Say No to Culver’s Cuts – Mobilize in C.R. to defend social services and education!

By Marlon Pierre-Antoine

In the corporate media there is total consensus: Democratic Governor Chet Culver is being ‘forced’ to implement a 10% ($600 million) across the board cut to the state budget due to the world economic recession’s impact on Iowa. With the support of both his own party and the Republicans, no program is off limits – Medicare, food stamps, public education and more are all on the chopping block, hitting working people hard but particularly the state’s poorest residents, such as the thousands of unemployed workers who have lost their jobs since the beginning of the recession or the nearly 800 public sector workers who will be laid off as a result of the budget. According to Culver, further cuts will be ‘necessary’ in 2011.

This recession was caused by rampant financial speculation, at the heart of the capitalist system itself, which amplified the effects of the housing bubble’s collapse in late 2008. In its aftermath the bipartisan policy at both federal and state levels has been the same: bailouts and ‘golden parachutes’ for the rich, service cuts and layoffs for the poor. There are 113,100 unemployed workers in Iowa – 6.7% of the total labor force, a figure that is even higher among those under 29.

Fifty-nine percent of this year’s round of cuts, $332 million, will be to education, hitting the free lunch program for low income students, early childhood education and Iowa State University, among others. The state’s College Aid Commission’s budget is being slashed by $6.3 million, condemning high school graduates who can’t afford the prohibitive cost of college to a life of low-wage jobs in the service or retail sectors.

The contemptuous attitude of capitalism’s public representatives towards ordinary working people is shown by Culver’s assurance to the rich that any tax increases are “off the table.” This budget is a blatant attempt by Corporate America to make workers, students, and middle class people foot the bill for their crisis. This phenomenon is not unique to Iowa – similar budgets are being forced through across the country, most notably in California where a fight-back movement has emerged, with mass demonstrations and school occupations that have forced Governor Schwarzenegger to concede more funding to education.

For the Californian workers and for us in Iowa, the battle has just begun. The unions and and student organizations in California that initiated the movement there have called for a National Day of Action to Defend Education on March 4th. Local actions are being planned across the country, and Socialist Alternative in Cedar Rapids will be protesting in opposition to the cuts and for a solution to the state’s budget crisis that benefits students and working people. We are appealing to the American Federation of Teachers in Cedar Rapids, the Hawkeye Labor Council, student organizations, the Linn County Green Party and all progressive community organizations to join our branch in building an opposition to the corporate parties and their anti-worker, anti-poor attacks. We didn’t make this crisis; we refuse to pay for it!

• NO slashing social services, NO layoffs, NO tuition hikes, NO college grant cuts
• Funding for human needs, not war and Wall Street
• For a massive public works program to rebuild downtown Cedar Rapids and provide jobs at union wages and conditions
• For a federal bailout of the Iowa state budget
• No support for the pro-cuts politicians! Unions, socialists, Greens and community groups should run pro-worker candidates against Governor Culver and the state Democrats and Republicans.

Take Action to Defend Education on March 4th!

The Cedar Rapids branch will be organizing a local action on March 4th in defense of education and social services. For us this will be the opening round of an ongoing campaign against Democratic Governor Culver’s 10% across-the-board cuts to the state budget, which will wreak disastrous effects on the Iowan working class, especially the worst-off among us. Below is an article from the latest issue of Justice on March 4th.

Take Action to Defend Education on March 4th — They Say Cut Back – We Say Fight Back!
Jan 7, 2010 Pete Ikeler, Professional Staff Congress of the City University of New York
All across the country, education is under attack. State governments have slashed the budgets of public universities, raised tuition, and cut jobs. Just last month, the University of California Board of Regents decided to increase tuition by 32% – that means students will have to pay $2,500 more each year. Students in the State and City Universities of New York have also endured tuition hikes for each of the last three semesters; a new round of cuts totaling almost $150 million is now on the table. But these are only the most recent examples. We know that the money is there! Trillions, yes, trillions, have been handed to warmakers and big banks. At a time when enrollment in community colleges and job training programs is at an all-time high, state governments are cutting the funding! They use as their excuse the loss of tax revenue resulting from the current economic crisis. Capitalism cares about short-term profits, and public education isn’t a profitable “industry.” But we have to make it clear: We didn’t make this crisis, and we won’t pay for it! It was the billionaires on Wall Street who caused this, not the students, educators, and parents. We need a public education system that offers free, quality education for all. Not just so we can be prepared for a harsh life under American capitalism, but so we can learn about the things that interest us and grow as human beings. Students in California have shown the way through militant action. They’ve occupied buildings and staged massive demonstrations on the Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and Davis campuses. For March 4, student groups and teachers’ unions across California have called a statewide day of action. But they are not alone! This call has been actively supported by students and educators in New York, Maryland, Connecticut, Illinois, and across the country. The call has now gone out for March 4 to become a national day of action in defense of education. Get in touch with Socialist Alternative to find out what’s going on in your area. Be a part of the fight to take back education and run it in the interests of students, workers, and the community – not for capitalists and their politicians! We demand: No Cuts, Layoffs, Fee or Tuition Hikes Fund Human Needs, Not War and Wall Street For a Federal Bailout of State Budgets Build Actions on March 4 to Defend Education and Tax the Rich!

Where is the world economy going?

Lynn Walsh reports on the world economy in 2010 – is the ‘Great Recession’ finally over? Has capitalism ‘dodged a bullet’ or are we entering into a period of prolonged stagnation, weak recovery and structural crisis? From Socialism Today #134, http://socialismtoday.org/index.html

Is the worst post-war economic downturn coming to an end? Are the green shoots of recovery really visible, as many politician would have us believe? Opinion is divided, with some commentators counting down to the next crisis. What is clear, is that this is a time of acute economic instability. Any growth is likely to be slow, with governments and big business out to offload the costs onto working-class people. LYNN WALSH reports.

WORLD CAPITALISM HAS been shaken to its foundations by the economic crisis that has unfolded since the end of 2007. Nobody disputes that it is the worst crisis since the 1930s. “The downturn has been global in scope”, comments the Organisation for Co-operation and Economic Development (OECD), a grouping of 30 advanced capitalist countries, “even though its financial epicentre was in the OECD area. Indeed, trade and financial linkages prompted a synchronised collapse in activity and trade after financial markets froze in the second half of 2008″. (OECD press release, 24 June 2009)

World trade, the engine of globalisation, collapsed with a 16% fall expected for 2009. The cumulative output losses since the beginning of 2008 have been severe: minus 5.14% for OECD-Europe, minus 8.4% for Japan, minus 3.55% for the US, with an OECD average of minus 4.7%. In Britain, the cumulative loss has been minus 5.54%, and the recession may continue longer than in most of the other advanced capitalist countries. Ireland and Iceland have suffered cumulative losses of about minus 9% of output, while Turkey has fallen by minus 13.92%. (Source: Office for National Statistics, Economic and Labour Market Review, October 2009) There have been even deeper falls in some of the central and east European countries: 18.4% in Lithuania, 16% in Latvia, 14% in Ukraine, and 13.2% in Estonia.

The economic crisis is also a serious political blow to capitalism, especially to the prestige of the advanced capitalist countries. “The financial and economic crash of 2008, the worst in over 75 years, is a major geopolitical setback for the United States and Europe”. (Roger Altman, The Great Crash 2008, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb 2009)

The leaders of world capitalism are consoling themselves that they survived a ‘near-death experience’, and are suffering ‘only’ a ‘great recession’ rather than a ‘great depression’ – a catastrophic slump and prolonged period of depression. They have been encouraged by the revival of growth in the US (3.5% in the third quarter) and the rebound on world stock exchanges. Their optimism, however, is premature. Assessments made by the main economic agencies, such as the OECD, IMF, etc, that a recovery will be “slow and fragile”, remain valid.

The return to GDP growth, which is likely to be very limited this year in Europe and Japan, is heavily dependent on state intervention, through support for the banking system and fiscal stimulus programmes. Many capitalist commentators fear that, when these programmes have run their course (and unless there are further stimulus programmes), the world economy will slide back into recession, giving rise to a so-called double-dip recession.

Regardless of the return to positive growth figures, unemployment will continue to rise sharply for the next year or so. Even according to official figures, which underestimate the true situation, there will be a rise of over 25 million unemployed from the low point of late 2007. Moreover, any recovery will be held back by the enormous burden of debt which weighs on the global economy. Huge private losses made by the banks and finance houses have been transferred to the state, while the general injection of additional credit into the system by central banks will also increase state deficits. The fiscal stimulus programmes will also enormously increase state debt, which will act as a drag on future growth. The ‘green shoots’ of recovery, hailed by many capitalist leaders, are in most cases sickly weeds, growing in barren soil.

Can the stimulus packages work?

MASSIVE STATE INTERVENTION has so far avoided a catastrophic collapse and a prolonged slump. Leaders of the advanced capitalist countries avoided the mistakes made by their counterparts after the 1929 crash, when they stood aside and let the system collapse. On this occasion, they intervened on an unprecedented scale. The United Nations (World Economic Situation and Prospects 2009) estimates that governments worldwide have used around $18 trillion (or about 30% of world gross product) to bail out the banks and support the financial system. At the same time, the major capitalist countries have implemented fiscal stimulus plans totalling about $2.6 trillion (about 4% of world production), to be spent over 2009-11. However, the UN report comments that, in reality, it would require a stimulus of 2-3% of world gross product a year to make up for the estimated decline in global aggregate demand.

It is likely that, at best, it will take five years or more for the major economies to make up the losses of 2008-09. The OECD recognises that there will be a growth in structural, long-term unemployment, and that capital stock is likely to be reduced on a long-term basis, reducing the output capacity of major economies.

The return to positive growth in the US, the world’s largest economy, and the sustained growth in China (expected to be around 9% this year) have been major factors in the limited recovery of the global economy (see box). The return to growth in the US is almost entirely due to the stimulus package (see box). Given the continued rise in unemployment and the mounting debt burden faced by the majority of working people, the economy will slide back without a new stimulus package. However, Barak Obama is currently emphasising the need to reduce the federal government deficit, rather than pushing for a new package. US consumer demand for manufactured products (which account for over 70% of the US economy) are still a decisive factor in world output and trade. Weak or negative growth in the US spells crisis for major exporters such as China, Japan and major European manufacturers like Germany.

Growth in China has been sustained on the basis of massive state intervention, with a $585 billion package of expenditure and loans. This reflects the major role still played by the state in the Chinese economy, despite the recent growth of private capitalism. However, most of the expenditure is concentrated on infrastructure projects, rather than raising the wages and living standards of the masses of workers and peasants. The Chinese regime is still counting on a revival of its export markets in the US and Europe.

A new bubble?

MUCH OF THE optimism among investment bankers and economic commentators about ‘green shoots of recovery’ comes from the rebound of shares since March 2009 (up around 60% from the low point, though still around 25% lower than the previous peak). There is special enthusiasm among speculators for financial assets (shares, bonds, property, commodities, etc) and for investment in so-called ‘emerging markets’, that is, economies like China, South-East Asia, Brazil, etc.

The downturn has not been so severe in these economies as in the advanced capitalist countries. But the main reason for the surge of investment is the phenomenal profits that can be made on the basis of cheap credit. Banks, hedge funds and other financial institutions are flush with money as a result of the government bailouts in the US, Britain and Europe. Moreover, on the basis of state guarantees of their assets, they are able to borrow money at very low interest rates. In general, they have not returned to normal levels of lending to business, so the cash is being channelled into speculative activity.

The quantitative easing of the Federal Reserve Bank and other central banks has also hugely increased the liquidity of financial institutions. Mainly on the basis of printing money (rather than the issuance of government bonds, which is a form of borrowing), the US Federal Reserve is purchasing up to $1,800 billion of US government bonds, mortgage-backed securities, and various other forms of securitised debt. This represents a massive injection of liquidity into the finance sector. Given the relatively low rates of interest that can be earned on government bonds, the finance houses are using their credit to invest in shares, commodities, and other more profitable assets.

Added to this injection of liquidity is the fall in value of the US dollar. Paradoxically, given the US downturn, the dollar rose in value during 2008, mainly because governments and speculators internationally saw US government bonds as a ‘safe haven’ for their cash. But since March, the dollar has been falling quite rapidly. Through ‘short-selling’ the dollar (a way of profiting from the fall in the value of the dollar), speculators have been able to borrow dollars effectively at negative interest rates (as low as 10% or 20% negative on an annualised basis). They are then using the cash to buy shares, bonds, commodities, currencies, etc, both in the advanced capitalist countries and in the semi-developed countries (emerging markets). Speculators in these markets have been able to make gains of between 50-70% on these short-term, speculative investments.

These easy profits undoubtedly represent a ‘recovery’ for speculators. But this new bubble is far from representing a real recovery of the US or global economy.

“One day”, warns Nouriel Roubini, “this bubble will burst, leading to the biggest coordinated asset bust ever”. (Mother of All Carry Trades Faces an Inevitable Bust, Financial Times, 1 November) Sooner or later the dollar will stop falling, and speculators will no longer be able to borrow at such huge negative interest rates. The Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing programme, moreover, is scheduled to end by spring 2010. Any rise in US interest rates, which may come if GDP growth continues, would also undermine this speculative activity. Such “an unravelling may not occur for a while, as easy money and excessive global liquidity can push asset prices higher for a while. But the longer and bigger the carry trades and the larger the asset bubble, the bigger will be the ensuing asset bubble crash. The Fed and other policymakers seem unaware of the monster bubble they are creating. The longer they remain blind, the harder the markets will fall”. (Roubini) A crash of these highly speculative financial markets would undoubtedly cut across any revival of global growth.

Dangers for capitalism

WHAT ARE THE prospects for the global capitalist economy? There is likely to be a weak, fragile recovery, which could last for a few years, but could be equally cut across by a new downturn once the state stimulus packages run their course. Capitalist leaders are themselves uncertain whether there will be a revival of self-sustained capitalist growth. Short-term fluctuation will continue, as always under capitalism. But there is likely to be a prolonged period of feeble growth or stagnation, with depressionary features. There will undoubtedly be a period of structural unemployment which, together with squeezed wage levels and social spending cuts, will erode capitalist markets.

Intervention by the major capitalist powers has so far prevented a meltdown of the banking and finance system. Nevertheless, there are still huge amounts of bad debts concealed within the system, which may lead to renewed crisis in the banking system in the next few years. Bankers and speculators are vigorously fighting off attempts to impose tighter regulation of the finance sector. The current speculative bubble on stock exchanges, especially in emerging markets, show that the stability of the global economy will still be threatened by speculative excesses. Many serious capitalist commentators take it for granted that it is only a matter of time before the next crisis. “The clock ticks inexorably towards another disaster…” writes Francesco Guerrera. (Countdown to Next Crisis, Financial Times, 16 October)

Some, with good reason, also fear the political backlash against the system: “When the next crisis hits, and it will, [the] frustrated public is likely to turn, not just on politicians who have been negligently lavish with public funds, or on bankers, but on the market system. What is at stake now may not just be the future of finance, but the future of capitalism”. (John Kay, ‘Too Big to Fail’ is Too Dumb an Idea to Keep, Financial Times, 27 October)

Moreover, finding an exit strategy from the policy of ultra-low interest rates, super-loose money supply, and quantitative easing (printing money) is fraught with danger for the capitalists. At the moment, quantitative easing is not having an inflationary effect. This is because of the strong deflationary trends in the world economy, with falling demand and global overcapacity underlying a general fall in the prices of manufactured goods. At the same time, banks are hoarding much of the credit they have accumulated under the quantitative easing programmes. However, as soon as growth revives and banks begin to put more of their reserves into circulation through loans to businesses, there will undoubtedly be a serious danger of inflation replacing deflation. Premature withdrawal of monetary stimulus could provoke another downturn. On the other hand, a delay in reining in the excess liquidity could cause an explosion of inflation. “There is danger no matter how the central banks react. Successful monetary policy could be like walking along a perilous ridge, on either side of which lies a precipice of instability. For all we know, there may not be a safe way down”. (Wolfgang Muchau, Countdown to the Next Crisis is Already Under Way, Financial Times, 18 October)

Together with support for the finance sector, state fiscal stimulus programmes have hugely boosted government deficits. Many current deficits of the advanced capitalist countries have been pushed above 10%. Given the reluctance of capitalist governments to increase taxation on big business and the super-rich, these deficits will weigh on the economy for a long time ahead. Governments will attempt to reduce the deficits through cutting state expenditure, which will mean a further assault on working-class living standards. At the same time, financing state deficits will take a growing proportion of global savings (an estimated 25% in the OECD countries). This will reduce the capital available for both public and private investment.

Growing inter-capitalist tensions

A PERIOD OF weak growth will aggravate all the inter-capitalist tensions in the world economy. According to the head of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy, there is already ‘low intensity’ protectionist war. This is likely to become more intensive in the coming years.

Above all, the role of the US dollar will be threatened. Being able to pay its debts in its own currency has been an enormous advantage for US imperialism. But the price is the huge accumulation of debt with the rest of the world. At a certain point, this debt will become absolutely unsustainable, with a collapse of the US bond market and the value of the dollar. Capitalist leaders internationally are well aware of this problem, but are completely unable to steer an orderly transition to an alternative system of reserve currencies (either through a shared system based on major currencies such as the euro, yen and yuan, or on special drawing rights [SDRs] administered by the IMF). A collapse of the dollar would mean global currency chaos and could itself provoke a new, even deeper downturn in the world economy.

Some of the semi-developed countries, such as Brazil, India, and South-East Asian countries appear to have escaped the worst effects of the current crisis. In particular, the increase in commodity prices (through continued demand from China and speculative dealing in commodity futures) appears to have benefited commodity producers. But this sheltered position will be short lived. The underlying social contradictions in these countries are becoming more acute every day.

Since 1980, world capitalism has managed to find its way out of successive crises through a series of financial bubbles – in financial assets, housing, commercial property, and commodities. But the crisis that has unfolded since 2007 marks the end of this road. There may well be new bubbles and speculative excesses. But they will not provide the huge, inflated cushion on a comparable basis with the last 20 to 30 years. World capitalism has entered a new, more acute period of crisis.

Cedar Rapids Says NO to Escalation & War!

The Cedar Rapids branch of Socialist Alternative, with Women for Peace
- Iowa and local supporters, held an anti-war, anti-escalation march
in downtown Cedar Rapids on December 18th, attended by eighteen
people.

The public mood was decisively in favor of our stand against Obama’s
war. After half an hour of protesting on a downtown sidewalk with our
signs, receiving honks of support from drivers-by, we led the group
down to the Wells Fargo branch where Democratic Congressman Dave
Loebsack keeps his office, chanting along the way “Obama don’t lie to
me, your wars won’t bring democracy!” and “What do we want? Troops
out! When do we want it? Now!” Outside of Wells Fargo our guests Paul
Street, Wendy Barth (the 2006 Green Party candidate for governor), the
Women for Peace leader Charlotte Martin and S.A. member Tiffany Van Tomme all gave short speeches that went over great with the crowd and even evoked support from locals crossing the street nearby. Videos of the speeches are forthcoming soon!

Trotsky on Marxism in the U.S.

From the essay ‘Marxism in our Time’
an introduction to Marx’s Capital
1939

The North American republic has gone further than others in the sphere of technique and the organisation of production. Not only Americans but all of mankind will build on that foundation. However, the various phases of the social process in one and the same nation have varying rhythms, depending on special historical conditions. While the United States enjoys tremendous superiority in technology, its economic thought is extremely backward in both the right and left wings. John L. Lewis has about the same views as Franklin D. Roosevelt. Considering the nature of his office, Lewis’ social function is incomparably more conservative, not to say reactionary, than Roosevelt’s. In certain American circles there is a tendency to repudiate this or that radical theory without the slightest scientific criticism, by simply dismissing it as “un-American.” But where can you find the differentiating criterion of that?

Christianity was imported into the United States along with logarithms, Shakespeare’s poetry, notions on the rights of man and the citizen, and certain other not unimportant products of human thought. Today Marxism stands in the same category.

Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace imputed to the author of these lines, “a dogmatic thinness which is bitterly un-American” and counterposed to Russian dogmatism the opportunist spirit of Jefferson, who knew how to get along with his opponents, Apparently, it has never occurred to Mr. Wallace that a policy of compromise is not a function of some immaterial national spirit, but a product of material conditions. A nation rapidly growing rich has sufficient reserves for conciliation between hostile classes and parties. When, on the other hand, social contradictions are sharpened, the ground for compromise disappears. America was free of “dogmatic thinness” only because it had a plethora of virgin areas, inexhaustible resources of natural wealth and, it would seem, limitless opportunities for enrichment. True, even under these conditions the spirit of compromise did not prevent the Civil War when the hour for it struck. Anyway, the material conditions which made up the basis of “Americanism,” are today increasingly relegated to the past. Hence the profound crisis of traditional American ideology.

Empiric thinking, limited to the solution of immediate tasks from time to time, seemed adequate enough in labour as well as in bourgeois circles as long as Marx’s laws of value did everybody’s thinking. But today that very law is in irreconcilable contradiction with itself. Instead of urging economy forward, it undermines its foundations. Conciliatory eclectic thinking, with its philosophic apogee, pragmatism, becomes utterly inadequate, while an unfavourable or disdainful attitude toward Marxism as a “dogma” – is increasingly insubstantial, reactionary and downright funny. On the contrary, it is the traditional idea of “Americanism” that have become lifeless, petrified “dogma” giving rise to nothing but errors and confusion. At the same time, the economic teaching of Marx has acquired peculiar viability and pointedness for the United States. Although Capital rests on international material, preponderantly English, in its theoretical foundation it is an analysis of pure capitalism, capitalism in general, capitalism as such. Undoubtedly, the capitalism grown on the virgin, unhistorical soil of America comes closest to that ideal type of capitalism.

Saving Mr. Wallace’s presence, America developed economically not in accordance with the principles of Jefferson, but in accordance with the ideas of Marx. There is as little offence to national self-esteem in acknowledging that as in recognising that America turns around the sun in accordance with the laws of Newton. The more Marx is ignored in the United States, the more compelling becomes his teaching now. Capital offers a faultless diagnosis of the malady and an irreplaceable prognosis. In that sense the teaching of Marx is far more permeated with new “Americanism” than the ideas of Hoover and Roosevelt, of Green and Lewis.

True, there is a widespread original literature in the United States devoted to the crisis of American economy. In so far as conscientious economists offer an objective picture of the destructive trends of American capitalism, their investigations, regardless of their theoretical premises, which are usually lacking anyway, look like direct illustrations of Marx’s theory. The conservative tradition makes itself known, however, when these authors stubbornly restrain themselves from definitive conclusion, limiting themselves to gloomy predictions or such edifying banalities as “the country must understand,” “public opinion must certainly consider,” and the like. These books look like a knife without a blade or like a compass without its indicator.

The United States had Marxists in the past, it is true, but they were a strange type of Marxist, or rather, three strange types. In the first place, these were the émigrés cast out of Europe, who did what they could but could not find any response; in the second place, isolated American groups, like the De Leonists, who in the course of events, and because of their own mistakes, turned themselves into sects; in the third place, dilettantes attracted by the October Revolution and sympathetic to Marxism as an exotic teaching that had little to do with the United States. Their day is over. Now dawns the new epoch of an independent class movement to the proletariat and at the same time of – genuine Marxism. In this too, America will in a few jumps catch up with Europe and outdistance it. Progressive technique and a progressive social structure will pave their own way in the sphere of doctrine. The best theoreticians of Marxism will appear on American soil. Marx will become the mentor of the advanced American workers. To them this abridged exposition of the first volume will become only an initial step toward the complete Marx.

Troop Surge Protest Rescheduled – Friday, December 18th

Hi everyone,

The protest downtown against Obama’s Afghan war troop surge, which was planned for the 10th, has been rescheduled for this Friday, December 18th, due to blizzard conditions.

Our original intention was to hold the protest while Obama was in Norway receiving his ill-deserved Nobel Peace Prize but even though that is no longer possible we can all still have our voices be heard and show our government that we will not put up with another war president. Join us this Friday on the corner of 1st Avenue and 1st Street in demanding the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan and genuine, democratic self-determination for the Afghan workers and poor peasants as the only force in Afghanistan that can create a stable society.

Signs and banners will be provided at the event for those who would like them. We will be collecting signatures to register our protest with our elected officials and to demand that our Senators & Congressmen approve no additional war funding.

December 10th: Obama gets his Peace Prize; We Hit the Streets!

Earlier this week President Obama announced a surge of 30,000 additional troops to fight in Afghanistan. On December 10th, while Obama is in Norway receiving his Nobel Peace Prize, the Cedar Rapids branch along with SA branches across the country will be on the streets protesting the war. Join us on the corner of 1st ave. and 1st st. S.E. from 3:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. in denouncing the war and reviving the anti-war movement in Cedar Rapids and across the country! Below is a report, originally posted on the national website, of a recent successful protest led by the Socialist Alternative branch in Bellingham, WA.

BELLINGHAM, WA – Hours before Obama would announce his plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, approximately 160 students, veterans, and community members hit the streets of Bellingham to protest the troop surge.

Many protestors were especially outraged because voters elected the Democrats to have full control over the White House and Congress, hoping they would end the disastrous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, Obama is escalating the war in Afghanistan. And he is escalating it only one week before he receives the Nobel Peace Prize!

The protest was organized by Socialist Alternative, which established a branch in Bellingham only two months before the protest. Everyone was inspired to see the decent turnout given how new Socialist Alternative is to Bellingham and because the protest was planned in only one month.

The protest was reported in The Bellingham Herald, the Western Front, the Cascadia Weekly, and possibly more media outlets. Socialist Alternative members Brett Hoven and Ramy Khalil also got a guest opinion column published in the Western Front. Scroll down to see the photos and all the media coverage!

The appearance of antiwar protests organized by Socialist Alternative and other groups across the country also suggests that a majority of Americans are growing weary with the Afghanistan War and are increasingly willing to publicly challenge President Obama on this issue.
For many students, this was their first protest, and everyone seemed to really enjoy the rally and especially the march, which was very energetic and spirited. As one student, Zach Snover, put it: “As my first experience protesting and marching, I could really feel the power students could achieve through united action. And I really loved the chant: ‘Show me what democracy looks like! THIS is what democracy looks like!’”

The protest was co-sponsored by the Whatcom Peace and Justice Center, Veterans for Peace Chapter 111, Coffee Strong, World Can’t Wait, Youth Against War and Racism, Young Dems of Skagit County, Food Not Bombs, and the Whatcom Community College Bike Club. Socialist Alternative would like to thank all of these groups for their support, their speakers, and their efforts to get the word out about the protest, especially the Whatcom Peace and Justice Center.

Proponents of war often criticize the antiwar movement for not “supporting the troops.” Yet this rally featured numerous veterans speaking out against imperialist wars. Among them were Gene Marx, the head coordinator of Veterans for Peace Chapter 111, whose son has done two tours of duty in Iraq. James Gillies, a Vietnam veteran, also shared his personal experiences with U.S. imperialism in Southeast Asia 35 years ago and the little good that it had accomplished, drawing parallels with Afghanistan. Evan Knappenberger, an Iraq war vet, also shared his personal experiences and questioned how the U.S. military could possibly help the people of Afghanistan and Iraq when it doesn’t even take care of its own soldiers and veterans.

The speakers from Socialist Alternative, Lindsay Worley and Jake Silberman, questioned the benefits of the costly occupation of Afghanistan for ordinary Americans and Afghans, especially women, when funds for jobs and education are being slashed every day. Aditi Kaushik, a social justice activist from India and a member of Socialist Alternative, talked about the occupation’s failure to improve women’s rights in Afghanistan.

A small counter-protest was also held. Four conservative student activists came out to heckle the crowd, chanting slogans such as “Let the surge work!” But they were met with a cold reception by the antiwar crowd. All in all their presence only served to strengthen the resolve of the crowd which, at one point, drowned out the counter-protesters with a sea of voices chanting “troops home now!” The counter-demonstrators’ overall effect on the protest was minimal, especially given that they offered no clear solutions for ending the war in Afghanistan, which has been dragging on for eight years and getting worse.

The rally was followed by a march that that began in Red Square and traveled throughout campus before heading downtown to U.S. Congressman Rick Larsen’s office. Many community members and people who had to work who could not join us honked and clapped in support as we marched by.
Rep. Larsen’s staff had been invited to come downstairs and talk with the crowd that arrived at his building. Unfortunately, though, they refused to come out and talk with all 160 protesters as a group. Instead only a few activists were able to talk with Larsen’s staff in his office, and they delivered a letter to him protesting his support for the troop surge, especially because he is a Democrat.

In the end, it was highly encouraging to see so many students and community members come out and challenge Obama to end the occupation of Afghanistan. It was also highly encouraging to see so many new young members of Socialist Alternative getting involved in planning and participating in the rally and march.

Get more info and get involved! (206) 293-8389 * khalilr@students.wwu.edu

MEDIA
Anti-war protest at Western Washington University coincides with Obama troop increase announcement
Troop Surge is Not a Viable End to the War – editorial by Socialist Alternative members Brett Hoven and Ramy Khalil

East Germany: Revolution and Counter Revolution

The most iconic moment in the collapse of Stalinism was when the Berlin wall was pulled down. What the capitalist media largely ignore, however, are the events taking place behind that wall in the weeks before its dramatic fall. Ingmar Meineke, of Sozialistische Alternative (SAV – CWI in Germany) provides a graphic blow-by-blow account of the East German revolution and counter revolution.
Germany – Power was lying on the street

East German revolution and counter revolution
Ingmar Meineke, Sozialistische Alternative (SAV – CWI in Germany). From November 2009 edition of Socialism Today, magazine of the Socialist Party (CWI in England & Wales

“Dear friends, fellow citizens. It is like someone opened a window after all these years of spiritual, economic and political stagnation, dullness and bad smell, phrase-mongering and bureaucratic arbitrariness. What a change! Less than four weeks ago: a nice wooden tribune right here around the corner, the ordered and illustrious parade! And today! You have gathered here, today, out of your own free will, for freedom and democracy and for a socialism worth the name”. With these words the author, Stefan Heym, began his speech on Berlin Alexanderplatz in front of more than half a million people on 4 November 1989.

A revolutionary wave had engulfed the German Democratic Republic (GDR – East Germany’s Stalinist state). On 9 October, 70,000 people took to the streets of Leipzig, 300,000 on the 23rd. Between those dates, state leader, Erich Honecker, and other politburo members of the ruling SED party, resigned. Egon Krenz took over on 18 October and was the first to use the word ‘Wende’ (change). But he too faced distrust and rejection. On 4 November, placards read: ‘Socialism yes – Ego(n)ism – no’. On 8 November, the whole politburo resigned, while 50,000 SED members demonstrated outside for the renewal of their party.

One day later the Berlin wall falls – the wall that Honecker said in January would “still be standing in 50 or 100 years”. In 1987, Kurt Hager said of perestroika and glasnost: “You know, if your neighbour redecorates his home would you feel compelled to redecorate yours, too?” By 1989 it was not just about redecorating, the whole flat was unfit for human habitation. But, as we know, in the end, the flat got privatised, and the names of the new landlords were the West German Kohl & Co.

The conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its allies won the Volkskammer (parliament) elections on 18 March 1990. On 1 July, the Deutschmark (DM) became the official currency. On 3 October, the GDR was attached to West Germany. Just a year after the beginning of the protests, the GDR had vanished from the map. How was it possible to divert the revolutionary train onto the tracks of capitalist reunification?
Growing anger

Developments in other Eastern Bloc countries had fanned the flames of unrest in the GDR. Elections in the Soviet Union in March 1989 included multi-candidates for the first time. Mass strikes in Poland in the summer of 1988 had led to round table talks involving the government, the Solidarnosc movement and Catholic church. Solidarnosc won the partial elections for the Polish parliament in June 1989, forming the government in September. This was in marked contrast to the GDR. The state reacted with over 200 arrests when opposition groups appeared on the Luxemburg-Liebknecht memorial demonstration in 1988 with a banner citing Rosa Luxemburg: ‘Freedom is always the freedom of those who think differently’.

Three events in 1989 inflamed the situation further. SED endorsement of the Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing on 4 June, a thinly disguised threat against opposition, only undermined the regime. The same with the rigged local elections on 7 May. Officially, the National Front List (the ‘unity list’ of SED and other organisations) gained 98.77%. Election observers said there were at least 10-20% non-voters or ‘No’ votes. This time, public protests began to involve hundreds of people, 1,500 in Leipzig on election night, and continued for months.

The final impetus was the wave of people leaving the GDR. Hungary opened its borders to Austria and GDR citizens begin to use this route to the west – 25,000 by the end of September. West German diplomatic missions in Prague, Budapest and east Berlin are flooded by people wanting to leave. This triggered a debate: why are so many leaving? What kind of a country is it where people feel the urge to run away, leaving property, friends and family behind? Official reactions that we ‘should not shed a single tear over these people’ sickened many.

On Monday 4 September, 1,200 people demonstrated after the peace prayer in the Leipzig Nikolai church. They chant: ‘We want out’. Security forces intervene. This is repeated every Monday. On 25 September, 8,000 people come out to protest. The chant changes to: ‘We stay here’, a clear statement of intent against the regime, indicating a will to finally change things in the country itself.

The first opposition groups are founded, New Forum on 9 September. Its statement is signed by 4,500 people in 14 days. By November, 200,000 have signed. It starts with the words: “Within our country, the communication between state and society is obviously disrupted. This is proven by mass resignations and retreat into the private sphere, as well as mass emigration”. It mentions numerous problems, including environmental destruction and shortages of goods, and concludes: “In order to recognise all of these contradictions and to listen to and analyse opinions and arguments… there is a need for a democratic dialogue… Therefore we unite to build a political platform for the whole of the GDR, bringing together people from all occupations, backgrounds, parties and groups… to discuss and work on these vital problems of society in our country”.

Although this is vague, it hits the spot. Many people think that a call for dialogue is a good thing. Surely no one, including Honecker, can oppose that? But Honecker and the SED leadership don’t want dialogue, especially not with a platform that is working on a national level. On 21 September, the motion to get New Forum registered is ruled out. This only increases its popularity.

The founding statements of most opposition groups are pro-socialist. Democracy Now writes (12 September): “Socialism has to now find its proper democratic form, if it is not to be lost for history”. Democratic Departure writes: “We want to learn anew what socialism can mean for us”. The United Left, founded on 4 September, proposes a conference bringing together left-wing opposition groups: “This conference should be about working out minimal demands for the realisation of a fundamental reform of society towards free socialism”.

The only organisation not supporting this is the Social Democratic Party (SDP). Its founding statement (12 September) does not mention socialism but formulates the aim of a “social market economy, with a strict ban on the monopolies for the prevention of undemocratic concentrations of economic power”. It is the first organisation to pave the way for the re-establishment of capitalism, euphemised as a social market economy.
The masses on the street

October began with the 40th anniversary of the GDR’s existence. Shortly before 7 October, sealed trains drive through the GDR with refugees travelling from West German embassies in Prague and Warsaw to the west. In Dresden people try to jump on board. Volkspolizei (‘people’s police’) react brutally, with water cannons, previously unknown to the GDR population, put in position.

On 6 October, Mikhail Gorbachev arrives in Berlin. His presence encourages the demonstrators. On the morning of the 7th there is the official military parade on Berlin Alexanderplatz. At 5pm, a few hundred youthful protestors protest against the earlier rigged elections. By 5:20, 2-3,000 march on the Palace of the Republic, shouting ‘Gorby, Gorby’ and ‘We are the people!’ At 6pm a demonstration heads towards Prenzlauer Berg. Special units of the police and Stasi surround the Schönhauser Allee train station at 9pm. Five hundred are arrested, but 10,000 are on the street.

More march in Leipzig (20,000) and Dresden (40,000). The local Leipziger Volkszeitung newspaper rants (9 October): “Rowdies disrupt normal life”. All eyes are on Leipzig. Will the GDR have its own Tiananmen? It becomes known that hospitals have been cleared and extra blood made available. Three days earlier, under the headline, Workers in the Area Demand: Don’t Tolerate Opposition to the State Any Longer, the Leipziger Volkszeitung threatened: “We are ready and prepared to stop these counter-revolutionary actions once and for all. If necessary, gun in hand”.

But the first splits show in the state apparatus: hit hard or try to mollify the protests through reforms? A call for de-escalation from three local SED leaders, Kurt Meier, Jochen Pommert and Roland Wötzel, conductor Kurt Masur and others, is broadcast locally. After that, Leipzig experiences the largest demonstration so far with 70,000 people. The powerful slogan, ‘We are the people’, rings all over the Georgiring. The Internationale is sung. In Berlin, 7,000 demonstrate, another 60,000 around the country. The pace quickens. The seemingly monolithic state and party bloc shows ever larger splits. The politburo sits in permanent session.

Parts of the ruling elite try to engage with opposition representatives locally. On 10 October, Wolfgang Berghofer, mayor of Dresden, orders the release of 500 people arrested the previous weekend. The demonstrations keep growing. The following weekend there are 20,000 in Halle and Plauen, 10,000 in Magdeburg, 4,000 in Berlin. Next Monday, the 16th, brings a new record number: 120,000 protesters in Leipzig, 10,000 in Dresden and Magdeburg, 5,000 in Halle, 3,000 in Berlin.

For the first time, on 17 October, newspapers print brief, factual reports about the Leipzig demonstrators, who had only a week before been described as rioters and counter-revolutionaries. On the same day, workers at the machine factory in Teltow leave the FDGB, the official trade union federation, and form the independent factory group, Reform, calling for new independent trade unions, “the right to strike, demonstrate, a free press, an end to travel restrictions and of official privileges”.

Sensational news on the 18th: Honecker resigns. His successor is Krenz. Other leading politburo members also have to go. But this does not calm the masses. On the contrary, more and more people feel encouraged to take to the streets. Krenz’s appointment is met with distrust. He was seen as Honecker’s crown prince for a long time. The slogans on the Leipzig Monday demonstration on 23 October, 250,000-strong, are: ‘Egon, who has asked us?’; ‘Free elections’; ‘Without visa to Hawaii’; ‘The people should play the leading role’. By the end of the month, protests have reached the entire country.

There are not only demonstrations. In Magdeburg, conscripted police officers elect a council and collect signatures for everyday demands: the right to go out in civilian clothes and to have access to the company club. Demands to shorten conscription and for a civilian alternative are added later. The revolutionary wave reaches school students. Their first victory is the ending of marks for discipline, and of Saturday lessons.
The breakthrough

In Leipzig, protests rise from 20,000 on 2 October, 70,000 on the 9th, 120,000 on the 16th, 250,000 on the 23rd, 300,000 on the 30th, to 400,000 on 6 November! Meanwhile, there are 500,000 (some say a million) in east Berlin on 4 November. On the 8th, the whole politburo resigns. On the evening of the 9th, politburo member, Günter Schabowski, reports to the press from the SED central committee that the borders have been opened and anyone can collect a visa from 8am the following day. People do not wait and besiege the border crossings to west Berlin, taking the border guards by surprise. At midnight, some commanders, forced by the mass pressure, open the borders. The wall falls.

During the following weeks a whole country goes travelling. Trains are crammed full. People are euphoric but not blind. West German chancellor, Helmut Kohl, is booed during a rally outside Schöneberg town hall. At the same time, the new travel opportunities enable GDR citizens to compare the goods on offer east and west. They note that the GDR Mark is not worth much in the golden west.

After the initial euphoria, an impatient mood develops. A banner on the 4 November demo reads: ‘We need new deeds, not new phrases!’ The masses feel the bureaucracy’s resistance, that it is playing for time. The Neubrandenburg SED chief, Chemnitzer, threatened 20,000 booing demonstrators on 25 October: ‘If you don’t shut up we can do it differently!’ The SED bureaucracy is confused and hangs in the air. But it has not gone. On 17 November, Hans Modrow, who is seen as a reformer, takes over. He attempts to involve the opposition to stabilise the situation. On 22 November, he agrees to round table discussions.

But the former ruling elite is less and less able to govern. The state apparatus starts to dissolve. The fire is fanned by ever new discoveries of the old ruling clique’s privileges, especially the fat cat housing developments in Wandlitz and other ‘paradises’. ADN reports (28 November) on the hunting area of former premier, Willi Stoph: “After some pressure we are let into the house with its five baths, the many living- and bedrooms, the video room and cellar bar. There are more than five fridges, not only full of apples and meat but also expensive sweets and delicacies – all of western production”.

The question, not really posed by anyone but which hovers above everything, is: who has got power? The state and party apparatus has increasingly lost it, but the opposition has not got it either. The power was lying on the streets where the masses demonstrated. No one could get past them. But who would pick it up? Who would gain the trust of the people? In the beginning, the masses looked towards the opposition leaders who had come into this position overnight, often by accident. They also looked towards some SED reformers. And towards the artists and intellectuals, many of whom had appeared at the 4 November demonstration.

The internal renewal of the SED is too slow for most. As the extent of corruption becomes apparent, workers are more determined than ever to get rid of the whole leadership. The New Forum in Karl-Marx Stadt demands a general strike for 6 December. This is condemned by the FDGB, bloc parties and Bärbel Bohley, a co-founder of New Forum. Everyone fears the situation could spiral out of control. The demand is withdrawn. Nevertheless, there is a two-hour political warning strike at workplaces in Plauen on that date. There are strikes elsewhere, too.

The mood is now so heated that the bureaucracy has to withdraw even further. The Volkskammer deletes Article One and, thereby, the leading role of the SED. On 3 December, the whole politburo and central committee resign, after Honecker, Stoph (ex-prime minister), Tisch (ex-trade union leader), Sindermann (ex-Volkskammer president) and Mielke (ex-Stasi minister) are expelled from the party.
Hesitant opposition

Krenz goes on 6 December and the SED’s special congress starts on the 8th. It renames itself SED-PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism). The lawyer, Gregor Gysi, becomes party leader. But too much credit has been spent, too big the entanglement with the state, the disappointment and anger over privileges. This step alone could not calm the situation.

The round table starts meeting on the 7th. The weaknesses of the new opposition groups increasingly come out. Surprised by the speed of events they want to carry on talking with the SED rather than taking power. Rolf Henrich, co-founder of the New Forum, had stated in Der Morgen newspaper (28 October) that they want to carry on without a worked out programme for now: “We have to learn to accept how pathetic this beginning is”. The United Left gets bogged down in working groups, a discussion forum, coordination and documentation ‘centres’.

This indecisiveness has real foundations. How is it possible to really get rid of the old leaders and bureaucracy? What could the new society look like, especially the economic system? What role should capitalist West Germany play? These questions are permanently on the agenda, and are interwoven. The economy becomes central, with pressure building on the GDR’s currency since the wall came down. The government introduces tougher customs controls as an emergency measure and limits the availability of subsidised goods.

More important is the discovery of how desperate the East German economic situation is. Capitalist commentators paint an even bleaker picture, claiming that the GDR faces immediate state bankruptcy. They do this to cover up the consequences of future currency union, when the DM becomes the official currency in the east. But the situation was serious. The productivity of a GDR worker was estimated to be around half that of a West German worker. Subsidies for basic food and other everyday goods were increasingly financed through the accumulation of debt.

Attempts to decrease debt by reducing imports and increasing exports further cut the amount of goods on offer. In November, finance minister, Höfner, admitted that exports were not exchanged at one GDR Mark to DM1, but at 4.1 to one. On 3 January 1990, the new SED-PDS finance minister, Christa Luft, provides new data: the balance of payments deficit was $2.4 billion in 1989; financial debt is $20.6 billion; GDR currency reserves are $7-9 billion. GDP had fallen by 3.1% annually from 1986 to 1989. The Modrow government cuts subsidies immediately, massively increasing the cost of flour, children’s clothes and shoes.

Up to November, the GDR revolution had been pro-socialist. All the opposition statements (excepting the SDP), banners, demo chants, speeches, and singing of the Internationale are evidence of that. The writer Christa Wolf said, followed by incredible applause: “Imagine there is socialism and no one runs away!” Bohley talked about a “better socialism”. The formation of councils (soviets) was discussed: ‘All power to the councils’ read a banner on 4 November. But there was not much about how this ‘better socialism’ or rule of the councils could be achieved. The suggestions of opposition leaders and intellectuals remained abstract.
Pro-market, pro-unification

In the begining, the workers were reluctant to take strike action because they did not want to drive the economy further over the edge. So most actions took place on the streets. Although strikes increased in December, workplaces were not taken over, showing the lack of a tradition of workers’ independent organisation. Even where workers’ committees were formed, they did not necessarily get rid of the management. Bernd Reissmann, a programmer at Robotron in Dresden, describes what happened there: “We listened to the director for one last time… And this boss put forward his views in such a way that the others were convinced by it… So he stayed”.

Parts of the bureaucracy and intelligentsia begin very early to argue for a market economy. On 30 November, the Dresden based scientist, Manfred von Ardenne, bluntly demands more independence for companies, the eradication of the state monopoly of foreign trade, and a transition towards a market economy. The new opposition also steers in this direction. At the founding congress of Democratic New Beginning on 16 December, a delegate stated to loud applause: “The planned economy is dead. We do not want to resurrect a corpse. No more socialist experiments”.

This wing wins the majority. The wave reaches the New Forum. Joachim Gauck answers a question of the Taz newspaper (13 January 1990), regarding socialist principles: “We will revise all these aspects of our programme… At the moment the question posed is the one of unification and the market economy”. Even more left-wing forces do not have a clear position. One SED split-off, Die Nelken, defining itself as Marxist, stated that it would support a market economy because “Marx had only been against the capitalist chaos of his time”. Others talk about a ‘third way’ (Gysi), or a ‘socialist market economy’ (Luft).

An independent capitalist GDR was pointless. Thus, reunification was not just a national but, mainly, a social question. The speed of reunification can only be understood as an answer to the demands of the GDR revolution – a reactionary answer. The issue of reunification played next to no role in the beginning. Freedom to travel was far more important. On a larger scale, different voices were first heard at the Monday demonstration in Leipzig on 20 November. A New Forum speaker said: “We do not want to be the poor house of greater Germany”. But another speaker said he had endured 40 years of socialism and had no interest in any new versions. Reunification and the market economy were the only options. This got long applause and chants of ‘Germany, unified fatherland’.

It was not the main mood, but the demand gains ground. The mood is split. A survey on 17 December shows 73% for a sovereign GDR, 71% for socialism as an idea, 39% in favour of the West German economic system, 61% for a “thoroughly reformed socialist economic system”. While Kohl is celebrated in Dresden by 20-30,000 people on 19 December, 50,000 demonstrate in Berlin on the same day, “for a sovereign GDR, against reunification and the sell-out of the country”.

Previously, on 16 November, Heym had presented the following alternative: “We can either insist on the independence of our country and attempt… to develop a society based on solidarity, in which peace, social justice, freedom of the individual, freedom to travel for all and the preservation of the environment are guaranteed. Or, because of strong economic necessities and intolerable conditions on which influential big-business and political circles from the federal republic base their offers of help for the GDR, we will have to endure the start of a sell-out of our material and moral values, leading sooner or later to a takeover of the German Democratic Republic by the Federal Republic of Germany. Let us choose the first option”. Up to 23 January 1990, 1,167,048 people had signed this declaration. But among them was Krenz – the declaration had not distanced itself sufficiently from the old SED bureaucracy.

This was a dilemma for those who wanted the GDR to go in a socialist direction. They did not develop an independent position but remained interwoven with the SED reformers. However, the masses did not trust them, despite the popularity of individuals like Modrow. Because there did not seem to be a credible socialist solution many started to look towards reunification. There were huge illusions in the market economy which, according to everyone, would have to be a ‘social’ one which certainly would not lead to hundreds of thousands unemployed.

Initially, West German leaders did not want reunification. Its ruling class was surprised at the pace of developments. But the steady wave of people leaving the GDR and the collapse of the state apparatus force the West German government to move. They have to decide on which organisation in the GDR they want to build on. They finally pick the former CDU bloc party, which at least has a functioning apparatus. This is later joined by the Alliance for Germany, Democratic Beginning and the German Social Union.
Endgame

By the end of January the situation becomes critical. The Modrow government wants a new security service, the Verfassungsschutz. This meets determined opposition. Also, facts show that the Stasi is only being dissolved very slowly. Strikes increase. The Stasi HQ in Berlin is stormed. There are demands for a national strike on 26 January. The government and opposition try everything to regain control. A new ‘government of national responsibility’ is formed on 5 February in which eight ministers without portfolio are members of opposition groups. The Volkskammer elections are moved forward to 18 March. Faced with radicalising mass protests, the bureaucracy moves towards an ‘ordered unification’ with the west.

Only the United Left does not participate in the government after that. All other groups favour unification and the introduction of a market economy, capitalism. The major differences are about how. Kohl and the CDU/FDP government in Bonn hesitate about how quickly they should act. At first, they argue for a step-by-step process. But the East German CDU, under Lothar de Maiziere, argues that only the immediate introduction of the DM as the official currency will stop further mass migration. The next day, Kohl announces that negotiations with the GDR will start immediately. The West German government decides to take over the GDR. Kohl ruthlessly puts this into action. He refuses to give a financial aid package worth DM10-15 billion to the Modrow government.

The round table had decided that no western politicians should be allowed to participate in the election campaign. This is ignored. The Alliance for Germany (CDU, DA, DSU), above all, is merely a western puppet. But the same goes for the SPD and Liberals. FDP leader, Otto Graf Lambsdorf, guilty of tax evasion, celebrates in Werningerode on 9 March: “The world witnesses the final collapse of socialism”. The clear victory for the Alliance for Germany on 18 March comes as a surprise to many. But, once the political path had been chosen, the majority voted for those who seemed most likely to realise it in the quickest and safest way. The CDU wins 40.6%, SPD 21.8%, PDS 16.3%, with civil rights groups standing as Bündnis 90 on a catastrophic 2.9%.

There is one final round of mass protests on the issue of exchange rates. After the DM becomes the currency on 1 July 1990, the GDR witnesses the fastest and most drastic de-industrialisation ever in an industrial country. In June, industrial production was 86.5%. In August it had fallen to 48.1%. Unemployment went up to 7.2% in July. On 3 October 1990, one year after the beginning of the revolution, the country which it was meant to revolutionise vanishes from the map.
The missed opportunity

Stefan Heym later gave this honest assessment of his 4 November speech: “I remember the storming applause I got. But I also knew that a lot of Stasi people stood around the truck which served as the platform. I ended my speech saying that democracy was a Greek word meaning the rule of the people, and I said ‘let us build this rule of the people’. But I also wondered: should I not act now and call on people to start walking towards the government building which was only two streets away. Let us go in there and occupy the TV tower and, in other words, let us do a revolution. But I also wondered if this would be possible without bloodshed and whether the police had orders to shoot if that was the case. I did not know and so I ended my speech with the theoretical meaning of democracy and not with a practical creation of democracy. There was no organised group which wanted to take power. There was no conspiracy to unseat the government. There was only a forum of individuals but nothing that would be needed in order to carry out a revolution. This is why everything imploded. There was no one who could have taken power apart from the west… Imagine we would have had the time and opportunity to build a new socialism in the GDR, a socialism with a human face. This could have been an example for West Germany and things could have been different”.

From September to November 1989, even afterwards, there existed many features of a political revolution which the Russian revolutionary, Leon Trotsky, considered necessary in order to overthrow Stalinism, the bureaucratic deformation of socialism. In the end, the other option which Trotsky saw as a possibility became the reality: capitalist restoration. The most important reason for this was that there was no force which could develop a realisable way towards a true socialist society. This force did not exist in the GDR and did not form in the short period available. It did not exist in West Germany either. There was no impulse for Germany to take a socialist path. Once again, a revolution was betrayed by social democrats. The power was lying on the street. But the opposition of autumn 1989 left it lying there until Kohl & Co eventually picked it up.

Michael Moore and Barack Obama: A Love Story

From ZNet columnist Paul Street. The full article can be found here but here’s an excerpt to whet your appetites:

If you liked Michael Moore’s latest movie, “Capitalism: a Love Story” (I did) and are long past being fed up with Barack Obama’s deep allegiance and service to his corporate paymasters (I am), then this essay might be for you. I start with some happy reflections on Moore ’s apparent ideological evolution. The mood darkens, however, as I raise unpleasant questions about the extent of Moore ’s break with existing American power relations. I discuss two critical and related matters that exist in curious tension with Moore ’s newly proclaimed rejection of the capitalist system (portrayed as a sin in his new flick): the President of the United States ‘ love affair with capitalism and Moore’s continuing love affair with the President.

S.A. – Where We Come From

By Mari Araujo and Marlon Pierre-Antoine

Socialist Alternative has a long history in the working class movement since its formation in 1986. We are a part of the Committee for a Workers’ International, a worldwide socialist organization with sections in over 35 countries, on every continent. The CWI traces its roots to the revolutionary Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky and his cothinkers to combat the bureaucratically deformed, Stalinist Third International.

The CWI’s founding section, the Militant tendency in Britain (now called the Socialist Party of England and Wales), was founded with little over 40 people in the whole of the United Kingdom. But by having the right perspectives and tactics, they built a mass movement while working inside the British Labour Party. The British section of the CWI led the victorious struggle against the conservative Tory government of Margaret Thatcher, eventually leading to her being ousted from power. Thatcher and her super-rich backers began the poll tax, which replaced tax rates based on property value with a tax on every adult in the household regardless of income. The CWI set up the Anti-Poll Tax Federation to channel the discontent and anger over Thatcher’s anti-worker policies into a mass movement to force the government to surrender.

Militant Labour mobilized over 20 million workers in a mass non-payment campaign against the tax. Terry Fields, a Militant Member of Parliament (MP), was arrested for refusing to pay the poll tax. Militant Labour organized protests and rallies against the poll tax, including one in London that drew 200,000 supporters. Faced with such mass pressure, the poll tax was rescinded and the political fallout of the ‘Iron Lady’s’ defeat led to her removal from power.

The CWI’s work has not been confined to Britain alone. Our politics – the politics of mass movements and mobilization of workers & youth for direct action – have resulted in successful campaigns throughout the world, including here in the United States.

In 2004 Socialist Alternative launched the Youth Against War and Racism (YAWR) campaign in a Minneapolis high school. No other socialist group would interact with high school students in a major way, claiming that they were too “non-political.” Just three years later, YAWR branches were set up throughout the country, leading to a day of walkouts in 2007 that involved thousands of students leaving their classrooms in a demonstration against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This illustrates the activist potential of high school students, who are typically ignored and marginalized even by groups on the left.

In addition to our work in the late ’90s building the Labor Party, which was unfortunately scrapped by conservative elements in the trade union bureaucracy, Socialist Alternative was the first socialist organization to endorse the Ralph Nader campaign, recognizing the crucial role that Nader can play in breaking the monopoly of power held by the two parties of big business. We were (and are) the socialist voice inside of the Nader campaign and in all anti-corporate campaigns, the voice that consistently stresses the need for a labor party here in the United States to give workers an independent voice in political life.

These are just a few examples of what a conscious, fighting organization can accomplish when it bases itself on a solid Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist foundation. But our work is far from over. Help us make history; join Socialist Alternative and our struggle for a better society!