(The following article is from the May 1-15, 2006 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)

May Day 2006 message to all labour, democratic, social and people's movements and organizations in Canada - From the Central Committee, Communist Party of Canada

The January 23 election which resulted in a minority Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper has created a new, dangerous situation for all Canadians, especially for workers, women, youth, seniors, Aboriginal peoples, and national minorities. The policy direction of the new government has grave implications for our cherished social programs, for Canadian sovereignty, for equality rights, for our environment, and for peace.

     The Conservatives' tightly‑scripted campaign took advantage of public distrust of the ruling Liberals, and of a widespread desire for "change". The Tories deliberately misrepresented their positions on Medicare, education, Canada‑US relations and many other issues to obscure and conceal their reactionary, right‑wing political agenda. While this "makeover" and their populist rhetoric partially succeeded, the Tories only managed to gain support from barely one‑third of voters, and less than 25% of the electorate.

     The fact remains that the Harper government is out of step with the views of most Canadians. A large majority do not share the Conservative objectives of gutting and privatizing our public health care system, or of tying Canada more closely to the aggressive policies of the Bush Administration under the banners of "harmonization" and "continental security". Neither do most agree with scrapping the National Childcare program and the Aboriginal Accord signed in Kelowna last year, or with abandoning Canada's commitment to Kyoto. Nor do they support the introduction of oppressive, fundamentalist values into the secular life of the country, especially any attack on the equality rights of women, of national minorities, or the LGBT community.

     In short, Mr. Harper and his government have no real mandate to move our country in such a radically reactionary direction.

     But that is precisely the course which they plan to pursue. In essence, the long‑term program of the Conservatives - with the full backing of the corporate elite - is to fundamentally transform the Canadian state at the federal level, downsizing and ultimately gutting its social redistributive role, and strengthening its repressive and militarist capacity and orientation. The most basic principles cherished by the vast majority of Canadians - universality, accessibility, equality rights, social justice, peace, not war - are increasingly under attack.

     The Tories are laying the foundations of that program now, manoeuvring politically to win a majority in the next election so that they can implement the full sweep of their agenda in an unfettered way.

     We are certain that virtually all activists in the labour and social movements in Quebec, English‑speaking Canada, and among Aboriginal peoples and minority communities agree that such a turn would have disastrous consequences. The critical question now is what can be done, in our organizations, constituencies and communities, to stop the Harper/Tory agenda dead in its tracks, and move politics in a progressive direction.

Building a Strategy of Resistance

     What role can and will the opposition parties in Parliament play in carrying the fight against the Harper government and its reactionary policies? Certainly the opposition benches carry more influence in a minority government situation, and everything should be done to encourage and even pressure the BQ, the Liberals and the NDP to offer as much resistance to the Harper agenda as possible.

     But it would be naive to expect that the parliamentary opposition can lead this struggle, for several reasons. First, these parties are still recovering organizationally and politically from the last election. The Liberal Party will not even choose another leader until the end of this year. And none of these parties is anxious to provoke another early election for fear that they might be held responsible by an irritated "public."

     Second, there exist obvious partisan differences between these parties which make mutual cooperation and unity in an "anti‑Harper" coalition or united parliamentary front unlikely.

     Third, there also exist clear policy differences between these parties, and even among their respective caucus members, on a number of critical issues - divisions that the Tories are already moving to exploit. The sad reality is that, despite declarations to the contrary, many of the "members opposite" privately sympathize with and in some cases (e.g., Afghanistan, "free trade"/harmonization, so‑called "law and order" measures, privatization, etc.) openly support Tory policies.

     So the epicentre of the struggle to stop the Tory steam‑roller will be located outside of Parliament, in our workplaces and communities, and on the streets. The most important and urgent challenge facing the popular forces today is to map out a way forward to build the broadest possible fightback.

The Fightback must begin now!

     Extra‑parliamentary campaigns and protests against the Harper government are already gathering steam around battles to save public healthcare, over Ottawa's increasingly militarist foreign policy, among childcare advocates, and in defence of Aboriginal rights, among others. These welcome initiatives deserve broad support, and there is an urgent need to extend the struggle to embrace every region of the country and to every section of the people threatened by Tory policy.

     Some have suggested that building a mass fightback now runs the risk of peaking too soon and dissipating long before the next election. Instead, they argue to "keep our gunpowder dry" and wait for the electoral clock to tick down.

     Such advice, whether well‑intended or not, completely misses the point. The next campaign is not off in some distant future; it is already underway, and the Harper Conservatives are waging it in earnest. Failing to build the fightback now - or worse yet, consciously holding it back - would play directly into the Tories' hands, allowing them to divide and neutralize the opposition forces inside and outside of Parliament, and permitting them to determine the terrain and timetable for the coming election.

     In short, it would concede the political initiative and momentum to the Harper government. We need to do precisely the opposite. We need to put the Harper agenda on the defensive, to force the Tories to retreat wherever we can, and in the process create divisions and disarray in their ranks. That is the only way to ensure that the Conservatives are crushed in the next election, whenever it comes.

     A strategy of "caution" also fails to take into account the very real harm the Tories can and will inflict if they are allowed to implement their agenda largely unhindered. No one should underestimate the damage this agenda can and will impose (in fact is already imposing) on the rights of workers, women, youth, the elderly, on Aboriginal peoples and national minorities, not to mention what it will mean for the future of our social safety net, for our sovereignty, for our environment, and for peace.

     Finally, to delay the fightback now will make it that much harder to build broad unity later. And unity is decisive, for without it we will not be able to defeat the combined assault of the Conservative/big business onslaught.

     This brings us to the question of what kind of fightback is needed. As the Tory agenda unfolds, more and more social concerns and/or sections of the people are and will come under direct fire, giving rise to a number of specific and distinct protests, demonstrations, strikes, and other forms of resistance.

     In our view, it is imperative that these fronts of struggle - these threads of resistance - be drawn together into a united, coordinated fightback. This will not happen spontaneously; it will require the conscious efforts of all those involved in the struggle, based on recognition that the only way to block and defeat a single, comprehensive right‑wing agenda is through "unity‑in‑action", through the building of the broadest possible, comprehensive and united fightback.

     Only by moving thousands and hundreds of thousands of people into the streets and onto picket‑lines will it be possible to force the Tories into retreat, to stiffen opposition in Parliament, and lay the basis to defeat this government.

     Broad unity does not imply, and should not entail, setting aside specific concerns and interests of respective movements and constituencies. On the contrary, all these concerns and demands need to find expression in a united fightback. We should not settle for "lowest common denominator" unity, but rather strive for unity based on our shared common interests in defeating this right‑wing threat, and informed by that classic labour slogan: "An injury to one is an injury to all!"

     Experiences in many other countries around the globe - from the massive anti‑neoliberal struggles across Latin America to the recent splendid victory in France, and from Canada itself - convincingly show that "in unity there is strength."

The Role of Labour

     All of the social movements and organizations, from all sectors - labour, peace groups and coalitions, women's organizations, seniors, youth and student organizations, visible and national minorities, Aboriginal organizations, anti‑poverty groups, environmentalists, LGBT activists, political organizations - must have both the opportunity and the shared responsibility to help build a united fightback movement. Indeed, its very success depends on the inclusion and active participation of all these forces to achieve the "critical mass" needed to block the Tories.

     But of all the above, the organized trade union movement - owing to its mass membership base, its organizational capacity and its resources, has a special responsibility to help bring these forces together in united action against the Harper agenda.

     The Canadian Labour Congress, in conjunction with the three main labour centrals in Québec, provincial Federations of Labour, the main affiliates and Labour Councils across the country, is ideally situated to play such an initiating and facilitating role.  The CLC Executive and its President Ken Georgetti must now find the political will to take action and "get the ball rolling".

     Rarely if ever has it been more urgent and necessary for the CLC to provide genuine leadership. Given the dangerous new situation in the country, trade unionists have a right to demand that the CLC shake off its self‑imposed passivity and move into action on behalf of its members and the working class as a whole - organized and unorganized workers, the unemployed, retirees, and marginalized workers.

     This means reaching out to labour's social partners to unite in struggle, and renewing the commitment to help the social movements with material and staff assistance. It means respecting them as full, equal partners, working with them to develop and project a broad programme, one which addresses the interests and concerns of all the component parts, during the fightback.

     Building such a broad and united fightback is a daunting challenge. But it is unavoidable. There is no other way forward, and it is also full of great promise for our shared future. The Communist Party is fully committed to doing its part.

     We welcome your comments, suggestions and initiatives. Let us all pull together to defeat the right‑wing menace. Let us unite!

Central Committee, Communist Party of Canada

---

---

---

(The following article is from the May 1-15, 2006 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)

PV Commentary

April 25 - The tense situation continues in Caledonia, Ontario, where Six Nations protesters have occupied the Douglas Creek Estates subdivision building site since February 28. A brutal assault by the OPP on April 20 was repelled, and the occupiers have received wide support from the trade union movement and other progressive forces. Solidarity rallies are being held across Canada calling for an immediate cessation of all construction by Henco Industries on Six Nations territory and for a nation-to-nation resolution to the current standoff.

     But racist voices are also being heard, denouncing the Six Nations people as "terrorists" and calling on the government to "send in the Army to deal with these criminals."

     Yet who are the real criminals? The rightful owners of the disputed land, who face jails and police violence? Or the ruling class and the Canadian state, who for centuries have stolen aboriginal territories, in Caledonia and across Canada?

     The land in question is part of the original Haldimand Deed ceded to the Six Nations by the British Crown in 1784 for their support as allies in the U.S. War of Independence. The Haldimand Tract comprised 950,000 acres of rich lands, arbitrarily reduced just eleven years later to 275,000 acres. Since then, through theft, illegal seizures and phony sales, the reserve has been shrunk to less than 5% of its original size.

     Prior to Confederation, the colonial administration confiscated part of the Haldimand Tract to build a plank road which crossed the Grand River at Caledonia. In 1987 this Plank Road Tract was officially placed as a land claim by the Six Nations. Despite this well-documented claim, developers remained intent on using the land for their own private profits.

     Both the elected band council and the traditional leaders of the community, the Clan Mothers, support the land claim and condemn any use of force against the occupiers. There is well-justified fear of a repeat of the anti-aboriginal violence seen at Ipperwash, Oka and Gustafsen Lake during the 1990s, with the potential for tragic results.

     One often hears the racist argument that "conquered" aboriginal peoples should accept their fates and "not rewrite history." Ontario Provincial Court Judge David Marshall said this to the Clan Mothers: "What's the matter with you people? Why don't you forget all about the past and listen to me?"

     But in reality, most of Canada was taken not through military victories, but by signing nation-to-nation treaties which were then violated by the colonial state.

     The Six Nations played a critical role in the formation of Canada. As PV contributor Sam Hammond pointed out in our previous issue, "In 1812 the native people, who did most of the fighting under Tecumseh, took heavy casualties and probably saved the country despite British bungling and deceit. The Six Nations Confederacy (the Seneca, Onondaga, Oneida, Tuscarora, Cayuga and Mohawks) is a tradition of one of the oldest participatory democracies in the world. It is a tradition of a courageous and unconquered people, a parallel nation who have been allies and supporters in the formation of Canada. In the last 300 years they have been robbed of 95% of their original land - one hell of a rotten way to treat allies and friends. This ongoing struggle will continue to boil over everywhere in this country until justice is done with the Aboriginal Nations."

     The Six Nations have stated that the blockades will end when the people at the camp decide for themselves whether enough progress has been made towards ending the ongoing theft of their land. We urge readers to extend full solidarity with this demand, and to press the Ontario and federal governments to deal with the Six Nations without force, in a nation-to-nation process.

---

---

---

Patriotism or jingoism?

(The following article is from the May 1-15, 2006 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)

People's Voice Editorial

As expected, the death toll of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan has touched off a wave of demands to "support our troops." A majority of Canadians correctly believe that Canada should not be waging war in Afghanistan, but the corporate propaganda machine is working overtime to reverse public opinion. The armed forces have entered the fray, sending out high-ranking officers to whip up support for this disastrous imperialist venture - and not coincidentally, for vastly increased military spending.

     Nobody is surprised that the ruling Conservatives or the Liberals who sent troops to Afghanistan in the first place push the same line. But it is disappointing when NDP MPs and MLAs sing this same jingoistic tune.

     The flag debate is the latest episode in this nauseating contest. Since many more casualties are inevitable, the Harper Tories hope to stifle public awareness of the Kandahar debacle by ending the practice of lowering flags after every combat death. This has "shocked" BC New Democrat MLA Jenny Kwan, who responded that "It is important for our country to recognize the sacrifices of soldiers..."

     We mean no disrespect to Kwan, who courageously battled the Campbell Liberals in the BC Legislature for four years with only one colleague at her side. But on this issue we must be blunt: Canadian lives are being sacrificed in Afghanistan in the service of U.S. empire building and the interests of Big Oil. The best way to support these troops - and to stop them from killing more Afghan citizens - is to bring our forces home immediately. We urge the NDP to stop tip-toeing around Canada's shameful role in Afghanistan, and to help build a more powerful anti-war movement. Instead of trying to appear more patriotic than Stephen Harper (who sold his soul to U.S.-based energy interests many years ago), the NDP should stand with the majority of Canadians who oppose this war.

---

---

---

(The following article is from the May 1-15, 2006 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)

The Women, being Title Holders to all lands of Turtle Island, assert our constitutional jurisdiction over the Haldimand Tract. We have never and cannot ever give up our land or our sovereignty.

1. The Six Nations are distinct original nations. We are to be dealt with on a nation‑to‑nation basis by the Crown and all other nations.

2. The Crown must respect our original relationship as set out in the Two Row Wampum, our jurisdiction as provided in our constitution, the Kaiannereh'ko:wa, and as respected by Sections 109 and  132 of the BNA Act, 1867 and according to international covenants that  Canada has signed.

3. We are to be dealt with on a nation‑to‑nation basis, as was the custom before Canada separated from the British Empire. Respect for the independent international status of the Six Nations by Canada was established before Canada achieved recognition as a state or gained the ability to sign treaties on its own.  The independent international identity of the Six Nations identity has never been legally extinguished.

4. The band councils were established with procedures that violated

international law.  They continue to function as colonizing institutions. We have never consented to their establishment or their representation.

5. Canada and all its politicians, bureaucrats, agents, assignees and appointees should cease and desist immediately their attempt to

criminalize and apprehend our people for defending what is rightfully ours, the land to which we hold title. Any further action by Canada, Ontario and their agents shall be viewed as being a direct violation of the Two Row Wampum, the constitutional accord between the Ratino'shon:ni and Canada and international law.

6. The claims of Canada and the province of Ontario to have a right to legislate for the Rotino'shon:ni Six Nations and to grant private title to our land has no foundation in law.

---

---

---

(The following article is from the May 1-15, 2006 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)

By Darrell Rankin

After months of preparations, the Canadian Peace Congress was re‑established at a meeting in Edmonton on April 8.

     The CPC was a founding member of the World Peace Council in 1949, following the defeat of fascism in World War Two. For much of the Cold War period, the CPC played an important and leading role in the peace, disarmament and anti‑imperialist movement.

     Twenty delegates attended the meeting from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Colombia. They recalled and paid tribute to Congress leaders, such as founding President James Endicott (1949‑1971), and sent greetings to veteran Quebec Peace Council leader Eduard Sloan.

     Past‑president Rev. John Hanly Morgan sent greetings, saying "There could not be a more appropriate time for the re‑establishment of the Canadian Peace Congress in light of the planned World Peace Forum in Vancouver in June."

     About 25 member organizations of the World Peace Council are expected to attend the WPF, and will participate there at a meeting on "Imperialism's aggressiveness and the peoples' struggle."

     Delegates noted that Canadian foreign policy is being moved further the right by the Harper Conservatives, and called on the Government to remove troops from Afghanistan, to reject U.S. Missile Defense (weapons in space) and to defend and strengthen the United Nations Charter.

     Delegates made plans to help host the many WPC visitors in Vancouver, and made other organizational decisions. A Congress website has been established at http://www.peacecongress.ca. The interim executive is comprised of Morgan, honourary president; Blyth Nuttall and Peter Gehl, co‑chairs; Darrell Rankin, liaison with the Canadian Peace Alliance; Cathy Fischer, editor of Saskatchewan Peace News; and Don Currie, member of the Executive, World Peace Council.

---

---

---

Spring Issue of Rebel Youth launched

(The following article is from the May 1-15, 2006 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)

By Johan Boyden

     The latest edition of the Young Communist League of Canada's political and cultural magazine, Rebel Youth, is hot off the press. Themed "we CAN stop the attack on young workers and students," it is the first of three editions the YCL aims to produce this year.

     RY's printing comes at an important time for the YCL. Since a conference re‑starting the YCL in Vancouver during the fall of 2003, the League has expanded to include clubs and circles in BC, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario, continuing the tradition of a revolutionary Marxist‑Leninist youth organization in Canada which goes back to 1921.

     At a recent on‑line pan‑Canadian organizing meeting (a first for the YCL), a collective decision was made to hold a re‑founding convention in March 2007 and to begin a large organizing drive. Part of the drive involves transforming Rebel Youth from an occasional to regular publication with subscriptions and a print run of 1,000.

     This edition features a glossy cover. Inside, readers will find articles on International Women's Day, the tuition increase in Ontario, union organizing among young workers in BC, poetry from Palestine, music reviews, and more. Here's a sneak peek:

     "Flashy DOSE magazine, with it's fluff news seems to have a hate‑on for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. They call him `potentially most dangerous leader of a Latin American country.' We call him one of the most inspiring people's leaders, next to Fidel Castro...."

     Kanye West's class conciseness really interests me. It resonates all around the album like the track "Roses" where West talks about his grandmother's poverty condemning her to death:

     "I'm arguing like what kind of doctor can we fly in / You know the best medicine go to people that's paid / If Magic Johnson got a cure for AIDS / And all the broke muthafuckers past away / You tellin me if my grandma was in the N.B.A. / Right now she'd be ok? / But since she was just a secretary working for the church for 35 years / Things sposed to stop right here?"

     "What is this corporate agenda, Harper‑style? War. Support US wars and aggressions overseas... What else? Trash university funding. Up privatization. Raise tuition. Lower the young offender age to 12! Raise the age of consent. More McJobs. More military recruitment. Policies where the ultimate goal and result is the exploitation and victimization of young people, and mega-profits... Now is the time for a strong, united resistance. If you think this sounds like a good idea, get in touch with the YCL. We demand our rights! And in Spring 2006 they're under massive attack."

     Jason Mann, who liaises with the YCL Preparatory Committee about Rebel Youth, told PV about the next issue: "As our editorial says, Harper's Conservatives are just coming into power. There will be many issues we will want to cover over the summer. From what I hear, young comrades across the country are very excited about seeing the new issue and selling the magazine."

     While there have been some communication problems and delays, Mann noted, these challenges are being overcome with several new on‑line resources. One tool is a website technology currently being used by the ANC and YCL in South Africa to coordinate their educational work and other activities. "It is like a message board but much more dynamic and much more powerful," Mann said.

     Another tool is an online blog. "Certain articles ‑ for example the anti‑CPE protests in France ‑ were either far too long or too current to fit into our layout," Mann told PV. "So instead of cutting them down and just throwing away the rest, we've re-published the full articles on the blog."

     An un‑cut interview with Haitian activist Patrick Elie is the latest on the blog. There are also regular updates about Canadian and international issues, such as protest report‑backs, or updates on the banning of the Czech YCL.

     "We're also looking for more coverage of the Atlantic and the Prairies," Mann added, noting that with the demise of the family farm and the collapse of the cod industry, these regions have been pounded hard by capitalist economic crisis. "The question of a life with a future is all the more relevant [in these communities]. I think young workers need to know what our generation and our class is experiencing, and how they're fighting back, in all parts of the country," he said.

     The magazine is looking for stories outside of English-speaking Canada, among the nations of the Métis, First Nations, Acadians and Quebec. Jason notes that creating a position on the YCL Central Preparatory Committee for an Aboriginal national constituency representative, and opening a spot for a Quebec national rep, are important steps in that direction.

     "The youth who live in the Canadian state are from several nations," Mann emphasized. "But within the circles of many English‑speaking progressive and `lefty' youth and students, the struggles of say, the Six Nations youth justly occupying the Douglas Creek Estates, or the Aboriginal March against youth suicide, which is six times the Canadian average, or even the magnificent struggle of the Quebec students last year ‑ these battles are often largely ignored. We are building a pan‑Canadian League, however, and our magazine will be dynamic force talking about and inspiring resistance across the country."

     Check out the Rebel Youth blog at: http://yclrebelyouth.blogspot.com.

     To get your hands on a copy, or submit an article (hint, hint!) email: ycl_ljc@ycl‑ljc.ca.

---

---

---

(The following article is from the May 1-15, 2006 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)

Soaring gas prices squeezing you at the pump? Worried that the U.S. imperialist drive for "energy security" will mean unending wars of occupation? Well, at least somebody gets to look at the bright side! Last year, Exxon made the biggest corporate profit in history, $36 billion US. Now Exxon is giving Lee Raymond a $400 million retirement package, including pension, stock options and other perks, such as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet.

     Last November, when he was still chairman of Exxon, Raymond told Congress that gas prices were high because of global supply and demand. "We're all in this together, everywhere in the world," he testified. That was before new corporate documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission revealed Raymond's retirement deal and his $51.1 million paycheck in 2005 - nearly $6,000 an hour.

     One company spokesthing said the compensation package reflected "a very long and distinguished career."  During the 12 years Raymond ran Exxon, it became the largest oil giant in the world, and company stock prices went up 500 percent.

---

---

---

(The following article is from the May 1-15, 2006 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)

PV Manitoba Bureau

     The group Stop Charging Bison has organized a week of actions to protest urban warfare exercises in Winnipeg. About 500 Canadian Forces soldiers will take part in "Operation Bison" from April 30 to May 6, accompanied by U.S. military observers.

     The week opens at 2 pm on Sunday, April 30, with Peace Games in Central Park, an area with a high level of immigrants and refugees from war‑torn countries. A city‑wide walk‑out by high school students is set for May 1, followed by the Labour Council's annual May Day parade (6:30 p.m., leaving from City Hall).

     May 5 is "Soldier Outreach Day," and some officers probably won't be happy with the plans to educate their young recruits. The soldiers will be leafleted while deployed for their exercise, such as in residential areas. The complete program is available at http://chromatin.ca/stopthebison/door.pdf

     In support of U.S. military strategists who argue that future infantry battles will be fought largely in urban areas around the world, the Pentagon is training soldiers accordingly. The world's growing urban areas, where the working class is concentrated, are clearly perceived by imperialism as potential, major centres of insurrection.

---

---

---

(The following article is from the May 1-15, 2006 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)

        Based on materials from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions website

        On October 31, 2004, voters in Uruguay approved by a two‑thirds margin the world's first constitutional reform outlawing the outsourcing of water to the private sector. The referendum, which guarantees that piped water will be supplied "exclusively and directly by state‑owned legal entities", was a major milestone in the global struggle to support democratic economic development that expresses the general will of a country's population rather than the narrow interests of multinational corporations and the privatization agenda of the International Financial Institutions (IFIs).

     Uruguay is not alone as a country that has resisted the IMF and World Bank prescriptions for its future. A recent report from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) focuses on several such struggles. In country after country, the IMF and the World Bank have imposed "conditionalities" forcing indebted governments to propose programmes based on the ideology of free markets and privatization.

     In Costa Rica, the IFIs have encouraged the privatization of key utilities, including the government power and telecom company, the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE). But in March 2000, after the Costa Rican National Assembly passed a measure to end the state's monopoly over telecommunications and electricity and split ICE into two companies, thousands of people took to the street in protest and the country's unions launched a general strike. Costa Ricans were incensed because ICE has long been considered a model power company, providing electricity and telephone lines to 94 percent of the nation's 3.5 million people. Costa Rican President Miguel Angel Rodriguez agreed to the union demands and withdrew the controversial legislation.

     Impervious to the protests, the World Bank continued to press for the privatization of ICE. The proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), designed to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement to countries in Central America and the Dominican Republic, became a convenient vehicle for the Bank proposal. Under the provisions of CAFTA, Costa Rica is required to continue the privatization of basic services long sought by the Bank.

     By signing CAFTA, "the government of Costa Rica has accepted opening up to private participation, both domestic as well as foreign, the provision of cellular telephone services, internet, private data networks and the provision of both voluntary and mandatory insurance services", the Bank said in a report to the government, adding that the "opening to private participation" would be gradual, with sectors "fully open" by 2008. The Bank instructed the government not to allow public sentiment, or even the parliament, to stand in the way.

     But in September 2005, after CAFTA was approved by the US Congress, Costa Rican President Abel Pacheco announced that he would delay sending the trade pact to his Congress because of the popular resistance to the agreement. "Yes to a good CAFTA that benefits the poorest Costa Ricans", Pacheco told reporters. "No to a bad CAFTA. CAFTA isn't good or bad in itself. It depends on how we play the instrument. A marvellous melody can come out or a catastrophe".

      The African country of Zambia offers another example of World Bank intransigence in the face of popular opposition to IFI conditionality.

     Over the past forty years, Zambia has gone from one of the wealthiest countries in sub‑Saharan Africa to one of the poorest. The decline is partly explained by external shocks, in particular decreased prices for the country's principal export commodity of copper, as well as internal mismanagement and corruption. However, many development analysts believe that the dogmatic free‑market policies of the IMF and World Bank applied in Zambia must also shoulder a large part of the blame.

     Some of the negative consequences directly attributable to policies imposed by IFI loan conditions include:

‑ The devastation of Zambia's manufacturing sector following rapid trade liberalization from 1993 to 1996. In the textile industry, the number of firms went from 140 to eight and the number of jobs from 34,000 to 4,000 over a ten‑year period, mainly due to imports of cheap second‑hand clothing from industrialized countries.

‑ An increase in the trade deficit during the 1990s, despite the fact that the alleged aim of the IMF programme was to stem temporary balance of payment problems.

‑ The decline of the agricultural sector after the removal of subsidies on maize and fertilizer starting in 1991. Even the World Bank subsequently acknowledged that this policy led to "stagnation and regression instead of helping Zambia's agricultural sector".

‑ The collapse of several companies and the loss of thousands of jobs after privatization of state‑owned enterprises imposed through IMF and World Bank conditionality starting in 1992.

     A recent example was the privatization of Zambia's state electricity company (ZESCO) and state bank (ZNCB) in return for debt relief. Zambia's government initially agreed to sell these state‑owned enterprises, but the prospect provoked large‑scale protests.

     In November 2002, Zambian trade unions joined civil society groups and students in large‑scale demonstrations in Lusaka, Zambia's capital. These and many other expressions of popular opposition led Zambia's parliament to rescind the privatizations.

     The IMF responded with an announcement that Zambia was risking forfeiture of $1 billion in debt relief if it failed to go ahead with the privatization. According to press reports, IMF country representative Mark Ellyne declared that if the government didn't sell these companies, "they will not get the money". As a result, the finance minister announced that the government would ignore parliament's decision not to privatize the bank. "There is dishonesty through and through in things the IMF and World Bank are advocating", responded Leonard Hikaumba, the president of the Zambian Congress of Trade Unions. "We are disturbed and totally disappointed in the manner the IMF and World Bank are strangling our strategic sectors".

     Public protests continued, while international support for Zambia's right to make its own policy choices grew. The IMF and World Bank finally relented. By 2004, their only demand was that the government "commercialize" the operations of ZESCO and ZNCB while maintaining them as majority publicly‑owned entities.

     Another IMF action that contradicted Zambia's plans for social development was the decision to impose curbs on public spending. In 2003, the IMF froze lending and delayed its debt relief plan after Zambia raised teacher salaries and introduced a housing allowance for civil servants. In 2004, the government agreed to cap spending at eight percent of GDP, and the Ministry of Finance forced the Ministry of Education to cancel its previous wage increases and ban the hiring of new teachers. As a result, 9,000 teachers were left unemployed, hundreds of schools were understaffed and Zambia had a student/teacher ratio of up to 100 to one in some of its schools. These actions led to Zambia's first nationwide strike in 16 years, in February 2004.

     The strong labour response evidently caught the IMF's attention, because it reversed course in 2005 and allowed Zambia to accept an extraordinary grant from the Netherlands to hire 7,000 additional teachers.

     In August 2000, the World Bank provided an $83.4 million loan to the government of Bulgaria to "improve" its education system. The changes included school consolidation, new curricula, changes to teacher training, increasing of class sizes, and reduction of teaching staff. But the contents of the 110-page plan were unknown until the spring of 2001. When the Bulgarian unions read the document, they were shocked to read that "Representatives of practically all direct beneficiaries of the programme have been involved", including students, teachers and NGOs, a term that in the Bank's lexicon includes trade unions.

     This was patently false: none of the teachers' unions had been consulted. Worse, both teachers' unions "in fact stated that the education ministry had on different occasions told the unions that the reform was none of their business and that the ministry itself was not in control of the process". Moreover, the unions ‑ which belonged to the central labour bodies Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (KNSB) and Podkrepa and were ICFTU affiliates ‑ contested much of the information and analysis presented in the document, which was often outdated. They believed that the restructuring would have a profound impact on the quality of public education and on teachers' working conditions.

     With the Bank and the Bulgarian government preparing to implement their proposals, the teachers unions organized a counter‑offensive, proposing a joint analysis of the education restructuring programme and alternative proposals for education modernization.

     Their appeals, however, fell on deaf ears, and the unions were unable to obtain a meeting with Bulgaria's education ministry to discuss the World Bank programme. In protest, the two teachers' unions organized a half‑day, nationwide work stoppage. This caught the attention of the World Bank's country director, who drove to the unions' offices and admitted that the Bank had "acted erroneously". The director also promised direct consultations with the unions and offered to completely revise the reforms. Ultimately, the World Bank decided not to go through with the whole reform and admitted they hadn't properly informed the public. The project was finally withdrawn in March 2004.

     However, in 2004 the Bank joined with the IMF in pressing Bulgaria to implement measures that would result in real wage decreases for many workers, the reduction of protections against dismissal, and attacks on seniority rights. Tens of thousands of Bulgarians downed tools and blocked roads in November 2004. KNSB and Podkrepa claimed that more than 400,000 workers in a country of 10 million took part in the protests. The unions received backing from many other groups in Bulgaria, including opposition political parties.

     A new government, elected in the spring of 2005, announced that it would reimburse its loans to the IMF ahead of schedule, which would remove the possibility that the IMF could use the threat of recalling its loans if Bulgaria violated any of the loan conditions. Then in February 2006 the country's labour minister announced that the government would retain disputed labour rights in spite of the IMF loan condition. This was an important victory for KNSB and Podkrepa, which had fought for the right for Bulgaria to maintain its practice of paying higher wages to more experienced workers, even if it displeased the labour market deregulation ideologues of the IFIs.

     But what happens when the World Bank itself is flouting international labour standards? This brings us to Indonesia, where a coalition of trade unions uncovered violations at a World Bank work site.

     In 2004, the Indonesian branch of the Asian Labour Network on IFIs (ALNI), a network of unions, academics and NGOs, conducted a research study of core labour standards at major World Bank‑funded infrastructure projects in Bali. The three‑person study team found several serious violations, including children assigned to hazardous construction jobs; discriminatory wage rates for children and women; little provision of safety equipment and poor training on the equipment provided; and failure to pay legally required social security payments, which provide medical coverage for on the job injuries. Two workers had been killed due to accidents on the project, and 34 percent of the respondents reported they had had a work accident. Finally, none of the workers at any sites belonged to a union.

     In its report, ALNI concluded that the World Bank, the Government of Indonesia, and the local government do not monitor the labour conditions on this World Bank funded project, allowing rampant legal violations to go unchecked. The study team estimates that labour costs are only three percent of the total project, an extremely low proportion compared to most large construction projects. ALNI's reports and recommendations received considerable attention in the Indonesian press.

     So far, however, the Bank's response has been limited to giving lip service to their international agreement to enforce the child labour and forced labour core labour standards. ALNI is pressing them on the fact that all the core labour standards are Indonesian law, and therefore the World Bank should enforce all four on their projects, but the World Bank responds that enforcement of labour laws must be left up to the Indonesian government, not to the World Bank. Whether there is a significant change in the way the WB enforces labour standards on the upcoming projects they fund remains to be seen.

     Nevertheless, ALNI's experience in Indonesia illustrates that the IFIs can be responsive when presented with complaints from labour unions about working conditions. Working with allies across the globe, the international trade union movement has made strides in convincing the IFIs to adopt policies that are more favourable to working people and the poor.

---

---

---

(The following article is from the May 1-15, 2006 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)

Commentary by PV Editor Kimball Cariou 

     This year's International Workers' Day arrives as the labour movement surges ahead in many countries, both on the economic and political fronts. There are growing indications that the downturn in labour action which paralleled the rise of neoliberal policies in the 1980s and '90s may be reversing.

     In the birthplace of May Day, recent decades have seen steep erosions of union density and strike actions in most sectors of the economy. But many U.S. workers are fighting back. Official reports tally 271 work stoppages in the first three quarters of 2005 across the U.S., compared to 227 in all of 2004. Another series of strikes at the end of 2005 involved roughly 70,000 workers: Northwest Airlines mechanics and cleaners, Boeing aircraft manufacturing workers, California hospital workers, Philadelphia and New York City transit.

     Labour analysts have pointed to one cause of this turnaround - the wave of brutal attacks by bosses against wages, health care benefits and pensions. Millions of U.S. workers have literally no choice other than struggle if they want to save any reasonable standard of living.

     Many recent U.S. strikes have been fought and won largely by militant immigrant workers, such as wildcat strikes at ports and inter‑modal yards over the last two years. The massive immigrant rights marches which began in March are further proof of this upsurge; the second round of major protests against anti-immigrant legislation involved some two million in well over 100 cities on April 10, and there are reports that many Latino workers will stay off the job on May 1.

     Unions are also increasingly involved in political struggles. For example, U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW) is building links with veterans and military families, sponsoring public events and rallies. Last year, the AFL‑CIO passed a groundbreaking resolution against the war in Iraq. All these developments in the belly of the imperialist beast are hopeful signs that the U.S. labour movement is on the rebound.

     Even more spectacular working class struggles have taken place overseas in recent months. In France, huge mobilizations of students and workers against so-called "youth employment reforms" have forced the government to shelve plans to allow employers to fire young workers without cause, and the fightback has invigorated France's revolutionary forces.

     Britain was the scene of the largest strike action in eighty years during March, as over a million public sector workers walked off the job to defend their pension rights. It was the biggest labour struggle in that country since the famous General Strike of 1926, aimed squarely at the "New Labour" government of Tony Blair, which has acted for years to carry out the neoliberal agenda of British and international capital.

     Labour organizations were deeply involved in the electoral contest in Italy, helping to narrowly oust the reactionary government of Berlusconi in favour of the left-centre "Union" coalition headed by Prodi. As well as halting the anti-working class policies of the Berlusconi regime, the new government is expected to deal a blow to U.S. imperialism by withdrawing Italian occupation troops from Iraq.

     One of the most militant battles this spring has been in the mountain country of Nepal, where a general strike against the autocratic King Gyanendra was launched in early April. Backed by the seven-party alliance of democratic parties (including the influential Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist), the trade unions and progressive groups, and by the Maoist guerillas, the success of the strike forced the King to offer on April 21 to restore parliamentary rule. The outcome remains to be seen, but clearly the struggle for democracy and social justice is gaining strength.

     As reported in the previous PV, a recent general strike in Guinea virtually shut down the west African country. Accused by the government of "setting the country on fire," the leader of Guinea's trade unions boldly told parliament that the strike was the inevitable response to the corruption and poverty caused by the policies of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the local ruling class.

     Rarely reported in the North American media, similar battles against IMF and World Bank "conditionalities" are taking place on every continent. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions has issued a report outlining some of these successful battles against privatisation, from Costa Rica and Uruguay in the western hemisphere, to Bulgaria and Zambia and elsewhere (see page 9 for more information). In every case, the role of the labour movement was a crucial factor in building resistance and support for progressive alternatives to the neoliberal agenda.

     In a number of countries, such defensive struggles are beginning to shift in a new direction, towards conscious efforts to win power and create a new form of society.

     That trend is perhaps most visible in Venezuela, where the radical government of Hugo Chavez has taken bold actions to consolidate its support among the workers and the poor. Using the country's oil wealth as a material basis for social transformation, the government is pouring resources into improved education, health care, housing and other programs. Venezuela's corrupt former trade union leadership, long tied to the ruling elite, has been largely supplanted by new labour federations and forces which participate in the revolutionary process.

     But even in countries the path ahead is more complicated, the labour movement is playing a big role. In Brazil, the reform government headed by former trade union leader Lula includes a wide range of forces, from revolutionary parties to sections of the business community. Within this context, the working class and its organizations are the main social base of the forces which are fighting to push Brazil further along the course of radical transformation, instead of yielding to corporate pressures.

     In a number of other Latin American countries, similar struggles are underway. The details and the background vary, of course, but in Argentina, Bolivia, Peru and elsewhere, the forces of the working class and the political left are on the rise, opening the possibility for the profound shifts not seen since the fascist coups in Chile and Argentina brought an end to the powerful movements for social change of the 1960s and early '70s.

     Even two or three years ago, it would have been very difficult to present such a sweeping picture of working class struggles around the world. On May Day 2006, however, there is evidence of the potential for struggles to win a better world, one in which peace, sovereignty, social justice, equality, democratic rights and environmental protection are the priority, not corporate profits.

     Even more significant, this process opens the door for a higher level of struggles long projected by Communist parties: the conscious effort to advance from limits on capitalist power, towards sweeping revolutionary changes and the elimination of exploitation. For the first time in many years, the outlines of a socialist future are becoming visible. Many complex and difficult class battles lie ahead, but there is growing reason for confidence in the power of the working class and its allies to meet this challenge. That process will inevitably take hold in Canada as well, despite the efforts of some labour leaders to dampen militancy and class struggle at the present moment.

---

---

---