbitra-tion was permitted under the ArbitrationAct. Opponents to sharia disputed this,arguing that there is nothing in the Act thatallows people to use sharia in family lawand child welfare matters. Furthermore,opponents charged that it is very problem-atic that groups are claiming that the rightto religious arbitration is a given. Thiswhole debate probably would not havehappened if the issue did not receive theprofile it did in the media.

The second part of your question asks

whose interests are served by introducingsharia. There are two main interests that areserved. First, sharia arbitration serves theinterests of the elite within the Muslimcommunities in that it gives them a way todetermine property matters to theirbenefit. Some sharia law can be construedto serve the interests of men over womenbecause it can be read to stipulate, for

instance, that a woman is only entitled to aquarter of the inheritance that a male heiris entitled to. Furthermore, some rulesaround custody and child and spousalsupport payments and support rights arevery much in favour of men. So it servesthe interests of the patriarchal economicelite.

Second, I think that sharia law to a greatextent serves the interests of the govern-ment. Religious arbitration is a way for thegovernment to offload many of the servicesit should be providing to make the legalsystem more relevant, responsive and acces-sible to religious, cultural and racialcommunities. To properly remedy the lackof legal services, the government wouldhave to do a complete overhaul of the legalsystem: it would have to make the judiciarymore representative, it would have toprovide interpretation and cultural services,it would have to incorporate the values oflitigants into both legal procedure andsome of the law itself, and so on. Religiousarbitration is a great way for the Ontariogovernment to avoid these responsibilitiesby claiming that groups can just regulatethemselves on their own and meet theirown needs. This frees the government tonarrow its focus to the dominant culturesof society while claiming that specialminority groups are both marginal topublic interest and an unnecessary financialstrain on the system.

In other words, religious arbitration isabout the privatization of law and theprivatization of legal services. Furthermore,it’s about not having to address the currentinequality and discrimination that existswithin the legal system. For instance, if youlook at the judiciary on the federal levelyou’ll see that there is isn’t a single personof colour who is a judge—not one! In theprovincial courts in Ontario it was notuntil 1989 (yes, 1989!) that we had the firstblack judge. I just read in the news that bythe year 2017 visible minorities are goingto be the visible majority. But if that’s thecase then the composition of the judiciaryshould be reflecting that reality.Establishing sharia arbitration is a way forthe government to avoid dealing withracism and exclusion in the legal system.

Now, proponents of religious arbitrationclaim it is less expensive and more accessi-ble. But that’s only because legal aid hasbeen eroded by underfunding. Whenproponents romanticize religious arbitra-tion as being cheaper and more informal,

Homa Arjomand,

coordinator of the

International

Campaign against

Sharia Court in

Canada questions

Marion Boyd

about the lack of

protection for

human rights in

the Arbitration Act

of 1991.

30

their argument relies on the fact that thecurrent legal system is in disrepair. Forexample, proponents claim that a husbandand wife can duke it out in an arbitrationcourt in front of an arbitrator who chargesthem very little money or no money at all,and that this will be a quick, easy andcheap way for the couple to settle theirdispute. But at the same time, proponentsclaim that if you don’t have arbitration,you’ll have to get a lawyer, go through acompletely inaccessible court system, sufferlong delays, pay for your own lawyer and soforth. Thus, there’s a lot of scaremongeringused to sell religious arbitration to commu-nities. Furthermore, this plays on and rein-forces the problems because it accepts acompletely racist, classist and inaccessiblelegal system. Rather than taking up thelarger task of making the legal system more

accessible and less discriminatory andracist, proponents of religious arbitrationare offering people a way to accommodatethese inequalities and live with them. Theseinequalities exist because the governmenthas abdicated its responsibility to properlyfund legal aid. Proponents of sharia aretrying to push litigants into the privateresolution of their disputes, and thegovernment is trying to get out of the busi-ness of governance and permit the privati-zation of resolving family breakdown.

NB: How would you make sense of the moveto introduce sharia law in the context of thegeneral crackdown on Muslims sinceSeptember 11th, 2001?

AS: I think it’s a further marginalizationand a further exclusion of that communityfrom services and legal entitlements. The

way Muslims are being treated by thecourts is a by-product of the racial exclu-sion that Muslims have faced historically.The indefinite incarceration of Muslimsunder the draconian security certificateprocess, the routine violation of their dueprocess rights and the fact that there are noMuslims in the federal judiciary—these areall examples of the systemic marginaliza-tion and exclusion of Muslims. Sharia arbi-tration is part of this pattern because it is away for the government to acknowledgethese problems but at the same time trans-fer the responsibility for solving these prob-lems from itself to Muslim communities.

It is important to trace out how thegovernment is contradicting itself here.Marion Boyd’s report recommends thatsharia law be allowed because, in general,religious arbitration should be allowed. Butif you look at her actual recommendations,they not only interpret the law as it is, butpropose to change the law. For example,there are recommendations for manyamendments to the Family Law Act, theArbitration Act, and to the Child LawReform Act. So the question is: if theOntario government needs to amend thelaw to make religious arbitration legal, whyis it allowing religious arbitration tohappen right now? Doesn’t this mean thatthe religious arbitration that is happeningtoday in Ontario is happening illegally?And if it is happening illegally, how cananyone claim that it has any legitimacy?

The answer to this last question raisesmore issues. When the groups I representwere invited to give deputations to MarionBoyd, we were informed that when she wasthe Attorney General at the time that theArbitration Act was passed in 1991, sheintended for it to apply to family arbitra-tion. Why? Because she claimed Jewishleaders had lobbied her to permit religiousarbitration. However, nowhere in the legis-lation is this clearly reflected.The sharia lawdebate is exposing all this back-roomwheeling and dealing. And now, the peoplewho were not part of those deals aredemanding that the process be made moreopen and democratic. Rather than allowingBoyd—who is now a private consultant—to interpret the law in response to peoplewho happen to have her ear, the govern-ment should be saying that religious arbi-tration is illegal until the proper process isfollowed to make it legal. After all, despiteBoyd’s willingness to respond to whatevervoice manages to lobby her, as it stands

31

now there is nothing in the Arbitration Actthat says that religious-based arbitration isallowed, and her report confirms that.

The position of the Muslim groupsopposed to sharia is that we would like astatement from the Attorney Generalsaying that what’s happening right now isillegal and it should be prohibited. And ifsupporters of religious arbitration want itto be sanctioned and made legal, then therehas to be a proper legislative debate on theissue. In a way, Marion Boyd’s reportusurps parliamentary process. What issupposed to happen is that a parliamentarycommittee studies a law and creates a bill.The bill is supposed to be debated withinthe committee, and the committee issupposed to receive and incorporatesubmissions from the public. The bill isthen supposed to be debated in parliament,and if it passes third reading it becomeslaw. But instead of striking up a parliamen-tary committee, the government hired aprivate consultant (Boyd). The Boyd reportis thus a sneaky way to undermine publicdebate on laws before they are enacted. So,not only does the content of the Boydreport represent, effectively, a call to priva-tize legal services, but the very manner inwhich that report was commissioned andproduced represents a move to privatizeparliamentary procedure. What we areseeing is the privatization of governmentand the privatization of legal services andjustice. I think that is the biggest concernaround religious arbitration. And clearlythis should not just be the concern of theMuslim community but the concern of all.

NB: What would the government have tofear from broader consultation?

AS: The government wants to avoid amuch needed overhaul of the legal system.Those who support religious arbitrationand Boyd’s usurpation of parliamentaryprocess isolate the debate and try to makeit very insular. But the truth is that theissue has implication for general law.Keeping the issue insular prevents us fromasking why our legal system doesn’t reflectthe needs and concerns of various groups inthis province. It prevents us from askinghow we could change the system for thebetter, or asking about an entirely differentsystem. That deeper conversation wouldinvolve everyone. Even non-Muslimswould be involved in the debate. But if it isframed as a “sharia law” debate then abroader discussion suddenly becomesunnecessary.

Furthermore, by hiring a private consult-ant to study what is framed as a very privateand narrow issue, what the AttorneyGeneral is doing is in fact allowing thedominant members of certain groups topetition that consultant and influence her.After all, who are the most vocal? The mostvocal are the most organized, and the mostorganized are the most financially capable.So that’s another big problem with thisprocess. It’s keeping a lid on the Pandora’sbox instead of opening the Pandora’s box ina very public and democratic manner andactually dealing with what comes out of it.

NB: Any last thoughts?

up alliances that would eventually lead totheir demands.

THE 21ST CENTURY

With two decades of organizing experi-ence, and having won some clear victories,the Christian Right nonetheless feels dissat-isfied with its lack of results. They hadbecome the backbone of the RepublicanParty, but were confined—constantly toldto behave themselves and unable to achievewhat they wanted. Having gained a placein the Republican Party, they have not beenable to move their agenda forward.

They are not content with winning refer-endums opposing gay marriage in an envi-

ronment where lesbians and gays are moreaccepted in US society than ever before.Despite Senator John Kerry’s assertionsthat “abortion should be the rarest thing inthe world”, they still know that howevercircumscribed by restrictions, abortion isstill legal. One of their very own people,John Ashcroft, was US Attorney Generalfor four years, yet the Roe v. Wade rulingremains in force. The ranks of theChristian right are asking themselves:What kind of “power” is this?

9/11 brought a sea change to US politics.Fighting “the war on terror” (not the issuesof abortion, evolution and gay rights)elected Bush II in 2004. That election hasscared the liberal mainstream even further,opening up even more space for theChristian Right to inhabit. Today, with theRepublicans entrenched as the ruling party

and multiple Supreme Court appoint-ments likely pending, the fundamentalistsfeel truly empowered to advance an openlyanti-feminist, anti-secular and especiallyanti-Muslim agenda. Time will tell howaggressively, and with what success, theypress their demands on Congress and theBush regime. ★

US FundamentalismContinued from Page 27

AS: The reason I don’t think we shouldhave religious-based arbitration is that weneed one law to apply to everyone. Theonly way to accommodate different valuesand different religions is to do so within theone publicly funded and controlled legaland judicial system, not by creatingsubstandard procedures and systems fordifferent groups. Creating sub-systems ofadjudication ghettoizes and marginalizesthose who are already marginalized. It notonly segregates a community, it contributesto the further marginalization of peoplewho are already marginalized within thatcommunity. This moves them farther awayfrom the public eye and makes it moredifficult for them to fight back to reclaimtheir rights.

So, religious arbitration establishes a verydangerous slippery slope towards the priva-tization of public matters. Its proponentsuse the concept of “multiculturalism” as ajustification to segregate people and givethem a different standard by which theywill be judged. That’s not multiculturalism.Real multiculturalism means integratingthe margin into the centre. I think that thephilosophy behind Marion Boyd’s report isthat groups should have “equal but differ-ent” treatment. But, as Martin Luther Kinghas informed us, the principle of “equal butdifferent” is precisely the rhetoric used tojustify segregation. Rather than isolationand exclusion from the mainstream, weneed desegregation and incorporation intothe mainstream. ★

The author recommends the work of SaraDiamond, who has written several bookson the Christian right. including Not byPolitics Alone: The Enduring Influenceof the Christian Right. She would alsorecommend the work of StephanieCoontz, whose latest book is Marriage: AHistory from Obedience to Intimacyor How Love Conquered Marriage.

32

Shahrzad Mojab is Associate Professor in the Department of Adult and Counselling Psychologyat the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the Director of the Institute for Women’sand Gender Studies, University of Toronto (smojab@oise.utoronto.ca).

I n December 2004, I travelled to the Middle East as part of myresearch exploring Kurdish women’s struggles for democracy andjustice. I was unable to go to the Kurdish region of Iraq, where

I had visited four years earlier. In Turkey, however, I visited severalwomen’s centres in Istanbul and three Kurdish cities, listening toand learning from enthusiastic and dynamic Kurdish womenactivists about their visions and aspirations for transforming theirlives and societies.

These women were fully conscious ofthe many dimensions of their problemsand struggles. Many are organizing againstviolence rooted in the ancient institutionof patriarchy, both in the private sphere ofthe family and the public sphere of thestate.

The challenges are enormous. Womenand men are suffering from many forms ofviolence including war, militarism, poverty,national oppression, displacement, forcedurbanization, army and police brutality,and environmental destruction. In all ofthese cases, the Turkish state and the USare seen as main actors, in spite of the factthat the media, educational system andofficial propaganda treat the state and itsarmy as sacrosanct. More significantly,though, the state and its internationalsupporters are not the only sources oftrouble. State power is exercised with all itsbrutality in the midst of the equally brutalexercise of power by the male gender, reli-gion, tribalism, feudalism and capitalism.Women are the main target of this combi-nation of powers.

In dealing with the Middle East, be itAfghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Iraq orTurkey, some activists on the left are notwilling to comprehend the significance ofdomestic regimes of exploitation andoppression. They see only one centre ofdestruction: Western imperialism. Theygenerally ignore the domestic order, andhow it is tied to imperialism.

Such a politics is politically destructive.It separates domestic exploitation andoppression from global capitalism. It mini-mizes or ignores domestic repression, and,in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, conferson reactionary and repressive forces thestatus of freedom fighters (in MiddleEastern political culture as in Marxist tradi-tions, the words “reaction” and its deriva-tives are borrowed from the FrenchRevolution of 1789. As I use it here, itrefers to a host of political agendas thatadvocate the perpetration of ethnic andnationalist supremacy, tribalism, feudalism,patriarchy and religious superstition).Paved with the good intention of forgingsolidarity with the targets of imperialist

BY SHAHRZAD MOJAB

Demonstration of Iranian women against Ayatolla Khomeini’sstatement regarding the veil, 1979. www.iranchamber.com

aggression, this politics inevitably movesaway from internationalism and enters intothe realm of ethnocentrism and nationalchauvinism, as I will explain.

LETTING DOMESTIC REACTION OFF THE HOOK

This kind of politics has a long historyon the left. The most recent case is theapproach of some of the left to Iraq, wherethere is a widespread and bloody resistanceto the equally bloody US occupation. It isdifficult to understand exactly what isgoing on in the resistance front. One canclaim with certainty, however, that thegreat majority of non-Kurds resent theoccupation. In the beginning of the thirdyear of occupation, many Iraqis (especiallynon-Kurds) who were brutalized by theBa’thist regime now long for the past.

The economic fabric of Iraq, which hadbeen disrupted during the Iraq-Iran war of1980-88, was further destroyed by the1991 US war, a decade of sanctions, andtwo years of war since March 2003. Theforces of tribalism and feudalism, whichhad been reinforced by Saddam Husseinduring his wars against the Kurds and Iran,have been further unleashed by the currentwar. Different sects of political Islam haveunleashed a brutal war against women and

THE MIDDLE EAST

Under the reign of imperialism andfundamentalisms

33

others. If women could walk in publicplaces more or less freely under the previ-ous regime, now they can do so only inhejab and in the company of male rela-tives to protect them. Secular voices arebeing systematically silenced by part ofthis “resistance,” which exercises realpower in the streets. The Shi’ite leader-ship, which is a major power block in theelected parliament, continues to demanda theocratic political order.

Part of this “resistance” uses methodssuch as blowing up civilians; their goal isto prevent the occupying power fromestablishing its client regime in thecountry, using any possible means. Thisis a war between two repressive orders:one is made up of political Islam andBa’thists and the other is the US occupy-ing power. Both sides use similarmethods of warfare that qualify as warcrimes and crimes against humanity. Twoyears is long enough to predict what kindof regime each side wants to impose on thepeoples of Iraq.

The losers in this war are the majority ofIraqis, especially women, workers, peas-ants, secular people and the urban poor.The winners are a minority, although theyare diverse and wield power, includingIslamists, tribal and feudal lords, clergy-men, new mafias and smuggler rings. TheBa’thists are removed from the seats of statepower, but they are everywhere, and the USmay eventually negotiate a settlement withthem.

Much of the left is unable to see thesymbiosis of local reactionaries and imperi-alism in Iraq, despite a long history ofsimilar experiences. For example, theprominent US socialist James Petras arguedin the Winter 2005 Iran Bulletin: MiddleEast Forum for unconditional support of allthe Iraqi “resistance” in his article “ThirdWorld resistance and western intellectualsolidarity.”

IMPERIALISM, FUNDAMENTALISM AND RESISTANCE

In recent wars in the Middle East, USimperialist power and Islamic fundamen-talists are not on the opposite sides of aconflict. They do not form a contradiction.Historically and politically, Islamic funda-mentalism and Western capitalism form asymbiosis, not a contradiction. The twosides have coexisted and benefited fromthis relationship, much as slavery and capi-talism or democracy and racial apartheid

coexisted in the West for about threecenturies. Islamic fundamentalism andcapitalism coexist, cohere, coincide andcollude.

Equally significant is that there is noconvergence of interest between thepeoples of the Middle East and theocraticpolitical Islam. There is, however, conver-gence between fundamentalism and capi-talism in their patriarchal, militaristic,despotic, imperialistic and misogynist poli-tics. Both rely on a culture of violence andfear.

If Western imperialist states fostermythologies such as “they do not have ademocratic tradition,” much of the leftinadvertently plays into this game bydenying or forgetting or remaining unin-formed about a century of struggles bywomen, workers, peasants, students, jour-nalists and others in the Middle East. Sincethe late 1800s, imperial powers in theregion have fought these social movementswith all their might. As part of its crusadeagainst communism after WWII, the USpromoted Islam against the social move-ments.

Beginning in the late 19th century,democratic movements in the Middle Eastpursued a project for the separation of stateand mosque. This struggle found its mostradical expression in the ConstitutionalRevolution of 1906-11 in Iran.Throughout the twentieth century, most ofthe resistance against feudalism and colo-nialism in the Middle East was inspiredand lead by secular leaders, whether leftist,

There is a symbiosis between rule by local reactionaries in the Middle East and thewestern imperialist order. Both are similar in that they repress women, workers,peasants, secular people and the poor.

liberal, or conservative. The struggleagainst patriarchy, too, was primarily led bywomen and men who were communistsand secular liberal democrats.

In the wake of WWII, the US graduallyreplaced the old colonial powers in theMiddle East, Britain and France. In orderto defeat both communism and liberaldemocracy, the US built up despotic mili-tary regimes, conducted coups andopposed freedom of the press and academicfreedom. Part of this suppression of democ-racy was the US advice to its client regimesto use Muslim groups and individualsagainst communism, which in their viewincluded all social movements.

This was done in many cases, includingpitting the Muslim clergy against thenationalist regime in Iran in the early1950s, Saudi Arabia’s use of Islam againstArab nationalist movements in Egypt,Oman and Palestine, the mobilizing,arming and training of any Muslim willingto fight the pro-Soviet regime ofAfghanistan in the1980s, Turkey’s use of anIslamic terrorist group against the secularKurdistan Workers Party (PKK), andIsrael’s support of Islamic forces against thePalestinian secular left leadership. Whenthe second revolution in Iran was in themaking in 1978, the US and other Westernpowers supported Islamic fundamentalistsdirectly and indirectly. They could hardlytolerate what they feared would be the lossof Iran to communists, which they associ-ated with Soviet domination over this oil-rich and strategically-vital country.

34

The anti-communism of the USimpeded the struggle for democracy. Itparalyzed the fight for separating the stateand religion. It helped establish new theoc-racies in Iran and Afghanistan. Whilefundamentalist Islamic forces readilycompromise with imperialism, they haveno intention of offering any concessions towomen, workers, national and religiousminorities, or feminist, communist, orsecular politics. Many leftists in the Westfail to understand these dynamics of classstruggle. Iraq “liberated” by Ba’thist terror-ists or Islamic fundamentalist terrorists willbe as reactionary as the client regime whichis in the process of creation by the UnitedStates. In Iran, communists paid a heavyprice by treating Khomeini as a “progres-sive force” only to be vilified and slaugh-tered by him once he replaced the Shah.Unlike Iraq’s Islamists and Ba’thists,Khomeini did not yet have blood on hishands when he replaced the Shah.

Western leftists descend into ethnocen-trism when they fail to treat the peoples ofthe Middle East as worthy of struggle forsocialism, separation of state and religion, oreven liberal democracy. This part of the leftis not conscious about the class and genderdimensions of the war in Iraq orAfghanistan. Iranian theocrats, the AfghanTaliban and the Iraqi Islamists (both Shi’iteand Sunni) want to rule over the peoplesand countries of the region. Once theyachieve state power, Islamic political forceswill conveniently share the booty with theUS and its client states in the region. This isnot surprising in so far as their main targetsare the people and countries they rule oraspire to rule. Since Khomeini’s 1979assumption of power, political Islam almosteverywhere demands no less than state rule.

ISLAMOPHOBIA AND FUNDAMENTALISM

The struggle of Middle Eastern peoplesagainst political Islam should not beconfused with the politics of Islamophobiafostered by the Bush administration in thepost-September 11 days. Islamophobia andanti-Arabism, like anti-Semitism, are formsof racism, which the modern Western stateappeals to in order to maintain its hege-mony in times of crisis. One can opposeboth political Islam (by advocating theseparation of state and mosque) andIslamophobia.

The struggle against Islamophobia cansucceed only if it is a project of overcoming

racism, and preventing the transformationof liberal democracy into fascism. Marxists,unlike most liberals, believe that liberaldemocracy is not simply democracy, it iscapitalist democracy. They realize that capi-talist democracy can transform intofascism, as it did in the 1930s in Europe. InGermany the transformation occurredthrough democratic elections. This canhappen again, especially under conditionsof crisis, or even the perception of a seriouscrisis. The most liberal of all liberal politi-cal philosophers, Michael Ignatieff,defended the US war in Iraq, and used thetheory of lesser evil to argue that war,torture and other evils can be used in orderto get rid of the great evil of terrorism. Ifliberal democracy transforms into fascism,citizens of Middle Eastern origins andthose practising Islam in Western countriescan readily become targets of genocide orend up in concentration camps (ashappened to Japanese-Canadians duringWW2). Concentration camps and forcedpopulation transfers can occur even in theabsence of a world war.

The current world situation is develop-ing in a direction that smacks of moresetbacks for the people of the world, for theplanet and surely for socialists. Capitalism

The Iraqi Women’s League marches against the recent cancellation of laws that longprovided some protections for the rights of Iraqi women. These changes mean that Iraqiwomen must rely on religious institutions rather than civilian courts for various matters,including marriage and divorce.

has already divided the world into twotypes of human beings: those worthy ofliving and those worthy of dying. Themegacities of the world warn us of comingdisasters: a planet devastated by the forcesof capitalism, with small fortresses inwhich the rich minority reproduces itselfand its rule through sheer military force.During the last reign of fascism, in WW2,communists and socialists were the majorforce in the struggle for freedom, from thestreets of Paris and Milan to the mountainsof Greece and China. What role are theforces of the left, especially socialists,playing in the current crisis in which theconflict between reactionaries has over-shadowed class and gender struggles?

I began this article with my observationabout the situation in Turkey, which—likethe worldwide peace marches of February15, 2003—points in an optimistic direc-tion. In both cases, we see the power of thepeople of the world to resist repression.However, the spontaneous, ruptured, scat-tered initiatives of social movements, nomatter how powerful they may be, are nota match for the organized power of capital-ism. The words of Rosa Luxemburg aremore telling today than they were acentury ago: “socialism or barbarism.” ★

35

A s winter has come to itsend, the cumulative effectof too much TV, and, espe-

cially, too much Much, has created a thirstfor pop music with a bit of substance andambiguity. Interesting work seems to becoming from the odd corners of hiphop—Toronto’s Mind Bender and K-os, USianMF Doom, and England’s Dizzee Rascal,MIA, and The Streets. I’ve been revisitingthe latter’s A Grand Don’t Come For Free(Pure Groove/Universal). This is amongstthe most low key of “concept” albums—it’sthe guy’s life over a couple of days. “It wassupposed to be so easy” opens with power-ful Wagnerian horns. Skinner’s misadven-tures start with returning an empty DVDcase, lining up for the bank machine whichwon’t give him any money, his cell phonegoing dead, and then losing all his moneywhich was stored in a shoebox by the TV.“Not Addicted” is about betting on soccerwithout knowing fuck all about it.“Blinded by the Lights” is a beautiful

trancey song about going clubbing and notfinding your friends. “Wouldn’t Have ItAny Other Way” is “Blinded”’s twin:instead of going clubbing Mike stays on thecouch with his girlfriend smoking roaches.

Taking Back the Streets: Women, Youth,and Direct Democracy by anarchist historianTemma Kaplan is a brilliant piece of socialhistory. Kaplan tells the story of the activi-ties of women activists during the over-throw of the dictatorships in Chile,Argentina and Spain. The social historiesare extremely complicated and involved,and I learned a lot from the basic historythat Kaplan tells. Her emphasis, and wherethe book excels, is describing the particularcontradictions that women activists playedin these struggles. Some progressive womenworked to break gender laws and codes,while others appealed to them. One can seethis in the instance of the ArgentineanMothers of the Plaza de Mayo. By acting asactivists and defying the state, these womenare breaking rules, but often rely on conser-

vative ideas of the role of mother-hood. The chapter I found mostengrossing was the second, “Potsand Pans Will Break My Bones,”which deals with the symbolismof empty pots and pans, initiallyused by right wing women inChile in the coup against SalvadorAllende’s government and thenlater by anti-fascist women duringthe struggle against the Pinochetregime. The book is quite dense,and sometimes more detailedthan a reader may wish, but it isan important contribution to thehistory of social movements, thesuccesses, failures, and limits ofstruggles against fascism, and tothe empirically grounded theo-rization of gender.

Ever wondered if you could snortProzac? If mint could make you halluci-nate? Ecstasy drain spinal fluid? Thisreviewer has found two fabulous websitesbased on the culture of mind-alteringdrugs, which can answer these questions.Erowid, or www.erowid.org, is a non-profitonline encyclopedia of mind-alteringsubstances and techniques. It’s best knownfeatures are its particular ‘vaults’ on varyingchemicals, herbs, plants, ideas and art. Ithas also put online a myriad of books,essays and other documents about drugs,visionary experiences, visionary art andvisionary thinkers. The other is the NewBluelight www.bluelight.nu, also a non-profit, which is primarily a chat and discus-sion board which originated from Ecstasy& rave culture. On a very basic level thesesites offer excellent harm reduction infor-mation that encourages the responsible useof intoxicants and provides informationand support for people badly affected bythem. Erowid, which has tried to stayword-of-mouth, has had some media expo-sure due to negative statements by “WarOn Drugs” reactionaries and praise bycaregivers who sought honest informationon little known drugs. Bluelight also offersan arena for informal peer to peer counsel-ing. Most importantly these sites provideusers with information about what is beingimbibed and its possible psychological,physical and social effects. A more abstract,but just as admirable, dimension of thesesites is they offer a practical alternative wayof doing science. Due to the criminaliza-tion and hassles involved in researchingnon-patentible, illegal and/or otherwisedifficult to commodify drugs, and thespread of communications technologies, acollective, international and participatorypool of knowledge has been built andcontinues to be built.

BTW, the answers to the questions aboveare: Yes, but you don’t want to; yes, SalviaDivinorum is a potent psychedelic mintplant from the Oaxaca region of Mexico;and Ecstasy does a lot of things to a bodybut doesn’t drain spinal fluid. ★

PLUGGIN’ AWAY BY MARK CONNERY

A thirst for pop

Mark Connery is a child care worker and library enthusiast from Toronto. Pluggin’ Away is anongoing column of reviews in New Socialist magazine.

“pfull” by Jay Levin - fromErowid.org

36

touched by the movement itself—espe-cially for young women today—too muchis left unaddressed.

Another example. Rebick tries to give abalance of space to women in the three mainpolitical branches of second wave femi-nism—liberal feminists, radical feministsand socialist feminists. But, although somesense can be gained from the stories them-selves, no description is provided of thedifferent analyses behind each perspectiveand their implications for the movementand the particular struggles addressed.

Different analyses lead to different strate-gies. Different strategies lead to differentmethods of organizing, different resultsand sometimes to gains for middle classwomen but not for poor and working classwomen. Because the book makes very littleattempt at analysis, the full implications ofdebates within the movement can be diffi-cult to sort out. Nor are the reasons alwaysclear behind the successes in some areasand the set-backs or stalls in others.

More analysis could also have situatedthe women’s movement more clearlywithin the general radicalization of theperiod. Fortunately, some of this isprovided in the introductions to thesections. But the relationship is rarelydrawn out within the stories of thestruggles themselves.

Sandra Sarner is an editorial associate of NewSocialist magazine.

as a history of the Canadian women’smovement, it is also disappointing on anumber of fronts.

There is very little attempt to providecontext or analysis for the stories told.

Why is it called second wave feminism?Nowhere does Rebick explain that the firstwave of feminism in North America grewout of the early civil rights movement andwomen’s struggle for the vote. Nowhere isit explained that, just as first wave femi-nism coincided with massive worldwidestruggles for workers’ rights and socialismin the early part of the 20th century, so thesecond wave developed as part of thegeneral radicalization of the 60s and 70s.Some of this is implied — but not clearlydrawn out.

This is one reason why Ten ThousandRoses will be most useful and appreciated bythose who have some familiarity with theperiod and the struggles that Rebick ischronicling. But for those who did not livethrough this period, or who were not

Judy Rebick’s Ten Thousand Roses is awelcome major contribution to achronicling of the second wave

women’s movement in Canada of the1970s and 1980s. The story is told throughthe voices of dozens of women who playedkey roles in the fight for women’s liberationand women’s rights.

Through first hand accounts, we learn ofprotests, meetings, lobbying and debates.The voices of organizers help us relive thestruggles, set-backs and victories as womenorganized for reproductive rights, for childcare, against violence, against racism andwar, for equal pay, job equity and unionrecognition.

The story of the Canadian women’smovement is also the story of battles forrecognition within the movement itself.Lesbians, women of colour, immigrant,native and disabled women had to chal-lenge middle-class white women beforetheir issues were taken up and seriouslyfought for. As a result, feminists have oftenbeen in the forefront of struggles aroundissues of racism, ableism and sexuality.

Rebick’s book is extremely valuable but,

TEN THOUSAND ROSES:THE MAKING OF A FEMINIST

REVOLUTION

BY JUDY REBICK

PAPERBACK: 256 PAGES

PUBLISHED 2005, $24.00 CDN

AVAILABLE FROM RABBLE.CA/BOOKS

REVIEWED BY

SANDRA SARNER

BOOK REVIEW

Chronicling the women’smovement in Canada

Judy Rebick

37

In fact, as a socialist feminist, it issurprising that Rebick has not given usmore about some of the important massmobilizations and grass-roots initiativesthat were an integral part of the move-ment.

So, for example, we do not hear aboutthe Canadian Union of Postal Workers’strike of the mid-70s that won the firstmaternity leave benefits for workingwomen.

Nor do we get any details of the Fleckstrike of the later 70s when mass mobiliza-tions of women’s organizations along withsolidarity actions from rank-and-fileautoworkers won a victory for womenworking in the autoparts industry. In earlymorning mobilizations, thousands ofwomen movement and trade unionistactivists, many bussed in from afar, linkedarms to close down Fleck until theemployer was forced to negotiate. A coupleof first-hand accounts would have givenreaders a flavour of the optimism aboutgrass-roots power and potential for a betterworld that infused the women’s move-ment—and all the radical movements—especially in the 1970s and early 1980s.

We do get the important story of howkey women activists pulled together abroad-based coalition to organize the first

wildly successful International Women’sDay (IWD) march in Toronto in 1978. Butwe don’t hear the incredible story of theInco miners’ wives who led the march. This

group of womenwent through remarkable personal andpolitical transformations as a result of thesupport work they did during the 9-month-long strike by Sudbury miners inUnited Steelworkers Local 6500.

Politically inexperienced housewivesbecame militant feminists in the course oftheir work building support for the strike.They went from raising money locally andhosting pot-luck suppers in the early weeksto taking over picketing in the face ofinjunctions against the strikers and travel-ling across the country, speaking publiclyand building solidarity as the strikedragged on. In the end, the strike ended ina victory for the Steelworkers, with nosmall credit due to the women.

Despite these criticism, Ten ThousandRoses is a valuable resource. Rebick hasdone a good job of including voices fromacross the country and across a wide rangeof issues. By dividing the book by decadeand devoting individual chapters to partic-ular issues, the book is a handy reference.And although it leaves many questionsunanswered—perhaps most importantly,the question of how feminists today cancontinue the struggle—it celebrates themany victories of a generation of womenactivists and documents the rich tapestry ofsecond wave feminism in Canada. ★

MAIN BRANCHES OF FEMINISM: A THUMBNAIL SKETCH

LIBERAL FEMINISTS. Those who work for change within the existing system. Liberal femi-

nists are fighting for equality with men under capitalism — for better representation of

women in parliament, for more women in key leadership roles in society, for equal pay,

equal access to jobs, equality under the law, etc. Liberal feminists tend to concentrate on

legal and parliamentary change and generally favour lobbying over mobilization. Their

struggle is for women’s rights.

RADICAL FEMINISTS. Those who see the main division in society as that between women

and men and the main problem as being the patriarchal system which gives men power

over women. Radical feminists tend to favour women-only mobilizing as they see men

as the enemy. Many radical feminists were active in the anti-pornography movement and

in issues around violence against women. Most radical feminists envisioned their strug-

gle as one for full liberation for women.

SOCIALIST FEMINISTS. Those who are fighting for a revolutionary transformation of society

and who see the problem as some combination of patriarchy or male power and capi-

talism. Socialist feminists favour grass-roots organizing, mass mobilization and the build-

ing of solidarity between feminists and other oppressed and exploited sectors of society,

including organized workers. The ultimate goal of socialist feminists goes beyond

women’s rights to women’s liberation, and ultimately, human liberation.

Inco wives played

a leading role in

the victory of the

miners’

Steelworkers Local

6500 in the late

1970s: as a

socialist feminist,

it is surprising that

Rebick has not

given us more on

this and other

grass-roots

initiatives.PHO

TO: S

TEEL

WO

RK

ERS

WEB

SITE

38

THE PROPHET ARMED: TROTSKY,1879-1921, 497 PP

THE PROPHET UNARMED:TROTSKY, 1921-1929, 444 PP

THE PROPHET OUTCAST:TROTSKY, 1929-1940, 512 PP

BY ISAAC DEUTSCHER

PUBLISHED BY VERSO

REVIEWED BY DALE SHIN

On any reckoning, Leon Trotsky hasstrong claims to be considered thegreatest revolutionary of the previ-

ous century. Early critic and later comrade-in-arms of V. I. Lenin, whose BolshevikParty in October 1917 spearheadedhistory’s first socialist revolution; founderof the Red Army that won the ensuing civilwar; courageous witness to the subsequentdegeneration of that revolution into apolice raid, under the heel of Joseph Stalin,the despot who succeeded Lenin as leaderof the Bolsheviks, and whose name becamesynonymous with the totalitarian rule heexercised—here is the profile of one of theoutstanding Marxists of his generation, ofwhom the Polish socialist-historian IsaacDeutscher, in his authoritative biography ofTrotsky, wrote that he was “made for revo-lution.”

Originally published under the shadowof the Cold War, Deutscher’s classic workhelped to reacquaint readers on both sidesof the Atlantic with its subject’s prolific lifeand influence, at a time when “Trotskyism”was a popular term of ridicule in left-wingcircles—in the main due to the maliciousslanders propagated by Moscow’s paidintellectual publicists, as well as the pettysectarian feuding and obsessive hairsplit-ting amongst Trotsky’s self-styled adher-ents. Deutscher’s monumental study, witheach volume chronicling a different chapterof Trotsky’s saga—from his role in the

BOOK REVIEW

Made for revolution

Dale Shin is an occasional contributor toNew Socialist magazine. Some of his bestfriends are Trotskyists.

October uprising and civil war, through hisleadership of the ill-starred Left Oppositionto Stalin, to his exile from the USSR andeventual assassination at the hands of aSoviet agent—sought to redeem his rich (ifuneven) legacy; but also to recall the demo-cratic ideals that had animated the RussianRevolution in its early years, before theStalinist counter-revolution buried them,along with the women and men whofought against their perversion. More thana decade after the collapse of“Communism,” Verso has reissuedDeutscher’s magisterial trilogy so as toremove anew the amnesia, and anathema,that continue to surround Leon Trotskyand the revolution he was made for.

THIRD EYE OPEN

Deutscher borrowed the title of his workfrom Nicolo Machiavelli’s The Prince,where, in a passage reproduced as anepigraph to The Prophet Armed,Machiavelli notoriously argues that “allarmed prophets have conquered, and theunarmed ones have been destroyed.” By“prophet,” the Italian philosopher meantan innovator possessed of visionary imagi-nation and ambition, not an actual clair-voyant. The dual sense of the term,however, suits the Russian revolutionary,who was equipped with “a sixth sense, as itwere, an intuitive sense of history, whichsingled him out among the politicalthinkers of his generation, sometimesexposed him almost to derision, but moreoften found triumphant, if delayed, vindi-cation.” Thus, while most Marxists before1917 believed that the impending RussianRevolution would overthrow the then-

ruling monarchy and install a representa-tive democracy, thereby launching thedevelopment of liberal capitalism inRussia—which in turn would set the scenefor a socialist epilogue to this ‘bourgeois’revolution, albeit at an unspecifiable futuredate—Trotsky acutely foresaw that thecoming upheaval would not exhaust itselfwith these limited goals, but would culmi-nate in gyrations aiming at the immediateabolition of class rule, helmed by the rela-tively small, but disproportionately power-ful, urban working class.

Trotsky’s audacious prognosis of “perma-nent revolution” was to be eminently borneout by the events of 1917. His previsionwas not without its limits, however.Flushed with optimism, he predicted thatthe Russian Revolution would inciteconcurrent working-class insurgenciesacross the continent, without whose aid itwould not be able to prolong itself. It neverentered Trotsky’s mind that Soviet Russiawould be abandoned to its own meagerresources by the inertia of the Europeanlabour movement. And yet, if he could notvisualize this possibility, he did unwittinglysummarize beforehand the usurpatorylogic that was to inform the ideology andpractice of the post-revolutionary state soisolated: “the party organization at firstsubstitutes for the party as a whole; thenthe Central Committee substitutes itselffor the organization; and finally a single‘dictator’ substitutes himself for theCentral Committee.”

As The Prophet Unarmed shows, thisschema of “substitutionism,” first silhouet-ted in 1904, essentially characterized theevolution of Bolshevism in government.Threatened with foreign invasion, left tofend for themselves by the Western prole-tariat, and drawn into a bloody civil war,the Bolsheviks promoted a self-destructivesiege mentality; they closed ranks withinthe party, banning organized factions, andthrottled dissent outside it, outlawing alloppositional groups. These were measureswhich Trotsky, to his discredit, enthusiasti-cally supported, and whose perniciousprecedents would later be invoked by

39

Stalin to crush resistance to his growingmonopoly of power—in the front rank,Trotsky himself. By a grotesque historicalirony, Trotsky’s arch-nemesis “struck himdown with his own weapons”; and in1929, he was banished from the republicand branded a traitor. Even in exile,however, Trotsky’s restless speculative mindwould not lay fallow: among other things,he forecast the rise of Hitler, warning thatthe short-sighted tactics imposed by Stalinand others upon German labour in thefight against Nazism were clearing a pathfor the Third Reich.

HOW STALIN GOT HIS GROOVE BACK

The exoneration, then, of a revolution-ary martyr who deserved a better fate thanto have his exemplary record of socialistinternationalism effaced by the calumniesheaped upon it by his adversaries. But alsoan exculpation of the autocrat chieflyresponsible for his downfall: these wereDeutscher’s mutually canceling accom-plishments. For it is one of the principalaims of The Prophet Armed and its sequelsto trace “the thread of unconscious historiccontinuity” that led from Lenin andTrotsky’s shamefacedly repressive policiesof the early 1920s to the atrocities perpe-trated thereafter by Stalin’s homicidalregime. Deutscher could thus argue thatStalinism, so far from an aberration in thecourse of the revolution, represented itsconsummation, whose most important“practical achievement,” that is, a national-ized economy based on state control ofindustry and trade—for Deutscher as forTrotsky, the saving grace of the Soviet“workers’ state,” however “degenerated”otherwise—could not have been securedwithout resort to despotic means.

Such is the thrust of the Machiavellianflourish Deutscher mines for hiscommanding metaphor: after the civil war,when the Russian people, fatigued by theravages of the preceding years, lost theirardour for the revolutionary cause, andwhen even some Bolsheviks, aghast at thecreeping authoritarianism of the upstartstate bureaucracy, were expressing belatedmisgivings about the direction they wereheaded in—Trotsky included—a new,tougher-minded, “prophet” was needed inorder to shepherd and, when necessary,strong-arm the demoralized masses anddivided party to their common destiny.Enter Stalin, whose lasting virtue was tohave overseen, beginning in 1928, the

forcible collectivization of agriculture andmodernization of industry, in spite of themassive toll in human suffering and loss oflife these incurred—to which should beadded the scores of political opponents hehad executed or imprisoned.

To be sure, this “second revolution”(which was reproduced in the EastEuropean countries annexed to the USSRafter WWII) strayed considerably from themodel of working-class self-emancipationtraditionally conceived by Marxists as theonly viable road to socialism; it was, rather,a continuation of that “substitutionism”that had yielded Stalin’s dictatorship in thefirst place. But those, Deutscherconcluded, were the world-historicalbreaks. Not a revolution “from below,” butone “from above and from outside” hadbeen the order of the day, relegating the

“undiluted classical Marxism” upheld byTrotsky to a political anachronism; thefutility of which was exemplified by hisfinal years as The Prophet Outcast—yearsspent collecting cacti, raising rabbits, andrefereeing the internecine disputes amonghis ever-fractious followers. Anotherparadox, however: for the very materialprogress over which Stalin had presidedwas now—in the 1960s— “disrupting and

eroding Stalinism from the inside,” as thebureaucracy itself began to press for thedemocratic reform of Soviet society. Fromabove, outside, and inside: history,evidently, could be made from anywherebut below. The historian, alas, lacked notonly his subject’s unswerving commitmentto “undiluted Marxism,” but also his orac-ular powers; “de-Stalinization” proved lessthe heroic prologue to a “return of classicalMarxism” than a farcical prelude to thedissolution of “actually existing socialism.”

UNFULFILLED PROPHECIES

The Prophet trilogy has been widelyhailed as one of the greatest modern biog-raphies, and it is not difficult to see why. Itsprotagonist, as is well-known, was himself anotably gifted writer. Peerless among hiscontemporaries, Trotsky’s literary prowesswas matched by that of his biographer.Deutscher’s sinuous prose, demonstratingmastery of a language that was remarkablynot his native tongue, conscripts his readerinto the hothouse world of Russian revolu-tionary politics: one athwart with epicpopular struggles, acrimonious intellectualdebates, and sanguinary factional intrigues,and enlivened by a pervasive sense that anepoch was here being defined.

But it is Trotsky’s indomitable revolu-tionary spirit, the sheer constancy of hisconvictions amid so many personal betray-als, disappointments, and humiliations,that impart the most durable impression ofthat world. Never before had the entiremachinery of a state—political, ideological,military—been deployed to destroy a singleindividual. Yet, for all the persecutionsTrotsky faced, “there was no penance inhim to the end.” Understandably bent (heeven contemplated suicide, hoping toexchange his life for those of his children—all of whom died before him), his willremained fundamentally unbroken. Ayoung Trotsky had pronounced “a curse...upon all those who want to bring drynessand hardness into all the relations of life”;and the seer was to persevere in his opposi-tion to the established powers of his age—fascism, Stalinism, capitalism—up untilthe day an assassin struck him fatally in thehead. The prophet’s curse revenged itselfagainst the first two members of that TripleAlliance; it has yet to descend upon thethird, which continues to bring drynessand hardness into all our lives. But then,Trotsky only proposed the end of classsociety—he left it for us to dispose of it. ★

Trotsky: politics was his passion but hisinterest extended to all aspects of life.

40

Marx and Engels once wrote capi-talism produces its owngravediggers. What they meant

is capitalism creates the working class,whose poverty and experiences of dehu-manization leads them to organize collec-tively to overthrow the very system thatbegets their destitution. The Assassination ofRichard Nixon offers us the grim lesson thatcapitalism not only produces its owngravediggers: it also produces its ownpsychopaths, people who rebel against itnot by joining a class struggle to transformsociety, but by killing themselves and inno-cent working people.

The Assassination of Richard Nixon(2004) is set against the backdrop of theWatergate scandal and is based on the truestory of Samuel Bicke’s (his real surname isBycke) failed attempt in 1974 to hijack apassenger airplane and crash it into theWhite House. Most of the film focuses onBicke’s life the year preceding his assassina-tion attempt, and explores how an ordinaryman could be driven to commit massmurder.

AMERICAN NIGHTMARE

Bicke’s story is all too ordinary. He is awhite working man who desperately wantsto live the American dream: to open hisown small business with his best friend, ablack mechanic; to fulfill his role as familybreadwinner and thereby reunite with hiskids and ex-wife; and to drive a Cadillac,the classic symbol of the American dream.Yet, he is turned down for the loan heneeds to start his business; his ex-wife has

lost interest in him and is instead dating aman who really does own a Cadillac. And,last but not least, he is stuck in a job hehates.

The film portrays the tragic life of a manwho knows he has failed to live up to hisown standard of manhood, but who mustnevertheless sell himself as a successfulman. Bicke works at a family-owned officefurniture store that only hires married men.To keep his job and win the recognition ofhis boss, he must pretend he’s married.And, to win back his wife, he must demon-strate to her that he’s a successful salesman.Trapped in this vicious circle, Bicke isforced to live a life of lies and deceit that hefinds morally reprehensible.

As a salesman Bicke must exude a confi-dence and assertiveness he lacks. His work-place, like countless others under capital-ism, is structured to produce feelings ofinsecurity and alienation. Bicke’s boss triesto teach him how to be a successful sales-man, but does so by playing on Bicke’sinsecurities. Not only must Bicke competewith co-workers for recognition, his bossalso intimidates him into lying to andmanipulating others. The greater the boss’sefforts, the more Bicke loses confidence,and the poorer a salesman he becomes.Bicke ends up despising his boss, his joband himself. He realizes that to be success-ful he must degrade himself and hiscustomers by deceiving them, and subordi-nate himself to his boss and the rules of hisworkplace. His success could only come atthe price of his emasculation.

Bicke’s hatred for his boss and job gets

attached to the image of Richard Nixon,who his boss identifies as the “greatestsalesman of all.” While the Watergatescandal isn’t explicitly depicted in the film,almost every scene contains a televisionthat is tuned into the inquiry. Audiencesand characters are constantly subjected toNixon’s endless speeches in which heblames the social and economic crisis of theearly 1970s on the failure of individuals tobelieve strongly enough in the Americandream. Throughout the film, Nixon’s voiceeerily blends with the voice on the self-helptape Bicke’s boss gives him to improve hissales technique. The two messages are iden-tical: anyone can become successful simplyby believing in the reality one wishesexisted. In other words, the Americandream can be yours if you want it badlyenough.

Bicke’s inability to piece together arespectable life for himself and his familygives the lie to the American dream,showing it to be the illusion that manyworking women and people of colouralways knew it to be. While it may havebeen realizable for the white men of anearlier generation, who reaped many of thebenefits of what is now commonly referredto as the post-WWII “boom,” after therecession and oil shocks of 1973, that

Neil Braganza and Karen Ruddy are members of CUPE 3903 at York University. Neil is also amember of the New Socialist Group. This review is the product of a post-film discussionbetween the authors and Clarice Kuhling and Alex Levant.

THE ASSASSINATION OF RICHARD NIXON

DIRECTED BY NIELS MUELLER

STARRING SEAN PENN WITH DON CHEADLE, JACK THOMPSON AND NAOMI WATTS

REVIEWED BY NEIL BRAGANZA AND KAREN RUDDY

American dreams and nightmaresFILM REVIEW

41

economic security began to disappear.Bicke is part of that group of whiteAmerican men who in the 1970s saw theAmerican dream—and its promise of pros-perity and happiness for anyone who ishonest and hard-working—crumble beforetheir very eyes.

The film captures the ambivalence ofBicke’s situation.

On the one hand, as a white man, heenjoys the privileges of post-war capitalism,and still believes deeply in the Americandream. He continues to think he canescape insecurity and exploitation withoutescaping capitalism. For instance, whenBicke applies for a loan, he tries to sell theloans officer a vision of a new way to dobusiness in America. Rather than manipu-late his customers, he pledges, he will beupfront with them about how much profithe is making from his sales. But, as theloans officer cynically points out, beinghonest about how much profit you’remaking doesn’t change the fact that you’remaking a profit. This scene reveals theabsurdity of seeing capitalism as simply amoral problem that could be solved if busi-ness owners were only more honest withtheir workers and customers.

On the other hand, Bicke’s hatred for asociety that continuously degrades people

and feeds on their insecurity by offeringthem an unrealizable dream, and his ownsense of alienation and disenchantment atwork, leads him to identify with theoppressive experiences of women andpeople of colour. Bicke desperately searchesfor ways to organize with others to addresssystemic exploitation and oppression. Yet,his lack of knowledge of the history ofstruggles against racism and sexism leadshim to be patronizing towards those hewishes to convert to his cause. In one scene,he tries to convince the Black Panthers tochange their name to the “Zebras” so theirmovement can better reflect what he sees asthe common struggles of whites and blacks.In his personal life, Bicke’s ex-wife and hisbest friend resent being told that they arebeing duped by an oppressive system whenthey have to put up with sexism and racismat work everyday in order to make a living.

Bicke is enraged by the dehumanizationhe sees around him, and this rage couldhave served as a basis for his politicization.But in the absence of any mass radicalmovement that could provide him with asense of collective struggle and an outlet forhis frustration and despair, he ends upturning his anger inward until he can nolonger psychically cope with the reality thathe will never live the American dream.

In the final month of his life, Bicke isalone and depressed. He decides that theonly way to right the wrongs of his situa-tion is to assassinate Nixon. He feels someremorse that his assassination attempt willinvolve taking the lives of innocent people,but he convinces himself that he will beredeeming all of humankind. On the tapehe sends to his favorite composer, LeonardBernstein, which outlines his plans, Bickedescribes himself as a grain of sand lost ona huge beach—a grain that will shed itsanonymity by rising up and changing theworld. Indeed, by killing Nixon, Bickebelieves he could finally realize the dreamthat it is possible for individuals to trans-form their situations by virtue of theirsheer willpower. He will push this impos-sible dream to its logical conclusion bybecoming the one individual to rise aboveall others in the name of ending manipu-lation and corruption.

In the end, Bicke’s assassination attemptfails miserably. After he kills one pilot,shoots a number of passengers, and holdsone airline worker hostage, he takes hisown life. It would be easy to feel sorry forBicke, since his plight as a working man isso similar to that of many people undercapitalism. It would also be easy to roman-ticize him as a hero who, despite his fail-ures, wants to destroy one of the keysymbols of American capitalism: theWhite House. But the fact that Bickeunderstood his actions to be those of theindividual hero so celebrated by Nixon’sAmerican dream should give us pause. ★

In the absence of any mass radical movement that

could provide him with a sense of collective

struggle and an outlet for his frustration and

despair, he ends up turning his anger inward until

he can no longer psychically cope with the reality

that he will never live the American dream.

Capitalism

not only

produces its

own

gravediggers:

it also

produces its

own

psychopaths.

42

OBITUARY: TORVALD (TOM) PATTERSON (1964-2005)

The following is an excerpt from PETER DRUCKER’s obituary forTorvald Patterson, who joined the New Socialist Group shortly afterit was founded in 1996.

To read other obituaries and memories of Torvald from far and wide,please visit www.newsocialist.org/torvald

‘All the dreams we had, I will carry on.’

Peter Drucker is a socialist in the Netherlands. The title of this article is from “For a Friend,” by Jimmy Somerville, a song Torvald loved.

Torvald had long and close ties tothe Fourth International’s school,which he and I attended for the

first time in the fall of 1987. The schoolwas a place not just to learn facts or theo-ries (though Torvald was great at absorbingfacts and theories) but also to reexamineour politics and understanding of theworld in a critical-minded way. Torvaldand I loved it.

Torvald has been one of the fewcomrades from English Canada we’ve hadat the school in the past 15 years. He cameseveral times as an interpreter—a giftedand enthusiastic one. His love forlanguages, including sign language, was an_expression of his strong desire to commu-nicate across boundaries. He was willing towork at it too, despite being paralyzed bybouts of depression, which got in the wayof formal education or training. He wasnever just an interpreter of course; in thecorridors and late at night he was often inthe thick of political discussions. Hedevoted himself to participants’ practicaleducation as well—if there were any cuteguys among them, Torvald was not theman to leave their sexuality untested.

Torvald participated (both as an inter-preter and speaker from the floor) in theFI’s most recent World Congress in 2003,where a long resolution on lesbian/gayliberation was adopted. It was always astruggle for him to get money together to

pay for his trips. He rarely had a steady job,and at the end was surviving on the laugh-able income that an “advanced” capitaliststate considers appropriate for someonewith a disability. These difficultiesprevented him from attending the firstLGBT Strategy Seminar in 1998. However,he helped with the follow-up to the 2000and 2002 seminars, particularly by manag-ing a couple of queer left email lists. He’llbe missed on the net as well as in person;that was another way he helped peoplecommunicate across boundaries.

Queer politics was Torvald’s first andforemost political love. The Vancouverbranch of Socialist Challenge, as I met itthrough Torvald in the late 1980s, was theonly branch of the FI I know of anywherein the world ever to be made up of a major-ity of gay men, organically connected toand playing a leading role in a local gaycommunity. Though I never lived inVancouver, I felt at home with thosecomrades in a way that it’s hard for alesbian/gay person to feel fully at home inmost Marxist organizations.

I always admired Torvald for intransi-gently sticking to the ideals of gay libera-tion in his own life. In hindsight I thinkthat in the first years I knew him, when Iwas head-over-heels in love with him, Iidealized his sex life too much. He gave alot of sweetness and love to his sexual part-ners, and thanks to him I got glimpses inthese last years of the warmth and affection

that exists in the leather community, whichis not something an outsider necessarilyexpects. But besides the difficulties in hisrelationships that his depression caused,there were forms of alienation there char-acteristic of the surrounding capitalistsociety. Torvald never became middle-aged;I can’t imagine he would have, not at heart,however long he lived. The example of hislife has helped me keep on trying to sustaina queer revolutionary socialist feministpolitics against the odds. I hope hismemory will help sustain me in the future.

Part of why Torvald will be so badlymissed is he was always happy to explain indetail the realities of Canadian society tocomrades from other countries—and thereare a lot of complicated details in theMarxist analysis of this medium-sizedimperialist country of yours, especially forforeigners, who don’t pay all that muchattention to it—but also to explain what itmeans being queer, or living with depres-sion, or living with HIV/AIDS, or beinginto S/M, or working in the sex trade. Evenrevolutionary socialists were not alwayshappy or comfortable with what Torvaldhad to say, not that he ever claimed to havethe last word on anything. All the morereason for us to keep the discussions goingand keep pushing back the frontiers of oursexual politics, even now that he’s gone.★

STEPHEN

PEAR

CE

43

THE NEW SOCIALIST GROUP is an organization ofactivists working to renew socialism from below aspart of today’s struggles. Our socialism isrevolutionary and democratic, committed toworking-class self-emancipation, internationalismand opposition to all forms of oppression. Wereject bureaucratic and authoritarian notions ofsocialism and look instead to the radical traditionof socialism from below, which believes thatliberation can only be achieved through theactivity and mobilization of the oppressedthemselves. Ideas need to be put into action. So ifyou like what you read, get in touch with us.

Branches and members of the New Socialist Group are active in a number of cities. Call for information about our activities.

VANCOUVER Box 4955, Vancouver, V6B 4A6 nsgvan@resist.ca

HAMILTON vandeir@mcmaster.ca (Ingrid)

EDMONTON (780) 451-3103, or email: wr@ualberta.ca

KINGSTON (613) 542-8462 (Contact Toby), or email: newsoc@sympatico.ca

TORONTO (416) 955-1581 newsoc@web.net

WINNIPEG (204) 775-0265nsgwpg@yahoo.ca

FOR ALL OTHER AREAS newsoc@web.net

(416) 955-1581Box 167 253 College St Toronto Ontario M5T 1R5www.newsocialist.org

The NSG works with the Québec organization GAUCHE SOCIALISTE

MONTREAL montreal@lagauche.comQUÉBEC CITY quebec@lagauche.comand the OUTAOUAIS hull@lagauche.com

GAUCHE SOCIALISTECP 52131, Succ, St-Fidele, Québec, G1L 5A4 www.lagauche.com

TIME TO ORGANIZEThe situation inBolivia remainsvolatile. SeeJeffrey Webber’sarticle on page8, and watchfor his frequentupdates atnewsocialist.org

U.S. Friendly Fire Kills 8 Iraqisfriends like these whoneed enemies

can’t tell the enemies fromthe friends hereall look the same, speak the same language (whatever it is)Hands UP! You’ve seen the movieDon’t pretend you don’tspeak English

I’m talkin’ to you, LOUDthe universal tonguewhat part of m-i-c-k-e-y m-o-u-s-edon’t you understand?I SAID(Captain, we’ve got a situation here)

friendly fireStop! In the name of lovebefore we break youerror isterroristsand the remnants of the old regime

U.S. soldiers opened fireon uniformed Iraqi policemen chasing

you assessed old oil wars opted fora new one a formidable attack politics meant chasingHussein againsins of the father who pulled out too soonconsummate the actoccupy Iraq

it burns burns burnsthat friendly firethe name of every Iraqi who diesburnt into the memory

slow burnblow backno truthstorm troopsdesert stormfire storm

lots of firebut no smoking gunyou gotta believe in the weapons of mass destructionstill got the receiptfiled underold friends, old friends sat in their dark trench like dead ends

thanks for the memoriesreverberations through generationsrubble troublewe came we sawwe contracted outBechtel WorldCom Haliburton Creative Associates

with friends like thesewho needs

Friendly Fireby Alan Sears