Greens leave Left political space to the Alliance

Let's build an incredible alternative to Labour!

It’s hardly news to say that there is a vacuum on the left. It’s quite another to say that the Alliance as it is today can fill that space. The danger, however, is that it will, and follow the Greens and Labour to represent the ‘left’ in coalitions with the centre-right, or right, to create popular fronts in the hope of winning some concessions from the right. After all, the Alliance during the 1990s married workers in the New Labour Party and Manu Motuhake to the open bourgeois Liberals and the petty bourgeois Greens.

Trotskyists call these blocs popular fronts which subordinate workers to the capitalists. Not only does this lock workers into parliament, it locks them into alliances with the class enemy.

The task of unlocking workers from parliament is first to get them out of popular fronts with open bosses’ parties. Or, in the case of parties like the Maori Party that marries left and right without even having to do a deal with National etc., to split that party.

Now the Greens have openly dropped any allegiance to the left. At least this removes any pretence that the ex-communists in the Greens give it any credentials as a workers party. So out there in Mangere, workers disillusioned with Labour will hardly move to the Greens. So will the Alliance and the Workers Charter come along to fill this space? Probably. But how long before the 'left' Alliance cum Workers' Charter drags workers into electoral alliances with the centre-right and right, including the Maori Party?

If this left bloc is run by McCarten you can bet anything is on. He has fingers in all these pies. So are we replaying the history of the Alliance again? Not really. Last time it was a parliamentary farce posing as a left ally of Labour against National during the 90's when class struggle was at a low ebb. This time it’ll be more serious because if it fills the 'left space' it will disarm workers in the face of a rising tide of working class struggle internationally.

Today the stakes are much higher. The post 9-11 world situation has seen an intensification of the class polarisation and worker-peasant struggles world wide. This resistance has in places broken out of the confines of the parliamentary straightjacket and the noose of the popular front, taking to the streets to down governments in Argentina and Bolivia, and reversing the coup attempt in Venezuela.

The only thing keeping these movements from breaking free of the bosses, and taking power, is the leftwing of the labor movement which steers workers back onto the parliamentary road. Critical in playing the role of keeping workers in parliament is the ex-Marxist, Stalinist, Castroite, and ex-Trotskyist 'left' organised in the World Social Forum.

This ‘left wing’ of the WSF currently backs the popular front governments of Lula in Brazil and Morales in Bolivia, and uncritically supports the main leaders of the WSF, Chavez and Castro, all of which are, under the guise of being anti-imperialist, continuing to do deals with imperialism.

In NZ, under pressure from a worsening economic situation, a similar reawakening of working class struggle is evident especially among young workers. This fact is recognised even by the sellout leadership of the CTU that doesn’t want to see the youth radicalisation get out of control.

After some early conflict between the CTU and McCarten’s union, the CTU endorsed the Supersize my pay campaign and now sees McCarten as a reliable ally in running the CTU youth franchise. McCarten proved that he could contain the youth in the unions when he diverted the Supersize campaign into backing Green MP Sue Bradford’s Bill to can Youth Rates.

McCarten has taken his union into the Workers Charter, and the Alliance recently welcomed the Workers Charter initiative. McCarten's ex-Alliance ally, Laila Harre is now National Secretary of the NDU which is also launching a campaign to recruit young workers. The Alliance under the leadership of Jill Ovens looks like making inroads into the staunch Labourite SFWU in the Northern Region.

With a firm foothold in the reviving union movement, this positions the Workers Charter-Alliance' bloc to fill the ‘left space’ and become the NZ ‘movement’ within the WSF acting as the left wing of the popular front in NZ, locking workers into the parliamentary road and deals with the bourgeoisie.

The CWG is a member of the Leninist-Trotskyist Fraction and where we have members our first task is to warn workers of the treacherous role played by the left-wing of the WSF acting as the agents of the bosses to strangle independent workers movements. We do this in Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. Here in NZ our task is to challenge the WSF left for the 'left space'.

Matt is such a Trotskyist that he expelled the Permanent Revolution Group and Communist Left (predecessor of the CWG) from New Labour and then changed the party's constitution to ban Marxists from being members.

Simon, yes you say what the Supersize campaign could have been, and you know I supported your role as the organiser pushing for that.
What I am saying here is that McCarten shafted it for his own political agenda and that to explain this it is necessary to see how his agenda is part of a world-wide push by the left bureaucracy to contain exactly the rank and file independence you fought for precisely at a time when that independence looms as a threat to the bureaucracy.

Thanks for that Frank. How are the Scot socs going? I see Tommy's back. Hope he gets a million from the gutter press. Never mind as long as we get a wee Scots nation, all be well. Evolution rather than revolution.

Marcel, I know "we have a society already." You say: "We can't turn that over"

Why the hell not??.

You reckon:"There needs to be something new to define us...It won't happen overnight, but it will happen".

Like Rachel Hunter's hair?

We can try.

"We don't believe the left-right continuum even applies to us any more. There needs to be something new to define us."

As long as the Greens don't actually oppose capitalism (both via words and action, neither of which are currently happening), they remain within the capitalist political party spectrum along with Labour, National, ACT, Maori Party et al. You don't have to call it left/right if you don't want to, but actions define labels, not the other way around.

"A capitalist by any other name would still need to be smashed."

Wake up Harpo. The WSF isnt this warm fuzzy consensual lovein. Its run by Castro and Chavez. Its 'organisation' is therefore determined not by you and your loose movements but by the state forces marshalled by these leaders.
As for Russell Norman who is he?

Hi Marcel,

What do you mean by 'strongly anti-socialist'? Another way of putting it is I guess what do you mean by socialism and why are you against it?

"Arrrghhh! Class warfare, what's wrong with socialism, the Greens have sold out. Oh come on - if the Left was a bit less navel-gazing it might recognise that it has been rhetorically nuked by the Right."

Where are they nuking us? This is a genuine question.

"Unless some new language emerges - and I see the Greens as trying to define a new language - the left is restricted to case by case activism and navel gazing, with the occasional snarl at each other."

Social ownership (socialism) is pretty fundamental to a changing this system in to something that works for people. It is also fundamental to the concept of social justice (which is not particularly a new word either).

"There is no proletariat waiting to be enlightened"

Agreed that they aren't waiting to be enlightened, but there are people who have their work stolen from them through profit and other means ie unpaid labour. These people are the working class. Many of the reasons for the problems of poverty rest on the fucked social relationships that capitalism is built on.

You don't think class warfare exists? Go out and talk to someone who's on shit wages, about their workplace and their bosses. It's real and we've been winning battles by losing the war for years.

"only people trying to get by who are thoroughly lost to the rhetoric of the old Left forever."

What is the old Left?

"Revolution as preached by the traditional left is flawed because it relies on violence"

I believe the current capitalist system is built, maintained and extended by violence. From our crap prison system to Iraq and Afghanistan. Countries invaded by other countries who would economically collapse if the arms trade was magically stopped. The world over, it's violence violence violence. How do you feel about the violence inherent in the current system, or do you not see it as inherent for example something that can be reformed?

"real social change is going to involve a gradual evolution of society and personal consciousness."

I think any real social change has to be worked through with who we are right now in this time and place - I feel uncomfortable with talking about 'evolution'. I think most people are pretty cool how they are. We need the time to share together, which is hard in this system, but I don't think we need to have some kind of biological shift (I think this is almost what you mean).

I agree with you that its a slow process and most of it is to do with talking and then working together and then talking some more (rinse repeat).

"If you want to see a real revolution, take a look at the feminist movement."

From what I've understood the feminist movement hit a brick wall when it came to changing men. It's up to men to sort out men's problems and women seem quite rightly tired of the stress and abuse they get when they work with men on these issues.

I'm not sure of this comparison, but I'll see if this works. I'd suggest challenges to the capitalist system (or the status quo in general) hit a similar wall if they are not organised around militancy and an understanding of oppression which includes class struggle.

We can't change the ruling class to somehow be nicer. It's not because some of them aren't I'm sure nice to their kids, benevolent in half a dozen ways or whatever.

It's about their fundamental position in capitalism as exploiters and beneficiaries of exploitation.

I agree though that the organising methods and debates of the feminist movement are really helpful in thinking and working towards social change. An example of the top of my head is the article the 'Tyranny of Structurelessness' and its surrounding debate.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html

hmmm all this anti-greens, anti-reformist, anti-social democrat sentiment is useless if we arent building an alternative to it that we can offer workers.
i say bring back the iww. bring back anarcho-syndicalism. bring back joe hill.

What they can never kill went on to organize...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hill

What about filling the left space with a genuine revolutionary united front based on a rebuilding of unions under rank and file control?

Yay!

Uh oh. Scott would prefer the good people at Cleanstart.

not all union camapigns are the same you know. whatever its limitations supersize my pay was a big move forward, claiming more money and putting pressyure on employers to getit.
What I've heard of Cleanstart is nothing like that. I'd ask cleaners turning out to this
given that this campaign was started AFTER the SFWU signed up a 2 year pay deal in their central document, what benefits do you expect to gain?

what about a room somewhere far away from the cold night air with one enormous chair?

"It started to falter when it put the lid on strike action to slide back into the parliamentary agenda. But it is definitely on that the membership can still take control of this union."

And this is the problem with 'permanent revolution' ideology. New flash Dave! Fast food employees may not *want* to keep striking and copping flack for a very basic set of demands ($12 wage, no youth rates yada yada) if that ball can be touched down by parliamentary forwards (in this case Sue B of the Greens) so they can celebrate a victory and then move on to campaigning on a more abitious set of demands?

I don't know if you have been on any of the Supersize pickets. I have and I can tell you that the Unite organisers are putting in incredibly long, frustrating hours giving (mostly) teenage fast food workers a basic political education. These workers don't know *how* to control the union although the organisers are trying to teach them. Which is pretty much the opposite of most unionism in this country.

Don,
Len's still crying over the roadkill in the centre lane by the sound of it.

IWD, when I say political education I mean 'what is a union', 'what does it do', how is it organised', 'why should you care'. I was simply responding to Dave's ludicrous implication that Unite are somehow channeling their members into supporting the Greens the same way the pro-Labour unions do.

It would be stupid strategy while agitating for young unionists to strike against youth rates to not support a parliamentary bill probably launched in support of the Supersizemypay.com and aiming to achieve one of its demands. But I never heard a Unite organiser suggest that any of the workers should join or vote Green or that the bill meant they could stop the industrial action. On the contrary the organisers were pointing out that without the workers action in the supersizemypay campaign and the public support it was generating the bill would sink without a trace.

Yes, sorry Mr Brownz,
I can't think what came over me.
Love & Kisses

i think radical youth presents one type of model that has opened up space on the left...i think that aotearoa independent media does too...i think that supersizemypay campaign opened up a significant amount of left political space and will continue to with the mcds campaign. i think Cleanstart will open up more political space for workers to organise and struggle. i think the green party has opened up left political space, Sue B's bill certainly did. Maybe now the green party will move to the right but certainly it has opened up left political space pretty effectivley, tagteaming with the anti-GE, anti-War, Free Zaoui campaigns of recent years. The Maori party is opening up both grassroots and parliamentary political space for Maori. I wrote in an article entitled "reinventing anti-capitalism" that the socialist/anti-capitalist alliances of the future will be based around real concrete campaigns and projects based around opening up political space co-operativley. i dont see any reason to change my opinion now...

The problem with this statement:

"the socialist/anti-capitalist alliances of the future will be based around real concrete campaigns and projects based around opening up political space co-operativley.".....

is that it is completely and utterly ahistorical and fails to acknowledge the many campaigns and projects that have previously existed, whether it be 1951, anti-Vietnam War, anti-conscription, Springbok tour opposition, feminist campaigns, Bastion Point, the unemployed workers rights campaigns, campaign against the benefit cuts, the large student activist campaigns for free education in the 1990s (and if only they could be re-invigorated because my how Labour have fucked students (and workers) over), and so on.

And no I am not an experienced older activist, I am in my mid 20s.

Greens death by roadkill. Scott has shown-up the Greens criminal record in wars and covering up for NZ business raping the Pacific. He even put a stake into its heart on Rapa Nui in another post... Get over it.

Omar thinks that Bradfords Bill opens a space on the left. That space is called parliament.
It puts working class youth on the knees before the Greens. As Simon O says Bradfords Bill would be redundant if the Supersize strike action had continued. Simon was the campaign coordinator!
The idea that the Bill will pass because of the campaign makes the unions no more than voting fodder. Workers rights are won by workers might - not votes on the night.

Anon says despite the hierarchy Unites empowers young people and smashes the myth of youth apathy. What? When McCarten pulls the Superzize campaign in behind Bradford’s Bill. Bradford takes the missionary position on youth just like Norman does on Polynesians.

When the leftish Greens get over their grief they need to do some penance. They need to identify as workers and not as petty bourgeois missionaries saving the masses from themselves.

Omar says: "the socialist/anti-capitalist alliances of the future will be based around real concrete campaigns and projects based around opening up political space co-operativley.".....

This sounds good but what does it mean? Plenty of concrete campaigns in the past as Socialist Sam says and we still got stuffed:

“1951, anti-Vietnam War, anti-conscription, Springbok tour opposition, feminist campaigns, Bastion Point, the unemployed workers rights campaigns, campaign against the benefit cuts, the large student activist campaigns for free education in the 1990s (and if only they could be re-invigorated because my how Labour have fucked students (and workers) over), and so on.”

Why? How to revive these? The weakness of these campaigns, and any current ones, was and is their orientation to parliament, their strength was and is their mobilisation of the labor movement independently of parliament. For example ‘t’ on the ‘whining’ thread says that the F&S march should have camped outside parliament. Sounds radical but its still on its knees. No! It should have rallied the unions and occupied the F&S itself!

Reviving the labour movement is the lefts biggest challenge today and we need an organised rank and file left to coordinate it. That's why the CWG put a Socialist Alliance on the table.

None of the other models of left regroupment, based on social movements, even the women's movement, can supplant the fight for control of the labour movement. Even Sub-Com Marcos is forced to move in this direction in Mexico even though he refuses publicly to actively support striking steel and mineworkers, the latter being the union that sparked the Mexican revolution after which the Zapatistas are named.

The unions by definition are a united front, so every left leftist and group with its program has an obligation to fight for that program, provided it is committed to persuing the common objective - rank and file democracy and control of the unions and the labour process.

Lets see what happens when the various components of the left, anarchists, feminists, Zapatistas, Indigenistas, Chavistas, Castoists, Trotskyists, Maoists, have to defend their program in front of the rank and file of a strong, reviving union movement.

Omar,
"bradfords bill has put youth rates on the national agenda ".
Sorry mate, its totally dissapeared from most workers (and I would guess youths) radar.

UNITE's supersize campaign was definitely a growing image on the radar, but since it started focussing on media stunts and bradfords parliamentary involvement it appears to have fizzled and died. I'm not in UNITE, but this is the impression that I (and I imagine other casual observers) are getting.

Why did this happen - UNITE members may wish to comment.

Of course derailing struggle by doling out crumbs is what parlaiment is mostly about. People pushing policy, as opposed to the active and growing political involvement of point of production workers. Whether or not Bradford intends this - that is the effect.

Also as to the question of whether the fact that youth were mobilised in the campaign will inevitably of itself be a "good " thing.

Well it all depends on whether they take advantage of the trade union space opened up to organise themselves independently of parlaiment AND independently of their Trade Union leaders.

Sounds confusing. Well my experience as an old fart union member is that wherever there are leaders that stick around for any time, there comes a time when their interests over-ride the interests of their members. Bureacracy. Sometimes this happens faster -sometimes slower.

All union leaders and organisers (even non-paid volunteers) should be elected, by a vote of all members (is this the case in UNITE?).

All leaders should have limited tenure, before having to go back into the workforce for a time again.

All leaders should be subject to the demands and instruction of the membership - not the other way round (But I hear in UNITE of people being barred from meetings in Auck and CHCH, kicked out of the offices despite being members, and hear other reports of people repeatedly trying to make contact with UNITE organisers and never getting return calls. Sounds like growing bureacracy to me...

BUt as I said Im just an observer.

The Unite campaign around youth rates (and other demands) and Sue Bradford's abolition of youth rates bill have kept the issue alive. And it's far from over.

If Bradford's bill leads to the abolition of youth rates then that's a good thing. In 2000, youth rates were abolished for 18 & 19 year olds and that was good, although they should have just abolished youth rates outright at that time.

I don't have a lot of faith in parliamentary systems, particularly those that uphold capitalism, however ruling out parliament entirely as being able to bring about things like the abolition of youth rates is rather nihilistic.

For those of you who think it would be better to campaign to get rid of youth rates, and other reformist changes to contracts that simply continue to embed capitalism, by focusing on workplace after workplace then why not advocate getting rid of the minimum wage act altogether.

And on tertiary fees, would you also suggest that students focus on the individual institutions to get rid of fees (on a campus by campus basis) rather than calling on the government to abolish fees outright or support parties that fight for free tertiary education?

My main concern with Sue Bradford's legislation is that it does not go far enough. What about workers under 16, trainees/apprentices and disabled workers?

The real problem for the Greens is their refusal to acknowledge that we live in a class divided society. The so-called ‘left-right’ political continuum is one with a fracture right through it. ‘Which side are you on?’ is the question the Greens have to answer.

ANSWER -- On the side of the EARTH. Or at least that's how the Greens SHOULD answer the question. Yes I understand, you of the traditional left believe that the Greens should instead concentrate on the plight of the poorer humans -- help these get a larger share of the plunder being ripped from Nature.

Friend -- the only social justice possible on a dead planet is the equality of the grave. If you can't see that, YOU are part of the problem.

"Yes I understand, you of the traditional left believe that the Greens should instead concentrate on the plight of the poorer humans -- help these get a larger share of the plunder being ripped from Nature.

Friend -- the only social justice possible on a dead planet is the equality of the grave. If you can't see that, YOU are part of the problem."

Does it feel good to be this pompous and this much of an inaccurate arsehole?

this argument is pretty abstratcted from the real world now,(i thought anon did have a good point about the level of abstraction of indymedia debates) i think youd have to approach the actual participants of the actions against youth rates and ask them why they were their. most would say something along the lines of "Im here to Get rid of youth rates" i dont know how many would say "Im here to smash capitalism"