The View From Steeltown,

Theory and Revolutionary Practice, and

USMA - Hamilton Chapter.

All three are ending the year with brand new blog posts.

You can find them here: The Pan-Americas Socialist Press

Check out our other blogs as well.

Pan-Americas Socialist Press (blogs and media outlets) are members of USMA and are dedicated to covering the news in the Americas from a socialist perspective.

     Last week we all watched as US President Obama decided to escalate the war in Afghanistan by sending 30,000 more troop to the nation in an effort to quell the upsurge in Taliban activity. Also in this past week we have seen other, more exciting developments such as Evo Morales being reelected in Bolivia. These stories and others such as Chavez call for a 5th International shows and escalation in the class war here and across the world. Now that the world sees the flaws of the market in not so subtle terms we USMA and other socialism movements must capitalize on this opportunity to show people the alternative, socialism.

     In this endeavor to spread the socialist movement while the enemy is occupied we will begin a new, bold initiative called the Winter Offensive. We will be treating this initiative much like a military offensive using our bases of support to spread the message into the surrounding areas. The initiative will entail 3 stages:

1- Internal Growth

     USMA chapters already established on the ground will be provided with material and support to build up their memberships and create a base on which to act in the future. We need motivated organizers to help with this by going to nearby chapters and helping to organize them.

     If your new at organizing much like I was do not worry if you know your stuff you will succeed regardless. Its all about strategy and tactics which change depending on where your at. USMA International will be here to support all as much as possible. Too we want people who are interested in creating a USMA chapter in their communities to contact us so that we can help with the start-up.

2- Extensive Growth

     USMA chapters will after building up their base or whenever they feel conformable begin to spread outwards. What we mean by this is that we want chapters to begin to set up chapters in the neighboring communities and even neighboring cities. Right now we want chapters to use a 3 hr driving distance radius as their benchmark for deciding where to get active at.

     We encourage our chapters to partner with local left-wing and socialist groups at universities and in the cities/communities and try and get them to become affiliated with USMA. We do not seek to be imperialistic in this endeavor so don't try to steal an area away from already established socialist groups, opting instead of working to create a partnership with them. Where there is no socialist influence try and find local people who are willing to act to set up the chapters and once again USMA International will try and provide resources in terms of political and propaganda support for your campaign.

3- Securing the Gains

     After we begin to establish new chapters and reinforce older ones we must secure these gains to set te stage for the next round of expansion. This includes USMA international providing material to help chapters be productive, creating a committee of chapter leaders to coordinatete efforts across nations and providing reading materials to highten the political knowledge of the membership. We ask chapters at this stage to begin to map their areas and using openings they see in the political scene to become more active in local politics. We also reiterate the importance of chapters setting up blogs or other website and keeping updated with their happenings which will also be posted on www.usma.ca

This is just a small overview of the initiative and if you have any questions please email usmainternational@gmail.com. We will be creating a formal document about the initative further expanding on these 3 goals. Thank you and you have my regards.

-William Richardson, President Buffalo, NY Chapter and USMA website Administrator   

by François Sabado - International Viewpoint

During an international meeting of left parties held in Caracas from 19-21 November, 2009, Hugo Chavez launched a call for a Fifth Socialist International which, according to him, should bring together left parties and social movements. According to the president of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, the Fifth International must be “an instrument for the unification and the articulation of the struggle of the peoples to save this planet.” In a world political situation marked by a total crisis of the capitalist system, this is a fact important enough to be underlined.

Indeed, leaders or parties who pose the question of an International do not grow on trees. That is the first merit of Chavez’s call.

All the more so as this call is accompanied by a declaration which denounces the systemic character of the capitalist crisis, beyond its financial and banking dimensions, and reaffirms the perspective of a socialism of the 21st century. It calls for an urgent mobilization against the new imperialist offensive in Latin America, by the US administration and the Latin American Right.

On the basis of this call, a broad world anti-imperialist front can be established, to mark its solidarity with the struggle of the peoples for their social and political rights, to oppose the new US bases in Colombia, to support, in particular, the mobilization of the people of Honduras against the new dictatorial regime.

In the trial of strength in which the imperialists are confronted with the struggles of the peoples, such a world front would constitute an important instrument to fight the power of the ruling classes, not only in Latin America but in the whole world.

We are ready, as we have been since the beginning, in solidarity with the Cuban revolution, the Bolivarian revolution, with the experiences in Bolivia and Ecuador, to fully commit ourselves to the common fight against the imperialist attacks imperialists and to take our full place in this world anti-imperialist front.

It is also within this framework that the process of construction of a new International would be posed. Chavez calls for the establishment of a Socialist Fifth International. That puts back on the agenda the discussion about a new International. Chavez situates the building of the Fifth International in continuity with the Fourth. We have already declared on many occasions: what do labels matter, if there is convergence over the content. But the constitution of a new International implies a whole process around a programme, policies, and an organization, which must be carried out on the basis of a broad discussion with all the protagonists.

There is, indeed, a new historical period, where divergences between various revolutionary currents can be surmounted on the basis of “a common understanding of events and tasks”. From this point of view, it is not a question of discussing the historical balance sheets of different currents, but it is decisive to learn together the lessons from Stalinism and social democracy, so that the tragedies and the errors of the past are not repeated.

Each party, each organization, each current and each militant must contribute to this debate. As for the Fourth International, it has already formulated, on many occasions, its proposals:

• An anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist programme of emergency demands, which starts from the demands and the social needs of the popular classes, proposes a new distribution of wealth, public and social appropriation of the key sectors of the economy and leads on to the revolutionary transformation of society.

• Unity of action of all the organizations, currents and militants against the attacks of the governments and the capitalist classes.

• Independence of the social movements, associations and trade-union organizations with respect to parties and states.

• Solidarity with all struggles of peoples against all the imperialist powers.

• The fight against oppressions and the defence of the rights of women, homosexuals, young people and immigrants.

• The fight for governments of the workers and popular classes which satisfy the principal social and ecological demands and base themselves on the mobilization of the population and its control over the principal sectors of the economy. This perspective implies not participating in governments which manage the state and the capitalist economy along with the parties of the centre-left or social democracy.

• The central character of the self-emancipation and self-organization of peoples, in the perspective of overthrowing capitalism.

• An ecosocialist project which combines both the satisfaction of social needs and the respect and balance of our ecosystem. In this sense, we have much to learn much from the indigenous peoples of South America and their relationship to the land.

• Socialist democracy as a project of society: self-management of the economy, democracy and pluralism of parties and social movements.

These are some themes for discussion in order to advance along the road of bringing together all anti-capitalists on an international level. They are the first ideas that we will defend in the process of constitution of a new International.

Lastly, Chavez’s call for a Fifth International also constitutes a point of support when it poses the question of a new International, independently of the Second (Socialist) International of which organizations like the social democratic parties, the Mexican PRI and the Brazilian PT are members. But it is also necessary to clarify a question in the construction of a new International, that of the difference between state policies and the development of a political project. One thing is to conclude economic and commercial agreements with states which have anti-imperialist governments, to conclude such agreements with other states, including some which have reactionary regimes, or to oppose attacks of imperialism against certain countries. It is quite another thing to give political support to regimes like those of the Chinese Communist Party or the Islamic Republic of Iran… The project of the Fifth International cannot in any way at all be associated with these regimes.

Once again, this call creates the conditions for a new international discussion, indissociable from solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution. It is in this spirit that the Fourth international, its organizations and its militants, will answer “Present”!

François Sabado is a member of the Executive Bureau of the Fourth International and an activist in the New Anticapitalist Party (NPA) in France. He was a long-time member of the National Leadership of the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR).

A serious source of disunity in the socialist movement is the (often small) disagreements over strategy and small policy differences. Major sources of contention, however, can be traced back to the First International and cannot be overcome with the tip of a hat.

The political alliance I have proposed so far would seem a natural union of radicals to the liberal observer, but the rift between communism and anarchism is a large one, and the rifts within these supertendencies are plentiful. Simply taking into account the communist proposal for a workers’ state and the traditional anarchist refusal to go along with any government-like apparatus shows the challenge ahead of us in uniting the revolutionary left.

To accomplish this unity, each participating member will have to recognize that they are equal partners and must craft a role for themselves accordingly. The anarchists, for example, could be brought into the workers’ state on the basis that their role will be to ensure that the state lasts only so long as it is absolutely necessary. Their fervent anti-statism, then, is an asset and not a liability for the united socialist movement.

Conversely, the communists have passion, theoretical knowledge and practical experience, the value to the revolutionary cause of which cannot be disregarded. Communist participation in coalition governments as junior partners in Venezuela, France, Italy, India, Syria, Uruguay and South Africa, and as leaders of the coalition in Cyprus, Moldova and Nepal testify to the value of communist participation.

The ever-present threat of social democratic anti-communism has the potential to disrupt valuable participation by communists in the revolutionary coalition. This is counter to the need for unity and mutual respect for ideological differences, and thus a historic turning of the tables to exclude the social democrats while including the communists would be necessary in such an event.

Once the revolutionary political coalition is built, and is working in tandem with the revolutionary social and trade union movements on the streets, the conquest of political power will be the next great task. The integrity of the movement, particularly the stated goal of the deconstruction of capitalism to be replaced with socialism, can never be compromised in the pursuit of political power, as many social democrats have demonstrated their tendency to do.

How the revolutionary coalition will seize political power all depends on how the reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries respond to the revolutionary project. The coalition will not come to power without widespread popular support in Canada and will use the electoral system as the primary means to achieve power. Until the coalition does seize power, constant agitation for democratic reforms of the current state is necessary, particularly the abolition of the monarchy in favour of a republic system and the introduction of proportional representation as the electoral method.

The fundamental question of how the reactionaries will do what they do best (i.e. react) will guide the pace and tactics of the revolution. Should the revolutionary Canadian state be faced with threats of a coup d’etat from a counter-revolutionary military and police apparatus, American intervention to “restore” the current Canadian state, or a combination of both, the revolutionary state will need to respond adequately to protect the gains of the revolution.

It is for this reason that the best strategy for Canadian revolutionaries – and potentially the only strategy that will secure the most peaceful transition to socialism – is to work in complete partnership with American revolutionaries with the same or similar stated goals. If the Canadian revolutionaries are fortunate, the same type of revolutionary political and extraparliamentary coalitions would form south of the border and carry out the same mission as their northern counterparts. A continent-wide revolution, especially one that picks up on the current left-wing momentum in Latin America, is the only way in which socialism can be secured for all peoples of the Americas.

Should those of us who wish to build a socialist alternative and subsequently a socialist society ignore this monumental task, i.e. forget the goal of a transcontinental revolution, we will surely fail. The recent coup d’etat in Honduras will serve as an enduring reminder of this fact.

As the Venezuelan revolutionary state continues to build socialism in their country, they have formed the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) to strengthen and defend socialism in those countries where it is taking off. Even this progressive international alliance, however, was not enough to save Honduran President Manuel Zelaya from military deposition.

But the political events leading up to Zelaya’s ouster can hardly be described as “revolutionary” – Zelaya was a businessman from a very wealthy family and was a member of the Liberal Party, not a socialist or even social democratic party. His attempts to counter American influence in Central America, particularly entering Honduras into ALBA, were anti-imperialist in nature and his modest reforms were more social democratic than socialist.

The Honduran experience teaches that a revolutionary coalition – and not a particularly progressive member of a bourgeois political party – is a better means towards and to defend a revolutionary project. It also teaches that even as strong an alliance as ALBA may be, it has been unable to prevent or reverse the coup d’etat, clearly indicating that domestic, indigenous struggle is necessary to uphold the revolution as opposed to relying on foreign intervention.

These are the lessons that need to be learned in order to fulfil the revolutionary goal in Canada.

In summary, a revolutionary socialist alliance must build power on the streets and proceed to win political power by electoral means. Once in power, the revolutionary coalition must draft a new constitution to pave the way for a socialist economic transformation, for the preservation of civil and human rights, and for the maximization of democracy. This project must also be done in connection with a fraternal American revolution in order to prevent the American ruling class from destroying the Canadian revolutionary project and/or strengthening the Canadian bourgeoisie to fight the project.

It is time for the unity of all progressive forces in Canada and for such an alliance to put Canada on the path to a peaceful, democratic, free and equal society!

Published on redcontinent.wordpress.com

History confirms that, if Canada is the leader in the socialist revolution, we will surely find ourselves in need of a workers’ state. The international bourgeoisie has effectively bought up Canada, sold to them for a bargain by our neoliberal politicians, and to think that they will stand for having the entirety of their claims to Canadian resources taken back by the Canadian people is a fantasy.

The workers’ state in Canada will have markedly different qualities from the workers’ states set up in the former Eastern Bloc, in East Asia, or in the African/Middle Eastern revolutionary waves. Our tradition of multi-party democracy will be carried forward into our socialist future.

The task of the USMA, then, is to build a revolutionary political coalition that spans sectarian lines and unites behind the one central, common goal of creating a new constitution for Canada.

Decades of liberal-capitalist domination of the political debate in Canada have surely left many Canadians wary of the concept of a radical change in the political order. This is especially so considering the frailty of our current constitutional monarchy with all of its bizarre political arrangements.

This constitutional change, however, is nothing to be feared if done in the right spirit. The dissolution of the Fourth Republic in Venezuela and its subsequent replacement by the (Fifth) Bolivarian Republic, which includes guarantees of free education, free quality health care, a clean environment, extensive minority rights, and far more human rights than the previous constitution, is an example of this.

The political coalition in Canada would have to include all Communists, Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Luxemburgists, left communists, democratic socialists, anarchists, syndicalists, libertarian socialists and left-social democrats*. Each tendency has its own perspectives and commitments to bring to the table, and their participation in the drafting of a socialist constitution will be required for a pluralistic socialist society.

Also to be included in the process of drafting a new constitution will be the Assembly of First Nations, youth groups, women’s groups, LGBTQ groups, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, minority groups**, immigrant and migrant workers’ groups – effectively, all sectors of society who have an interest in ensuring the security of their rights.

This constitution will create new economic arrangements, agricultural and industrial policy, human rights guarantees, entrench environmental protection, protect democratic rights and a multi-party system, and fortify our commitment to multiculturalism and intercultural peace.

The value of each tendency and social group in crafting this constitution cannot be undermined by accusations of “revisionism”, “sectarianism”, or “betrayal of socialism”. In order for this revolutionary coalition to function cohesively, each group must embrace their own autonomy and the room that gives them to craft autonomous policy that they will push for within the coalition. Democratic centralism is fine within the tendencies, but the overall movement must be inclusive of all ideas.

The constitution that will subsequently be drafted will be comprehensive and explained thoroughly and understandably to the Canadian people before a nation-wide referendum to approve the new constitution is held.

Supposing that the constitution is approved, the economic revolution will commence, as private property (i.e. capitalist ownership) of the means of production will no longer be state-sponsored and hence no longer a reality. Workers’ councils, set up by or an outright evolution of the trade unions, will declare their ownership and right-to-rule over the workplace and subsequently elect management.

The economic revolution, it would appear, necessarily must follow a political revolution. Without a constitution that recognizes worker’s self-management as opposed to private ownership of the means of production, such action could not succeed. How to conduct such a political revolution is the next question.

* By “left-social democrats”, I mean those who identify as such but believe in the necessity to replace capitalism with a socialist order, which we have already defined as an economy structured on workers’ self-management. I am unsure if this constitutes a separate category from “democratic socialist” but thought it best to include this possible tendency as well for inclusivity’s sake.

** At the USMA International Conference in Buffalo, the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party took part, with one member delivering a very moving and articulate speech. Such organizations will be an integral part of drafting the revolutionary constitution.

by Mark Weisbrot

Among the conventional wisdom that we hear every day in the business press is that developing countries should bend over backwards to create a friendly climate for foreign corporations, follow orthodox (neoliberal) macro-economic policy advice and strive to achieve an investment-grade sovereign credit rating so as to attract more foreign capital.

Guess what country is expected to have the fastest economic growth in the Americas this year? Bolivia. The country's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, was elected in 2005 and took office in January 2006. Bolivia, the poorest country in South America, had been operating under IMF agreements for 20 consecutive years, and its per-capita income was lower than it had been 27 years earlier.

Evo sent the IMF packing just three months after he took office, and then moved to re-nationalise the hydrocarbons industry (mostly natural gas). Needless to say this did not sit well with the international corporate community. Nor did Bolivia's decision in May 2007 to withdraw from the World Bank's international arbitration panel, which had a tendency to settle disputes in favour of international corporations and against governments.

But Bolivia's re-nationalisation and increased royalties on hydrocarbons has given the government billions of dollars of additional revenue (Bolivia's entire GDP is only about $16.6bn, with 10 million people). These revenues have been useful for a government that wants to promote development, and especially to maintain growth during the downturn. Public investment increased from 6.3% of GDP in 2005 to 10.5% in 2009.

Bolivia's growth through the current world downturn is even more remarkable in that it was hit hard by falling prices for its most important exports – natural gas and minerals – and also by a loss of important export preferences in the US market. The Bush administration cut off Bolivia's trade preferences to the US that were granted under the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, allegedly to punish Bolivia for insufficient co-operation in the "war on drugs".

In reality, it was more complicated: Bolivia expelled the US ambassador because of evidence that the embassy was supporting a violent rightwing opposition that was trying to topple the government. In any case, the Obama administration has so far not changed the Bush administration's policies toward Bolivia. But Bolivia has proven that it can do quite well without Washington's co-operation.

Ecuador's leftist president, Rafael Correa, is an economist who, well before he was elected in December 2006, understood and wrote about the limitations of neoliberal economic dogma. He took office in 2007 and established an international tribunal to examine the legitimacy of the country's debt. In November 2008 the commission found that part of the debt was not legally contracted, and in December Correa announced that the government would default on roughly $3.2bn of its international debt.

He was vilified in the business press, but the default was successful. Ecuador cleared a third of its foreign debt off its books by defaulting and then buying the debt back at about 35 cents on the dollar. The country's international credit rating remains low, but no lower than it was before Correa's election, and it was even raised a notch after the buyback was completed.

The Correa government also incurred foreign investors' wrath by renegotiating its deals with foreign oil companies to capture a larger share of revenue as oil prices rose. And Correa has bucked pressure from Chevron and its powerful allies in Washington to drop his support of a lawsuit against the company for alleged pollution of ground waters, with damages that could exceed $27bn.

How has Ecuador done? Growth has averaged a healthy 4.5% over Correa's first two years. And the government has made sure that it has trickled down: healthcare spending as a percent of GDP has doubled, and social spending in general has expanded considerably from 5.4% to 8.3% of GDP in two years. This includes a doubling of the cash transfer programme to poor households, a $474m increase in spending for housing, and other programmes for low-income families.

Ecuador was hit hard by a 77% drop in the price of its oil exports from June 2008 to February 2009, as well as a decline in remittances from abroad. Nonetheless it has weathered the storm pretty well. Other unorthodox policies, in addition to the debt default, have helped Ecuador to stimulate its economy without running too low on reserves.

Ecuador's currency is the US dollar, so that rules out using exchange rate policy and most monetary policy for counter-cyclical efforts in a recession – a significant handicap. Nonetheless Ecuador was able to cut deals with China for a billion-dollar advance payment for oil and another $1bn loan.

The government also has begun requiring Ecuadorian banks to repatriate some of their reserves held abroad, expected to bring back another $1.2bn, and it has started repatriating $2.5bn in central bank reserves held abroad in order to finance another large stimulus package.

Ecuador's growth will probably come in at about 1% this year, which is pretty good relative to most of the hemisphere. For example, Mexico, at the other end of the spectrum, is projected to have a 7.5% decline in GDP for 2009.

The standard reporting and even quasi-academic analysis of Bolivia and Ecuador says they are victims of populist, socialist, "anti-American" governments – aligned with Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Cuba, of course – and on the road to ruin. To be sure, both countries have many challenges ahead, the most important of which will be to devise and implement economic strategies that can diversify and develop their economies over the long run. But they have made a good start so far, by giving the conventional wisdom of the economic and foreign policy establishment – in Washington and Europe – the respect it has earned.

© Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

By Rick Gunderman

As many readers know, a project is currently underway to build an organization known as the United Socialist Movement of the Americas (USMA).

I have been involved since the early stages and have witnessed the successful creation of a very active chapter in Buffalo, New York (who hosted a spectacular first annual USMA international conference), as well as nascent chapters in Hamilton, Ontario; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Bogota, Colombia; Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago; Aurora, Illinois; and Caracas, Venezuela.

As of now, two groups – the People’s Revolutionary Party (Philadelphia) and the Boston Radicals – have affiliated themselves with the USMA.

The USMA is on a path to unite the revolutionary left into a democratic, confederated force. The nature of that force and how it will achieve its goals, however, has yet to be specified.

As revolutionary socialists, the USMA is unequivocally committed to the abolition of private ownership of the means of production in favour of workers’ ownership and self-management, and to the creation of a direct democratic political system.

In short, to replace capitalism with democratic, pluralistic socialism.

A part of this project is to understand how we can bring about such a change in the political and economic order in Canada. This can be done through study and interpretation of theory, but must also be done with practical experience in mind.

Practical experience can be achieved through the welcoming members from all different revolutionary socialist tendencies into the USMA sphere – a policy already well-entrenched in the USMA. More importantly, the policy also means establishing links with trade unions.

It is well-understood among the left that trade unions will inevitably play a pivotal role in any future revolution. It will be the unions on the front lines at their workplaces, initiating the economic transformation away from capitalism.

The workplace arrangement envisioned by the USMA is one where ownership is constitutionally vested in the workers, who will manage their workplaces through democratic, participatory councils. Potential managers would be elected by the workers and terminable by a simple recall vote of the workers’ council.

Formulating these councils, indeed achieving the physical conditions to do so, will be the task of the trade unions, whose practical experience is indispensible towards the revolutionary project.

The political side of the revolution, however, will involve a much more complex alliance of forces. Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg…indeed, a very significant portion of revolutionary socialist theorists, have argued that the proletariat must conquer political power before it can conquer economic power.

It would seem that to contradict this is foolish – the bourgeoisie holds political power in most (read: all) of the developed world. The economic relations that create and maintain their power are enshrined in dozens of constitutions, usually as a guarantee of “private property” rights.

Facing this reality, we can only imagine the proletarian’s conquest of economic power resulting in two political consequences: a complete destruction of state apparatuses and a resulting leap towards a communist society, or a workers’ state as a provisional means to protect the proletarian economic conquest from capitalist counter-revolution or foreign invasion.