Vol. 16, No. 8
VOICE OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST PARTY OF THE USA
25ยข August 1, 1986
[Front page:
Solidarity tour to Nicaragua declares: We say no to the U.S. imperialist war! We stand with the Nicaraguan workers and peasants;
Reagan: Public Relations Man for Racist S. Africa;
Detroit city workers' strike: Part of a new spirit of struggle]
IN THIS ISSUE
| Strikes and Work Place News |
|
| USX steel workers strike; LTV strike; Ford strike near Atlanta; Telephone contracts........................................................................... | 2 |
| Philly city workers............................................................................. | 3 |
| Oakland transit................................................................................... | 5 |
|
|
|
| City strikes' lessons for black liberation............................................ | 4 |
| Reformists whitewash strikebreaking by black bourgeoisie.............. | 4 |
| Vigilante gang seizes undocumented immigrants.............................. | 5 |
| 1,000 protest border patrol................................................................. | 5 |
|
|
|
| Song: war maker blues....................................................................... | 6 |
| July 19 protests of Reagan's war on Nicaragua................................. | 6 |
| Contras use land mines against the people......................................... | 7 |
| What's going on in Nicaragua............................................................ | 7 |
| Poem dedicated to Nicaraguan Marxist-Leninists.............................. | 7 |
| International Youth Camp in Nicaragua............................................. | 11 |
|
|
|
| Death to Apartheid in South Africa! |
|
| Reagan's July 22 speech..................................................................... | 11 |
| Workers' struggles; rent strikes; students........................................... | 12 |
| Tutu meets Botha; Reagan expands trade; U.S. spies for S. Africa; Reagan's carrot and stick for the African National Congress............. | 13 |
| Senate debate on sanctions................................................................. | 14 |
|
|
|
| Mexico: VW workers strike............................................................... | 15 |
| Strikes across Latin America.............................................................. | 15 |
| Chile: Reagan's "new policy"............................................................ | 15 |
| Two-day general strike....................................................................... | 16 |
| Liberals and revisionists for Pinochetism Without Pinochet............. | 16 |
|
|
|
| REPORTS ON MLP SOLIDARITY TOUR TO NICARAGUA....... | 8 to 10 |
Solidarity tour to Nicaragua declares:
We say no to the U.S. imperialist war! We stand with the Nicaraguan workers and peasants
Detroit city workers' strike: Part of a new spirit of struggle
Strikes and workplace news
Vigilante gang seizes undocumented immigrants
1,000 people protest racist border patrol
July 19th protests against Reagan's dirty war on Nicaragua
When a slave stands up, all slavemasters tremble
Another atrocity from Reagan's brothers:
What's really going on in Nicaragua?
Lay down your track like you want the train to roll
An encounter with a Sandinista youth
MLP solidarity tour:
'Nicaraguan workers, you are not alone!'
Dialogue with workers in Chinandega
International youth camp held in Managua
Death to Apartheid in South Africa!
Reagan's ''new policy" on Chile:
Support for Pinochet but contingency plans for his downfall
Volkswagen workers strike in Mexico
Reagan and Mr. 'Human Rights' join hands against Zimbabwe
Workers' strikes across Latin America
Liberals and revisionists want Pinochetism without Pinochet
In July, our Party sent a delegation of workers and activists to Nicaragua at the invitation of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Nicaragua. Preliminary reports from Nicaragua say that the tour has been a big success.
Coming in the aftermath of Reagan and the Democrats joining together to step up supplies to the contras, the, solidarity tour was a demonstration that America is not the land of the billionaire warmongers alone. The tour brought to the Nicaraguan toilers the sympathy and support of workers and young people in the U.S. for their valiant struggle.
See pages 8-10 for reports from the tour. On pages 6, 7 and 10 we also carry articles on July 19 protests in the U.S. against U.S. imperialism's dirty war and on the situation in Nicaragua.
[Photo: From the solidarity tour -- MLP,USA contingent in a march in Leon, Nicaragua, July 23. This is an annual march which commemorates youth killed by Somoza.]
As we go to press it appears that the Detroit city workers' strike has ended. After 19 days of determined struggle, it seems that Coleman Young and the AFSCME union leaders have saddled the workers with a contract only slightly better than the one the workers overwhelmingly rejected a week ago.
But the significance of the strike goes beyond the economic gains and losses of this particular contract.
The strike gave a major blow to the prestige of Coleman Young, the black Democratic mayor of Detroit who has been stifling the mass struggles in the city for over a decade. While giving himself a 44% raise, Young demanded concessions from the workers. He got court orders banning picketing at certain locations. He sent out his police to harass the strikers and to arrest dozens of picketers who defied his court orders. He fired or suspended over 35 workers for their strike activity. He earned the bitter hatred of the mostly black work force. Where Young has long postured as the "street fighter for the people," he is now being seen as a little dictator. Strike placards denounce him. Petitions are being circulated for his impeachment. Workers now call him "Baby Doc Young." Similarly, the strike undermined faith in the union bureaucracy. The leadership of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) tried to order the workers back to their jobs a week ago, before the first tentative contract was voted on. But the workers defied them, stayed on strike, and rejected the contract by a three-to-one margin. At the latest vote, the yard outside the union hall was filled with angry denunciations of the new contract and calls to expel the AFSCME leaders. The union hacks were able to control the ballot boxes to narrowly pass the contract, but they have not been able to win back the support of the rank and file. As they announced their tally, the rank and file shouted them down with boos and cries of "fraud" and "sellout."
The strike also showed the potential power of the solidarity of the workers in mass struggle. Seven thousand city workers who belonged to AFSCME went on strike. But 5,000 other city workers, including the bus drivers and sanitation workers, stayed out in support. On two occasions the Teamster union hacks ordered the sanitation workers across the picket lines. But the teamster rank and file refused and many joined the picket lines to stop anyone from crossing. Thus for 19 days the buses, serving 200,000 riders daily, didn't run. Some five million pounds of garbage piled up each day. All city services were either completely shutdown or severely restricted. And Coleman Young had to give the workers some raises that he had arrogantly claimed he would never give in the beginning.
In the end, the strike was stopped before all the workers' demands were won. But, nonetheless, it has helped to inspire and build up the movement against concessions.
A new spirit of struggle is arising among the workers all across the country. Although the strikes are still sporadic and scattered, each one, whether won or lost, seems to encourage other workers to take similar actions. A hard fight is ahead. But it is a fight that can be won if the workers organize themselves independently of the union bureaucrats, if they rid themselves of illusions in the politicians of the rich, Democrat and Republican alike, and if they link arms in solidarity and stand together as a class.
[Photo: Solidarity: Detroit city worker (left) thanks city bus driver for his support.]
[Photo: Pickets outside USX plant in Gary, Indiana.]
On August 1, twenty-two thousand steel workers went on strike against USX (formerly named U.S. Steel) shutting down 16 plants in 9 states.
USX has been itching for a fight. Although USX is the number one American steel maker and pulled in $409 million in profits in 1985 and $493 million in 1984, it claims to be losing money at its steel mills and is demanding outrageous concessions. Their latest proposal called for a $3.27 cut in wages and benefits (including a $1.50 cut in the hourly base rate), more freedom to contract out work to low-wage, non-union companies, massive job combinations, and other takebacks. This proposal is actually worse than a proposal they gave earlier. When the United Steel Workers (USW) hacks offered to extend the present contract to continue bargaining, the USX executives refused and began shutting down their mills.
Meanwhile, the rank-and-file steel workers are fed up with the steel giant's highhanded attacks. They emphasize that they've given USX concessions before only to see the monopoly close down more mills and eliminate more jobs. Even though USX is threatening to eliminate some of its older mills if the strike continues for some time, the workers say they are preparing to strike as long as it takes to bring the monopoly down a peg.
This is the first strike at USX since the famous 116 day strike in 1959. But that was an industry-wide strike. This year, the USW bureaucrats have weakened the workers' struggle by allowing separate bargaining at each of the big steel companies. And more, through voting fraud and other maneuvers the hacks have already forced concessions contracts down the throats of the steel workers at four of the biggest steel companies. It's these concessions that have whetted USX's appetite. The USX workers have a hard fight in front of them.
[Photo: Strikers at LTV steel plant in East Chicago confront police.]
Four thousand, four hundred steel workers went on strike July 25 at LTV's Indiana Harbor works in East Chicago. The strike was against LTV's cancellation of health and life insurance coverage for 76,000 retirees. The steel monopoly took the action July 17 when it filed for bankruptcy.
The strike began when workers at the mill honored the picket lines set up by retirees. Six retirees were arrested for blocking traffic that was entering the gates. The next day a retiree and a worker from the mill were knocked unconscious as a supervisor drove his car through the picket line.
Quickly the struggle began to spread. On July 28th, 300 retirees also put up picket lines at LTV's East Side plant in Chicago. On July 30, the 7000 workers at the Cleveland mill and 500 workers at the Hennepin, Illinois operation began shutting down their mills. And workers at the East Side plant in Chicago began preparing to strike.
The spreading strike scared the pants off the capitalists. Expecting a strike to begin August 1 against USX, major steel users had made deals with LTV to supply them steel. But the LTV strike threatened to close down LTV's mills as well. With both the number one and number two American steel makers shut down, the auto and appliance industries would have quickly been disrupted.
In a panic to end the strike, legislation was rushed through the Senate ordering LTV to restore the cut benefits for six months. Meanwhile, a U.S. bankruptcy judge agreed to allow LTV to restore the retirees' health and life insurance for the next six months if the USW A hacks agreed to end the strike. Thus on July 31 the strike ended, at least temporarily saving the retirees' health benefits.
It's important to note here how shaky the monopolies got when the two biggest steel makers were in danger of being shut down by strikes. Imagine the trembling if the steel workers shut down the mills industry wide. This is exactly what is needed to wage an effective fight against the mammoth concessions drive of the steel monopolies.
The tally of the workers' vote on the proposed concessions contract with AT&T is supposed to be announced in a few days. But indications are that the workers are dead set against it. When our Party distributed leaflets denouncing the contract in New York, the workers not only excitedly took them and spread them around, they also posted them on bulletin boards. Reports from other cities indicate similar mass disgust with the contract.
Even the hacks from the Communications Workers of America (CWA) are being forced to posture. At a meeting held in Chicago, local CWA bureaucrats from around the country voted to recommend that the workers reject this contract. At the same time, they passed a resolution against resuming the strike. The CWA hacks are once again about the business of splitting up the telephone workers. Six weeks ago they worked to keep the 308,000 regional telephone workers on the job while the 150,000 AT&T workers struck. Now they want to pull the same thing in reverse, keeping the AT&T workers on the job while the regional workers fight.
On August 9 the contracts for the regional telephone companies expire. These companies are declaring that the proposed AT&T concessions contract is the most they will offer. The regional telephone workers are preparing to take action against the companies' concessions demands. Below we reprint excerpts from a July 20 leaflet of the New York Branch of the MLP which is working to unite the regional telephone workers in New York with the AT&T workers.
In a few short weeks the NYNEX contract will expire. NYNEX workers and the workers of the other regional phone companies are preparing for their August 9 deadline at the same time as AT&T workers are voting on a tentative contract chock full of givebacks. What can the NYNEX workers learn from this contract and the 26-day strike that preceded it?
After a nearly four-week strike, the 150,000 AT&T workers were forced back to their jobs by the leaders of the Communications Workers of America. The tentative contract, which is to be voted on by the end of this month, is a dirty concessions contract which not only hurts the AT&T workers, but also sets a precedent of takebacks for the 308,000 workers at the regional telephone companies.
This outrageous sellout did not just come out of nowhere. It is the logical result of the same thinking that led CWA President Bahr to voluntarily change the AT&T contract date. It is the bitter fruit of the CWA's policy of labor- management cooperation. According to Bahr, the most important thing for job security is keeping AT&T competitive. Therefore the union must cooperate with management to guarantee AT&T's fat profits. But what does it mean for the union to talk cooperation with management when all the while management is on the warpath against the workers? Sellouts like this is what it means.
Due to mass outrage over the sellout, Dempsey and the 1101 leadership called for a rejection of the AT&T contract. But they have insured that a "No" vote will not mean a continuation of the strike. Instead, the 1101 leadership has called for a return to the bargaining table and a boycott of AT&T.
This maneuver by the local leadership would again prevent united action by the telephone workers. Just as the split-up of the AT&T contract from the regional contracts prevented a unified strike in May, now the 1101 leadership is scheming to prevent one in August. This latest maneuver shows that the contract split-up was not just a "mistake," as Dempsey claims. It was a deliberate move to hamstring the workers' struggle.
Despite their call to reject the contract, the 1101 leadership clearly has no intention of leading the mass struggle against it. Only a "No" vote and a united strike by AT&T and regional telephone workers in August will give the companies the fight they should have had in May.
Right now, this means that AT&T workers should organize to vote NO and defeat the sellout contract. The fight should be kept up through slowdowns and other job actions, in preparation for going out again on August 9 together with workers from NYNEX and the regional companies.
Meanwhile, NYNEX workers must get ready, too. We should prepare for August 9 in the coming weeks with a slowdown so thorough it makes management wish they'd never heard of BSP. And NYNEX and AT&T workers outside Atlanta, Georgia can build their solidarity with joint meetings and rallies.
Come August 9 telephone workers should put up a united fight to beat back telephone management's takeback drive. Whether there's one company or one hundred, telephone is still one industry. There should be one contract date. There should be one industry-wide contract. And there should be one united struggle of all telephone workers.
[Photo.]
Three thousand workers went out on strike against the intolerable speedup at Ford's assembly plant in an Atlanta suburb on July 19.
Last year, Ford shut the plant down for five months and retooled the operation into one of its ultra-modern facilities. Then, with the changeover from last year's model to this year's, it jacked up the line speed from 52 cars an hour to 65 Vi cars an hour without hiring any more workers.
The auto companies try to paint rosy pictures about how plant modernization not only helps their profits but also supposedly improves the "quality of work life" for the production workers. But Ford's Atlanta assembly shows what a monstrous lie this is. The bottom line of modernization is speedup, job combination, job elimination and overwork.
The Ford workers have turned to strike action to defend themselves. Other auto workers must do the same.
(The following article is taken from a leaflet issued by the San Francisco Bay Area Branch of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA on July 6, 1986.)
By the time Alameda County (AC) transit workers' contract expired on June 30, AC management had already declared its intention to seek maximum concessions. AC management's long list of takeaways includes expanding the part-time system, cutting wages by eliminating the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA), and slashing medical benefits by having workers pay for any cost increases out of their pockets. AC has also demanded the right to contract out a number of the bus lines to the "lowest bidder," i.e., companies that pay their workers lower wages. This would pave the way for layoffs of AC workers. The transit drivers, mechanics and clerical workers have answered this challenge by denouncing AC's attacks and voting in overwhelming numbers to authorize a strike.
In order for the workers to stand up against the expansion of the part-time system and the other attacks on their livelihood, they must organize a serious fight against AC. This requires fighting the transit bosses and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU Local 192) leaders. AC workers can see for themselves that the ATU leaders are refusing to organize the fight against management. The workers already know that the ATU 192 leaders have kept them in the dark for months regarding negotiations. Most of the workers also know that this is nothing new. Though the faces may have changed over the years, the leadership of the ATU Local 192 has a definite history of stabbing the workers in the back and preventing a serious fight against AC's attacks.
AC workers! Be on your guard! AC transit and the leadership of the ATU are aiming to saddle you with more concessions. It is time to take matters into your own hands and organize the fight yourselves.
For 20 days 15,500 Philadelphia city workers waged a bitter strike against the concessions demanded by the Wilson Goode city government and for job security and a wage increase. But before the workers could win their key demands, the strike was stopped by the leaders of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) who caved in to the threats of Mayor Goode and the courts. Nevertheless, the militant strikers appear to have won some gains through their struggle.
Militant Picket Lines and Solidarity Actions Mark Strike
From the first day of the strike mass picket lines forced the closing of most city offices, trash collection, water and sewage treatment, street repair, and so forth.
Mayor Goode immediately got a court order limiting the number of pickets to eight at the municipal offices. But the workers defied it. The next morning 100 workers blocked the entrances to the Municipal Services Building. They were joined by unemployed and homeless men and women who came out to support the strike. Goode unleashed the police and 23 picketers were arrested.
In another show of support for the strike, non-unionized drivers and construction crews refused to cross picket lines to unload scaffolding needed to build a bandstand for a Philadelphia Pops concert planned as part of Goode's July 4th celebrations. Musicians also announced they would honor the picket lines and the concert was cancelled. When July 4th came, a contingent of strikers interrupted Mayor Goode's speech at Independence Mall with chants of "Contract now! ''
Goode also established 15 central garbage collection points throughout the city and began hiring private haulers to cart the trash away. But the city workers quickly put up picket lines at each of the drop-off points. At one dump site policemen -- 30 on horseback and 20 with attack dogs -- corralled 50 strikers to let private trucks pick up trash. But at most sites the haulers honored picket lines and the garbage mounted day after day. At three sites, neighborhood groups blocked off entrances and forced the city to shut them down.
After 12 days Goode tried to split the strike by reaching a contract settlement with the leaders of AFSCME District Council 47 which represents 2,500 clerks and other white-collar, workers. But these workers refused to go back to work until there was an agreement with the other 13,000 workers represented by AFSCME District Council 33. The strike remained solid.
On July 16, Goode obtained a court injunction ordering sanitation workers back to their jobs. The next day another 850 health and service employees were ordered back to work. But the city workers defied the court's dictates. All 2,500 of the sanitation workers showed up at the work sites and blocked the entrances.
Goode responded with another court order that called for the firing of workers who refused to return to their jobs. And he began to threaten to use the National Guard to break the strike. Although much of the rank-and-file workers remained defiant, the AFSCME leadership caved in to the threats and ordered the strikers back to work.
At a mass union meeting held July 20, angry workers chanted "Strike! Strike!'' and "Sold out!'' Many declared that the union leaders turned the meeting into a total "farce.'' There was no formal vote to end the strike. Instead the union leaders ordered workers to go to the left or to the right of the hall depending on whether they were in favor of or opposed to going back to work. Although many workers stood on either side of the hall, the AFSCME leaders arbitrarily declared this represented a vote to go back to work.
Results of the Strike
One day after the workers we're forced to return to work, the city reached a tentative accord with the union. Full details were not revealed, but initial reports indicate some of its provisions.
By stopping the strike halfway, the AFSCME leaders gave up some of the workers' key demands. In the first place, the city retained the right to contract out work. Over the last 10 years, the city has eliminated some 4,000 city jobs by contracting out work to private, mostly nonunion firms that pay low wages and provide no benefits. The city workers had demanded an end to this practice.
As well, it appears that Goode has refused to come up with the $48 million that the city owes to the workers' health and pension fund. This underfunding has meant that hospitals have quit accepting the city workers' medical insurance and have been harassing the workers to pay past medical bills that have gone unpaid by the city's insurance plan.
There may be other concessions in the contract, but it appears that the strike forced Goode to give up his demand for a wage freeze. Reports indicate that the contract provides for a 10% wage hike: 4% starting in mid-August and 6% beginning in 1988. The contract will also raise the city's contribution to the health and pension fund from $220 to $291 per worker.
Mayor Goode Exposed
The strike also gave the workers a tremendous political education, exposing the Reaganite strikebreaking policy of Mayor Goode and the Democratic Party.
The AFSCME leaders, most of the other union bureaucrats, and the black bourgeoisie promoted Goode as a spokesman for the black people and a friend of labor in his last election. But these myths are crumbling among the masses.
By attacking the city workers, the majority of whom are black, Goode showed that his bombing of the MOVE headquarters and murder of 11 black men, women and children last year was not an accident nor an isolated incident. The black bourgeoisie, which Goode represents, and the Democratic Party, which he serves, are out to prove to the monopoly capitalists that they can do a better job than the Reaganites of persecuting the black masses and repressing all the workers.
The city workers' strike has helped to teach the workers, and the oppressed black masses with them, that the fight against the racist and anti-worker offensive of the Reaganites must also target the Democratic Party.
Treachery of Union Bureaucracy Exposed
The strike also helped to expose the treachery of the union bureaucrats who, in their love dance with Goode and the Democratic Party, have worked to undermine the workers' struggle. It was not only the AFSCME leaders who sabotaged this strike, but also top bureaucrats from other unions rallied to support Goode's strikebreaking against the workers.
While rank-and-file workers from all across the city showed their support for the striking workers, Teamster President Gillespie, 1199 President Nicholas, and Pennsylvania AFL-CIO President Uehlein phoned Goode and promised to support his order that city workers be fired if they did not return to work. Nicholas -- who at the beginning of the city strike forced 5,000 striking hospital workers in Philadelphia to return to work with a concessions contract -- admitted as much to the Philadelphia Inquirer. "We are not in favor of people getting fired,'' Nicholas declared, "but we understand the mayor has to do what the mayor has to do.''
Similarly, the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO head admitted, "I did talk to the mayor. I did tell him that he was in a difficult situation and was doing what had to be done.'' Such is the despicable support for strikebreaking by the heads of the unions.
This exposure has not been lost on the Philadelphia workers. Their strike is another manifestation that workers are increasingly turning to mass struggle to beat back the Reaganite concessions offensive. It shows that the workers can win gains through such mass actions. But it also shows that if the workers' struggles are to be truly effective they must be organized independent of the trade union bureaucracy and must target the Democrats as well as the Reaganites.
[Photo: Spirited picket line of Philadelphia city workers outside city incinerator.]
The bitter strikes this July of the city workers in Detroit and Philadelphia are important political events. They have pitted angry masses of black workers against the black mayors of two of the largest American cities. These mayors -- Coleman Young of Detroit and Wilson Goode of Philadelphia -- are liberal Democrats and pose as pro-working class and the champions of the black people. Coleman Young is even fond of flaunting his credentials as a former trade union bureaucrat. But both of these mayors ran to the courts and police and demanded the enforcement of any strikebreaking ordinance that came to hand.
Meanwhile, in June, the black mayor of Washington, D.C., Marion Barry, threatened to evict as many as 40,000 people from the city's public housing projects. These are mainly elderly, handicapped, and other poor black people. But liberal Democrat Barry turned on the Reaganite rhetoric and shrugged that they were behind on their rent or otherwise living there illegally. Barry later benevolently reduced the number to be evicted to 4,000.
Here again we see a black Democratic Party hack behaving just like a Reaganite. It isn't just the white Democratic Party hacks who are following Reagan's lead, it is the black ones too.
These outrages show an increasing class conflict developing among the black people. The overwhelming majority of the black people are oppressed working people. They are getting fed up with the Reaganite offensive of the bourgeoisie, and they are burning to do battle. But a thin upper strata of black bourgeoisie, and better-off petty bourgeoisie who hope to enter the bourgeoisie, are out to prove their usefulness to the ruling bourgeoisie by helping it suppress the black masses.
This struggle between the black masses and the black bourgeoisie is not just a figure of speech: it is a bitter reality that was seen on the streets of Detroit and Philadelphia. It is a bitter reality that can also be seen in the fact that in the years of the Reagan presidency the thin bourgeois strata of blacks has, as a group, been gaining in wealth, while the overwhelming majority of blacks have been suffering.
The National Urban League is an organization dominated by the black bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, in its annual report, "The State of Black America 1986," it gave some interesting figures on income without realizing their significance. It stated that the lower 80% of black families had less purchasing power in 1984 than in 1980 (and generally the poorer the strata the bigger its decrease in purchasing power); the next 15% had about the same purchasing power; while the top 5% of all black families had about 9% more purchasing power.
Raw income figures alone do not exactly indicate the class position of a family (a husband and wife both working in an auto plant might have a combined income just inside the top 5% of black families). But these figures do strongly suggest that there is a black upper strata that has benefited economically during the Reagan years while the black masses suffered. And, in the case of the Coleman Youngs and Wilson Goodes and their cronies, they have benefited directly and consciously at the expense of the poorer masses.
As Coleman Young arrogantly stated during the city workers' strike: "You cannot compare what you pay an executive and what you pay workers. Lee Iacocca gets a helluva lot more than someone on a production line." In other words, Young identifies with the ruling class and looks down his nose at the ordinary folk. Despite the poverty among the masses in Detroit, the deterioration of city services and the concessions he imposed in previous years on the city workers, Mayor Young recently gave 22% raises to his cronies in the city administration and took a hefty 44% raise himself. He now makes $115,000 a year and is the highest paid mayor in the entire country. And he has obtained this by taking part in the Reaganite offensive against the masses.
Meanwhile the black workers have been outraged at the activities of the bourgeoisie, both white and black. The Detroit city strike this year was not the first strike of the city workers against the Young administration, but never previously was there such disgust with Mayor Young. From the picket lines and on placards the black workers have denounced various representatives of the black bourgeoisie. The illusions in these frontmen for the Reaganites are crumbling. And this is a good sign both for the struggle against racism in particular and the struggle for the liberation of the entire working class in general, both being linked together intimately in the struggle against the same racist and oppressive bourgeoisie.
[Photo: Detroit city workers confront police as they picket outside sewage treatment plant.]
The Detroit city workers' strike has pitted a majority black work force against the strikebreaking of Mayor Coleman Young. Coleman Young is black, but he is a black bourgeois who sides with the capitalists against the black masses. His Reaganite strikebreaking has again shown the bankruptcy of those reformist, would-be Marxists who promote the black bourgeoisie as a progressive force.
Consider one such reformist force, the so-called Workers World Party.
This strike put them in a real quandary. On the one hand, they are in love with the black bourgeoisie. They are addicted to that petty-bourgeois nationalism which pictures the liberal wing of the upper strata of the oppressed nationalities as part of the liberation forces.
However, they are also heavily into the AFSCME trade union bureaucracy. So they couldn't ignore the strike (as the pro-Soviet revisionists of the CPUSA mainly did).
So they simply wrote Coleman Young out of the strike. When they denounce the city government, they forget that Coleman Young is mayor. And when they talk about Coleman Young, they forget about the crimes of the city government.
Thus a leaflet put out by the "AFSCME Section of Workers World Party'' denounces the Detroit city government. And an article in WWP's paper by Cheryl LaBash, Executive Board Member of AFSCME Local 457, declares that "The city management sitting across the table from the union are not representing the people of Detroit. In reality, they speak for the big business and banking interests...''.(Workers World, July 17) But there is no mention of Mayor Coleman Young being part of that city administration.
But then their press turned to the relationship of Coleman Young to the strike. Now the city administration is no longer the enemy. Oh yes, they still denounce "the ruling class,'' the "bosses," and "the role of the banks and corporations as the real rulers of Detroit." But they no longer say that the city management speaks for the ruling class and the capitalists. (Workers World, July 24)
So what of the city administration and Coleman Young? Why, "the job of liberating the majority of Detroiters... was begun when Mayor Coleman Young was first elected in 1973 in a victory for Black political power over racist police brutality." And WWP calls for continuing the struggle begun with this election.
Actually, the election of Young marked the beginning of the liberation -- or, at least, the further enrichment -- of the local black bourgeoisie. Mayor Young and his cronies have awarded themselves fat salaries and lived high off the hog, while they demanded cutbacks and concessions from working class Detroiters.
WWP's services to Mayor Young are reminiscent of what WWP did in Philadelphia with respect to the murderous bombing of MOVE. Earlier this year, at the February 15 demonstration against the racist attacks taking place in Philadelphia, they denounced the bombing of MOVE -- but bitterly opposed anyone raising slogans against Mayor Goode who ordered the bombing. How dare anyone denounce a black bourgeois Democratic liberal!
So Workers World Party can denounce the "ruling class," the "bosses," the "banks and corporations," anyone you want --just so long as they are allowed to hail the election of some particular representative of the ruling class, the bosses, and the banks and corporations as the beginning of the liberation of the majority of the people. The Workers World Party swears to high heaven that they are against the ruling class and all it stands for. But by shielding Mayor Young's strikebreaking, the Workers World Party has once again sided with the Reaganite ruling class in practice.
On July 5, in the middle of the night, 20 members of a fascist outfit called Civilian Materiel Assistance (CMA) seized 16 undocumented immigrants in Arizona near the Mexican border. The vigilantes had booby-trapped the road using timbers with upright nails which punctured the tires on the immigrants' vehicles. The immigrants, including women and children, were fired on and then forced to stand at gunpoint for 90 minutes with their hands in the air until Border Patrol agents arrived and took them into custody. They were deported later that day.
The Reaganites and the bourgeois media are forever up on their high horse piously denouncing "terrorists" around the world. But when right-wing vigilantes terrorize ordinary toilers, there is not a peep of protest from the Reagan administration, not even a token slap on the wrist.
The Arizona incident is not an isolated activity of the CMA. This paramilitary, anti-communist gang was formed three years ago by an ex-marine and three Alabama national guardsmen who are so reactionary that they were dissatisfied with the Ku Klux Klan and the John Birch Society. Seeking to find a more active way of "fighting communism," they at first gathered ammunition for the forces of the death squad regime of El Salvador. They then shifted to equipping and training the Nicaraguan contras. In 1984, two members of CMA who were working with the contras were killed when their helicopter was shot down over Nicaragua.
More recently the CMA has turned its attention to the Arizona-Mexico border. It has organized patrols which have carried out armed incursions across the border into Mexican territory, allegedly to look for drug smugglers. The patrol that seized the immigrants July 5 had been on military exercises in the area for a week, armed with AK-47 Soviet assault rifles, U.S. M-16's, and sophisticated surveillance equipment, including infrared scopes for night vision.
The INS Prefers to Persecute the Immigrants Itself
And what has been the response of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to this vigilante activity? They refused to lift a finger against the CMA on the grounds that none of the immigrants were "hurt." Harold Ezell, notorious Western regional commissioner of the INS, simply tried to guide CMA to other types of anti-immigrant activity: "The only Border Patrol angels we need are on the hill of the U.S. Congress trying to get immigration reform. We do not want people out playing military angels, playing Border Patrol with guns."
Ezell prefers to persecute the immigrants himself. He is, after all, the man who revels in riding helicopters and Ram Chargers with the Border Patrol. "Isn't this fun!" he declared as the patrol chased undocumented immigrants. (Time, January 27, 1986) Indeed Ezell holds that captured immigrants shouldn't just be deported. Oh no, they should be hounded and prosecuted. As Ezell put it, "If you catch 'em, you ought to clean 'em and fry 'em yourself." (Ibid.)
Militarization of the Border
The July 5 incident and the other anti-immigrant activity of the CMA are a natural outgrowth of the atmosphere of hysteria and paranoia created by the bourgeoisie against undocumented immigrants. The bourgeois media constantly paints a picture of hordes of immigrants marching into the U.S. with scores of drug smugglers and terrorists among them.
This atmosphere of hysteria is being used to create a climate for militarizing the border. The INS already has its "SWAT"-type organization in place, the BORTAC. BORTAC undergoes military training in Georgia which includes instruction in use of arms, riot control, hostage negotiations, and military attack. As well, U.S. law allows Marine Corps maneuvers along the border, ostensibly to control drug traffic. In Los Angeles the County Board of Supervisors asked Reagan to send troops to the border, and the governor of Texas wants 20,000 National Guardsmen to patrol the Texas border.
Anti-Immigrant Legislation Back Before the House
This climate of hysteria is also being used to try to create public opinion in support of repressive anti-immigrant legislation.
For the past five years Congress has been fighting over how best to attack undocumented immigrants and refugees while maintaining a pool of cheap labor for the capitalists. Last September the Senate passed its latest version of such legislation. On June 25, the House Judiciary Committee approved another piece of anti-immigrant legislation, which now goes to several committees and then will come to the floor of the House of Representatives. The Congress is seeking to complete work on this legislation before adjourning for the November elections.
From vigilante attacks to increasing militarization of the border to legislation to many other measures, the bourgeoisie is stepping up its assault on the immigrant workers. This war against the undocumented immigrants is part of the offensive of the monopoly capitalists against the entire working class, both native and foreign born. All workers and progressive people should join in common struggle against this racist crusade.
On July 4, one thousand people demonstrated in defense of the rights of refugees and undocumented immigrants entering the U.S. The demonstration was held in San Ysidro, California, a city in the southernmost part of the state. Participants came from Harlingen, Texas; Phoenix, Arizona; and several California cities.
The demonstrators marched from a park in San Ysidro to the U.S./Mexico border, and then returned to the park. They protested the increasing militarization of the border, the racist violence of the U.S. border patrol, and the many abuses against immigrants.
The march and rally were held July 4 to coincide with the hoopla over the re-dedication of the Statue of Liberty in New York City. While the bourgeoisie gushed over the "Mother of Exiles," the California demonstration sought to bring out the truth about the brutal treatment of immigrants, especially those undocumented toilers coming from Mexico and Central America.
(To the tune of Charlie Patton's "Tom Rushen Blues" but may be sung to a number of blues melodies)
Turned my radio on,
heard some news that made me mad.
Mmh-hmm.
Turned my radio on, heard some news that made me mad.
Mmh-hmm.
Reagan pickin' on some peoples,
tryin' to show that he so bad.
Well, you talk about terrorism,
look what you did in Viet Nam.
Mmh-hmm.
Well, you talk about terrorism,
what you call what you did in Viet Nam?
Mmh-hmm.
You point your finger at other people,
You're the master of the napalm bomb.
Well, it don't make no difference,
Republican or Democrat. Mmh-hmm.
Well, it don't make no difference,
Republican or Democrat. Mmh-hmm.
They'll start a rich man's war,
then they'll tell you you're up at bat.
[Photo: Demonstration in San Francisco, July 19.]
July 19 was the seventh anniversary of the Nicaraguan revolution. It was also a day of protest against Reagan's dirty war on Nicaragua. The Marxist-Leninist Party held marches and/or rallies in New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco Bay Area, and Seattle to help build up the movement of the American working masses against U.S. intervention and to develop support for the party of the class conscious Nicaraguan workers, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Nicaragua.
Protest the Escalation of U.S. Intervention
At the end of June, Reagan, with the help of the Democrats, got another $100 million aid package to the contras passed in the House of Representatives. This marked another escalation of U.S. imperialism's plan to drown in blood the revolutionary struggle of the Nicaraguan workers and peasants.
Of course the contras -- a corrupt mercenary army of torturers and rapists who want to turn the clock back to the dark days of the U.S.-backed Somoza dictatorship -- have no popular support in Nicaragua. They have suffered one military defeat after another. But the bipartisan U.S. effort gives the contras heavy weapons to wreak more carnage on the Nicaraguan people. It also directs the CIA and Pentagon "advisors" to take over day-to-day leadership of the mercenary combat forces. It means a further tightening of the screws on the Nicaraguan masses and further preparation of conditions for a direct invasion by the U.S. government.
Just as the mass movement fought against U.S. aggression in Viet Nam, the working masses must fight every step of imperialist intervention in Nicaragua. But unfortunately, as soon as the House passed the new aid bill for the contras, the opportunist solidarity organizations and peace groups fell silent.
The leaders of the opportunist groups act as a tail of the Democratic Party. As long as the Democrats were posturing as if they opposed Reagan's $100 million aid plan, some groups called a few protest demonstrations. But as soon as the Democrats went along with Reagan's plan in the House, as they have done so many times before, the opportunist leaders forgot about protests.
Instead of militant actions against U.S. imperialism, they tried to turn July 19 into a day of picnics, of dances, of Mardi Gras-style parades, and sentimental nostalgia for the past glories of the revolution.
MLP Takes to the Streets to Organize the Working Masses for Struggle
The MLP refused to let the militant spirit of the movement be stamped out on the anniversary of the Nicaraguan revolution. The Party called for protest actions. And it went deep among the working class and oppressed people to build up the movement against U.S. imperialism, targeting both imperialist parties, the Democrats and Republicans alike.
For a month leading up to July 19, the Party spread leaflets widely into factories and other work places and through working class neighborhoods across the country. There, deep among the workers, the Party found a vast reserve of hatred for U.S. intervention and great interest in the struggle of the Nicaraguan workers and peasants. In some cases workers asked us to hold marches in their neighborhoods and took leaflets and stickers to distribute to fellow workers at their work places. In various plants an animated discussion broke out about the Party's plan to organize a delegation to tour Nicaragua, and many workers asked us to report back to them about our firsthand meetings with Nicaraguan workers and peasants.
The Party's activity also found sympathy among various activists in other organizations. They agreed that there should be protest actions on July 19. In some cases the opportunist leaders of the groups were forced to alter their plans to allow at least some trickle of protest against U.S. intervention.
July 19 Protest Actions Find Sympathy Among the Working Masses
On July 19 the Party organized small but militant protest marches in various working class communities around the country. The success of these marches was another indication that it is the working masses who are the force that can be rallied for a serious fight against Reagan's dirty war.
In New York, the Party marched through Washington Heights in Manhattan, a community of many Dominican workers. The militant action stirred up the whole neighborhood and helped mobilize the masses to fight against the reactionaries who are supporting Reagan, the contras, and the counterrevolutionary Nicaraguan capitalists. A number of Cuban reactionaries, mostly petty-bourgeois shopkeepers in the neighborhood, tried to disrupt the demonstration. But many workers came out to oppose them. In one case, the workers physically chased off one gusano who was being particularly obnoxious. All along the march route a vigorous discussion broke out as the working masses took the Party leaflets and showed their support.
In Boston, the Party marched through the Dorchester neighborhood. Here too the Party found a warm reception from the masses.
In the San Francisco Bay Area the Party formed a militant contingent to give backbone to the "United for Peace" parade in the Mission district. The opportunist leadership was unable to openly exclude the Party from the parade due to the desire for a more militant protest by various activists. So it forced the Party to the back of the parade behind a marching band. The opportunists then complained that we were too loud, that they couldn't hear the music, and that we should stop denouncing the Democrats and the imperialists' Contadora "peace" plan. The masses, on the other hand, were encouraged by the Party's contingent. Thousands of Party leaflets were distributed to other marchers and to the Mexican and Latino masses who watched the parade. And our militant slogans against Yankee imperialism and CIA intervention in Nicaragua were greeted with support both by marchers near our contingent and by the masses along the street.
In Chicago, the Party organized two marches which took place simultaneously on two streets in the Mexican community.
Along 26th Street, various people raised their fists and joined in shouting the slogans. A policeman tried to stop the march. But a crowd gathered, grumbling angrily that the police would dare to stop the protests. The policeman relented and allowed the march to proceed. Many residents said they would come to the rally planned for Harrison Park a little later. One man from the neighborhood, who came out to support the march, was especially excited that we denounce the Somocistas who are still inside Nicaragua working for counter-revolution. He was encouraged that we support the Nicaraguan workers and peasants in their fight against the Nicaraguan bourgeoisie and that we see the development of this struggle as essential for building up the battle against U.S. imperialism.
Along 18th Street, a number of people from the neighborhood joined the demonstration for several blocks. Others raised their fists and took part in shouting slogans against U.S. imperialism, against Reagan and the Democrats, and in support of the Nicaraguan workers and peasants.
The two marches ended up at Harrison Park, where a spirited rally continued for over an hour. A crowd gathered around to listen with rapt attention to a militant speech. One man from the neighborhood went to the microphone after the speech to shout a slogan against the U.S.-backed contras and another man raised a slogan in support of the Salvadoran revolution. The crowd also laughed with glee at the skit which denounced Reagan's war and which ridiculed the Democrats for their attempts to give a "humanitarian" cover to the imperialist intervention in Nicaragua.
Seven Years of Revolution, Seven Years of Organizing the Forces of the Working Class
Besides the protest marches, the Party also organized spirited meetings in the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, Boston and Chicago. The meetings dealt in more detail with the dangerous situation confronting the Nicaraguan revolution.
This danger comes not only from the U.S. imperialist intervention but also from the Sandinista government's attempt to compromise with the Nicaraguan bourgeoisie which supports U.S. imperialism and is organizing counterrevolution inside Nicaragua.
The last seven years -- since the insurrection smashed the Somoza dictatorship -- have been years of hardship, years in which the vacillating policy of the petty-bourgeois Sandinistas have eroded many gains of the revolution. But they have also been years in which the working class and poor peasants have been building up their forces. Most important has been the emergence of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Nicaragua from repression and isolation. It is once again taking its place at the head of the working masses who are fighting against the Nicaraguan bourgeoisie and who increasingly find themselves in confrontation with the compromising Sandinista government. The MLPN, and its union organization the Frente Obrero, not only work to mobilize the masses for the military defense of Nicaragua but also organize the class struggle inside Nicaragua. Through the various mass struggles the MLPN is teaching the workers and poor peasants that the military defense of Nicaragua depends on advancing the revolution towards socialism.
The meetings of the Party were not only celebrations of the 1979 Nicaraguan revolution. They were also militant rallies against U.S. imperialism and to support the advance of the revolution. They were serious meetings to help build solidarity with the Nicaraguan workers and peasants and their revolutionary vanguard, the MLPN.
[Photo: MLP meeting in Chicago, July 19.]
[Photo: Skit at MLP rally in Chicago, July 19, shows three "brothers" -- the Democrats, contras and Reagan.]
[Photo: MLP demonstration through Chicago neighborhood, July 19.]
(The following is an excerpt from the speech given at Harrison Park, July 19.)
Workers, young people, women, gather 'round. It is time for serious talk. It is time for celebration of a revolutionary holiday...the seventh anniversary of the overthrow of the dictator Somoza in Nicaragua.
The Somoza family came to power in 1939 at the will of the U.S. Marines' bayonets. For 40 long years they lived in luxury and comfort while their people starved. The Somoza family ruled with a merciless vengeance against all who dared oppose them.
But in 1979 push came to shove. The toilers of Nicaragua could no longer stand to be exploited and abused in the same old way. Strikes and mass protests in the streets erupted like a volcano. The workers and peasants armed themselves and fought the army of Somoza with heroism so beautiful they still sing about it today. The Somoza government crumbled and the revolutionary process took a giant step forward.
One might think that with the victory of 1979 the workers and peasants of Nicaragua could then turn all their energy and initiative to sorting out the problems of building a new life, the problems of pushing the revolution forward for the benefit of the toilers and at the expense of the bourgeoisie and big landowners.
After all, it was the blood of the workers and poor peasants that colored the barricades red in the insurrection. Surely they had paid the price,...surely the right to self-determination had been paid for in full.
But President Carter and now President Reagan refuse to accept this. The class represented by the Republicans and Democrats -- the bourgeoisie, the imperialists -- didn't become filthy rich exploiters by respecting the rights of others.
When a slave stands up face to face against his master it is a danger to all the slave masters, to all the exploiters. The other slaves are watching, waiting, learning, preparing to test their strength in battle.
Both Carter and Reagan, both the Republicans and Democrats know this, and they've had no other intention but to undermine and destroy the Nicaraguan revolution since it was born....
The contras are nothing but a CIA- organized band of thugs and murderers. Lacking support from the masses, they are engaging in atrocities in an attempt to demoralize the working people of Nicaragua.
A typical incident took place on July 2 near El Cua in Jinotega Province. A truck carrying unarmed civilians was blown up by a U.S.-made M-15 mine laid by contras. Thirty-four civilians were killed, including two infants. There were no weapons on the truck, nor any combat nearby.
This happened because the contras are indiscriminately laying mines in the border regions of Nicaragua. They are mining the dirt roads that are the only way to get from one village to another. They are not aiming at particular military targets, but at the population in general.
And this is not a deviation from what the CIA wants. On the contrary, the CIA put out a murder manual for the contras that advised them to use coldblooded murders of revolutionaries as a tool to intimidate villagers and an economic sabotage manual advising them how to cause starvation and misery among the masses. In line with this, the contras burn down health clinics, granaries, warehouses, oil lines, etc. While the CIA hypocritically washed its hands of the murder manual -- after it became a public scandal -- in fact, the CIA never changed its policy.
The new military aid that Reagan wants for the contras is designed to step up this type of warfare against the Nicaraguan workers and peasants.
Along with the economic blockade, the U.S. ruling class is building an information blockade about what is going on in Nicaragua. They are greasing the skids for escalating Reagan's dirty war with a campaign of lies and disinformation. Reagan's speeches and the TV news are feeding us a big fairy tale about contra "freedom fighters" struggling against the allegedly "tyrannical communist dictatorship" of the Sandinistas.
But what is really going on down there? Here is an outline sketch of the main contending forces inside Nicaragua.
The CIA's Contras
While the CIA forms the supreme command, the majority of the contra commanders are ex-officers of the national guard of the overthrown dictator Somoza. The contras also include killers-for-hire gathered from all over Latin America.
This 20,000-man mercenary army has been trained by the CIA and the Green Berets in the latest means of assassination, terror and destruction. The Somocista platform is the overthrow of the Nicaraguan revolution and putting themselves back in power.
Of course, the contras are mainly not inside Nicaragua. For the most part,- Reagan's "brave freedom fighters" carry out their murder missions from safe havens inside Honduras and Costa Rica. Besides kidnapping, raping, and murdering villagers, the contras also busy themselves with making money off of CIA funds, and gun and drug running.
The Capitalists and Landlords
However, while the contras are based outside Nicaragua and live off CIA handouts, they do have support from the capitalist right wing inside Nicaragua. The big exploiters are still very much alive. They still dominate the economy. They also are represented by right-wing political parties, have the control of some trade unions and a number of radio stations, and enjoy the blessings of the top officials of the Catholic church. They also have La Prensa, the largest newspaper in the country (although recently it has temporarily been suspended by the government due to its hardly veiled support for the CIA and the contras).
This capitalist opposition devotes itself to undermining support for the revolution. It coordinates its efforts with the CIA and the contras and carries out sabotage and economic disruption. All the while, it prays for the landing of the U.S. Marines to bring it deliverance and restore the "good ol' days" of right-wing dictatorship.
The Compromising FSLN Government
No matter how many times Reagan and the flunkey media repeats it, there is nothing "Marxist-Leninist" or "communist" about the Sandinista government. Instead, it is a government of compromise with the big exploiters.
The FSLN has bent over backwards to woo the capitalists with economic concessions. It not only protects the property of the big businessmen and ranchers, it has given them cheap loans and guaranteed their profits with much-needed state funds.
The government has also given the capitalist political opposition a fairly free hand. The right wing more or less openly voices its sympathies for the CIA-contra war. But the government "turns the other cheek" and still treats the right wing with every kindness even providing subsidies to La Prensa and the opposition parties.
Recently, after the U.S. House of Representatives voted earlier this year for $100 million more for Reagan's war on Nicaragua, the Sandinista government took some measures against the right wing. For example, it temporarily suspended publication of La Prensa. But it did not change its basic system of concessions and subsidies toward the right wing, and it continued to offer new concessions in the Contadora negotiations (where four bourgeois Latin American governments are seeking to stop the Nicaraguan revolution in the name of mediating between Nicaragua and its neighbors). Its system of balancing between the right wing and the working people has continually resulted in minor readjustments and vacillations, but the Sandinistas have continued their basic policy of bureaucratic measures towards the working people and concessions to the right wing.
Meanwhile, to convince the capitalists of its good intentions, the government has been steadily eroding the gains of the revolution. It has steadily replaced revolutionary institutions with ordinary bureaucratic methods of dealing with the working people. This has hurt the mobilization and organization of the masses, which is the key to defense against the counterrevolution.
With its policy of compromise, the FSLN hopes to wean the capitalists from the counterrevolution. But after seven years of this, the right wing has only grown more aggressive, more demanding, and more open in their plotting.
This contradictory and vacillating policy shows the petty-bourgeois nature of the Sandinistas. Far from being Marxist-Leninist, they are heavily influenced by social-democracy and other reformist trends, including Cuban and Soviet revisionism. Their program for Nicaragua of "political pluralism" and "mixed economy" is close to the setup in Mexico and some other capitalist countries. All of the FSLN's friends -- from West European social-democrats to the Cubans -- are advising them to stick to this capitalist program.
The Workers and Peasants and the MLP of Nicaragua
The workers and the poor peasants were the ones who manned the barricades in the insurrection that overthrew Somoza. They have shouldered the burden of defending the revolution ever since. But much of what they have fought and died for remains unrealized.
These days, their revolution is passing through a painful time. The FSLN's policy of class harmony has strengthened the hand of the reactionaries. It has also sapped a good deal of the revolutionary energy of the masses. And the government's standing among the working people falls another notch with each new unpopular measure (bureaucratizing the military, wage freezes, other austerity measures, etc.).
At the same time, sections of the dissatisfied masses are turning to the left. More of the workers are becoming class conscious and are recognizing the distinction between their revolutionary interests and the petty-bourgeois policy of the Sandinistas. They are engaging in the difficult process of developing revolutionary momentum on behalf of the proletarian policy. There are strikes against the exploitation of the domestic big bourgeoisie and the Sandinista compromise with the bourgeoisie. Proletarian organization is again growing, and the proletariat is fighting for a revolutionary policy. The revolutionary impulse released by the overthrow of Somoza is far from exhausted, but it is increasingly coming up in a new form.
Meanwhile the right wing has not been passive in the face of the difficulties faced by the working people. It has tried to tap the growing discontent for its own ends. Nicaragua is coming to a crossroads. It can go backward into capitalist reaction, or it can deepen the revolution, but the Sandinista policy of vacillation and compromise cannot last forever. Which direction Nicaragua takes will hinge, to a great extent, on the success of the left in winning the masses for the revolution.
Central to the revolutionary energy of the workers and poor peasants is the development of organization. The revolutionary workers are championed by their Marxist-Leninist Party of Nicaragua (formerly known as MAP- ML). This Party has a long history of struggle in the workers' movement. In the fight against Somoza, the Marxist-Leninists organized the workers as an independent force, rejecting the policy of trailing behind the bourgeois opposition. (This tailism was the policy of the two pro-Soviet revisionist parties, the Socialist and Communist Parties. Today these two parties are so corrupt that they remain linked to their old wealthy friends in the right-wing opposition to the FSLN.)
The Marxist-Leninists organized the workers and youth into the Popular Anti-Somoza Militias (MILPAS), which was the only other armed force apart from the FSLN in the war against the dictatorship. After the victory over Somoza, the FSLN-led government cracked down on the wave of workers' strikes, land seizures, factory takeovers, and the workers' control movement. This repression was directed particularly at the Marxist-Leninists, with many jailed for months.
Today the focus of the MLPN's work is in the factories and fields, where it is building the Party, its Workers Front (FO) union center, and committees of struggle. It also organizes in the armed forces so that the working class can have an impact on the tasks of defense. And it has representatives in the national assembly who voice the revolutionary stand of the MLPN.
The MLPN organizes the workers knowing that only their revolutionary energy can raise the country out of the painful situation it faces. And to do this requires overcoming the Sandinista policy of compromise and carrying through on the struggle against the rich exploiters.
The workers and peasants can overcome the grave economic problems. But they can do so only at the expense of the businessmen, landlords, and speculators.
The working masses can surely crush Reagan's contra army. But a powerful military defense requires the mobilization of the masses. It requires rebuilding the popular militias, which serve not only to arm the masses with guns but to develop their political consciousness as well. It requires struggle on two fronts: against the external threat, and against the Trojan horse of the capitalist counterrevolution inside the country.
Along these lines, the working class and toilers of Nicaragua can defend the gains of their struggle and march forward along the road of deepening the revolution toward proletarian political power and socialism.
(tuneless song for PMLN and FO*)
I would have sent you a gift
but I had none to give
so receive these few lines
as if they were a rifle
All I can offer
is this tuneless song
for those you live and die for
sweating in the heat
of factories, plantations
toiling in the heat
At a factory today
(one of few gears still grinding)
quitting time crept crawling
waiting for the flood
some paused at the gate, "clink, clink"
rattle in my can
said "workers' press of Nicaragua"
shoutin' about you
Talkin' 'bout your cool under fire
daring on the edge
head to head against the cowboy**
cut the Trojan horse down***
I told the workers who stopped
that when a tear come to your eye
we here should taste salt
that's how close we should be
So dear children of Lenin
keep layin'down that track
hammer down in solid ground
like you want the train to roll
like a train need to roll.
P. Poyas'
July, 1986
*Partido Marxista-Leninista de Nicaragua (MAP-ML) and its trade union front Frente Obrero
**Reagan
***Nicaraguan bourgeoisie
Sunday, July 20: The solidarity delegation organized by the Marxist- Leninist Party, USA arrived in Managua this evening. We were warmly welcomed by leading comrades of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Nicaragua, including Isidro Tellez, Carlos Cuadra and Carlos Lucas. We were then given a short briefing on the schedule for our tour.
Monday, July 21: The head of our delegation met in the offices of the MLPN with journalists from the press, radio and television.
We spent the greater part of the day in the MLPN office making banners. There was vigorous discussion between the Nicaraguan and American comrades as well as lots of singing of revolutionary songs from the U.S.
In the evening, we packed into the bus provided for the MLP,USA solidarity tour. Flying from the top of the bus were the red flags of the MLP,USA and the MLPN. As we drove through Managua, we shouted slogans, and the masses standing along the streets greeted us with interest and enthusiasm.
Opening Rally of the Youth Camp
Tonight was the opening rally for the Anti-imperialist and Anti-fascist International Youth Camp which was being held in Managua at the same time as our tour. We took part in this rally as supporters of the U.S. Campaign for the Nicaraguan Workers Press. We entered the hall for the rally shouting Con el MAP-ML Nicaragua Vencera! (With MAP-ML, Nicaragua will be victorious!) The entire body inside the hall joined in.
The banners we had made during the day were draped on the walls, which were already covered with internationalist banners from delegations of various countries. Our banners proclaimed Revolutionary Workers of the U.S. Declare: U.S. Imperialism Hands Off Nicaragua! (in English) and The Marxist-Leninist Workers of the U.S. Declare: Support the Working Class and its Marxist-Leninist Party of Nicaragua (MAP-ML)! (in Spanish)
The rally was addressed by comrade Isidro Tellez, General Secretary of the MLPN, and revolutionary slogans repeatedly rent the air. After the rally, we joined more than a thousand people at a fiesta organized by the Nicaraguan comrades in a plaza in Managua. Amidst music and dancing, we had lots of discussions with the Nicaraguan comrades and the people.
Tuesday, July 22: Seven years after the overthrow of Somoza, despite the demobilization of the masses because of the policies of Sandinism, the revolutionary spirit among the working people can still be found. Even in the briefest of contacts and in all sorts of locations we have been able to strike up political discussion.
For example, today we went for a swim in a park in Tipitapa just outside Managua. There we got into a lengthy discussion with a pro-Sandinista youth who had just returned from the front and with a friend of his. This discussion went on for several hours. (See adjoining article.)
A Discussion on the Proposed Constitution
In the evening in the MLPN office, a leading comrade of the MLPN gave us a detailed analysis of the recent discussion on the constitution in Nicaragua and on the actual articles of the proposed constitution.
He explained the essentially liberal bourgeois character of the Sandinista constitution, pointing out that the constitution is being produced not according to the demands of the masses but according to the pressure of the Latin American bourgeoisie in Contadora and the domestic Nicaraguan bourgeoisie. The comrade exposed how the constitution is impregnated with the Sandinista platform of guaranteeing a mixed economy, political pluralism, and the national unity of all classes. All the political parties except for the MLPN have come out in favor of the constitutional proposal. The MLPN opposes it from the standpoint of fighting to deepen the revolution towards the power of workers and poor peasants and socialism.
At a Demonstration of Youth in Leon
Wednesday, July 23: The delegation woke up at 5 a.m. today to go to Leon, a city some 60 miles to the northwest, to join the yearly commemorative march to mark the death of students there in 1959 under the Somoza regime.
At the demonstration we unfurled our party flag and banners. We joined in alongside contingents of youth from Leon, youth in the military and from elsewhere around the country. Thousands of people lined the streets. The presence of our delegation from the U.S. with its banners and slogans against U.S. imperialism provoked a good deal of attention.
After the march, the Nicaraguan comrades placed a wreath of flowers on the grave of Hernaldo Tellez, a leader of MAP-ML, who was killed in Leon by Somoza's forces during the insurrection.
Meeting with Rum Factory Workers in Chinandega
Later our delegation visited the MLPN office in Chinandega and, in the evening, had the opportunity to meet with workers in Chichigalpa who support the MLPN and the Workers Front (Frente Obrero-FO) union center. These workers worked in La Licorera rum factory near the San Antonio sugar combine, which are both owned by Pellas, a millionaire who lives in Miami.
This meeting was marked by an internationalist exchange which profoundly touched us. Both sides exchanged questions about the revolutionary struggle in each country. Questions centered on the situation in the factories, in the trade unions, the situation for women in the workers' movement, and the path necessary to move forward. The problems the workers face in Nicaragua due to the policies of the FSLN were gone into in detail. The workers also reported on the bitter experiences they had endured as a result of organizing to improve their conditions in the face of the Sandinista policies. (See adjoining article.)
Besides the workers who showed up for this meeting, virtually the entire neighborhood also turned out and listened to the presentations with rapt attention. Our delegation sang the song "Fight on, workers and peasants of Central America'' and "Nicaraguan workers' song.'' The Nicaraguan comrades took the guitar and sang a song "Trabajadores a poder!" ("Toilers to power'').
The delegation returned to Managua at midnight in very high spirits.
A Visit With Metalworkers at the METASA Plant
Thursday, July 24: Today we had the opportunity to visit METASA, the largest metallurgical combine in Nicaragua, just outside Managua in Tipitapa. Previously owned by Somoza, it is now state operated and employs 700 workers. Because of the U.S. embargo and the economic crisis, the machinery here is deteriorating and the workers all talked of the difficult and dangerous working conditions.
This plant has a militant history and leads the industry in setting an example of struggle. In 1984 there was a strike. The workers felt that the strike was lost, but that the defeat was important to them for opening their eyes to Sandinism. Since that time, the union follows an independent policy despite being affiliated with the Sandinista CST center.
In the weld shop workers had gathered to hear from a Sandinista official from the Ministry of Labor. We joined the workers to listen to the FSLN speaker. His speech called on the workers to produce more and to give a free day of labor on August 23 to increase production. After this presentation we had the opportunity to stay and talk with the workers. We expressed our solidarity with their revolution and denounced Reagan and the Democrats for their criminal war against Nicaragua. We also heard more about the conditions facing the workers and spoke on the difficulties confronting the workers in the U.S.
Militant workers here sympathize with the Workers' Front. Recently the FO issued its first shop paper Boletin El Metalurgica. The workers we talked to really like it. We were told that it had been passed to all other metal works in the country.
Learning About the Military Situation
After visiting this plant, we drove northeast from Tipitapa to the town of Boaco with the intention of visiting a military installation on the front and a hospital for the wounded. Although far from Managua, Boaco, like other places we went, is also covered with MAP-ML and FO slogans and posters.
Unfortunately due to a bureaucratic mix-up by the Sandinista authorities, we couldn't go where we had planned. Instead, the delegation got to hear a talk on the military situation from a Sandinista lieutenant.
After that talk, we visited the house of a youth and the comrade from the MLPN went over points of clarification on the military questions. He emphasized the point that the military struggle and the political struggle cannot be divorced from each other: that if the masses do not feel that the revolution is their own, if they suffer nothing but austerity measures, then they will be in danger of being demobilized in the face of the imperialist threat and of feeling that there is nothing to fight for.
We returned to Managua after midnight again.
Visiting a Pig Farm Where the Union Is Affiliated With FO
Friday, July 25: Today the delegation visited a pig farm on the outskirts of Managua, one of the five large state-run farms in the country. These five farms have 450 workers and produce 40% of the country's pork.
At this farm, the workers had just nine months ago voted to break with the CST and to affiliate with the FO. They had felt that the CST union wasn't paying any attention to their demands; rather it had wanted them simply to increase production. The workers felt they could fight better under the leadership of FO.
We had a lengthy visit with the workers and got to ask them questions with regard to their struggle, their recent affiliation to the FO, their standard of living, etc. The workers have won certain gains with regard to health care. They also told us about the demands they are making for their new contract with the Ministry of Labor. They are fighting for a greater say in the decisions affecting their conditions and disciplinary steps. The workers are also demanding a library so that the workers, many of whom are illiterate, can educate themselves. We expressed our solidarity with their struggle and with the struggle of the Nicaraguan toilers against U.S. imperialism.
Afterward we got to talk with the managers of the farm in their air-conditioned office. In discussion of questions relating to production, they mentioned that they make a 25% profit at this enterprise. The workers who attended the briefing with us were quite interested in the facts the managers reported to us.
A Warm Expression of Solidarity With the MLP,USA Delegation
Saturday, July 26: In the MLPN office today, our delegation was greeted at noon by a noisy demonstration outside by several dozen comrades of the Marxist-Leninist Youth of Nicaragua and by delegations from other Central American countries. They came from the youth camp especially to greet our delegation.
Many songs were sung back and forth between the delegations and speeches of solidarity were made. Several hours more of discussions, music and. dancing followed. Finally the Central American comrades loaded onto their bus, to the shouts by the American delegation of Con el MAP-ML Nicaragua Vencera! and Continuemos el combate, Nicaragua no esta sola! ("With MAP-ML Nicaragua will be victorious!" and "Continue the fight, Nicaragua is not alone!")
A Militant March Through a Managua Barrio
This evening, a march was organized through a Managua working class neighborhood by the international youth camp. It declared its militant support for the Nicaraguan revolution and the Marxist-Leninists of Nicaragua. The march had a spirited character, with slogans, banners, flags and fireworks. We took part in it as supporters of the Campaign for the U.S. Nicaraguan Workers' Press.
At the conclusion of the demonstration, a U.S. imperialist flag was burned and several chants went up for the unity of the international working class.
Another week of activities lies ahead. The Workers' Advocate will report on them when we get further reports.
[Photo: Opening rally for the international youth camp.]
[Photo: Marxist-Leninist Youth of Nicaragua at the Leon demonstration.]
[Photo: With metalworkers at METASA.]
[Photo: Central American delegations come to greet MLP,USA delegation.]
One day while swimming at a park outside Managua, we were able to discuss the situation in Nicaragua with a pro-Sandinista youth who had just finished his military service and with a friend of his, a young worker with a more revolutionary outlook.
The Sandinista youth claimed that the Sandinista Front (FSLN) was the vanguard, leading the masses to socialism. He believed this because he felt that the FSLN had trained, armed and led the people in the insurrection. Whereas before a working class youth was hungry and had no future, now, he said, a man such as himself had plenty to eat as well as an education.
Right away he also, however, admitted that the Marxist-Leninist Party of Nicaragua was a vigorous and significant fighting force in the revolution.
When we expressed concern about the Sandinista policy of favoring the bourgeoisie at the expense of the working masses who had made the revolution, a policy which also hurts the Nicaraguan people's struggle against U.S. imperialism, the young man admitted that there were defects in the government's policy along these lines. But he himself thought that a period of "mixed economy" and "political pluralism" was necessary as part of the revolutionary process, because the workers and peasants were still too ignorant to rule. And this transition period provided by the FSLN allows the masses to train and educate themselves.
We pointed out that the government had in fact, from the beginning, restricted the masses and prevented the working class from taking the vital revolutionary measures, both domestically and against U.S. imperialism. To this, the youth said that while at this time he still had faith in the Sandinista leadership of the working class, he knew that the most important thing about the Nicaraguan revolution is that the masses themselves made it. Considering this, he was absolutely convinced that should the FSLN prove to be a misleader, then the masses would reject it and follow a better vanguard party.
This appears to be not merely the view of one individual but of a whole section of the youth of Nicaragua. This discussion revealed that, although this section still continues to have serious illusions in Sandinism, there remains a high revolutionary spirit and political interest among them -- even seven years after the overthrow of Somoza and after seven years of backpedaling by the petty-bourgeois regime.
Meanwhile, the other young worker criticized his friend for being sectarian against the left. And he seemed to agree with the MLPN's politics on many points that we put forward, including the importance of struggle against the Nicaraguan bourgeoisie, the pro-imperialist nature of Contadora, the importance of the armed revolution as shown by the fiasco of Allende in Chile, etc. He was eager to visit the MLPN office and read Prensa Proletaria as well as El Estandarte Obrero.
While this worker actually preferred the MLPN's politics to the Sandinistas on almost every question, he could not see why the MLPN and the FSLN and other groups could not unite to work together for the common goal of socialism. To this, we explained that the MLPN and FSLN do not have a common goal which they are trying to reach by different means. For example, while the Marxist-Leninists call for the workers and peasants to take power, the FSLN calls for political pluralism guaranteeing rights for the bourgeoisie; while the MLPN calls for expropriation of the exploiters and workers' control of production, the FSLN calls for a mixed economy of private capitalism and state monopoly capitalism; and while the MLPN calls for the dictatorship of the proletariat, the FSLN calls for national unity of all classes in Nicaragua.
After hours of political discussion on a variety of issues facing the revolutionary movements in Nicaragua, Central America, and the U.S., we sang revolutionary songs of solidarity with Nicaragua. The next day we saw one of our friends again at the mass action in Leon commemorating the students who lost their lives in the struggle against Somoza.
In July, the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA sent a delegation of workers and activists on a tour of Nicaragua at the invitation of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Nicaragua (MAP-ML). This was part of a campaign of activities organized to celebrate the seventh anniversary of the Nicaraguan revolution.
As we go to press, we have received some preliminary accounts back from Nicaragua.
The tour is a big success.
Nicaragua is faced with an ever-escalating war from U.S. imperialism. The Democratic-controlled House only recently voted $100 million in aid to the contras. Under these conditions, the presence of a delegation of Marxist- Leninist workers and activists from the U.S. was an important demonstration of solidarity. They brought the message that America is not the land of Reagan and the Democratic warmongers alone but is also a society where there are workers and communists in struggle.
Nicaragua sees a lot of tours from the U.S. There are delegations sent by Congress to hobnob with the domestic bourgeoisie. And there are tours which go to Nicaragua to support the Sandinistas. And there are others as well.
But this tour from the U.S., organized through the cooperation of the Marxist-Leninist parties of the U.S. and Nicaragua, was quite different.
Unlike official delegations from Washington, our delegation did not go to talk to the high priests of Catholic reaction nor to the contra journalists of La Prensa. Nor was it one of those tours which spend all their time with government ministers, trade union bureaucrats, administrators and managers.
No, our delegation went to talk to workers in the factories and farms, to militants in the trade unions, to Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries who are in the thick of the masses. They went to meet workers engaged in a courageous and complicated struggle against imperialism, the bourgeoisie, and reformism.
This tour brought together revolutionary workers and militants of Nicaragua with their comrades in the U.S. It showed the toilers who sympathize with the Nicaraguan Marxist-Leninists that they are not alone and that their heroic struggle has support from the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists in the U.S.
Thus this tour was a valuable learning experience for both' our delegation and for the Nicaraguan workers who came to meet it. For our part, our comrades have learned a great deal about the lives and struggle of the Nicaraguan workers. And no doubt it has allowed the Nicaraguan workers to learn something about the struggle of the working class in the U.S. In the coming period, the MLP,USA will find ways of spreading this rich experience so that the solidarity movement with the Nicaraguan revolution can be strengthened here in the U.S.
Below we publish some reports from our comrades, including pictures from the tour.
The MLP, USA delegation met one evening with workers from La Licorera rum factory in Chichigalpa, Chinandega province. In a worker's house, we talked with a group which included militant workers who support the Workers Front (Frente Obrero-FO) trade union center associated with the MLPN.
Comrade J., an FO leader fired from the rum factory for militantly defending the workers' interests, told us about the conditions and struggle there.
The rum factory is located close to the San Antonio sugar combine, which is the largest sugar plantation-refinery complex in Central America. Both are owned by the Pellas family, who are very rich and live in Miami. The Pellas are absentee capitalists; they have their profits wired to them. The management is appointed by the Sandinista government.
The union at the rum factory is affiliated with the Sandinista trade union center, the CST. Trade union officials receive higher pay than the workers. Some are also foremen and make over 22,000 cordobas ($17.60) a week, compared to production workers making 3,525 cordobas ($2.82) a week.
The majority of the workers at Licorera are women, 600 of them. They received lower pay for doing the same work as men. FO organized a struggle for equal pay for equal work, and this demand was won -- but at the expense of comrade J's job. Other issues agitating the workers include raising the pay of the lower job classifications, seniority rights, and putting an end to temporary one-month-long contracts.
Permanent work existed under Somoza but the workers are now having to wage a bitter fight for it. The Licorera rum factory does have a collective pact setting the conditions of work, but this isn't really worth much since the workers are hired only for one-month individual contracts. And to fight for the provisions of the collective pact to be implemented is a crime according to all the powers-that-be: the owner, the government-appointed management, and the union leaders.
Under some new rules, the government has doubled the work of the rum and sugar mill workers and cut their wages. The workers are always in debt. Workweeks of over 72 hours are common as workers try desperately to make ends meet. Meanwhile, at the sugar mill, workers are quitting since they feel that they are only losing money by working there.
The MLPN and FO militants work hard to develop the struggle for the workers' interests. They make use of every factory issue to ideologically train the workers in opposition to the petty-bourgeois politics of the Sandinistas. For example, they point to the firing of J. as an illustration of the government's repression against the communists who defend the workers' interests, while pointing also to how the capitalists' profits are safeguarded.
They work under conditions of acute repression. If the Sandinistas find out that a worker is with FO, his contract is not renewed at the end of the month and he is blacklisted with the CST, hindering him from getting jobs elsewhere. The Sandinista union also tries to scare the workers away from FO by slandering it as CIA, Somocista, etc. The repression and hostility to FO does have an intimidating effect on the workers. However, over the last three years they have lost all faith in the FSLN government and realize more and more that their only alternative is to fight with the Workers' Front.
The workers we met also had many questions for our delegation on communist work in the U.S. They were particularly interested to know how we organize the workers independently of the reactionary trade union bureaucracy.
[Photo: With rum factory workers in Chichigalpa.]
The Ninth Anti-Imperialist and Anti-Fascist International Youth Camp was also held in Managua at the same time as our tour. The MLP,USA did not have an official delegation at this camp, but our comrades participated in a few activities organized by the youth camp as supporters of the U.S. Campaign for the Nicaraguan Workers' Press.
At this camp, various delegations from Europe and Latin America came to express support for the Nicaraguan revolution and the MLPN. The presence of international delegations who came to support the Nicaraguan Marxist-Leninists was also an important act of solidarity for the revolutionary struggle of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Nicaragua.
Unfortunately, however, the camp was marred by some problems.
These problems are connected to the rightist positions on international affairs being taken by the Party of Labor of Albania. The PL A also takes a sectarian stand of refusing any support for the Nicaraguan Marxist-Leninists. Instead, to the extent it has relations with anyone in Nicaragua, it is with the Sandinistas. Indeed, in July the Albanians had a delegation visiting Nicaragua. But this delegation did not come to support the MLPN. Nor did it make contact with the international youth camp. Rather it came to share platforms with the FSLN.
At the youth camp itself, certain forces who share many of the ideological stands of the PLA disrupted the solidarity for the Nicaraguan Marxist-Leninists. One such delegation, with its stand of support for "mixed economy'' for Nicaragua, tried to conciliate the camp with petty-bourgeois Sandinism.
These forces vetoed the proposal to have the MLP,USA delegation participate in the youth camp in our own name. And later they even went on a rampage against the agreed-upon decision to invite our comrades to take part in some of the events of the camp under the name of the Campaign for the Nicaraguan Workers' Press. They forced the suspension of certain camp activities and some even disrupted a demonstration in Managua in support of the Nicaraguan revolution. They went into such a frenzy because our Party openly criticizes rightist and petty- bourgeois nationalist deviations in the international Marxist-Leninist movement.
Against this unprincipled behavior, the comrades of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Nicaragua worked hard to keep the camp going and maintain its activities. They took a comradely and revolutionary attitude to all who had sacrificed to come to Nicaragua to express solidarity with the struggle of the toilers. Our comrades were all moved by the warmth and support shown them by the Nicaraguan comrades.
On July 22, Reagan came out as a public relations man for apartheid. This was his major speech on the South African issue, and he came out as a raving racist.
Reagan acted as a mouthpiece for the apartheid government in Pretoria. According to Reagan, South Africa is a veritable paradise for blacks, where they have high incomes, freedom of speech, freedom to organize. Oh yes, he did not fail to say that "apartheid is morally wrong and politically unacceptable." But, like a true sympathizer of the American slaveholders of the days of yore, he proceeded to add that this didn't stop South Africa from being a shining light for blacks in Africa. After all, he exclaimed, "it would be an act of arrogance" to "transplant" elementary democracy to South Africa; instead one must maintain South Africa's "own traditions."
According to Reagan, the Botha regime itself was solving the problem of apartheid. The only problem was the state of emergency. Not that Reagan thinks it wrong to gun down the enemies of white minority rule. Reagan was careful to stress that Botha "has a right and responsibility to maintain order in the face of terrorists," but he went a bit too far when he arrested some "moderates."
It is clear as daylight that Reagan is a diehard backer of South African racism. The solidarity movement against apartheid in South Africa is connected with the struggle against the Reaganite offensive in the U.S.
* Detailed analysis of Reagan's speech -- page 11.
* Coverage of struggle in South Africa -- pages 12-13.
* On Senate debate over sanctions -- page 14.
Reagan's major policy speech on South Africa of July 22 was a disgusting, racist display. It was praised by the South African government as a vindication of their brutal policy. Apartheid Foreign Minister Roelof F. Botha stated that "it is encouraging that President Reagan acknowledges the dramatic changes brought about" by apartheid President P. W. Botha. (New York Times, July 24,1986, p. 4)
But it will not hurt the opponents of racism and apartheid to take a look at Reagan's speech. The value of Reagan's speech is that it brings out the true pro-apartheid policy of the U.S. government. It exposes the truth about U.S. imperialism's opposition to the liberation movement of the black and other oppressed people of South Africa, a truth which the liberal politicians are doing their best to hide.
Whitewashing the Racists
The bulk of Reagan's speech was devoted to glorifying the racist government and businessmen of South Africa. Why, according to Reagan, "the realization has finally come to Pretoria that apartheid belongs to the past."
Is Reagan on the same planet as the rest of us? Everyone knows that the Botha regime is shooting down protesters, has rounded up 8,000 activists, and is occupying the black townships with troops in order to put down the rebellion against apartheid, not abolish it.
Praising Apartheid's "Freedom" for Trade Unions
But to "prove" his point, Reagan cited a list of supposed reforms of the Botha regime. He presented the South Africa of today as a bastion of freedom for blacks. For example, he lauded the "free trade union movement" which is "permitted" in South Africa.
American workers! Let us take this seriously. This is an example of what Reagan regards as trade union "freedom." So many trade union activists are in jail that the South African businessmen complain that they don't know who to negotiate with. What a fine "freedom"! And even this "legality" was achieved only because the black workers had poured by the hundreds of thousands into illegal unions. So the Botha regime had finally been forced to legalize some unions in order to maintain some type of control over them.
Reagan Praises South Africa as a Model of Freedom of Speech
But Reagan, never one to care much about reality, went on enthusiastically about South Africa as a model of "freedom of speech." According to him, "in contemporary South Africa, before the state of emergency, there was a broad measure of freedom of speech" for "outspoken critics of the South African government." Sure, in Robbins Island and the other prisons there is great freedom of speech in South Africa. The only trouble is that any protester is "banned" and becomes a non-person, who cannot be quoted in the press and whose name cannot even be mentioned.
True, the racists do tolerate a few impotent snipes from the liberals of the white ruling class or their sold out black agents like bantustan chief Buthelezi, both of whom propose to maintain the present system but with some modifications. But apartheid for opponents of white minority rule has always meant the "freedom" to be swept up in predawn raids, to be carted off to jail and tortured, and to be murdered.
Reagan Doesn't Want Majority Rule for South Africa
And while Reagan blabbers about freedom of speech, he carefully neglects to mention that the black majority has no political rights and no voting rights. In fact Reagan's speech does not even call for the basic democratic right of one man, one vote. He stays as far away from the issue of majority rule as possible. Instead he merely echoed the South African government's own fraud about allowing a certain "voice" for some blacks while the white racists continue to hold the real power. Thus Reagan backed the South African government's plans to create separate black advisory councils, local administrations, etc., which leave all the real power firmly in the hands of the white ruling class.
As a matter of fact, Reagan denied that democracy applied to South Africa. He stated, "It would be an act of arrogance to insist that uniquely American ideas and institutions, rooted in our own history and traditions, be transplanted to South African soil." Reagan, as a typical chauvinist, pretends that the U.S. is a bastion of democracy and equal rights, and not of exploitation, racism, and militarism. He presents democracy and equal voting rights as "uniquely American ideas," and then he oh-so modestly suggests that these "American ideas" shouldn't be applied in South Africa. Instead he called for maintaining South African "traditions": but what are those traditions but the traditions of white racist rule.
(It should be noted, however, that the South African racists have already transplanted "uniquely American ideas and institutions" to South Africa. They made a study of American segregation and racism when setting up the racist system in South Africa. And it is precisely these "uniquely American ideas" that the black South Africans are already fighting to overthrow.)
Reagan Praises the Exploitation of the Black People
In Reagan's fantasy world, the brutal exploitation of white minority rule has created wonderful economic benefits for the black people. How wonderful it is to see your children starve and fend for themselves as one grows food for the white masters, cleans their homes, and babysits their children!
But Reagan, ignoring the utter destitution of the black masses, the hunger in the bantustans, and the huge unemployment, painted a picture of the wonders of high wages. He pulled figures out of the air. Did one know that South Africa is supposed to be the only African country with a "large black middle class"? Reagan hopes that the "large black middle class" will serve as a "moderate" buffer against the radicalism and "terrorism" of the black workers, but first he is going to have to find this alleged large number of prosperous black people in South Africa.
Reagan talked of supposed increases in real income of blacks, but neglected to mention that one of the driving forces of the present upsurge in South Africa is precisely the deterioration in the position of the black masses. And he didn't bother to mention that wages for blacks are so low that the workers can barely eke out an existence and that they are a mere pittance of those of whites. But then again, why should one expect that Reagan, who can't find the growing hunger in the U.S., should be able to recognize hunger thousands of miles away in South Africa?
Praising Imperialism's Support for South Africa
Since Reagan is clearly in love with apartheid, naturally he denounces the "emotional clamor for punitive sanctions" against South Africa. Why, it is especially important to keep the profits rolling in, so that "its [South Africa's] strong and developed economy must not be crippled."
So Reagan called for continued U.S and other imperialist investment in South Africa. "Wherever blacks seek equal opportunity, higher wages, better working conditions, their strongest allies are the American, British, French, German and Dutch businessmen who bring to South Africa ideas of social justice."
What a farce! There is not room in this newspaper to list all the crimes committed against the oppressed masses around the world by these vultures, the "American, British, French, German and Dutch businessmen." Suffice it to say that it was the British and Dutch capitalists who constructed the racist system themselves in South Africa. And the U.S. and other imperialist multinationals moved into South Africa to take advantage of the cheap labor of the enslaved black work force, to plunder the resources and for other imperialist interests. Profits and not social justice is what brought the imperialist businesses to South Africa and it is why they are trying to stay there today.
Indeed Reagan himself found many things besides "ideas of social justice" as the obstacle to "walk[ing] away" from South Africa. He talked of the "oil of the Persian Gulf which is indispensable to the industrial economies" of the Western imperialist countries and which passes around South Africa's Cape of Good Hope. He preached that South Africa has "vital minerals"; and he enthusiastically listed them. And he raised the specter that "the Soviet Union is not unaware of the stakes" in South Africa. Reagan just can't keep his eyes off of oil, of vital minerals, of profits, and of rivalry with the USSR. So much for any altruism in Reagan's support of the racist fiends of the South) African government.
The Great White Father Counsels Patience to the Oppressed
While Reagan took a charitable attitude toward the racists, he made his opposition to the anti-apartheid activists clear. He advised the oppressed that "the desire for retribution will have to be set aside" and that they should have "hopes for peace and reconciliation" with the racists. Thus Reagan called on the masses to surrender to the Botha government. After all, claimed Reagan, the U.S. was the "friend and ally" of the oppressed who would ensure peaceful change.
Endorsing Botha's Massacre of the Black Masses and Calling Them "Terrorists"
And if the black and other oppressed masses don't accept Reagan's advice, he was determined to force them to know their place. Thus he endorsed the repression of the Botha government, labeling protesters as "terrorists." If there was repression, it was really the fault of the black militants who allegedly were engaging in actions "designed to bring about further repression, the imposition of martial law, and eventually creating the conditions for racial war." He presented the white racist government as the defender of "society" and the people, and he ranted that "In defending their society and people, the South African government has a right and responsibility to maintain order in the face of terrorists...."
Reagan's Criticism of the State of Emergency -- It Doesn't Work
Reagan did have one basic objection to the recent state of emergency: it wasn't working. So Reagan said that "...but by its tactics the Government is only accelerating the descent into bloodletting. Moderates are being trapped between the intimidation of radical youths and counter gangs of vigilantes. And the government's state of emergency... went outside the law by sweeping up thousands of students, civic leaders, church leaders and labor leaders, thereby contributing to further radicalization."
You see, "further radicalization" is Reagan's nightmare. Kill the radicals, but leave the "moderates," the bootlickers, alone. Everything must be done according to the "law," which in South Africa is the law of brutal repression of the black majority. His criticism that mass arrests went outside the law is another Reagan lie -- mass repression is the law in South Africa. And thus the task is to overthrow this law, to overthrow the system of white minority rule, and ensure majority rule.
Reagan Calls for Helping the White Racists Prosper
In fact, Reagan claims that the best way to oppose apartheid is to help the white racists prosper. So he is for helping the white racists, for aiding them, but only for the sake of the black masses of course. What a farce!
Here is Reagan explaining why one has to help the racists prosper. "Our own experience teaches us that racial progress comes swiftest and easiest not during economic depression but in times of prosperity and growth. Our own history teaches us that capitalism is the natural enemy of such feudal institutions of apartheid."
The Real Lesson of American History -- It Took Civil War and Revolution to Overthrow Slavery
But what does American history really teach? How was black slavery overthrown in the U.S.?
It was not done by having the slaveholders prosper. It was not done by "bringing the slaveholders to their senses." It was not done by courts upholding the law (the U.S. Supreme Court upheld slavery).
It was done by the Civil War, which was a five-year war of huge proportions. It was a war in which the slaves themselves took part, both by sabotaging the Confederate war effort and by joining the federal army and navy. And the capitalists betrayed the former slaves as soon as capitalist interests were safe. So a democratic revolution was not carried through in the South, and Reconstruction was timid and soon overthrown entirely. This capitalist treachery was why the black people have had to wage over one hundred years of struggle since the Civil War against the remnants of slavery.
This history teaches that only revolution can uproot white minority rule. And since South Africa, unlike the U.S., has a black majority, this revolution will not just have black participation (as in the U.S. Civil War), but will be entirely based on the black working people, who will rally the other oppressed people around them. And if the struggle does not conclude in a profound social revolution, it will give rise to decades more of suffering, just as the failure to carry through revolution did in the U.S.
Reagan's Goals and Those of Congress Are the Same
But it is not just Reagan who opposes the revolutionary struggle in South Africa. The difference between Reagan and the "anti-apartheid heroes" of Congress is only a difference of rhetoric and a difference over tactics in achieving the same objectives, since their goals are the same. The supporters of the Dellums bill, the strongest sanctions bill before Congress, themselves denounce revolution as "race war," just like Reagan. They denounce the "radicalization" of the black masses as the enemy. And they bemoan the fate of the "moderates." (See the quotations from the Congressional debate on the Dellums bill in "What the Dellums Bill Is and What the Liberals Want" in the July 15, 1986 issue of The Workers' Advocate Supplement.) While the anti-apartheid activists want sanctions in order to help undermine the racist regime, the Congressional liberals measure sanctions with an eyedropper to ensure that only a "signal" will be sent to Pretoria, but the fighting strength of the racists will be maintained.
Reagan's speech of July 22 was full of lies. But if it showed anything, it showed that U.S. imperialism will never be an ally of the anti-apartheid struggle. The U.S. capitalists are diehard enemies of the revolution of the South African masses. The solidarity movement in the U.S. must target not only the racist rulers in Pretoria, but U.S. imperialism and the other imperialist supporters of apartheid.
[Photo: From the June 14 anti-apartheid demonstration in New York City.]
[Graphic: APARTHEID NO! REVOLUTION YES!]
This past month the black workers of South Africa kept the heat on the racist rulers with a series of militant strikes. These actions came on the heels of the mighty May Day general strike and the June 16 general strike to commemorate the 1976 Soweto uprising.
The growing strength of the workers has frightened the wits out of the Botha government. Under its June 12 "emergency" measures, the racists have rounded up about 8,000 anti-apartheid activists, including over a thousand trade union activists, in order to wreck the current upsurge of struggle.
But the black workers have not bowed down to this repression. In mid-June the workers began to launch actions against the detention of the trade union activists and the "emergency" measures as a whole. The fight against the government's repression picked up momentum in July, becoming the focus of the workers' movement over the last several weeks.
Miners Protest Repression
The protest against government repression began with sit-down strikes and work stoppages by supermarket workers and dairy workers on June 18. Soon the actions extended to over 100 retail stores in the Transvaal province. Workers at chemical and pharmaceutical plants joined the fight, as did auto workers.
On July 4, the miners threw themselves into the battle. Thirteen thousand gold and diamond miners held job actions. Four diamond mines in Kimberly were shut down when 2,000 miners walked out and began a week- long strike. Another major action occurred in the Orange Free State where 3,000 gold miners conducted work slowdowns at a government-owned mine.
The July 14 Protests
The July 14 "National Day of Action" spread the movement further. Although this protest did not take hold across the country, in various areas it was very effective. In the industrial city of Port Elizabeth virtually the whole work force participated, shutting down the factories and plants including the GM auto plant. About 60% of the workers in East London stayed off the job. In a number of places, such as the GM plant, the protest continued past the first day.
The July 14 actions also included a school boycott by over 340,000 students. (For more on the student struggle, see accompanying article.)
Meanwhile, in the first half of July the struggle in the mines continued to grow. A slowdown by 5,000 workers at the Anglo-American Corporation's Geduld Mine forced the company to close two mine shafts. At the Gencor and Gold Field Mines, about 30,000 miners took part in work stoppages.
Repression Will Not Halt the Freedom Struggle
The detention of thousands of activists and other repressive measures has created difficulties for the anti-apartheid struggle. The July 14 national action, for example, was unable to approach the countrywide scope of the general strikes of the past two months. But the actions of July show that the workers are launching a determined counterattack. No racist chains can hold back the power of the black wage slaves for long, Such a force will one day bring down racist apartheid.
Rent strikes in South Africa
A wave of rent strikes has swept across the black townships of South Africa. The strikes are a protest against rotten housing, poor public services, and high fees in the townships. As well the actions are targeting the racist rulers' "emergency" measures of June 12 and other government repression.
It is estimated that presently there are 28 rent strikes across the country involving some 850,000 people. In the huge black township of Soweto, for example, the rent boycott has been going on for two months. The authorities have threatened mass evictions. And when 2,000 rent strikers organized a protest in mid-July, the racist forces violently attacked it, killing five people. But this has failed to deter the strike. Despite the repression roughly half of the 75,000 renters are participating in the Soweto action.
Meanwhile in the Vaal Triangle townships south of Soweto, the rent strikes have been going on for almost two years. In fact the rent boycott in the Vaal Triangle area was one of the opening salvos in the recent big upsurge in the anti-apartheid struggle. These strikes -- along with the mass demonstrations, clashes with the racist troops, and the student actions -- show the all-consuming fire burning in the black townships.
[Photo: South African gold miners rally in 1983. The miners have played a major role in the current upsurge of struggle against the apartheid regime.]
On July 13, the South African racists made public a series of new "security" measures for the segregated black schools. This new repression is aimed at bringing to a halt the participation of the students across the country in the anti-apartheid struggle. The students' school boycotts, participation in the black township revolts, and other activity has been a big thorn in the side of the racists. The fascist clampdown is already running into the rocks as students are refusing to be shackled by the new restrictions.
Turning the Schools Into Prison Camps
With these new regulations, the students will be virtual prisoners in the schools.
First of all, the racists' Department of Education and Training (DET), which issued the new decrees, announced that any student failing to register for school by July 14 would be barred from school for the year. This measure aims at breaking the boycott of the racist schools which has lasted a year in some areas.
The DET has also given itself the power to arbitrarily ban anyone from school without giving reasons and with no right of appeal. This is to allow the racists to throw anti-apartheid activists out of the schools at will.
Assisting the process of cracking down on the militant students is the DET's requirement that all black students must carry identification cards. This regulation is to make it easier for the authorities to identify anti-apartheid "troublemakers."
The issuing of student ID's is another example of the nature of South African- style "reform." Just a few weeks ago the racist rulers made a big fuss about how they were abolishing the hated pass laws which forced blacks to carry identity documents at all times. In fact the authorities simply replaced the old system with a more refined system to control the movement of blacks and other oppressed people: they introduced a "universal" identity card for all adults in South Africa including whites. And now there are the new student ID cards as well.
As if these measures weren't bad enough, the DET has ordered the setting up of fences and floodlights around the schools. The schools will now also have "security" patrols to put down any student rebellion.
The new rules also ban teachers from political activity. And they are also designed to force the teachers into policing the new fascist regulations.
The Black Students Launch, Defiant Protests
But if the white slave masters thought they would make the black students bow down they were sadly mistaken. The day after the new decrees were announced, at least 340,000 students boycotted classes. This figure amounts to 20% of the black students. They were participating in the July 14 actions protesting both the new school regulations and the government's repressive "emergency" regulations of June 12.
In order to demoralize the youth, the government declared the protest a failure since "only" 20% of the students participated according to their figures. But to say the protest failed is a gross lie. In the face of the DET's new rules, one out of every five students took the resolute stand of risking their entire educational future by boycotting classes. Let the racists try to sleep easy on that!
Moreover the official figure of 20% does not explain the full impact of the protests. It does not show that the percentage was much higher for the high school youth, those who most participate in the anti-apartheid movement. As well it is reported that the government counted tens of thousands of black students as "attending classes" who in fact were holding protests on the school grounds.
Indeed, in the Cape Province the government's own figures show that the majority of all black students boycotted classes. There were also reports of a complete boycott at a number of high schools in different parts of the country.
Students Burn Their ID Cards
Since the July 14 actions the fight against the DET's measures has continued. Despite the government's general press blackout on news about the mass struggle, reports are trickling out that show a revolt against the ID cards is underway.
In the black township of Lamontville, near Durban, students burned their ID cards on July 17. The government has responded with more persecution. Five students have been arrested. Meanwhile the DET is demanding that parents sign a pledge making them financially liable for any damages at the schools during protests. And the authorities are threatening to shut down the local high school if students do not sign pledges agreeing to obey the fascist DET rules. Despite these threats, the students are still refusing to carry ID cards.
Similarly, students in Soweto have also been waging a struggle against the ID card system.
Revolutionary Struggle, Not Reformist Pipe Dreams, Will Defeat the Racists
The imposition of the school "security" measures has further exposed the futility of the path of conciliation with the racists promoted among the students by reformist forces in the anti-apartheid movement. In a conference in April, the reformists called for an end to school boycotts. Instead they recommended working within the racist school system to somehow give it a progressive character.
But the racists have now thoroughly exploded this pipe dream of gradually, in a non-confrontational way, abolishing the racist character of the school system. Indeed the racists recently banned one of the groups which called for an end to the school boycott, the National Education Crisis Committee.
Meanwhile the students have continued to push forward their militant struggle against the racists. They have made the schools into a cauldron which has burned the racists to the quick.
In what has become a regular ritual in South Africa, Bishop Tutu has met once again with racist chieftain P.W. Botha. After each new atrocity by the government, Tutu rushes to Botha's side. They emerged from their recent July 21 meeting all smiles and handshakes, and Tutu described their chitchat as "a friendly exchange."
During the meeting, Tutu pleaded with Botha to be a nice fellow and lift the June 12 state of emergency. Botha refused. Instead he gave Tutu a tongue-lashing, lectured him not to support sanctions against South Africa, and denounced church officials involved in the anti-apartheid movement as "prophets of evil...who promote violence and terror." In short, Botha made it clear that this meeting had nothing to do with backing down on apartheid or ending the savage repression of the black people.
Nevertheless, Tutu, whom the Western press likes to present as the leading opponent of apartheid, hailed the talks as a positive development. After all, said the bishop, "The fact that the state president [Botha] is willing to discuss is, I think, a plus." (Detroit Free Press, July 22,1986)
What shameless groveling! Tutu praises Botha simply because the white slave master has agreed to talk to him.
Why does Tutu take such a disgusting stand? Because this is typical reformism: the masses be damned, the important thing is that the reformist bigwigs are taken into the counsels of the powerful oppressors.
Talking With Botha, While Denouncing the Struggle
While fawning on Botha, Tutu's attitude toward the militant struggle of the masses is quite the opposite. Oh sure, Tutu likes to give the impression that he stands with the fighting masses. But time and again he condemns the revolutionary struggle. On July 2, for example, Tutu put the oppressors and the revolutionary masses into the same bag. He preached that "the problems of our country cannot be solved by the violence of injustice, oppression and exploitation nor by that of those who seek to overthrow such a system." The racists may gun down hundreds of blacks and other oppressed. But when a militant uprising breaks out against this tyranny, Tutu throws a fit. He slanders the struggle as being no different than the actions of the racist rulers.
For Tutu and other reformists, the mass struggle is simply a means to prod the regime into "dialogue" and "negotiations." Tutu seeks a compromise with the white overlords, not the destruction of the racist system. But as the July 21 talks show, abolishing apartheid hand in hand with the racists is just a pipe dream.
Moreover, while the oppressed got nothing from these talks, the regime gained from them. The struggle is so fierce that even sellouts like bantustan leader Chief Buthelezi are scared of directly associating themselves with Botha. They are hesitating about going on Botha's planned national advisory council. The hatred of the fighting masses for the regime is such that anyone associating with Botha is likely to lose all credibility as an opponent of apartheid.
But if Tutu can hobnob with the racist leaders, then why can't Buthelezi? Tutu's chats are helping the open opponents of the mass struggle and making it easier for them to join with Botha against the masses.
But while Tutu hobnobs with the lords of racism, the masses continue to launch one bold assault after the other against apartheid. It is the path of revolutionary struggle, not reformist illusions in Botha, that will bring down the pillars of apartheid.
It has just been announced that the Reagan administration intends to conclude an agreement with South Africa to increase textile imports by 4% a year for five years. At the end of July, during the Senate debate on South Africa, it was revealed that the trade pact had been "initialed" on June 27. There is still one more step before the pact is finalized.
The Reagan administration is a diehard backer of the apartheid rulers of South Africa. This trade pact is another attempt by Reagan to help the white racist government out of its economic difficulties.
Defending the pact, the Reagan administration claimed that, without this pact, imports of South African textiles would increase even faster. It had allowed South African textile imports to triple between 1983 and 1985. (They reached just under 1% of total textile imports.) This shows that the Reagan administration can think of only two alternatives: gradually increasing their support for the South African racists, and rapidly increasing their support for the South African racists. The Reaganite racists are simply the American edition of the brutal apartheid lords of South Africa.
Recently it has been reported that the U.S. National Security Agency, a federal intelligence organization, has been working closely with the South African Directorate of Military Intelligence. According to former officials in the Reagan and Carter administrations, the U.S. has been providing the racists with information on the activities of the African National Congress, one of the main groups in the anti-apartheid movement. It has also been revealed that British intelligence has played a role in this collaboration, often acting as a conduit between the U.S. and South African spy agencies.
This is another fruit of Reagan's policy of "constructive engagement" and "quiet diplomacy" with the South Africans. (After all, the information was certainly passed "quietly.") Reagan says his policy of "constructive engagement" is helping the blacks in South Africa. But this is just a sick joke. "Constructive engagement" is simply a policy of cozy partnership with the racist scum who rule South Africa. Racist Ronnie is even aiding the South African military with reports on the anti-apartheid forces. He is helping them suppress the black masses.
Congress Says How Horrible -- Keep It Up
Meanwhile Congress has displayed mock indignation about this cooperation with the South African military. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has already drafted legislation to deal with the problem. But what is it proposing? Its bill, in the name of limiting the practice, establishes an official rationale (dealing with violence) for handing information to the South African military.
Imagine that! The "anti-apartheid" heroes in Congress won't even propose ending cooperation with the South African military. The Reagan administration is to be allowed to pass on information about "violent" acts. Since the confrontation between the black masses and the South African authorities long ago reached the violent stage, this restriction means nothing (even assuming it is observed by the Reagan administration). And yet Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, has the gall to say that this would be "an important statement on the part of this government that we're not going to involve ourselves in trying to help either side."
How well the Reaganites and Congress work together! The Reagan administration denies passing any information to South Africa (after all, apparently the information is often passed using the British as intermediaries). And the Congress says it is so outraged by the passing of information that it will, instead of banning the practice, give Reagan permission for something that he has never dared openly request.
[Photo: A recent anti-apartheid demonstration in Paris, France.]
At the same time as the U.S. government spies against ANC for the South African military, both Reagan and the Congress are asking South Africa to release ANC leader Nelson Mandela from prison. Reagan's raving pro-apartheid speech of July 22, which was praised by the South African white racists, nevertheless contained the demand to release Mandela. And most Congressional bills for sanctions against South Africa contain the same demand.
How is this contradiction to be explained? The U.S. government says it wants the ANC leader to be released, but the U.S. government also helps track down and destroy his organization.
The ANC Leadership Has Been Wooing Western Capitalists
To understand this, one must know what the ANC leadership has been doing.
The ANC leadership is fond of revolutionary rhetoric and undoubtedly a large number of rank-and-file supporters of the ANC sincerely believe in revolution and fight for it. Nevertheless the ANC leadership follows an essentially reformist strategy. It has made a practice of wooing Western imperialist governments and corporations. It calls on them to force the South African government to yield and thus avoid revolution.
It would indeed be strange for a revolutionary organization to appeal for outside intervention against the revolution. But in fact the ANC leadership is pursuing the plan of replacing revolution by a negotiated constitutional reform where the white racists become humanitarians and decide to voluntarily give up power. Mandela himself has stated that "If the ANC is legalized and allowed to participate in the constitutional development of the country,then there is no need for violence...." (Manchester Guardian, February 10, 1985) A detailed presentation of the views of the ANC on this question are presented in the September 1, 1985 issue of The Workers' Advocate in the article "On the Strategy and Tactics of the ANC of South Africa."
But U.S. Imperialism Is Insisting on Guarantees
The U.S. imperialists are interested in this approach by the ANC. So on one hand they call for Mandela's release. But on the other hand they continue to support the slaughter of ANC militants. (Thus Reagan, on July 22, talked of "elements" of the ANC as "terrorists," and said it was the responsibility of the Botha government to suppress them. And in the same speech he said Mandela should be released from prison.)
So here is the dual policy of U.S. imperialism. It calls on the ANC to make good on its promises of being reformist good guys, on pain of military extermination. This dual policy is why, for American capitalist politicians, liberal and conservative alike, calling for the release of Mandela is perfectly compatible with continuing to help South Africa fight the revolution. If South Africa does release Mandela and begin negotiations, U.S. imperialist diplomatic, economic and military pressure is to ensure that the ANC makes good on its promises to imperialism and sells out the struggle.
Release All Anti-Apartheid Activists!
Our Party holds that all South African anti-apartheid activists, including Mandela, should be released from prison. Their release should not be conditional on making deals with U.S. imperialism. Their release is not only elementary justice, but it will also help the black masses learn more about the different political trends and decide what path to take.
But the concern of the liberal and conservative imperialist politicians for the release of various prisoners and for negotiations is totally hypocritical. Their design is to find leaders with some credibility among the black masses who will restrain them from the revolution. This is why they talk about demanding the release of prisoners while simultaneously supporting repression against the radical black masses.
The Senate is debating South Africa. Talk of sanctions fills the air. But they are measuring the sanctions with an eyedropper.
Liberal bigwig Kennedy and the "anti-apartheid" Republican Weicker had said they would introduce the Dellums bill in the Senate. This bill would cut off all U.S. trade with South Africa, with the disgusting exception of certain minerals used by the Pentagon. But so far this has turned out to be hot air. Instead the liberals appear to be aiming at something closer to the original version of the Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 which, among other things, provides for aid to South Africa alongside the token sanctions.
Meanwhile a bipartisan bill has been brought out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by its chairman, Republican Senator Lugar. This bill contains various token sanctions that create certain inconveniences for the South African regime, but which carefully avoid anything decisive. For example, there is a big fuss about banning new investment in South Africa. Since there is essentially no new American investment in South Africa, due to the South African recession and the impact of the anti-apartheid movement, this ban would seem pretty safe. It merely takes account of what already exists.
As a matter of fact, Republican Lugar stressed that the point of the bill was to keep Reagan involved in the process. Since Reagan is a diehard defender of the South African racists, this means that the bill is designed to avoid doing anything serious against the racists. But Lugar has the gall to present the bill's support of Reagan as proof that it was a good bill! Lugar stated: "This is a strong bill. It involves the president, but it does not take his prerogatives from him. It involves him in the process but gives him some direction on which way we would like to see him go."
The Liberals Speak
Why all this playacting, in which the congressmen shout and wave their arms over measures with rather minor effects?
We Have seen that Republican Lugar wants to cover over Reagan's support for apartheid and "give him some direction." But what about the liberals?
Listen to the liberals themselves explain their goals during the House debate on sanctions this June.
Solarz is one of the liberal spokesmen on foreign policy in the House. He presents himself as a vehement opponent of apartheid. He is a cosponsor of the original Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 and a supporter of the stronger Dellums version of this bill.
But what is his goal? What is he trying to accomplish? Is he trying to help the uprising of the black masses? On the contrary, that is his nightmare. Listen to this:
"Our interests are in preventing the radicalization of the black majority in that country and the emergence of a new government which would be hostile to our interests." (Congressional Record, June 18,1986, p. 3875)
Or listen to Wolpe, another liberal Democrat, cosponsor of the Anti- Apartheid Act of 1986, and supporter of the Dellums bill. He wants to avoid revolution too, and he states: "... For democratic, nonviolent opponents of apartheid, like Bishop Tutu, Reverend Boesak...economic sanctions are essential, precisely because they represent the only conceivable alternative to increasing pressure for violent resistance from the black majority." (Ibid., p. 3862)
What difference is this from arch-racist Ronald Reagan, who supports the South African regime's suppression of "terrorists" but says the regime went too far in jailing "moderates"?
There is no difference in goal, only a difference in method. The liberals agree with Reagan in opposing the revolution, but disagree on whether sanctions are useful in nudging the South African regime to adopt a more effective policy in stopping the radicalization of the masses.
Listen to Solarz explain his attitude to the Botha government:
"I think that sanctions are designed not to bring the government of South Africa to its knees but to bring the government to its senses." (Ibid., p. 3914)
This is why the Democrats join with the Republicans in measuring out sanctions with an eyedropper. They want to be sure not to do anything really serious to the South African regime, in which they rest their hopes.
Support the Radicalization of the Black Masses in South Africa
But real opponents of apartheid are not scared of the radicalization of the South African masses. On the contrary, they work for it, welcome it, and rely on it as the only guarantee of the overthrow of white minority rule.
Real opponents of apartheid are not interested in helping the South African government, but in "bringing it to its knees" and delivering the final blow.
And this is why all real opponents of apartheid must denounce the Congressional fakers. The anti-apartheid movement must be an independent movement of the masses that denounces both Democrats and Republicans.
On the Dellums Bill
Just recently, the liberal Democrats were dancing and singing over the Dellums bill or version of the Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986. This was the strongest sanctions bill they had ever put forward. But it seems that the liberals abandoned it before the debate even started. Indeed, it had only passed the House of Representatives by a fluke, because merely a handful of congressmen were present for the vote.
But that does not mean that the Dellums bill would have been the be-all and end-all of sanctions. It would not cut U.S. military and political support for apartheid, but dealt only with trade. For example, the cooperation of the Reagan administration with the South African military against the ANC would not have been affected by the Dellums bill. Nor would the Reagan administration's support for the South African occupation of Namibia. But even this trade bill was too much for the Democrats.
Build a Mass Solidarity Movement With the Revolution in South Africa
Expose the Congressional liars! It is the mass solidarity movement, not the Congressional playacting, that is the real support for the overthrow of the white minority regime.
Part of building the solidarity movement is exposing the hypocrisy of Congress. The strategy of struggle must be to mobilize the working masses, not to lobby Congress. The struggle against apartheid is one of the means of arousing the masses to struggle against the Reaganite offensive of the bourgeoisie.
We do not oppose any sanctions, no matter how small. But the solidarity movement must have an attitude of cold contempt to the Congressional games. This not only will help build the movement, but it will maximize whatever chance there is that Congress will have to tap the wrists of the South African racists a little harder.
Down with white minority rule in South Africa!
Down with the Democrats and Republicans, opponents of bringing down the South African racist regime!
Revolution -- Yes! White minority rule --No!
Recently there has been a lot of speculation in the American liberal press about how Reagan has made the "democratic turn" with respect to Chile. The main incident cited in this regard was the U.S. endorsement of a report in the UN Human Rights Commission last March condemning human rights violations in Chile.
The idea that Reagan is now against the Pinochet dictatorship is absurd. Just this summer, Reagan's support for Pinochet was underlined by the invitation to the Chilean torture ship Esmeralda to participate in the Statue of Liberty festival. Pinochet's troops were shooting demonstrators in the streets, while Reagan and Iacocca were greeting Pinochet's floating torture chamber.
Nonetheless, as Pinochet heads for his downfall, there has been a certain turn in the U.S. government's way of dealing with Chile. While continuing to support Pinochet, the State Department is working to influence the post- Pinochet scenario.
Counterrevolution Is the Key to Reaganite Policy
Opposition to revolution and support for capitalist reaction is the key to Reaganite policy towards Chile. The U.S. imperialists supported Pinochet's 1973 coup because they saw him as a fierce, anti-communist reactionary who would crush the militancy of the Chilean working class and toilers. And since then, U.S. administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, have propped up Pinochet for his services to capitalism and U.S. imperialism.
As recently as last fall, following a huge anti-Pinochet demonstration, Reagan sent a special emissary, Langhorne Motley, to Chile to assess the situation. Motley reported back that "Chile is in good hands," and Reagan was satisfied.
Pinochet Is Becoming a Liability
Nonetheless the fascist regime in Chile is something of an embarrassment for the imperialists. The economy is in shambles and there are sharp divisions emerging among the generals themselves. Pinochet's minions regularly murder people with impunity. And Pinochet does not seem eager to give his regime a "democratic" facelift -- indeed, he openly denounces democracy, saying Chile has developed a higher system, the "dictatorship of democracy."
Furthermore, there is the real danger that Pinochet's oppression will unleash the revolutionary uprising that the imperialists so fear. In the last year spontaneous demonstrations have become commonplace in Santiago despite the constant presence of riot, police throughout the city. And the recent general strike showed the workers' readiness to confront Pinochet's troops.
For this reason the U.S. has for years maintained relations with liberal opposition politicians, especially of the Christian Democratic Party. If the crisis deepens and Pinochet is forced out, the U.S. is counting on the civilian bourgeois politicians to take over and keep the masses under control -- as happened this spring in the Philippines.
What the U.S. Expects of the Liberals
Nonetheless Washington doesn't want to replace Pinochet with the Christian Democrats quite yet. On the contrary, the U.S. policy is for the Christian Democrats' activity to stay within the "legal" confines of Pinochet's fascist regime. The U.S. insists that 1989 -- the date set by Pinochet for the beginning of electoral activity -- is the earliest possible date for transition to civilian rule. And the U.S. is trying to convince the Christian Democrats to support a presidential candidate that would be acceptable to the armed forces. (New York Times, April 28, 1986)
At the same time the U.S. works to pressure the Christian Democrats to stay away from any forces to their left. This spring the U.S. ambassador was busy trying to prevent the formation of the Civic Assembly, a new coalition between the Christian Democrats and the revisionist Communist Party. The U.S. considers that Pinochet's biggest achievement was the bloody suppression of the Chilean left, and thus whatever bourgeois regime comes after Pinochet must continue that policy. While Washington knows full well that the CP isn't revolutionary, nevertheless it wants to eliminate the words communism and Marxism from the Chilean political scene.
In working to exclude the revisionist CP, Reagan's ambassador urged the Christian Democrats to announce a program for a future civilian government, with the following main provisions:
1) A complete ban on "non- democratic" parties -- i.e., any parties professing adherence to Marxism;
2) A complete amnesty for the military, for the thousands of murders carried out by Pinochet and his cohorts;
3) Chile to stay out of Central America peace talks (Reagan does not want anyone butting into what he considers his own backyard);
4) Continuation of Pinochet's policy on foreign debts, and nonsupport of any cartel of debtor nations (one reason the imperialists continue to support Pinochet is that he meets all interest payments on the massive loans he has taken out, despite the stagnation of Chile's economy). (Latin America Report, May 2,1986)
This, then, is the actual content of Reagan's so-called "opposition" to Pinochet: insistence that Pinochet's constitution be obeyed to the letter; support for Pinochet's rabid anti-communism; a "forgive and forget" attitude toward all the junta's crimes; support for Pinochet's foreign policy and economic policy; and insistence that any opposition movement continue Pinochet's ban on the left. No wonder Pinochet winks at the opposition meetings going on in the U.S. embassy.
The anger of the Mexican working class -- forced to bear the brunt of the country's acute economic crisis -- is breaking out in strikes and protests.
The beginning of July saw a strike by the 14,000 auto workers at Volkswagen's Mexican facilities. After striking for 10 days the VW workers agreed to go back, having won a 71% wage hike.
But at the same time, the trade union leaders at VW also agreed to a company plan to "increase quality of production" -- i.e., a scheme to step up the productivity drive against the workers. What's more, the 71% wage hike isn't what it appears to be, given the present rapid rise in the cost of living in Mexico. Inflation was 64% in 1985 and is expected to hit 80% this year. On the average, Mexican workers' wages have declined 30% over the last four years.
The long-suffering Mexican proletariat is getting fed up with struggling to put beans and tortillas on the table while the Mexican bourgeois live like monarchs. Half of Mexico's 80 million people live under the official poverty line, while the ruling PRI party is run by ultra-millionaires. Some of the popular resentment against the rulers came out recently at the opening ceremony of the World Cup soccer match in Mexico City, when President de la Madrid's speech was drowned out by boos from the spectators.
At the beginning of July, former President Jimmy Carter was in Harare, Zimbabwe. He was there as an honored guest of the government of Zimbabwe.
Carter was the honored guest at a July 4th party hosted by the U.S. embassy. There David Kariamazira, the Zimbabwean cabinet minister of youth, sports and culture, got up to give a speech. Kariamazira's speech criticized U.S. foreign policy in southern Africa, saying it "lacks the milk of human kindness." Kariamazira exposed some of Reagan's hypocrisy on the issue of sanctions, criticizing Reagan for applying sanctions against Nicaragua, Poland and Libya while eschewing them against South Africa. He also criticized the U.S. for bombing civilian targets in Libya in the name of fighting state terrorism, yet ignoring the state terrorism practiced by Pretoria. Kariamazira concluded by saying, "What we are hearing [from the U.S.] is nothing but platitudes and apologies for apartheid."
Mr. "Human Rights" Walks Out
This speech was too much for Carter to bear. He immediately led a walkout from the reception, followed by the U.S. ambassador and diplomats from West Germany, Britain and Holland. Carter's wife Rosalyn and daughter Amy also walked out with him. Carter later released a statement saying the speech was "an insult to my country and ... to me personally" and he demanded an apology "to the people of my country and my government." The U.S. ambassador also filed a formal protest.
Carter's stand is a good exposure of what the "human rights" rhetoric of the Democratic Party liberals really means. As president, Carter made a big show of supporting "human rights" all over the world, including South Africa. And this is still a favorite banner used by the Democrats in Congress.
Carter and the Democrats claim that their "human rights" platform is an alternative to Reaganism. So what happens when an African official exposes some of Reagan's attacks on human rights (and not from a revolutionary but simply a liberal perspective)? Then the good Democrat flies into a rage on behalf of his wounded honor and the honor of his country -- "No foreigner can talk to me like that; my country right or wrong!" All partisan differences vanish as Mr. "Human Rights" stands tall for Reaganite foreign policy.
Then, as now, talk of "human rights" by the top dogs of U.S. imperialism is nothing but..shameless imperialist hypocrisy. It is mere sugar coating to cover over naked imperialism.
As for the Zimbabwean Government...
Does the fact that a Zimbabwean minister criticized the U.S. policy in southern Africa mean that the government of Zimbabwe supports the revolutionary struggle against apartheid? Unfortunately, no. The black bourgeois government of Zimbabwe does not support a revolution in South Africa and it even works to restrain activities by the reformist African National Congress.
Nonetheless the Zimbabwean black bourgeoisie is opposed to apartheid and recognizes that the black government of Zimbabwe will never be safe so long as a racist government dominates South Africa. Just recently, on May 19, South African commandos staged a raid inside Harare itself. This is what drives the Zimbabwean government to voice some criticism of Reagan's open love affair with the racists in Pretoria.
Despite this criticism, however, Harare is anxious to remain on good terms with Washington. Thus in a speech before parliament on July 16, Zimbabwean prime minister Robert Mugabe apologized for offending Carter, although he added that Zimbabwe would not apologize to the Reagan administration.
Reagan Finally Implements Sanctions -- Against Zimbabwe
But since he would not go totally down on his knees, Reagan ordered that the Zimbabwe government be punished.
Following Mugabe's speech the U.S. State Department announced that U.S. economic aid to Zimbabwe would be suspended for the rest of 1986 -- that's a cutoff of $13.5 million -- and that 1987 aid totaling $21 million would be sharply cut.
Reagan won't adopt sanctions against South Africa but he has no difficulty brandishing the big stick at Zimbabwe. Once again, the White House has shown where it stands on the struggle against racism in South Africa. And in this instance, he has had the help of Mr. "Human Rights" Jimmy Carter.
The workers across Latin America remain in ferment, yearning for an alternative to capitalist austerity. In recent weeks, a number of large strikes have broken out in Argentina, Brazil and Bolivia.
Argentina
In Argentina a general strike shut down most of the country's business and industry on June 14. Following that a number of partial and local strikes have broken out, including strikes of workers in medical facilities. Then on July 4 most of the country's teachers went out on a one-day strike, and they were joined by water workers and truck drivers. And the national airline was shut down by a strike of airline pilots. Thus workers in different industries are continuing to fight against liberal president Raul Alfonsin's economic austerity plan.
Brazil
In Brazil there is also a rising strike movement by the workers against being forced to bear the burden of President Jose Sarney's austerity plan.
The bourgeois media is full of stories about how Brazilian workers love the liberal government's plan and help to implement it. But in fact the number of strikes in Brazil is up about 60% from last year. In mid-July 11,000 Ford workers and workers at Mercedes Benz shut down those auto plants in Sao Paulo, demanding higher wages. Tens of thousands of other workers are also reported to be striking for wage increases.
Bolivia
The Bolivian workers continue to confront the conservative government headed by President Paz Estenssoro. When oil refinery workers struck at the refineries in Palmasola and Valle Hermoso, Estenssoro ordered the army in to occupy the plants. By maintaining their strike the oil workers grounded the Bolivian national airline until July 12 when the strike ended.
The continuing strikes in these countries show that the Latin American proletariat is not satisfied with bearing the burden of the economic crisis and the capitalist austerity drive. The capitalist regimes urge the workers to sacrifice in the name of "national unity," but the proper road for the workers to defend their interests is the class struggle.
On July 2 and 3 the workers of Chile showed their hatred for the fascist Pinochet regime by shutting down the nation's economic life in a 48-hour general strike. This strike was the broadest manifestation against the Pinochet regime since it came to power 13 years ago in a CIA-supported military coup.
Santiago, the capital, was virtually shut down by the strike. The downtown area was deserted; public transport was shut down; and working class neighborhoods were surrounded by barricades of burning tires and cement blocks. Buses that tried to run their normal routes through the city were attacked and destroyed by the masses.
Nationally, inter-city commerce was halted by the work stoppage of truckers. And industry was paralyzed by a 60% absentee rate among factory workers.
The Civic Assembly, the main coalition that called the strike, is an alliance of liberal and reformist forces, and it insisted on passive methods of struggle. But the workers, who were organized in neighborhood defense committees, local soup kitchens, etc., adopted militant and confrontational tactics against Pinochet's military. Leftist guerrillas also set off scores of bombs, blowing up power lines and casting half the country into darkness.
Pinochet Lashes Out
Like a wounded animal, Pinochet lashed out at the strike. He poured troops into Santiago, posted units at every downtown intersection and sent armored-car patrols into the working class shantytowns. Soldiers roamed through the neighborhoods of the poor attacking any gatherings in the streets. They were backed up by plainclothes agents who drove around in cars shooting at people. At night the soldiers prowled through the shantytowns firing machine guns into the air to intimidate the residents and break up any gatherings.
In a replay of the 1973 coup, in the days following the strike soldiers carried out combat-style raids in poor neighborhoods, rounding up all males between 15 and 60 and herding them into soccer stadiums. There they were forced to undergo interrogation. Seven thousand were arrested.
Pinochet ordered the arrest of the leaders of the Civic Assembly, saying they violated the state security law which makes it illegal to incite "the paralyzation of normal activities." The dictator would not even allow them to turn themselves in for arrest; as they marched in a body to the Ministry of Justice, Pinochet's troops attacked them with clubs and tear gas.
The Gap Between the Masses and the Opposition "Leaders"
The July 2-3 strike brought out once more the gulf between the Chilean workers and the liberal and reformist opposition politicians.
In the working class districts of Santiago the masses fought Pinochet's troops with bricks and molotov cocktails. Meanwhile the official leaders of the strike were pleading with the military to work out some scheme whereby they could run in elections while maintaining a leading role for the army in the government.
A few days before the strike someone threw a bomb at the U.S. embassy and no one heard any Chilean workers cry about the loss of an embassy wall. But the day after the strike a number of the bourgeois liberals were gathered inside the U.S. embassy at a July 4 soiree honoring the Reaganite centennial of U.S. imperialism's "Lady Liberty."
And day by day the gulf between the workers and the liberal politicians grows even wider. This is due to the deep crisis of the Pinochet regime. The stagnant Chilean economy is bringing more and more forces into the opposition camp every day. Splits are opening up even within the military establishment itself. In this situation the workers and poor are enthusiastic for pushing ahead with the struggle to overthrow the dictatorship. But at the same time the liberals see a chance to make a deal with other military leaders who resent Pinochet.
As the struggle against Pinochet intensifies, these differences are sure to emerge more strongly.
[Photo: July 5 rally in Santiago, Chile against Pinochet's repression. Banner says: "No More Deaths!'']
The main sponsor of the July 2-3 strike was the Civic Assembly, a coalition formed in April. The Civic Assembly claims to stand for a "return to democracy." But Civic Assembly leaders swear up and down that their organization has no revolutionary intentions, and is instead merely aimed at pressuring the armed forces to negotiate a return to civilian rule. And their immediate objective is not even a return to the bourgeois-democratic order that existed before Pinochet but a transitional military-dominated government -- what is in fact Pinochetism without Pinochet.
The Civic Assembly appeared as a new bloc in the opposition to Pinochet this year. It represented an attempt to overcome the division between the two biggest opposition coalitions, the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Popular Democratic Movement (PDM).
The Democratic Alliance is a center-right alliance dominated by the liberals of the Christian Democratic Party, while the PDM is a bloc dominated by the pro-Soviet revisionist Communist Party.
The leaders of the Christian Democrats are big-time bourgeois politicians who were in power in the 1960's. They are openly pro-U.S. and originally supported Pinochet's coup. Now, to recover their government positions, the Christian Democrats want to work out an electoral scheme with Pinochet or other military leaders.
The Democratic Alliance has always insisted on excluding the revisionist CP. Indeed the revisionists formed the PDM as a separate bloc only because their offer to join the DA was rejected. The rightist parties in DA objected to the CP because according to them it refuses to reject force as a tactic and it challenges private ownership of the means of production.
A New Chapter in the Treachery of the Chilean Revisionists
But in fact the Chilean CP is a thoroughly reformist party. A few years ago the CP allowed itself to be affiliated with a guerrilla group, but only as a tactic of reformism with guns -- i.e., as a means of pressuring the liberals to recognize them as a force to deal with. Earlier the CP phrasemongered a bit about "armed struggle" but more recently even this has been toned down.
As for the CP's rejection of private ownership this is merely an ideological icon, a prospect for the distant future. And even then, it doesn't amount to socialism but only a form of state monopoly capitalism. For the present and foreseeable future the CP envisions only bourgeois democracy and capitalism for Chile, pledging itself, in fact, to support any government of "civilian democracy."
In the field of political tactics today this works out to searching for an alliance with the liberal bourgeoisie. For years the CP has supported the actions called by the Christian Democrats and has begged for an alliance with them.
In the last year, the Christian Democrats felt the need to accommodate the revisionists somehow. In the meantime, the CP leaders were moving more to the right, making statements more in line with the Christian Democrats' perspective. Hence the Civic Assembly emerged in April as an alliance between the Christian Democrats and the reformists grouped around the CP. But even then the CP did not get membership in its own name nor any leadership positions. The Christian Democrats got all the leading positions, while the CP provided the support of their mass organizations.
The political character of the alliance was strikingly revealed in statements following the July general strike.
At the 4th of July reception in the U.S. embassy, Andres Zaldivar, one of the main Christian Democrat leaders, said that the purpose of the strike had been to "call the attention of the government and the armed forces to the need for a negotiated solution." Meanwhile, at a post-strike press conference, two CP leaders said that their party "favors negotiations with the armed forces and would support a military government without President Pinochet as a formula for returning the country to democracy."
In other words, the revisionist CP today supports a military junta as a "transition to democracy" and is anxious to discuss this with the generals themselves. The only point of difference between this position and that of the Christian Democrats is that the CP continues to insist on the exclusion of Pinochet personally; apparently they think that Pinochet is the only reactionary in the army and that the other generals are yearning to embrace democracy. The CP spokesmen also declared their readiness to negotiate with the U.S. government -- apparently they don't like being excluded from the embassy gatherings.
Forward in the Struggle Against Pinochet!
The revolutionary spirit of the Chilean toilers has not been extinguished by 13 years of Pinochet's rule. The recent general strike again shows that the workers are yearning for a showdown with the dictatorship.
But the latest events have also shown what perspective is being held up before the masses by the liberal bourgeoisie and the revisionist CP. Far from fighting for the overthrow of Pinochet and the dictatorship, they have settled for Pinochetism without Pinochet.
This emphasizes once again the need for the Chilean workers to fight the dictatorship on the basis of independent class politics -- against liberal and revisionist treachery. This calls for the independent organization of the workers. It calls for preparing for the overthrow of the dictatorship and the development of the struggle towards the socialist revolution against the bourgeoisie itself. The liberation of the Chilean working class is the task of the workers themselves.