US workers face more poverty, social crisis as capitalist offensive continues

source: CNN
by Richard Mellor
Afscme Local 444, retired

According to the most recent US Census Bureau's report released September 17th., as US GDP has tripled, American men working full time are earning less in real terms than we were in 1973. The huge gains in this period "....have gone mostly to the people at the top" Bloomberg BusinessWeek reports in this weeks issue. I think we all agree that "real terms" are the only terms that matter don't we?

"We've had 40 years of stagnation." says Sheldon Danziger who heads the Russell Sage Foundation that funds research about living standards. The poverty rate has also jumped almost three percent since 2007 and as should be expected, the young are the hardest hit.  Close to 22% of children live in poverty in the United States compared to 15% nationally the Census report adds. The situation can only get worse as the war against workers and the poor continues.  The effects are clear, monthly food-stamp use has risen 18% over the past four years according to Bloomberg Business Week and as the Republicans in Congress are pushing to cut spending on nutrition programs by a further $40 billion things will only get worse; "If the full-time, full-year male workers aren't benefiting from economic growth, why should we expect the poor to be." says Danziger.

Robert Gordon, an economics professor at Northwestern University tells BW that the US is "in for a long period of stagnation.". Michael Feroli of JPMorgan Chase points out that the capitalists are simply not investing in what he calls the "..innovation needed to boost efficiency." We have pointed out many times that workers, the poor and the middle class must cast aside this propaganda nonsense that there is no money in US society.  The corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars that they refuse to invest in the economy or in social infrastructure.  Let's not allow the propaganda to unduly influence what we know in our gut--- that the money is there.  I will continue to remind readers again and again, that by their own estimates, sections of the capitalist class have stashed away as much as $32 trillion dollars in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes, this is equal to the GDP of both Japan and the US combined.  Then there is the trillions wasted on predatory wars fought on behalf of the 1% and their corporations.

Furthermore, as I stated in a previous commentary, Just 20Americans made as much from their 2012 investments as the entire SNAP budget for 47 million people. SNAP is the acronym for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program that provides food and assistance to the millions of people, and soon to be millions more as the 1% forces the US working class on rations in order to make us more competitive with our brothers and sisters throughout the world and to pay for their economic crisis.  Politicians in Congress yesterday were boasting about how they will occupy the legislature floor until they could no longer stand in order to defeat Obamacare (this is not to defend Obamacare) but three trillion on the Iraq war is OK and the poor and low waged need a $40 billion trim, about half of what one human being, Bill Gates is worth.

I have felt the effects of these attacks on workers in my own neighborhood where petty theft has been on the increase, car and house break ins are occurring more frequently. The local news reported last night that in the Rockridge area of Oakland, a fairly affluent middle class (Using the US definition by income) community, a group of commuters waiting in line for car pick ups were robbed at gunpoint.  People wait in these lines for other commuters to pick them up so they can use the commuter lanes.  People stand there with computers, I phones, belongings etc. 

The robbery has shocked the community as robberies have risen over 40% in the last year.  The perpetrators were black youth from what I could gather from reports this morning. We will read all the racist laced Internet chatter about the need to get tough on crime and how we all need to be armed etc.  When I ran for Oakland City Council in 1996 I had a public debate up in Rockridge and this was a problem then, people coming up from West Oakland and breaking in to care stealing radios, CD players and such.  One of my campaign issues was for a $10 an hour minimum wage and my answer to the concerns residents had was that they are not the 1%, they are mostly middle class professional types, not walled off from the rest of society and the best best way to eliminate the crime was to openly and organizationally support the demand for jobs and a $10 an hour minimum wage. In other words, to show solidarity with other humans, victims of market forces.

I am not advocating that those less fortunate and more desperate among us are right to rob people in bus lines or each other in our communities, but people get desperate.  You can spend a lot of time in prison for robbing someone at gunpoint and if things get crazy and someone gets shot you many never see life outside of prison walls again.  The US Gulag is a notorious hellhole and hundreds of thousands of young black men occupy it. People have to eat.  The US is the worst of the advanced capitalist economies to be poor in. If you have no money here, you're "on your own baby."; Vietnam Vet---too bad, get a job, the flag waving is only for when they want our youth to go fight their wars, when they return they're a burden on profit making.

So I appeal especially to working class (wage earners) readers of this blog, those of us who have had more fortunate circumstances liking keeping our homes and jobs over the past period not to fall in to the trap set for us of blaming the victims, of blaming our class brothers and sisters for circumstances they find themselves in that are overwhelmingly not of their own creation.  Poverty, racism, homelessness, petty crime, these are all market driven.   It is the same with small business, and by that I mean community mom and pops who live in a community, are part of it and contribute to it. Rather than oppose a $20 an hour minimum wage you too should support it openly.  Most workers recognize that under the present circumstances a small store owner, the local plumber or coffeehouse owner can't pay that; they can often rarely contribute to benefits as big absentee landlords jack up rents.  But by openly declaring support for such a minimum wage ($15 is gaining some momentum here at the moment) community business owners can build solidarity and links with the workers' movement and as this movement gains strength and momentum including standing it's own candidates for political office independent of the two Wall Street parties, a united movement of workers, the dispossessed, the poor and the undocumented who are among the most exploited of us, can in turn help free these small proprietors from the clutches of the corporations, insurance companies and other forces that bleed them dry. It is ridiculous for example that a community business is expected to pay for its one, two or three employees' health care.

For the workers movement it is important while we fight for the interests of workers, to appeal to this layer of community businesses between these two great classes in society and win them to our side.  If we do not, the 1% will win them to theirs.  We cannot drive back the capitalist offensive, let alone rid ourselves of it without a united working class movement and we can't build a united working class movement without fighting racism, sexism, and all forms of discrimination that they use to divide us.

The heads of organized Labor are also criminally negligent in that they have the resources and ability to turn this situation around but have completely capitulated to the capitalist offensive and regurgitate their ideological justification for it.  We will see some turmoil in these organizations as well at some point.

In my previous commentary I included a quote from the head of AIG who compared the anger Americans displayed at AIG corporate types getting bonuses after they ran the company to the ground and the taxpayer bailed them out, to white supremacists lynching blacks in the South. Give that a thought for a moment.  Yes, these people are human beings and in the new society they have the right to a job and a secure future, something they deny us. But as it stands they are not people who can be appealed to on a moral basis. The capitalist class has historically waged the most violent war against humanity and the natural world in their quest for profits, from the peasant wars of Europe, the war against women and their equal rights, the wars of conquest throughout the colonial world from Ireland to Peru.  They will not simply become nice because it's the right thing to do.  Believe me, the folks in the Pentagon would drop nuclear weapons on their own cities to save their privilege.

Like the feudal aristocracy though, some of them will break ranks but only when they see the united power of working people throughout the world and that there is no winning this war. The workers of Bangladesh, the Arab world millions of them women outside of US borders, are leading the struggle against the capitalist offensive.  It's high time we joined them.

AIG boss: workers' anger at their bonuses as bad as the lynching of blacks in the south

AIG boss, Robert Benmosche, the persecuted minority
by Richard Mellor
Afscme Local 444, retired
 
The CEO of AIG, the one who came after the "socialist" bailout of the company is very hurt and angry.  He told the Wall Street Journal that the anger the American people displayed over the bonuses the AIG coupon clippers were promised was as bad as the lynching of Blacks by the Klan and white supremacists in the American South:

Camp Rules: a poem

Camp Rules

A poem by Kevin Higgins

By all means explore what remains of the world
on the other side of the forest. 
But be back within the perimeter fence
by breakfast, your mouth motorised
by where they’re going wrong, or we’ll begin
making a sad sound when we say your name, 
and tilting our heads slightly to the left.

Questions are encouraged if the answer’s
the long form version of ‘yes’. Discipline
will be maintained by Nullifier Boyd’s
righteous bamboo stick, so big
it never need prove its existence.

Here, no one evades their taxes
or mentions the unfortunate business
 you witnessed in the main marquee
 this morning. Out there, the last thing
 many women notice is that the man
 strangling them is in desperate need
 of a dentist.

In the new society we’re building
we’ve abolished rape and murder.
We permit no such words.

German capitalism – a success story?

by Michael Roberts

The German election has produced a victory for right-wing German Chancellor Mrs Angela Merkel, the best result for her party since 1990.  However, the existing coalition of Merkel’s Christian Democrat Union (CDU), the Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU) and the small Free Democrats (FDP) cannot continue because the FDP failed to make the 5% voting share threshold to enter the German parliament (Bundestag).  The FDP vote is hugely down from 14.6% in 2009.   Most of those lost votes went to the CDU.  So even though Merkel’s CDU-CSU bloc has polled the most at about 42.5%, up from 34% in 2009, it will have to try to form a grand coalition with the opposition Social Democrats (SPD), which polled 26%, up a bit from the all-time post-war low of 23% that the SPD got in 2009.  The Greens polled badly at 8% (down from 10.7% in 2009) and were passed by the Left Bloc (die Linke) which polled 8.5%.  So, although old coalition polled 47% (compared to 48% in 2009) over the ‘left’ (SPD, Greens and die Linke) with 43% (down from 46% in 2009), Mrs Merkel must find new coalition partners.

Germany is the largest and most important capitalist economy in Europe, if not yet the most important European imperialist power (there it vies with the UK and France).  It is the main creditor and funder of the Eurozone member states.  So what does this election campaign and result tell us about the future of German capitalism and the strategy being adopted by its political leaders?
On the surface, all looks good for the economic health of Germany as there appears to be very little difference on policy between the CDU and the SPD.  You would find it hard to push a sheet of paper between them on major policy issues for Germany.  So it seems likely that a Grand Coalition between the CDU-CSU and SPD will be formed with two-thirds of the seats in parliament and German capitalism looks set fair for the status quo for another four years.

However that is too simple a calculation.  There are new economic and political pressures for German capitalism that will make it more unstable than before.  The first thing is that there has been a long-term trend in German (and other Euro) politics: namely, the fragmentation of electoral votes from two or three parties into several.  That’s a recipe for instability and paralysis, as we have seen in Greece, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands etc.  This election has slightly reversed that trend with the two main parties polling about 56% compared to 50% last time, but that is no better than in 2005.  Some 16% of votes will not be represented in parliament due to the 5% hurdle — more than ever before.  The turnout may be slightly better than in the recession year 2009 at 73%, but it’s well down from the 1990s.
German turnout
And then there is the joker in the pack: the eurosceptic Alternative fur Deutschland party (AfD), a party made up of academics and other petty-bourgeois elements, strongly opposed to ‘handouts’ to the ‘free-spending’ peripheral Euro states and demanding a return to the D-mark.  The AfD polled 4.9%, just not quite enough to gain representation.  But by polling close to the 5% threshold, that will stir up new currents beneath the surface of serenity in German politics, especially leading up to the Euro elections next May.

Despite the Euro debt crisis and the ‘contingent’ costs to the pockets of the German taxpayers from the bailout payments to the distressed Eurozone states, the German ruling class is still convinced that the euro is worth having over the D-mark.  That is because German capitalism has gained most from the trade and capital integration of the single currency.  The best indicator of that is to look at what has happened to German capital’s rate of profit.  The European Commission AMECO database provides a measure of the net return on capital invested for many countries including Germany.  There are several technical issues with this measure, but I think it gives a relatively good guide to trends (partly because it is supported by alternative data from the Extended Penn World Tables that I have used before to measure country rates of profit).

The AMECO measure shows that Germany’s rate of profit fell consistently from the early 1960s to the early 1980s slump (down 30%) – much like the rest of the major capitalist economies in that period.  Then there was a recovery (some 33% up – using Penn measures)  with a short fall during the recession of the early 1990s and then stagnation during the 1990s as West Germany digested the integration of East Germany into its capitalist economy.  The real take-off in German profitability began with the formation of the Eurozone in 1999, generating two-thirds of all the rise from the early 1980s to 2007.
German net return on capital
German capitalism benefited hugely from expanding into the Eurozone with goods exports and capital investment until the Great Recession hit in 2008, while other Euro partners lost ground.
Change in rate of profit under EMU
Once the east was integrated, Germany’s manufacturing export base grew just as much as the new force in world manufacturing, China, did.
German exports
But the fall in profitability during the Great Recession was considerable and AMECO forecasts do not suggest a significant recovery in profitability since.  Indeed profitability will be below the level of 2005 from now on.  So things may be more difficult from hereon.

It is interesting to consider the reason for the rise in the German rate of profit using Marxist categories.  The rise in the rate of profit from the early 1980s to 2007 can be broken down into a rise in the rate of surplus value of 38%, but only a small rise of 5% in the organic composition of capital.  This is consistent with Marx’s law of profitability in that the rate of profit rises when the increase in the rate of surplus value outstrips the increase in the organic composition of capital.  It seems that the ability to extract more surplus value out of the German working class while keeping the cost of constant capital from rising much was the story of German capitalism.  In other words, constant capital did not rise due to innovations and investment in new technology while surplus value did, due to the expansion of the workforce using imported labour from Turkey and elsewhere at first – and then expansion directly into Europe later.

The real jump in the rate of profit began with the start of the Eurozone.  In this period, the organic composition of capital was flat while the rate of surplus value rose 17%.  German capital was able to exploit cheap labour within EMU but also in Eastern Europe to keep costs down. The export of plant and capital to Spain, Poland, Italy, Greece, Hungary etc (without obstacle and in one currency) allowed German industry to dominate Europe and even parts of the rest of the world.
Most important, the fear of the export of jobs to other parts of Europe enabled German capitalists to impose significant curbs on the ability of German labour to raise their wages and conditions.  The large rise in the German rate of profit was accompanied by a sharp increase in the rate of surplus value or exploitation, particularly from 2003 onwards.
German ROSV - ROP
What happened from 2003 to enable German capitalism to exploit its workers so much more?  In 2003-2005 the SPD-led government implemented a number of wide-ranging labour market ‘reforms’, the so-called Hartz reforms. The first three parts of the reform package, Hartz I-III, were mainly concerned with creating new types of employment opportunities (Hartz I), introducing additional wage subsidies (Hartz II), and restructuring the Federal Employment Agency (Hartz III). The final part, Hartz IV, was implemented in 2005 and resulted in a significant cut in the unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed.  Between 2005 and 2008 the unemployment rate fell from almost 11% to 7.5%, barely increased during the Great Recession and then continued its downward trend reaching 5.5% at the end of 2012, although it is still higher than in the golden age of expansion in the 1960s.
German unemployment rate (%)
German unemployment rate
A wonderful success then?  Not for labour. About one quarter of the German workforce now receive a “low income” wage, using a common definition of one that is less than two-thirds of the median, which is a higher proportion than all 17 European countries, except Lithuania.  A recent Institute for Employment Research (IAB) study found wage inequality in Germany has increased since the 1990s, particularly at the bottom end of the income spectrum. The number of temporary workers in Germany has almost trebled over the past 10 years to about 822,000, according to the Federal Employment Agency.  This is something we have seen across Europe – the dual labour system in Spain being the prime example.
German employment
So the reduced share of unemployed in the German workforce was achieved at the expense of the real incomes of those in work.  Fear of low benefits if you became unemployed, along with the threat of moving businesses abroad into the rest of the Eurozone or Eastern Europe, combined to force German workers to accept very low wage increases while German capitalists reaped big profit expansion.  German real wages fell during the Eurozone era and are now below the level of 1999, while German real GDP per capita has risen nearly 30%.
German real wages
No wonder German capitalism has been so ‘competitive’ in European and world markets.  The Hartz reforms may be regarded as a success by German capital and mainstream economists.  But they have always been very unpopular among the German public.  In this election, no major party has dared to run on a platform that openly endorses the Hartz reforms. Indeed, several parties tried to win votes by promising to roll back the Hartz reforms, including the SPD which initiated the reforms in 2003-2005 under Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
Of course, this is not to deny that the German working class is better off than its peers in the rest of the Eurozone and this explains why German voters who have voted, did so, by and large, for parties that wish to preserve the status quo.
German household income
The German ruling class and the leadership of the two main parties are generally agreed that the Eurozone must be kept intact as it is, despite the cost of the debt crises in the peripheral EMU states.  After all, German capitalism has gained hugely from the Eurozone,  as I have shown.  Greece should not probably have been allowed in, as Merkel and others have said on several occasions, but now it is in, it is too risky to kick Greece out as it sets a dangerous precedent.  And the cost of yet another Greek bailout in the next year is small.

But there are are some differences between the CDU and the SPD over the Eurozone.  The CDU does not want any integration of debt and debt payments within the Eurozone through things like a euro redemption fund or Eurozone bonds, while the SPD does.  The CDU does not want German capital taking on any contingent liability of the future or existing debt of the likes of Italy or Spain, even if it never happens that they cannot service it.  Even so, a Grand Coalition will agree eventually to ease the terms of repayment of the bailout recipients  – indeed it will probably put repayment back for likes of Greece to the indefinite future.  Remember that the US allowed the UK to repay what they owed the US after the second world war for ages  – it was only fully paid off in 2005!

However, the Grand Coalition will be set with difficulties from its beginning.  It will be under the pressure from the right, the eurosceptics and the small business FDP to refuse any further bailouts and apply severe austerity to the peripheral EMU states and France.  The SPD will be under pressure from the left to break with the coalition  to reverse the Hartz reforms, spend more and avoid nuclear energy or leave the coalition.

German capitalism may have been a ‘success story’ over the last 25 years since the integration of East Germany.  But its long-term prospects do not look so good from here.  It has a declining and ageing workforce (this will be the last election in which the majority of voters were under the age of 55) and less areas for exploitation of new labour outside Germany, while competition from the likes of China and Asia will mount.  And the costs of maintaining the Eurozone will grow.  All these are issues for the strategists of German capital now that there will be a new coalition in power.
German demographics
The German electorate may have voted for the status quo again in this election, but the relatively low turnout and the low share of the vote for the main parties show that there is growing disillusionment with the ‘success’ of German capitalism that has given just a few crumbs for the working class off the table of bounty for German capital income.  And the burden on the working class in paying for the further ambitions of German capitalism is set to rise.

Israeli troops confiscate supplies, abuse French diplomat

The arrogance of the Zionist regime and its thugs. This is near a village they demolished to make way for settlers.Can you imagine if an Israeli diplomat were treated this way abroad.  There'd be a torrent of accusations about Anti-Semitism, their favorite weapon.



Reprint and video from +972

A French diplomat and several of her European colleagues were manhandled today by Israeli troops near the recently demolished village of Khirbet al-Makhul in the West Bank, Reuters said. The diplomats were accompanying a truck of tents and emergency aid supplies, and the French diplomat, Marion Castaing, was physically dragged out of the truck and thrown to the ground in disregard of her diplomatic immunity. The troops then confiscated the truck and drove it away. A picture, below, taken by an eyewitness at the scene (who wishes to remain anonymous) and sent to The National correspondent Hugh Naylor shows Castaing lying at the feet of armed troops. Judging by the uniform, the troops belong to the paramilitary Border Police, which handles much of the grunt jobs of the occupation.

It is not clear from the picture whether the policeman in the frame is aiming the rifle at the detained diplomat, or merely holding it at his side. French diplomat Marion Castaing lies at the feet of Israeli troops, West Bank, 20.9.2013. (photo provided by European aid worker who wished to remain anonymous) The diplomat herself sounds understandably livid, commenting to Reuters that “this is how international law is respected here.” There has been no official comment from the French embassy as of yet.

The IDF issued an announcement a few hours later, alleging that ” dozens of Palestinian and European activists [sic] tried to set up an illegal outpost in an area close to the community of Hemdat. The Palestinian activists threw stones at IDF forces that arrived to evict them. Three rioters who refused to be evicted and attacked the soldiers were detained, and the truck was confiscated.” A Red Cross convoy that set out for the same village was stopped and turned back on Tuesday. The original Reuters report seems to have been filed by correspondent Noah Browning, but the byline in subsequent reprints was amended to Crispian Balmer, the Reuters bureau chief for Israel and the Palestinian Territories.

Update (September 21, 12 p.m.): The following video was uploaded by Palestinian filmmaker Enas I. al-Muthaffar. In the clip, there is no visible stone throwing or other violent activity on the side of the aid workers, diplomats or Palestinians prior to the arrests and use of stun grenades.

Calif: Thinking about the BART negotiations

It's late and some might think me mad but I was thinking more about the situation with the BART  negotiations. From what I can gather through the press, the BART management responded to the Union sides' concessionary offerings at the negotiating table by spitting in their faces and told them to bring more concessions next time.

I was thinking what I would be campaigning for if I was a member of one of the locals involved.  I would campaign among my co-workers/unionmembers for the union negotiators to walk away from the table; they are simply wasting their time there.  This should be decided at a mass meeting of all workers at BART no matter which union they belong to. The leadership of the locals have the ability to do this but they won't. But a leadership that does and recommends an alternative strategy and tactics that is supported by the membership would change the bosses' tone.*

The unions should announce in the media that the the remainder of the cooling off period will be used to prepare for a strike and to work on building solid links with transit users, other union members, the unorganized and our communities. Transit workers have a much better access to the public than most of us and an active membership can also communicate with transit users on a daily basis through literature and one on one.

The Unions should announce that the concessions already offered are being withdrawn and the management will hear about new proposals as soon as they have been drawn up and decided upon through mass meetings in conjunction with supporters, users of transit and community members.
The bosses don't need to know any more than that.

In the previous blog I raised some issues or demands that need to be raised and fought for. These are just my personal thoughts and it takes more than one person to develop a realistic plan in wartime. 

The bottom line is to overcome the obstacle in our own minds that society can't afford our needs so we can't win; that we only have one gear---reverse.  A first important step is starting from the position of what we need and what we have to do to win it. 

*This last sentence was added to the original.

BART Unions offer concessions: "Not enough" say the bosses.


by Richard Mellor
Afscme Local 444, retired

Readers of this blog are well aware of the situation that has existed here in the San Francisco Bay Area with regards to the transit workers and the attacks on their wages, benefits and working conditions.

The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) workers, members of Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) local 1555 and SEIU 1021 struck the transit agency in early July but went back to work after 41/2 days after Union officials appealed to the state to intervene and both sides agreed to a 30 day cooling off period. One should recognize the folly at this Union strategy, as there is no such thing as a “cooling off period” in boxing. A smaller, but no less important group of BART workers, members of Afscme Local 2923 honored SEIU and ATU’s picket lines.

The situation didn’t improve for the workers as is normally the case and as the 30-day cooling off period came to an end making another strike a legal option, former left demagogue and organic farming advocate, California governor Jerry Brown, intervened to prevent one by imposing a 7-day break and appointing a three member board of inquiry to find out what the issues were (really an attempt to force the Union leadership to concede as anyone following this issue knows what they are).

This didn’t work either which shows the anger that must exist among the Union’s rank and file as the leadership had publicly announced through the media that if they were just left with what they have, after giving up hundreds of millions in concessions already mind you, they would go away: “What we want is to Bargain” Antonette Bryant, the President of ATU 1555 announced publicly in late June, “We’re not interested in talking about a strike.”

But before another strike could occur, Jerry Brown stepped in again and asked the courts to give him the authority to impose a 60-day cooling off period.  The law allows Brown to do this once from what I understand.  The courts found that if BART workers struck, it would, “significantly disrupt public transportation services and will endanger the public’s health, safety and welfare.”.  so had BART workers struck, it would have been an illegal strike.

The 60-day cooling off period will be officially over at 11.59 on October 10th. Today’s San Francisco Chronicle reports that little headway is being made.  The union leadership has offered $10 million in further concessions but the bosses want more. Why wouldn’t they? They are confident the leadership of the Unions involved and organized Labor in general, will not organize a counteroffensive, a mobilization of Union members and the communities that BART serves as well as the unemployed.

Tapping in to the anger that exists in society and organizing it, drawing millions of workers and our communities in to such a struggle, can only lead to chaos from the Union hierarchy’s point of view which is the same as the bosses, capitalism is the only form of social organization and the market is the answer to all things. The attack on these workers is not only an attack on all workers it is part of the process of privatizing all public services. We should remember what was pointed out in an article in July, that corporate property skyrocketed in value after BART was built as a public project, yet property taxes account for less than 5% of BART’s budget.  The corporations have made billions off a public project.

“Their counteroffer is not significant enough.” a spokesperson for the management told the Chronicle in response to the Union leadership’s offer of concessions, “It needs to show the kind of movement that we’ve made in order to get back and forth going again.” It’s hard to tolerate such a cocky attitude when we know the potential power of organized, and unorganized Labor.  It’s the sort of thing we hear a bully tell his or her victim. You wanna smack em!

And all this talk about “these colors don’t run” when it comes to getting the sons and daughters of these same workers to fight wars on behalf of US corporation’s and the 1% don’t apply when we are faced with such an assault on our livelihoods at home. And the refusal of the heads of organized Labor to organize an offensive of our own leads to all sorts of other failed methods of getting back at the boss, sabotage the Luddite approach etc.

I cannot see how the bosses will allow another BART strike.  If such a strike was deemed illegal for the reasons the courts gave 60 days ago, why would the courts not find it so in October?   And let’s not forget that the FBI’s vague definition of domestic terrorism states: “Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.” I am sure the “T” word is being thrown around loud enough for the Union hierarchy to hear.

The bus drivers here, members of ATU local 192 recently voted down a concessionary contract.  At the time of the first BART strike, the leadership of ATU 192 kept their members on the job though they could have struck legally as well.  There has been no real effort by these two union leaderships to wage a joint strike or call mass meetings of the two locals or make serious attempts to win the public to the workers side amid a massive propaganda campaign waged against them in the media.

Behind the scenes there will be all sorts of pressure placed on the Union officials not so much at the local level, but the heads of the SEIU and ATU international bodies. It is likely the pressure will come down on the local leaders to make further concessions. If the pressure from the others side, from the ranks, is too great for even the most conciliatory labor officials to sell out, they may well take folks out on yet another losing strike or another option might be an imposed receivership. It’s hard to say exactly what might happen especially not knowing exactly what the mood is among the folks that pay the dues.

This is why the rank and file have to step up.  There was a rally here in Oakland last month that was attended by a considerable number of ATU 1555 members although it seemed SEIU 1021 did almost no organizing for it. Every member must become a leader, an activist.  With public transit we have easy access to those we serve, they ride the buses, ride the trains. This is a huge army of activists that can reach out to the working public and draw them in to this major dispute between the 1% and the rest of us.

But to do that some steps have to be taken.  The Unions are presently negotiating behind closed doors.  This is a mistake that benefits the boss. Members of the locals should demand negotiations be made public so workers and riders can attend and aired publicly like council meetings are. Also, union members should demand lawyers are banned from representing them in negotiations as well as full time staff; these people can assist but not control negotiations. Lawyers can ensure what is written in the final result, expresses what we meant at the table but they shouldn’t negotiate for workers.

Mass meetings of the members of the locals involved should be called and a strike committee formed that would bring transit users, the unorganized and community members on to it. This committee can also build the community/labor alliance that can win gains rather than accept further losses.

Rather than concessions we must demand and build a union/community alliance around:

No to austerity or cuts in services
Increased mass transit and more jobs through a shorter workweek with no loss in pay. 
Expand public sector benefits and pensions to all workers.
Health care for all
For a $20 an hour minimum wage
End all wars and occupations
Organize the unorganized.
No taxes on workers or the middle class
Make the rich pay

The propaganda from the 1% and their media is that society cannot afford this. This propaganda goes unanswered by the Labor hierarchy so it gets an echo among many workers although we know in our gut it’s not true. But we don’t have to accept spending $3 trillion dollars on wars that have nothing to do whatsoever with defending our way of life. Our way of life is being eroded and the plans for that venture are worked out in Washington, Jackson Hole Wyoming, and other places where the 1% works out how best to govern society and make us pay for their crises.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, the two Kochs, and four Waltons made an average of $6 billion each from their stocks and other investments in 2012. A $6 billion per year person makes enough in two seconds (based on a 40-hour work-week) to pay a year's worth of benefits to the average SNAP recipient. Just 20Americans made as much from their 2012 investments as the entire SNAP budget for 47 million people.  Check here for more examples of where the money is and why we should reject the "shared sacrifice" nonsense.

I have had the privilege to stand alongside autoworkers from Kokomo to Detroit and Flint. The same forces attacking BART workers and public sector workers in general are responsible (along with the union hierarchy) for cutting auto workers pay in half and destroying what was once a job that was hard work but produced a certain amount of security and a relatively decent income.  Many of us sat idly by as all this has happened thinking we were secure; well we are not.

The public sector is around 35% unionized and has had more humane and relatively better conditions, and benefits than the private sector. The 1% are committed to crushing this last remnant of trade union organization and taking back all we have won over the last 100 years.

There’s an opportunity to change course in the Bay Area transit dispute and change the balance of class relations in the US.  But the rank and file Union member and all workers have to recognize that we have to do it and that we have to demand and fight for what we need not what the 1% says is realistic; we can’t just pay our dues and hope we stay afloat, those days are over.

Media Shield Law: another attack on free speech and whistle blowers

The government/big business wedding
by Richard Mellor
Afscme Local 444, retired

"The worst thing that ever happened to journalism was that it became the professionalized province of the educated." Charles P Pierce

The LA Times reported on the passing of the new "media shield Law" passed by a Senate Committee earlier this month. The new law would protect "journalists and bloggers" who report news to the public from being forced to testify about their work.  The bill is supported by some major media organizations, you know, the ones that regurgitate the official line that comes out of government press agencies.  The likes of Wikileaks and other unfavorable sources are not protected.  Dianne Feinstein wants to define exactly what a journalist is, "Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) insisted on limiting the legal protection to "real reporters" and not, she said, a 17-year-old with his own website." the LA Times states.  "I can't support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege. I'm not going to go there," Feinstein said.

Feinstein introduced an amendment to the bill that defines a "covered journalist" as someone who gathers and reports news for "an entity or service that disseminates news and information."  According to the LA Times, "The definition includes freelancers, part-timers and student journalists, and it permits a judge to go further and extend the protections to any 'legitimate news-gathering activities.'"

Feinsten, a wealthy woman in her own right is married to Richard Blum, a speculator and coupon clipper who made a lot of his money through sweat shops in Asia, US government contracts, and through his lucrative position as a regent of the University of California.   In 2009,  Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to provide $25 billion in taxpayer money to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, the government agency that insures bank deposits.  The FDIC had awarded her husband's real estate firm, CB Richard Ellis, what the Washington Times called "a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms." (WikipediaI was a shop steward for 25 years and always told my co-workers who asked how I could defend a worker that I knew was guilty that no worker could steal as much in a lifetime as these people steal in an day.

Blum is also Chairman of the Board of the CBRE Group and CBRE Group Inc. was awarded the government contract to be the sole marketer of USPS properties as the capitalist class moves to privatize the most efficient post office system in the industrialized world. This is the world in which we live, a public university board having so many investment bankers and other coupon clippers on it and the plundering of society's wealth by these characters.  The 1% keep their snouts buried deep in the public trough.

Naturally, the increased dismantling of the gains US workers have made over 150 years and the intention of the 1% to place us on rations is not a popular development and the increased surveillance, attacks on our rights and beefing up of the state security forces by their representatives in Congress are in preparation for the mass movements against these policies that we will see in the US in the years ahead.  The US capitalist class has no alternative but to attack the living standards of US workers and the middle class, the laws of their system; the global struggle for profits and endless wars to maintain them demands it.  Capitalism was dragged form the edge of the abyss by public funds and its continued crises ensure further cliffs are around the corner. The assault on workers cannot be avoided from their point of view.

Along with more police brutality and hi tech security and surveillance, we see increased oppressive legislation as Dianne Fenistein and her class colleagues are attempting to enact a law that defines what a journalist actually is. The "embedded" sycophants are "real journalists", Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden etc. are not. This is an anti-whistle blower law and an attempt to control information on the Internet and keep what they're doing under wraps.

Charles P. Pierce wrote a great piece on the media shield law and I urge readers to read it. He is not too pleased with the billionaires attacks on free speech:
"Hey, Dianne, here's the thing on that First Amendment business. I get to define what you do for a living. And if I decide to define what you do for a living is to be a mewling apologist for the national-security community and a lapdog for the surveillance state, I get to do that, and I get to do it in a newspaper, or video, or on-line, or on a pamphlet stapled to a telephone pole outside your door, if I so choose. You get to sit there, collect your government salary, raise money from plutocrats, and shut...the...hell...up."

Ohio cop terrorizing a neighborhood



This was tagged under comedy but police brutality is the correct label. Cop pulled somebody over and blocked a neighbor's driveway, neighbor comes home and asks cop to move vehicle, this is what happens, according to the caption. For those people outside the US, the cops here have tremendous power including the power to kill without fear of prosecution. It's rare that a cop gets jail time as they only have to say they felt their life was threatened to use fatal force.

Quantative Easing: Tapering? – maybe not

by Michael Roberts

Stock markets rocketed up and the dollar fell on the news that the US Federal Reserve had decided not to reduce its planned monthly purchases of US government and mortgage bonds after all.  The prices of shares and commodities shot up because investors concluded that the US central bank was going to continue a while longer with its huge injections of ‘liquidity’ (dollars) into financial markets.  They had been told by the Fed in June that it was getting ready to cut back on its purchases of bonds starting this month.  But the Fed decided to wait.

Part of the reason for the Fed’s delay on beginning the process of ‘exiting’ from printing money was that the bank was still not convinced that the US economy was growing at a sufficiently fast and sustainable pace to get unemployment down and to expand without the help of liquidity injections.  Indeed, the Fed reduced its forecasts for US real GDP growth from its predictions in June from a minimum of 2.3% for 2013 to 2% and for next year from 3% to 2.9%.

Since it began its ‘quantitative easing’ programmes back 2010, the Fed has purchased nearly $3trn in government and mortgage bonds, or some 20% of US GDP – a huge injection of cash into financial markets.  The Fed was not proposing to stop all further purchases of bonds but merely slow the rate of purchase by a little bit.  Yet its decision just to hold off for the moment produced a huge boost to financial asset prices.

This shows that what is pushing stock prices to new highs and fuelling optimism about the world economy is mainly fictitious, based on central banks (the Fed, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and others) printing money.  This cash flows into the banks and financial institutions, but goes no further.  It does not get into the ‘real economy’, the productive sectors.  The economics of ‘quantitative easing’, ‘unconventional’ monetary stimulus, has been a failure in kick-starting the world economy

(see my posts, Down the Jackson Hole, http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/down-in-the-jackson-hole/
and The failure of QEhttp://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/the-failure-of-qe-2/ .

QE has just fuelled a new property and financial market boom that last time eventually burst into collapse.  The productive sectors of the capitalist economies remain in the doldrums.  It suggests that when the Fed and other central banks do pull the plug, the world economy could slip back into a new slump.

Socialists and Syria

The commentary below is a contribution to the discussion of the Syrian crisis from Stephen Morgan. It is a bit long but given the importance of this issue and the complexities of the situation (some socialists support Assad, some support the Opposition) we think it is important and useful to try to understand the nature of the civil war, what the perspectives are for its future and where socialists should stand on the issue. This blog has stated in the past that socialists and workers must oppose both sides in this war.  This commentary looks at why that must be the case.

by Stephen Morgan

When the threat of military air strikes by the US emerged, many on the left took the correct position of seeing this as an act of naked Imperialist aggression, warning that it could be a prelude to full-scale military intervention on a scale similar to Iraq. They also voiced legitimate doubts about the reliability of the information which was being used, the credibility of the allegations that it was Assad's troops and not the Opposition, which carried out the atrocity and that the whole issue of Assad's chemical weapons arsenal could be little more than a cynical repeat of Bush's lies about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

However, while this analysis is in broad terms correct, clearly the Syrian civil war is a more complex question than previous situations which can only provide very generalized analogies to help guide us. Hopefully this article will contribute to a debate on the left on what positions socialists should take.

The complex situation in Syria has thrown up some thorny issues for the left. Understandably, there is some confusion on what positions to adopt vis-a-vis the alleged chemical attack, military intervention, the nature of the Assad regime and the role of Russia. The civil wars which have raged in Libya and in Syria aren't clear cut situations where sides can be quickly taken, such as was the case in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930's, when the opposition to Franco was overwhelmingly made up of workers committed to socialist aims.

Similarly, it isn't possible to draw comparisons between Assad and the Bolsheviks during the civil war in Russia, when the Bolsheviks were fighting to defend the first workers' state from a royalist-led counter-revolution, backed by some 17 armies of foreign intervention. Unlike the Soviet state, there is nothing progressive in the Assad regime. The only analogy is that Assad rules like Stalin.

Added to this there are emotional issues, which can sway judgement when there aren't clear cut responses or practical alternatives from a socialist point of view. When Benghazi was surrounded by Gadaffi's troops and the threat of a horrendous massacre caused panic among its population, offering up some theoretical formulas on Imperialist wars in the modern epoch seemed rather hollow and abstract when considered from the standpoint of tens of thousands of men, women and children facing eminent death at the hands of a brutal and vengeful dictator. As a consequence, some on the left for honest humanitarian motives, lapsed into a false position of supporting a NATO intervention and ended up helping Imperialism's attempts to establish a client state with the aim of securing important oil and gas resources for Europe.

Now with regards to Syria, many on the left find themselves in opposition to one another for similar reasons. Understandably, the horrible pictures the alleged gas attack by Assad's forces provoked feelings of outrage and anger and, in the absence of alternatives, feelings of impotence led some on the left into supporting a US strike as a deterrent and a retribution. 

Moreover, the character of the Assad dictatorship and the fact that most on the left see themselves as champions of democracy and supporters of people's revolution, has meant that many support the opposition, despite the fact that its character has changed since its beginnings as an authentic popular uprising for justice and democracy. Many on the left continue to support the Syrian opposition, critically or uncritically, regardless of the fact that it has degenerated into military groups, which are either the Imperialist-backed, pro-capitalist, secular forces of the Syrian National Coalition and FSA, or jihadists around Al Qaeda aiming for the establishment of an ultra-reactionary form of fundamentalist, Islamic state based on sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing.

Perhaps some on the left are also confused because the issue of war for oil is not so obvious with regards to Syria as it was in Iraq or Libya. Syrian oil production is small and of no strategic or commercial interest to Imperialism. But that doesn't mean that oil isn't the underlying motivation. The civil war in Syria was originally confined within its borders, but it has now begun to spread into the Lebanon and Iraq. These two countries could quite easily disintegrate. As the war takes on an increasingly sectarian character across the region it can quite easily spill over into the Gulf states too. The revolution in Bahrain is an example of the inherent instability in the area.

This war, or coming war, is indeed about oil. It is about maintaining the stability of a whole region, under the domination of American Imperialism. Furthermore, the disruption of oil supplies would plunge the world into an economic crisis far deeper and wider than the current one or even the last Great Depression, creating social unrest which could threaten the very basis of world capitalism. Obama made his motives quite clear in an interview with PBS on August 28, when he said that the military attack on Syria is about the United States “core interests,” which included stopping terrorist attacks, defending Israel and most importantly, “the free flow of energy throughout the region that affects the entire global economy.”

However, there are those on the left who have sided with Assad. Often this is because he has always paraded himself as the leader of Arab nationalism against Israeli and US Imperialism and has verbally espoused support for “socialism” in the past, much like Gadaffi did. But, unfortunately, in doing so, they have sided with a reactionary, sectarian dictator, whose adherence to the cause of the Arab masses is little more than cynical demagogy for political gain. Assad has never pursued a single policy which has seriously threatened Israeli security or US interests in the region. His help to terrorist groups hasn't changed the balance of forces one little bit and, despite animosities, the Imperialist powers preferred to keep him in power before now, on the policy of “better the devil you know than the devil you don't.” Originally, even Israel didn't support the movement to unseat him, because as they said, they could at least do business with him through secret diplomatic channels.

As another reason to support the tyrant, others on the left have pointed to the fact that the war has descended into sectarian and ethnic warfare and they claim that minorities were at least protected under Assad's old regime. The same argument is, of course, used by supporters of Mubarak in Egypt, who point out that Christian Copts were better protected before the revolution. But the fundamental reason why ethnic and religious attacks has reared its head is because the Assad regime itself was based on sectarianism and Assad is pursuing a sectarian, Alawite war against the Sunni majority.

Under Assad, Syria was run for the benefit of the minority Alawites, who constitute 10% of the population and who governed and exploited a Sunni population, which make up 70% of its people. Like Mubarak, Assad's dictatorship suppressed sectarian and ethnic divisions, because he feared any disorder could threaten his regime, not because of any progressive tendencies. He leaned on other ethnic and religious groups as a political counterweight to the Sunni majority. Assad's real attitude to minorities in Syria was graphically illustrated by his treatment of the Kurds, who were forcefully “Arabized”. All aspects of their culture were suppressed, their language was banned and teaching of their history was forbidden in schools, while Kurdish farmers were dispossessed by the state and their lands distributed to Bedouins.

Furthermore, by aligning themselves with Assad, some on the left have also unfortunately found themselves on the side of Russian Imperialism, which is cynically supporting Assad for its own interests in the Great Powers game in the region. Unfortunately, some on the left think that the Russian regime is still in some way progressive and anti-Imperialist, because it comes into conflict with the US. But Russia is a right-wing capitalist regime ruled by oligarchs and bureaucrats, which has crushed underfoot the legitimate demands of national minorities in the Caucasus and manoeuvres in the Middle East, much like US Imperialism does in Central America. Modern Russia is not just a super power, but the world's second-largest Imperialist nation, whose aims are the defence of the interests of its ruling elite in the global arena.

Russia has long supported the Assad regime, not only because it provides Russia's fleet with its only Mediterranean seaport, but, together with Iran, Syria constitutes a Shiite buffer zone, which stops Al Qaeda-linked, Chechen rebels and other Muslim jihadists in Russia's North Caucasus from having an easy supply route from Iraq. Its alliances with Syria and Iran also protect its domination of the Black Sea and acts as a counterweight to NATO member, Turkey and Western Imperialist expansionist ambitions in Georgia and other countries bordering southern Russia.

What are the perspectives and Imperialism's aims?

Perhaps the first thing to say is that its not just a confusing picture for us on the left, but also for the capitalist class and the main Imperialist powers. The bourgeoisie and its strategists, both internationally and domestically in the US, is divided and unclear about what position to take and what to do with regard to the crisis in Syria. It is a complex and dangerous situation for Imperialism. War is the most unpredictable of all phenomenon and it is particularly so if you have no clear aims and objectives, upon which to base the limits or extent of your involvement. Once war has begun it has to be finished and that may entail taking actions which were never originally envisaged or intended. So they move ahead empirically, attempting to maximize the returns on the least investment in war, just as in business.

The civil war is quite rightly viewed as a Pandora’s' box and the consequences of blowing the lid off  with cruise missiles is something the majority of the capitalist class would prefer to avoid at this moment. Indeed, many nations are unhappy at America's attempts to continue to play the role of world policeman, when it isn't seen to be representing or protecting the interests of the rest of the international bourgeoisie. The US is looked on as something of a crooked cop, contemptuous of international laws and unaccountable for its actions, which could threaten the well-being of them all.

A section of the ruling class fears that deeper chaos in the Middle East provoked by US intervention will destabilize the region and also the world economy. Some of the capitalists fear for their profits should the US intervention lead to a new oil crisis. Moreover, a large part of the ruling class, including some in the military, are clearly wary of getting bogged down in another expensive, political and military quagmire, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

At the same time, the divisions in the ruling class reflect the massive opposition among the world's population, as well as the people of the US itself, towards a new war. This is a dangerous phenomenon for the bourgeoisie. In reality, the majority of people have learned to distrust their rulers and to question their motives. If, at a time of economic crisis, such anti-war sentiments coalesce with the anger felt at the capitalists and bankers, there is the possibility of serious social unrest in the West - “Don't Occupy Syria, Occupy Wall Street and Washington!”

Thus sections of the bourgeoisie, both internationally and in the US, fear that the cure proposed by Obama could be worse than the disease. They are cognisant of the fact that even a limited military strike could also further radicalize and destabilize the whole Middle East with unforeseeable consequences. That is not to say that one wing of the bourgeoisie is more progressive than the other, only that the criminals are divided over how best to rob the bank and whether explosives need to be used.

The hawkish wing around Obama and the military-industrial complex, however, believe that action now would be a better way to avoid the risk of further Middle East instability. The question of whether or not Assad used chemical weapons is a red herring. If it had not been this, they would have found another excuse to intervene. As far the Obamaites are concerned, the situation in Syria is getting out of control. Assad's forces have made major advances recently and given the weaknesses of the FSA, there was a danger that he might even defeat them.

The US cannot afford to let Assad to win. The civil war has transformed the Alawite ruling clique into a radical and unpredictable force dependent more than ever on Iran and Hezbollah. Victory for Assad would give both Iran and Hezbollah a huge boost and consolidate an anti-US, “Shiite arc” which sweeping across the Middle East from the Levant to the Persian Gulf under the central clasp of Tehran.

But on the other hand, a victory by the opposition in Syria is also fraught with dangers. There is no knowing what the balance of forces would be in the opposition between moderates and extremist jihadists in the event that Assad's regime fell. There is already a danger that the FSA could crumble and the main opposition to Assad will become entirely dominated by Al Qaeda and other fundamentalist groups, which have already become the most effective military units. Even if the secular FSA forces were finally victorious, the outcome would be a weak state which could easily fall into the hands of the jihadist rebels. Units of the FSA have already fought battles with the fundamentalists and there is no doubt on both sides that in the event of victory a showdown between them would be inevitable.

Moreover, the jihadists are far better equipped and more highly motivated by their fanatical beliefs. In these circumstances, Al Qaeda and affiliates could carve out a significant “caliphate” traversing Syria and Western Iraqi. It would be a new launching pad for attacks on the West and would destabilize the whole region.

For this reason, the CIA has already begun training and arming FSA units in Jordan with the help of the Gulf states in an attempt to build up a counter-power to Al Qaeda. But US Imperialism is hesitating about supplying the FSA with substantial weaponry for fear that it will fall into the hands of the jihadists. Supplies from the Gulf states to conservative Muslim militias appear to have found their way into the hands of more radical groups. Moreover, many FSA groups cooperate with the jihadists and many of their fighters have joined them simply because they have more weaponry to fight Assad. Therefore, there is considerable hesitation about beefing up the FSA. Ironically, this in turn pushes more of the secular forces into the arms of the well-equipped jihadists and Obama's backtracking on the recent military strike has also angered some FSA fighters, who have turned to the fundamentalists out of disillusionment.

There has been some talk about trying to cultivate a “Sunni Awakening” in Syria such as in Iraq, which drove Al Qaeda out of its geographical power base and debilitated it for a number of years in the country. However, it looks unlikely that this would work in Syria. It is true that Syrian people have a secular tradition and have driven out the jihadists in certain areas, but the Sunni Awakening in Iraq was based on the authority of local tribal leaders and it was executed with substantial help from the US occupying  forces on the ground. Neither of these two factors exist in Syria. To attempt it would mean that the US would have to put “boots on the ground”, at least in the form of large numbers of special forces.

And there is also the Kurdish question. The Kurds in northern Syria have declared a virtually independent entity called Western Kurdistan, with plans for elections to a constituent assembly. They are fiercely secular in tradition, although being Sunni Muslims. While Assad is attempting to manipulate the situation, battles have begun between Al Qaeda and the Kurds, as well as FSA forces, which aim to ethnically cleanse the area and take control of its oil and gas resources and its lucrative border routes.

If Al Qaeda was to carve out a caliphate stretching from eastern Iraq into Syria, Iraq itself could collapse and its own Kurdistan northern region could declare independence and amalgamate itself with Syrian Kurdistan. The government in the autonomous region of Kurdistan in Iraq has already proposed sending its Peshmerga guerrillas to Syria to defend its brethren. The idea of a Greater Kurdistan is something the US opposes, fearing again that it could destabilize the region, with Kurdish peoples occupying areas from Iran through Iraq, Syria and Turkey. In particular, it doesn't want to offend its key NATO ally in the region, Turkey with its massive and resistive Kurdish population, whose battles for independence could overlap with the developments in Syria/Iraq. 

Furthermore, the issue of terrorism isn't entirely a red herring. The US and the West fears that the chemical weapons could fall into the hands of Al Qaeda and be used against civilian targets at home. Such a type of civilian gas attack already happened in Japan in 1995, when the Aum Shinrikyo cult unleashed a sarin on the Tokyo metro killing 12 people and injuring 5,000, and this was despite the fact that only a small amount of the gas was used and that it was delivered in an amateurish way. The effect of a major terrorist attack on the metro in New York or London, or at some major public event, killing hundreds or thousands, would have a traumatic effect on the population, probably greater than that of 9/11. In a more socially volatile period like now, another massive atrocity could undermine people's confidence in the ruling class even further and be another factor adding to the destabilization of society in general.

Secondly, there are geopolitical factors linked to economic ones, which, in this case, is the aim of isolating and encircling Iran, which appears on the brink of becoming a nuclear power, a development which could further destabilize the region, especially if conflicts between Israel and Iran got out of hand. Undoubtedly, the fall of Assad would seriously weaken Iran as a major Imperialist power in the region. That is why the other regional Imperialist powers such as Saudi Arabia and Israel are in favour of overthrowing Assad's regime entirely. Secretary of State, John Kerry recently admitted that the Gulf States had offered to foot the entire bill for an all-out military assault by the US. 

The FSA also hoped that Obama's plan to launch a strike against Assad would open the possibility of taking Damascus in a similar way the rebels did in Libya. But such a move would necessitate a huge military commitment in Syria, especially given Assad's sophisticated air defence systems given to him by Russia. However, Syria is not Libya. While a stalemate also existed in Libya, the opposition forces were far more united than in Syria and Al Qaeda or other jihadists had minimal influence. Therefore, the Imperialists faced far less complications and the NATO bombardment was able to tip the balance in favour of the opposition, once a co-ordinated attack on Tripoli had began. Even if the US were to back the secular forces in Syria to the hilt it is unlikely they could carry out an overthrow of Assad. The only way they might be able to do that would be if they were backed up by massive numbers of US troops, eventually necessitating a full-scale ground invasion.

But, both hawks and doves in Washington realize that another Iraq/Afghanistan-style invasions isn't desirable and a similar Syrian adventure would end in another costly disaster. However, that doesn't rule out that once war has started, even in a limited form suggested by Obama at the moment, it could snowball into an ever-increasing commitment in the future. Head of the US Defence Staff, General Martin Dempsey stated recently that eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons would require “a no-fly zone with air and missile attacks with hundreds of aviation, submarines and other tools.” He added that “thousands of Special Forces and other ground troops would be needed to attack and secure key sites.” At a certain point, like NATO in Libya, the US would have no choice but to ramp up its action and commit itself to regime change.

This is something the US wants to avoid. They know that a US occupation of Syria would provoke a huge wave of anti-Imperialist sentiment across the Arab world among both Sunnis and Shiites. It would play into the hands of Al Qaeda and Shiite groups like Hezbollah. Not only would terrorism increase in the West, but support would grow for fundamentalist movements aiming to topple secular regimes, which co-operate openly with the USA, like Egypt, Yemen and Jordan and quite possibly destabilize other countries in North Africa like Morocco.

It is entirely possible that countries could implode and new regional wars would break out, especially as tensions between the Shiite and Sunni wings of Islam intensify. Large numbers of Iraqi Sunnis could gravitate towards the jihadists if sectarian warfare with Shiites intensifies and Iraq could break up, with a radical Shiite cleric, like Muqtada al-Sadr taking over in Baghdad, who has close links to Iran, giving Tehran a new ally on its southern flank.

Uprisings could also break out among the Shiite minorities in the Gulf states like the
revolution in Bahrain in 2011. All the world's key oil producing areas in the Sunni-ruled Gulf states are populated by Shiite minorities. Were the Saudis and others to carry out atrocities or attempt the ethnic cleansing of these areas, that could provoke Iran to intervene. In these circumstances the world's oil supply could be threatened and the US would be forced to act. It would probably mobilize its 5th fleet in the Persian Gulf and threaten Iran with attack by cruise missiles. Israel too might threaten to bomb Iran. In these circumstances, Russia could not stand aside and a stand-off could occur between the superpowers, of a type not seen since the Cuban missile crisis.

It is a lose-lose situation for Imperialism. Therefore, the basic policy of the US in the Middle East at the moment is containment and the continuation of the fragile status quo, in fear of unforeseeable eventualities, which it could not control. That is why they have also floated the idea of a “peace conference”, in order to reinforce the current impasse, in the absence of a viable alternative.

However, it will be extremely difficult to bring together the various sides in the conflict and their different Imperialist backers. There are some 1,500 different militia units operating in Syria, most of whom follow no central command and which are unlikely to see the SNC/FSA as a representative body. Furthermore, such a peace conference would not include representatives of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups, which are the most effective forces. Getting the belligerents to agree to a ceasefire will be extremely difficult and enforcing a ceasefire virtually impossible. Al Qaeda wouldn't be involved and, even so, their aim is not essentially the overthrow of Assad, but the creation of a Caliphate of which his removal is just a part.

The US hopes that in a continuing stalemate, the war will exhaust all sides rendering the situation relatively harmless or contained within the boundaries of the old Syrian state. But with the growing strength of Al Qaeda the war is likely to continue regardless of any conferences. Given this “dammed if I do, dammed if I don't dilemma” Imperialism may turn to a solution based on a balkanization of Syria, rendering the splintered parts of the country more “manageable.” The undeclared plans of the US could include splitting Syria into mini-states based on the current share of territories. At present, Assad controls an area roughly stretching from the south up to Damascus and the north western Mediterranean coast. The Kurds control northern Syria, the FSA-aligned forces and the jihadists control a large part of eastern Syria, including parts of Aleppo and Al Qaeda controls most of the area bordering on Iraq.

Since Assad lacks the troops to win outright (and it is why he has turned to Hezbollah for reinforcements) the US may be hoping that he would settle for a mini-Syrian state under his power. If they can get the FSA to accept a similar arrangement, the US and the Gulf states could then pour in resources to a secular, mini-opposition regime, in order to create a buffer against the further expansion of Al Qaeda and to give the US a base to attack the jihadists. The Imperialists may be contemplating an agreement whereby the rebels of the FSA relinquish control of Damascus, in return for Assad handing over Aleppo as a capital for a new “FSA” state. However, getting both sides to agree to that is very unlikely. In fact, any peace conference would be little more than a war conference; a conference on how the war should continue at a comfortable level for Imperialism, both American and Russian without causing a conflagration. 

From the standpoint of socialists the situation is grim. Despite being a horrible caricature of socialism, the collapse of the Soviet model has left a political vacuum, which has been filled by Islamic fundamentalism in its various forms. Anti-Imperialist struggle, which was left-wing in nature in the past, is now shrouded in a black cloak of medieval, reactionary ideas. Instead of class struggle, sectarian and ethnic warfare dominates. 

At the beginning of the revolution in Syria women played a key role alongside the men, but as the uprising degenerated into a male dominated war, the position and role of women was one of its first casualties. It is always women who suffer most when reaction takes an upper hand in society in whatever form.

The consequences of the civil war, with hundreds of thousands of men joining up to fight, means that the burden of caring for the family and children in conditions of chaos and destruction largely falls onto the shoulders of the women, who end up playing the role of mothers, providers, defenders and nurses. Moreover, as in all wars, women become the easy victims of atrocities, rape and murder.

Socialists must demand that all women are also given guns to defend themselves and their children and those women who wish to fight in the civil war should be given the equal right to take up arms. We should also demand that in the areas and refugee camps, the militias and the charities and government agencies which provide food and shelter should also set up crèches, schools, clinics and staffed canteens and laundrettes to relieve women of their burdens and to allow them to play an active role in the politics of current events. Ultimately, the liberation of women is linked to the task of turning this civil war into a class war against the bourgeoisie and Imperialism and establishing a socialist society, where people of different sexes, sexual orientation, race, ethnic background or religion are guaranteed equality of rights.


The working class in these conditions has been driven underground or virtually dissolved into the mayhem. But the smoke of war has hidden important changes in the objective situation in North Africa and the Middle East, which have taken place in the last period and which should give us some optimism for the future.

The working class has always been small in the Arab world compared to other regions, but an offshoot of the recent boom has been an enormous growth in its numbers and potential power. If we just take a cross section of countries in the region we can see how predominantly peasant economies have now become newly industrialized societies. The share of industrial workers in the overall workforce is 32% in Tunisia, 31% in Iran, 26% in Turkey, 23% in Libya, 22% in Palestine, 20% in Jordan, 19% in Morocco and 16% in Syria. Let's remember that when the socialist revolution took place in Russia in 1917, only some 13% of the workforce were industrial workers.

Furthermore, despite the complications, which have unfolded in the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, they remain proof of the power of the masses and the possibility for peaceful revolution. The working class played a key role in the revolution in Tunisia and in Egypt, it was the massive strike movement of 2006, which broke the fear barrier and paved the way for the revolution. In Egypt, the working class is still only at the beginning of discovering its identity and power, much like workers in the early years of the Industrial Revolution in Europe. This is truer in the rest of the region, where the working class doesn't yet see itself as a class separate from the rest with its own interests and aims. That will inevitably change as Egypt and Tunisia is showing.

In all revolutions and civil wars, reaction and revolution are interwoven in the processes. It will most likely need the exhaustion or resolution of the conflict in Syria, in one way or another, before class issues can come to the fore and the need for workers' unity will start to overcome ethnic and sectarian barriers.

We shouldn't be overwhelmed by the virulence of reactionary elements in the situation. There is a silenced majority among the Syrians, both in the country and in the refugee camps, many of whom have lost faith in both Assad and the current Opposition. Some support certain factions because of the lack of any alternative and some because they provide them with food, electricity and shelter. The foreign fighters of Al Qaeda and similar groups have little roots in the local population either of a cultural or religious nature. Syrians have a tradition of secularity and tolerance. When the revolution first broke out it spread to other communities and elicited sympathy from the Kurds, Druze, Christians and even from Alawite students in Aleppo and Damascus.

Socialists have no sides to take in this war than that of the people. The role of socialists is to speak for the silenced and to offer a perspective of what can replace war and what can rebuild Syria. When the war ends, those who have suffered and those who have fought will be demanding recompense for all they lost or sacrificed. Capitalism cannot give them that. Once the dust settles people will look for political solutions and will begin to act in their own interests. In Libya, the working class has begun to awaken with strikes in the oil industry and other sectors. This will happen in Syria too. Syria has a rich tradition of class struggle, which has been hidden from view. In 1936, the working class in Syria brought the country to standstill with a general strike against French rule which lasted two months and involved all ethnic and religious groups in Syrian society across the length and breadth of the country, eventually leading to independence.

Once the war ends, people will expect a new society changed from top to bottom. They will demand the entire reconstruction of the country and a share in its wealth. But under capitalism, the rebuilding of the country will be based on what is profitable and not what is needed, leaving millions without homes, jobs or infrastructure. Only a socialist plan of production under democratic management by working people could harness the total wealth of the country for the good of all and offer a just and equitable transformation of society.

A Socialist Syria, leading to Socialist Federation of the Middle East and North Africa could transform society both in Syria and throughout the region. One can only imagine how society would look if Sheiks, Generals and mullahs were overthrown and Imperialism was chased out of the region, its business interests nationalized and the rich resources of the Arab world put to work for the masses and not the profits of a few. 5,000 years ago, there were civilizations of plenty stretching from the Pyramids to the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Surely with modern science and technology, it would be possible to create a new golden age in the cradle of civilization.

* No to Imperialist intervention!
* No to Assad - down with the dictator!
* No to Al Qaeda - drive out the jihadists!
* No to sectarianism – equal rights for all ethnic, religious and linguistic groups!
* No to the pro-capitalist, pro-Western, Syrian National Coalition and FSA leaders!
* Disarm all army and militias units – for a genuine People's Army under democratic control!
* End liberalization, – re-nationalize privatized industries and put nationalized industries under under democratic workers' control and management!
* A national plan of production to rebuild the economy, including a massive programme of public works to provide jobs and to build and repair homes, schools, hospitals and the country's infrastructure on the basis of need, not profit!
* For a Democratic Socialist Syria and Socialist Federation of the Middle East and North Africa!