Review: Red Sun: Travels in a Naxalite Country

By Peter Hendy

RED SUN: Travels in a Naxalite Country : Sudeep Chakravati
Penguin Books India 2009

A revolutionary war is being fought by the Communist Party of India (Maoist) (CPI-Maoist) against the Indian state. A ‘Red Corridor’ exists down a swathe of central India from Nepal in the north to Karnatka in the South covering more than a quarter of India’s land mass.
India’s Maoist movement, known as Naxalites, after a district in Naxalbari in West Bengal where they staged a peasant uprising in 1967, is now spread over fifteen of its twenty eight states and controls vast chunks of territory.
In Red Sun Chakravati provides a fascinating and detailed account of his travels into those areas most affected by the Naxalites. The purpose of his journey is to promote an understanding of a ‘phenomena’ or the spectre of revolution haunting India.
The book is directed toward the urban middle classes whom he considers to be in a state of denial and suffering from ‘mall stupor’. The journey appears potentially very dangerous and he is clearly adept at negotiating his way through mistrust and suspicion on both sides.
Chakravati is an intrepid journalist and his excellent research provides a shocking context to the war. The statistics are shocking and make for grim reading. He solemnly writes that when the statistics begin to hit the millions they almost become meaningless. Half the children in India are malnourished, one fifth of the population go hungry and three quarters don’t have access to drinking water or sanitation. Two million cases of atrocities against lower caste people are currently pending. This is in a country of 1.12 billion people. Chakravati not only exposes but is very critical of the abysmal failure of India’s political institutions and subsequent creation of an explosive political vacuum.
Gross poverty, landless peasantry, crushing exploitation, rampant corruption, injustice, inherent caste issues and nepotism are factors that fuel the upsurge in revolutionary violence and explain the emergence of liberated zones.
Chakravati has tracked India’s massive economic growth of 8 per cent but is deeply concerned about the economic, political and social disconnection that leaves the mass population of peasantry and workers India no better off than feudal sub-Saharan Africa.
He visits dirt poor villages in the mosquito filled forests of Chhattisgarah, West Bengal, Andra Pradesh, Bihar and Jarkland and attempts to interview those at the epicentre of the conflict. He meets senior police and government officials, paramilitaries, local people, those involved in self help groups and some revolutionaries. Thus he meets some intriguing individuals who express some disturbing views.
Chakravati details the historical splits, mergers and alignments of the Naxalite movement and its increasing sophistication, audacity and ingenuity. This is particularly useful given the plethora of political parties and organisations that exist in India. He is particularly disturbed by the precise details of Naxalite documents. These relate to developments in ideology, strategy, tactics and organisation as the conflict escalates and spreads to include targeted urban areas swelled by those displaced from the countryside.
He reports on the states brutal response to the revolutionary war and powers to arrest, incarcerate and kill with impunity anyone suspected of revolutionary activity. He interviews a special policeman involved in Salwa Judum, a state sponsored vigilante paramilitary organisation set up to stem and halt the armed struggle. This shadowy lawless organisation is responsible for murder, torture, rape, looting beatings, forcible displacement and marginalisation. He visits Salwa Judum villages created to remove those potentially drawn to the struggle and is repulsed. Slums smelling of, ‘...garbage, urine and faeces overpowering the aroma of cooking fires and boiled rice.’
The book contains some detailed maps that illustrate the surge of CPI (Maoist) activity over recent years and the appendix provides some contemporary documents which give a direct insight into their strategies, tactics and objectives.
However, there are some criticisms of the book. Chakravati is not a Communist and his attempt to remain objective, independent and impartial fail. He is not hostile to the Maoists but critical and dismissive of socialism. Ultimately, he believes that the only solution to India’s failings are for efficient governance, policing, justice and administration. He has his own sociological theory on how he sees India’s future. A theory involving massive gated city states ‘In-Land’ places of food and commerce and ‘Out-land’ areas of lawlessness and potential warlordism. There maybe some partial truth in this analysis but one that ignores the complexity of political power, the state and class conflict.
Chakravati is a man with a conscience and evidently is very uncomfortable with what he hears and experiences. Reference is made to the bourgeois notion of ‘governance’ and how this needs to be developed. but his ideas appear nothing but hollow, abstract and devoid of any substance. He can see clearly the anger felt by the population aligning itself with the Naxalites but remains very uncomfortable and critical of the strategies adopted. He can offer a commentary but only up to a point because he remains unpoliticised. Chakravati’s social background and no doubt privileged existence can on occasions be detected in his tone that reflects an unconscious aloofness and distance from those he is interviewing. Thus, opportunities to ask significant questions and to pursue meaningful lines of enquiry are lost.
Failure to interview Naxals or Maoist revolutionaries ‘deep’ in Naxal zones and to instead concentrate on those not directly involved like former elderly insurgents from the movement’s beginning or individuals from rival revolutionary organisations is a significant criticism.
For those without an extremely detailed geographical knowledge of India the journey can be frustrating and confusing. A few maps to aid the reader would have been helpful.
The major strength of the book lie in Chakravati’s attempt to convey this political conflict to a wider audience where reporting in the bourgeois media is often non-existent. A recommended read for those wanting to understand the revolutionary political situation and realities of life in war torn India.

Review: Democratic German Report?

By Andy Brooks

Stasi Hell or Workers' Paradise? by John Green and Bruni de la Motte
£3.50; Paperback; 50pp; illus; Artery Publications, London 2009

THE GERMAN Democratic Republic, with its trade-mark hammer and dividers logo, has long gone. It went the way of all the other European people’s democracies during the counter-revolutionary wave in 1989 that was inspired by traitor Gorbachov and his minions and finally ended with the destruction of the Soviet Union itself. But during its 40 years of existence the GDR overcame diplomatic isolation and economic warfare to build an equitable society, raise living standards and become the leading partner in Comecon, the Soviet counter to the Common Market.
Contrary to imperialist myth German communists never wanted the partition of Germany. Though the defeated Third Reich was divided into Allied Zones of Occupation, the Soviet Union initially expected Britain, France and the United States to keep their word and maintain the territorial integrity of the country. When the imperialists showed their true hand in introducing a separate West German currency and establishing the “Federal Republic” in their zones, the Soviets had no other option but to encourage the development of the GDR in the Soviet Zone of occupied Germany.
Hundreds of thousands of imperialist troops, armed with nuclear weapons remained in West Germany to threaten the Soviet Union and its eastern European allies while the West German authorities claimed authority over what they continued to call the “Soviet Zone” and large chunks of former German territory ceded to Poland by the Allies in 1945. The GDR was diplomatically isolated by the imperialists. That only ended in 1972 when détente led to normalisation between East and West Germany and the admission of both German states to the United Nations.
Throughout this period many British communists and progressives travelled to the GDR, no easy business during the height of the Cold War, and most returned favourably impressed at the efforts of the people’s government efforts in building socialism on German soil. Many became active campaigners in the friendship societies that encouraged tourism in the GDR. Some opted to study at centres of higher education and a few chose to live in the GDR like the co-author of this booklet.
The chief heir to the GDR’s old ruling Socialist Unity Party initially called itself the “Party of Democratic Socialism”. Now it’s simply “The Left” and its East German leaders are in a state of denial, having dumped Leninism long ago in favour of left social democracy to win a few seats in the bourgeois German parliament. British academic interest in the GDR rarely goes beyond the arcania of Cold War studies. When it does it generally focuses on social questions and never attempts to reflect the reality of life in the GDR.
That now exists only in memories of its former citizens and those who crossed the Berlin Wall. The fading books and pamphlets that the GDR published to counter the barrage of lies and abuse from West Germany and its Nato allies are mostly tucked away in personal collections or available only from specialist libraries.
This pamphlet helps redress the balance. It is, of course, a personal view based on the sympathetic experiences of the two authors but whose political stand is perhaps reflected in the reference in the opening pages to the “tyrannical rule of Stalin and the crimes perpetrated by his regime in the name of communism”.
Though it does explain the economic reasons for the building of the Berlin Wall it’s a pity the authors didn’t mention the fact that for every three East Germans lured to the West by the prospect of higher wages at least one West German went East, mainly pensioners who were more favourably treated in Democratic Germany. Nor is there any attempt to describe the problems facing the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) which united with the social-democrats in the Soviet Zone to establish the Socialist Unity Party and was subsequently banned in West Germany in 1956.
Nevertheless this pamphlet is worth buying because of what it does contain especially for the new generation that knows nothing about the history of the GDR or the East German workers’ all-round achievements during its forty years of existence.

Stasi Hell or Workers’ Paradise? can be obtained directly at £4.50 (includes £1.00 post and packing) from: Artery Publications,11 Dorset Rd, London W5 4HU

Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution

By Andy Brooks


OLIVER CROMWELL, the leader of the English Revolution, died on 3rd September 1658. Cromwell, the MP for Huntingdon, was the leading Parliamentary commander during the English Civil War, which began in 1642 and ended in1649 with the trial and execution of Charles Stuart and the abolition of the monarchy. The Republic of England, or Commonwealth as it was styled in English, was proclaimed soon after.
The fighting had taken a fearful toll in lives and property in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. The death toll, including civilians, came to around 870,000, some 11.6 per cent of the pre-Civil War population. Material damage was immense, particularly in Ireland. In 1653, Oliver Cromwell became head of state, the Lord Protector. Scotland had been brought under Commonwealth control.
Royalist hopes of a counter-revolution were smashed with the defeat of their forces at the Battle of Worcester in 1651.The democratic movement born from the New Model Army, the Levellers, was crushed by Cromwell’s supporters and the most militant regiments sent to Ireland. Attempts to set up farming co-operatives by the Diggers, another group born from the Army, were also suppressed.
The republic Cromwell led included England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland as well as colonies in New England and the Caribbean. During its brief life the Commonwealth became a force in Europe. Culturally it inspired the great poetry of Milton and Marvell and other radical and pacifist religious movements like the Quakers who are still with us today.
Oliver Cromwell was succeeded by his son, Richard. Richard was neither a politician nor a soldier. Unable to reconcile republican generals with the demands of the rich merchants and landowners to curb the influence of the New Model Army, Richard Cromwell resigned the following year. The government collapsed and the monarchy was restored in 1660. Oliver Cromwell’s death invoked genuine mourning. His funeral, modelled on that of the King of Spain, was the biggest London had ever witnessed.
Two years later his body was dug up and ritually hanged in public at Tyburn. All who had signed Charles Stuart’s death warrant, apart from a handful that managed to flee the country, were hanged, drawn and quartered. And the “good old cause” they had fought for was buried with them. It was clear that a great revolution had taken place. It is equally clear that it was incomplete.
For communists the English Revolution is a paramount importance. It influenced the thinking of the American revolutionaries. The Victorian utopian socialist and co-operator, Robert Owen, embodied some of the ideas of the Digger philosopher, Gerrard Winstanley, in his writings. Even today the question of the monarchy and the House of Lords is still unresolved.
The conflict was fought on class lines. Or as Puritan preacher Richard Baxter put it at the time:

“A very great part of the knights and gentlemen of England . . . adhered to the King . . . And most of the tenants of these gentlemen, and also most of the poorest of the people, whom the others call the rabble, did follow the gentry and were for the King. On the Parliament’s side were (besides themselves) the smaller part (as some thought) of the gentry in most of the counties, and the greatest part of the tradesmen and freeholders and the middle sort of men, especially in those corporations and counties which depend on clothing and such manufactures…Freeholders and tradesmen are the strength of religion and civility in the land; and gentlemen and beggars and servile tenants are the strength of iniquity

Cromwell’s reconquest of Ireland was condemned by the Levellers. Looking back on it Marx wrote:

The 1641-52 uprising was provoked by the colonialist policy which the English absolute monarchy pursued in Ireland, and which was continued during the English bourgeois revolution by the English bourgeoisie and the “new” nobility. The majority of the insurgents were Irish peasants led by the expropriated clan chiefs and the Catholic clergy. The Anglo-Irish nobility, descendants of the first English conquerors who had become related to the Irish clan elite and adopted many Irish customs and habits, also participated in the uprising.
In October 1642, the insurgents formed the Irish Confederation in Kilkenny. A struggle went on within it between the indigenous Irish, who stood for Ireland’s independence and action both against the Long Parliament and the English Royalists, and the Anglo-Irish aristocrats, who endeavoured to come to terms with Charles I on the condition that they would be allowed to keep their estates and receive a guarantee of freedom of worship for Catholics. The latter gained the upper hand and a treaty was signed with a representative of Charles I.
After the rout of the Royalists in England, Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector of the new bourgeois republic, organised an expedition to Ireland on the pretext of suppressing a Royalist revolt there but in fact with the aim of reducing her to colonial submission and plundering the land. He hoped that by confiscating Irish lands he would solve the problem of paying the creditors of the republic, the officers and men in the army.
In 1649-52, the Irish uprising was brutally suppressed; the garrisons and population of entire towns were destroyed, the Irish were sold en masse into slavery in the West Indies, and Irish lands were confiscated and handed over to new English landlords. These actions of Cromwell and his successors did much to prepare the ground for the restoration of the monarchy in England in 1660.

Though the Stuarts came back the last of them was deposed in the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688. Often said to be neither glorious nor a revolution it certainly could not have happened at all without the revolutionary upheaval during the Civil War.

Marxist historian Christopher Hill later wrote:

Nor was it a war of the rich only. All sections of society in southern and eastern England brought in their contributions to help to win the war, for in the overthrow of the old regime men saw the essential preliminary condition of social and intellectual advance. Many of those who fought for Parliament were afterwards disappointed with the achievements of the revolution, felt they had been betrayed. But they were right to fight. A victory for Charles I and his gang could only have meant the economic stagnation of England, the stabilisation of a backward feudal society in a commercial age, and yet necessitated an even bloodier struggle for liberation later. The Parliamentarians thought they were fighting God's battles. They were certainly fighting those of posterity, throwing off an intolerable incubus to further advance. The fact that the revolution might have gone further should never allow us to forget the heroism and faith and disciplined energy with which ordinary decent people responded when the Parliament's leaders freely and frankly appealed to them to support its cause.

This, perhaps, is the real significance of the “good old cause” and why it’s still relevant for us today. On the 300th anniversary of the execution of Charles Stuart and the proclamation of the republic Communist leader Harry Pollitt would say:

"When the growing capitalist class, the poor farmers and craftsmen, led by Oliver Cromwell, shattered the system of feudalism, and executed Charles I in the process, reigning monarchs and ruling nobilities everywhere saw the pattern of future history unfolding. The name of Cromwell was reviled, then, as much as Stalin’s is today, by the ruling powers of the old and doomed order of society.
"The English Revolution is ‘great’, because it broke the barriers to man’s advance. It allowed the capitalist class to open the road leading to modern large-scale industry. It permitted science to serve the needs of the new capitalist society. And, because of these developments, it provided the basis on which, for the first time, a new class, the working class, began to grow, to organise and itself to challenge the prevailing system of society".

Toxic Tea Parties

by New Worker correspondent

IMAGINE an organisation somewhere between the right wing of the Conservative Party and the British National Party, with 220,000 enrolled members, hundreds of thousands of active supporters and backed by an estimated 17-19 million people. Welcome to the Tea Parties.
Imagine a state where the police can stop and question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant or a town where illegal immigrants are now formally “banned”. Welcome to how the immigration debate is playing out in the United States.
Imagine a society where there are uniformed and heavily armed gangs of racist extremists patrolling the streets and the border areas, seeking out and sometimes shooting people they suspect of being illegal immigrants. Welcome to the Minutemen.
Imagine a country in which 932 hate groups were active last year. Welcome to the Unites States of America in 2010.
American anti-fascist and human rights campaigner Devin Burghart recently toured Britain speaking to anti-fascists on the growth of the extreme rightwing and racist mass anti-Obama movement that has mushroomed in the United States and how American anti-fascists intend to counter it, with a mass grass-roots campaign based on the same principles as the Hope Not Hate campaign in Britain.
The speaking tour was organised by the Hope Not Hate/Searchlight anti-fascist group and the meetings, in Cardiff, Birmingham, Manchester and London were chaired by Searchlight leading campaigner Matthew Collins.
Devin began by explaining differences between US and British politics. Firstly, he said, the US came into being with the original sin of racism – the slavery, especially of the southern states: “It is woven into the fabric of our culture; slavery was written into our original constitution.
“Since then, there has always been a sense of guilt among progressive political activists and a continuing effort to make up for that bad beginning.”
Secondly, he said, religion plays a far greater role in politics and life generally; the majority consider themselves to be religious and Christianity is the main religion. Religion in the United States has a political dimension that it does not have in Britain.
Thirdly, the dominance of the two-party political system creates an insurmountable barrier to aspiring third parties. Special interest groups and single-issue campaigns spend most of their efforts as pressure groups trying to influence the big two – the Democrats and the Republicans.
And that is why those two big parties both encompass a wide range of political views and are often internally divided on issues.
And fourthly, money plays a far bigger role in US politics than it does here. Each of the main parties spends many times as much on local state election campaigns than all of Britain’s political parties together spent on the last general election here.
In nationwide elections they spend billions of dollars – but all that spending brings very little change.
“The big problem is,” said Devin, “That the ultra-Right have out-campaigned the Left at grass-roots level. They have beaten the Left in the areas where they should be strongest – trade union rights, environmental issues, women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights and Native American rights; where they have been plugging their anti-immigration policies with some success.
“At the same time, like your New Labour here, the Democrats have virtually abandoned grass roots campaigning and door-to-door local work.”
The notorious racist Governor George Wallace of Alabama in the 1960s, 70s and 80s failed to get elected as President despite putting himself forward four times – but he did teach the extremist racist Right how to use the white middle class, and how to avoid overtly racist language but use a coded language instead.
The racists abandoned lynchings and cross-burnings and set out to re-invent themselves in a more acceptable form. The Ku Klux Klan took off their white sheets and put on suits and threw themselves into face-to-face campaigning – picking up on the issues that mattered to local communities. And they started to use the new media to win recruits.
Former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke succeeded in being elected as Louisiana State Representative for a partial term, though he failed to be elected as State Senator.
At this point Devin recommended to the meeting the book Blood and Politics: The History of White Nationalism from the Margins to the Mainstream by Leonard Zeskind and published by McMillan, which covers the efforts of the racists and fascists to make themselves acceptable to the mainstream – much in the same way that the British National Party tried to do here.
Devin continued, saying that progressive immigration policy in recent decades has changed the US demographic and the ultra-Right has used this to create a new nativism based on anti-immigration policies. Their favourite slogan is: “We just want our country back,” though they would be hard pressed to explain just who is supposed to be taking it from them. It is a slogan that appeals to the right-wing middle-aged and elderly, nostalgic for the half-remembered days of their youth.
The events of 11th September 2001 gave a big boost to ultra-Right recruitment and there has been a remarkable growth of the Christian Right. The evangelists have turned religion into a powerful political force.
The TV evangelists, like Jerry Falwell revolutionised the organisation and the fundraising. Their campaigns target abortion rights, gay rights and the teaching of evolution. They attack women’s groups and oppose all liberal gains. And they are getting their candidates elected – with published advice sheets on how to campaign and fight elections.
They now influence national politics and divide the nation on issues such as abortion and gay rights. They have changed the electoral terrain in the mythical Middle America, by preaching to those who have hitherto been outside of politics.
They appeal mostly to the white, middle-aged and middle class. Though they put the odd plumber or other worker on their platforms, they do not really appeal to the hard-up working class.
They have taken control of school boards and banned the teaching of evolution in favour of creationism. They are changing the text books to eliminate the word “slavery” and replacing it with “triangular trade”.
They are portraying the US and its history as exclusively Christian and trying to obliterate all other kinds of thinking. Like the Taliban, they are intent on creating a militant theocracy.
It was this culture that allowed the election of Ronald Reagan and later George W Bush.
The Democrats failed to put in the grass roots work to counter this. There was a bit of a shift when Bill Clinton was elected but he never got a total majority in the Senate; Ross Perot split the Republicans. That is why Clinton could not get his health Bill through.
There was a lot of grass roots work done in the run-up to Obama’s election but this was not done so much by the Democrat Party as by all sorts of pressure groups who wanted Bush out.
And when Obama was elected the far right immediately began working on how to undermine his presidency; the far Right had a resurgence and the political scene polarised.
The extreme Right began the Tea Party movement in 2008 during the presidential election primaries as a protest against the big banking bail-outs – begun under Bush and continued under Obama.
Congressman Ron Paul invited supporters to a tea party in Boston in protest at paying taxes to bail out failing banks. He raised $6 billion in 24 hours.
Then in February 2009, just after Obama’s inauguration, Rick Santelli of CNBC news posted an invitation to a commemorative tea party at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on the website FedUpUSA.
In his rant he blamed the economic crisis on the poor, on people of colour and others he described as “losers” for the economic crisis. He blamed them for creating the housing crash by failing to keep up with their extortionate mortgages. He had the effect of making moderately well-off white people afraid of a malevolent, multicultural mob, seething uncontrolled below them
After that the Tea-Party movement mushroomed. It was supported by the Murdoch-owned Fox News channel and before long thousands of Tea Parties were happening everywhere. The movement has some 220,000 enrolled members and between 17 million and 19 million informal supporters. They have called Obama a “Nazi”, a “socialist” and many other things. They came out in droves to protest at the progress of Obama’s health bill through the legislature – even though that bill will rescue many of them from destitution as the illnesses of old age take hold.
Devin said they were like the vuvuzelas of US politics – making a cacophonous noise of racism and intolerance aimed to drown out intelligent debate and discussion. They shout down all progressive thought.
The US has several different types of right-wing groups – the Christian nationalists, the nationalist and racist supremacists and the anti-immigration groups. But they overlap; they are all demanding they “want their country back”. And they now comprise 16 to 18 per cent of American voters.
Now the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights is working to create a mass grass roots movement to do what Hope not Hate has done in Britain – to campaign door-to-door at grass roots level, taking up local issues and countering the lies put out by the racists and fascists.
This will take a lot of effort but already, among the counter-demonstrations to the Tea Party rallies, there are banners carrying the Hope not Hate logo. It is a good campaign because it appeals to a very wide spectrum. And there is now a small “Coffee Party” movement directly opposing the Tea Parties.

India's booming image shaken by massive strike wave

by Theo Russell

INDIA is being swept by a mounting wave of strikes, as anger mounts over out of control price rises. Two national strikes were held in April and another in July and a third, predicted to be the biggest ever, has been called in September.
Despite growth of eight per cent a year and a booming corporate and financial sector, living standards for workers and even many of the middle class are being steadily eroded.
India’s the economic reforms since the 1980s have transformed a semi-socialist economy into one of extreme wealth imbalance, in which hundreds of millions live in constant crisis, and according to official figures almost 200,000 farmers committed suicide between 1997 and 2008. Unlike China, the fruits of India’s growth go to business and individuals rather than being ploughed back into the country. In India only four per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) is invested in public services and infrastructure, compared to nine per cent in China.
While China is pouring billions into building infrastructure in every region of the country, India’s growth has been extremely uneven, benefiting a fortunate few in the cities while leaving millions of urban slum dwellers and the rural population, still over 70 per cent of the total, worse off than they were 30 years ago.
The technology services sector employed only 1.6 million people in 2007 out of a population of 1.15 billion, while 10 million young people enter the workforce every year.
While China announced a £382 billion in spending to boost the economy in 2009, India is effectively at the mercy of international lenders with a public debt of 82 per cent of GDP, the 11th -worst in the world.
Literacy in India has risen from 12 per cent at the end of British rule to 66 per cent in 2007, but remains well behind the world average of 84 per cent and over 93 per cent in China.
While China now has the largest network of high-speed railways in the world — 4,300 miles with speeds of up to 220 mph; the maximum train speed in India is 93 mph.

Wave of strikes

In April this year a national strike called by the Left parties over rising prices affected the whole country, and was followed by an “All-India Bandh (strike)” on 5th July, which according to the Indian press the was the biggest strike for 30 years, and probably the biggest since the Bombay textile workers’ strike of 1982.
The 5th July strike was particularly effective because although it was called by the Left parties (the CPI, CPI(M), All India Forward Bloc and Revolutionary Socialist Party), the right-wing Hindu BJP also decided separately to support it, reflecting the economic hardship facing small businesses, farmers and shopkeepers. The BJP-affiliated Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh trade union centre, is the largest in India, with 6.2 million members in 2002.
There are 13 recognised national trade union centres, most of which are linked to political parties. In 2002 the Congress-linked Indian National Trade Union Congress had 3.9 million members, the Hind Mazdoor Sabha, affiliated to the All India Forward Bloc (a left party) had 3.3 million members, the CPI(M)-linked Centre of Indian Trade Unions 3.2 million members, and the CPI-linked All-India Trade Union Congress 2.6 million members.
In 2004 total union membership in India was over 40 million, about 10 per cent of the total workforce and 25 per cent of wage and salary earners. However the impact of strikes is magnified by mass demonstrations and protest actions such as blocking road and rail links and persuading shops and businesses to take part.

“An unprecedented success”

The Left parties described the 5th July strike as “an unprecedented success” and said the government had “tried everything to suppress the voice of the people”.
According to the Times of India: “In many places, bandh supporters brazenly flexed their muscles as they sought to enforce the ‘people’s bandh’, “ and the strike “was like a shot fired across its bows” for the ruling Congress Party.

Almost every part of India was affected, with Chennai (Madras) the only major city to escape serious disruption. The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry estimated the cost of the strike at £1.8 billion, while the London Financial Times noted that “trading volumes on the Bombay Stock Exchange plummeted”.
Two of the country’s largest Bangalore-based software exporters, Infosys and Wipro, were closed along with 11 coal mines in Orissa, hundreds of inter-city trains and flights were cancelled and government offices closed around the country. Violent clashes between police and strike supporters took place in many cities.
In Mumbai the entire force of 48,000 police were deployed and the streets were deserted. Transport companies joined the strike taking thousands of trucks off the roads, and the port was shut down.
Over 3,500 people were arrested in Mumbai and the surrounding Maharashtra state, and 4,000 more “detained”, including 33 state assembly members and four national MPs. The CPI(M) paper People’s Democracy reported that in Kolhapur a senior policeman aimed a pistol at strikers, “bringing back memories of British rule”.
In Delhi protestors blocked roads and the brand-new Metro was hit for the first time; 77,000 police officers were deployed and over 4,300 activists detained, including leaders from the BJP and Left parties.
In Bihar over 8,500 activists were arrested and the police baton charged protestors. An opinion poll of one million people in cities across northern India found over 60 per cent supporting the strike.

Economic reforms — a disaster for India’s masses

In last year’s election the Congress Party won a landslide victory pledging to maintain petrol price controls, but now they too have been removed in order to reduce the budget deficit and meet the demands of international lenders.
The latest decision to completely deregulate petrol pricing includes diesel, cooking gas and kerosene on which millions depend. It is just the latest in three decades of dismantling subsidies and price controls, often on the advice of British and American government think tanks.
In May the government increased taxes on petrol and diesel by £3.6 billion, the seventh increase since Congress returned to power in 2004, yet in the same budget it cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy by over £11 billion.
Back in 1976 the foreign oil companies were nationalised and strict price controls introduced, but now according to People’s Democracy “Burma Shell, Caltex and ESSO might have gone, but their pricing regime is back”.
Prices for staple foodstuffs have surged in recent years. Since 2008 the price of sugar has increased 73 per cent and potatoes and onions by 32 per cent. Investors are now speculating on food prices, after the government decided to allow futures trading in staple foodstuffs.
India’s subservience to corporate and financial interests has had devastating consequences for millions of farmers. In the 1980s and ‘90s India was granted IMF loans in return for assisting bio-tech companies led by Monsanto to market genetically modified crops.
Sold to farmers as “magic seeds”, they fell victim to lack of water and parasites. Farmers were left burdened with debts as the GM crops produce no viable seeds, after paying up to 1,000 times more than for normal seeds.
This reactionary government actively eased the path for the GM giants by banning traditional varieties from many government seed banks.

Rising tide of anger

It is hardly surprising when tens of millions of Indians are experiencing suffering and impoverishment due to these ruthless economic policies that there is a rising tide of anger among the country’s workers and peasant farmers.
At a “national convention of the workers” on 15th July, nine national trade union centres called yet another general strike for 7th September, the third this year, which according to AITUC general secretary Gurudas Dasgupta will be “the first time in the history of India that all the central trade unions are together”.
This time even the Indian National Trade Union Congress, affiliated to Congress, will be joining the strike, which Dasgupta predicted would be “the biggest ever workers’ strike in the country”. Even if the government acts to head off the strike by reversing its previous decisions, it will only postpone the resolution of the country’s fundamental economic problems.
Despite its rapid growth India is at the mercy of international finance, and the only solution to the problems its people face is socialism.

Blame capitalism!

By Eric Trevett

YOUNG people entering the labour market have high hopes of getting a good wage in a job with reasonable prospects. But for many these hopes are soon replaced with doubts as to whether they can get a job at all. This particularly affects working class youth; due the policies of successive Tory and Labour governments a range of options has been closed.
Just after the Second World War, between 1945 and 1960 jobs were easy to come by. There was a shortage of labour power in the economy and it was possible to leave a job in the morning and get another before the end of the day. Apprenticeships were plentiful and skilled tradesmen were vital to the economy.
Backed by the trade union movement, living standards rose dramatically and in spite of its right-wing leadership the Labour government was pressed into nationalising industries like coal and rail and attempts to introduce pay freeze policies on workers’ wages were thwarted.
Another important advance was the trade union action that achieved the 40-hour, five-day working week.
The situation is very different today. Capitalism is in profound crisis. The coal mining industry has been destroyed and the de-industrialisation policies of the Tory and right-wing Labour governments have closed literally hundreds of factories up and down the country.
As a result the choice for youngsters today, especially working class youngsters, is much narrower than it has ever been.
The present government’s policy for cuts means that many more jobs are to be lost and a sharp rise in unemployment figures is inevitable.
The Post Office and the railways are now thinking to reduce their labour forces substantially, while the government has indicated it will cut 30,000 jobs from the civil service.
In December 1999 there were 1.2 million claiming unemployment benefits – 4.1 per cent of the workforce. Latest figures from the Office of National Statistics put unemployment at 2.51 million, which is eight per cent of the workforce.
Simultaneously with cutting jobs the Government is adopting tough policies against those unfortunate enough to find themselves unemployed.
Young people today are increasingly worried about their work and future. Those who go to university are tending to end up with huge debts on their shoulders. Many of them find it impossible to find jobs that give them a living wage that will also service their debts.
According to the Independent one in six students now regret going to university at all. A survey by the graduate-recruiting company High Flyers revealed that just over one-third of those leaving university this summer can expect to find a graduate job. Competition is especially fierce as they are up against many students who graduated the previous year who have still not found graduate-level jobs.
Currently there are 300,000 graduates leaving university each year – twice as many as in the 1990s. And even in a good year there are only 150,000 good graduate jobs available. With a policy of cutting back on services there will now be even fewer jobs available.
David Willetts, the Universities Secretary, says the jobs market continues to be very tight for young people.
Working people generally are being expected to pay for their retirement and at the same time are being urged to purchase more to get out of the economic crisis.
As the Government introduces more inflationary policies the purchasing power of wages and benefit payments will fall. But it is rumoured that as well as this there will be actual cuts in wages and pensions and some bourgeois papers have predicted that 50,000 homes will be repossessed this year.
Make no mistake about it; the full scale attack on the living standards of the working people is to be spearheaded by this Tory government, covered with a thin veneer of liberal concern.
Another prime target is the National Health Service, the last bastion of the 1945-51 government’s reforms.
Middle management jobs are also under threat. Sections of people who would not describe themselves as working class will find themselves on the dole. Therefore it will be possible and is essential to involve these sections of workers in the overall campaign of resistance, around the demands of a right to a job and a living wage.
We must never lose sight of the bankers’ responsibility for the present debt. They have received tens of billions of pounds in bail-outs in taxpayers’ money. Following their public apology on television they have been giving themselves hand-outs of millions of pounds in bonuses. No doubt they think this is a very good joke.
We need to be very clear that the joke is very much at our expense and we must use this fact to engender hatred against the bankers and the capitalist system as a whole.
As the campaign of resistance is developed by demonstrations, resolutions, deputations, leafleting and general agitation we have to note that the youth and sections of the working class movement are not equipped ideologically to see the need to support the trade unions and labour movement organisations.
The TUC in cooperation with the National Union of Teachers and other progressive organisations serving the expanse of education should make it possible for trade union members to be invited into classes and seminars of students.
In the localities, trades councils, where they exist, should be encouraged by the TUC to take initiatives in the organised campaign against the cuts and for progressive policies.
The movement as a whole should campaign for the restoration of the Labour Party constitution, the removal of which opened the door to the right-wing governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and their continuation of the Thatcher and Major governments’ privatisation policies. The campaign for the restoration of Clause Four is important because it is part of the campaign for the renationalisation of the economy.
As the Government’s cuts policy is so all-embracing we must help to engage ever wider sections of people in the struggle. Volunteer organisations should be encouraged to make representation for funding for the extra work they are expected to be doing. Pensioners’ organisations have an integral part to play. And indeed all the older activists in the struggle have a duty to help the younger generation to have confidence in the continuing fight.
The Co-op guilds, Women’s Institute and other women’s organisations should be drawn into the struggle against the cuts, which affect not only the working class but wide sections of the middle strata. Churches and their congregations will not be unaffected by the Tory attack on living standards and can be mobilised for progressive policies.
The broadening out of the progressive movement will also lead to greater influence for the peace movement, with its demand for the end of the Trident programme and the removal of nuclear weapons from Britain, as a contribution to a nuclear-free Europe and world. This would entail expelling United States troops from Britain and their nuclear weapons that are stockpiled here. And there will be more pressure behind the demand for the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan and any other imperialist occupations and an end to imperialist invasions.
Of course the problem is bigger than this Tory attack on living standards; it is basically the capitalist system itself and any ideological struggle, as it involves increasing millions of people, must have socialist consciousness injected into it by the movement.
There is no possibility of getting socialism through bourgeois democracy or without a revolutionary leadership that has the capacity to lead the working class to state power.
It is important that the movement closes ranks around the Marxist-Leninist party. The collapse of the Soviet Union came about because the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and other parties, influenced by Khrushchev, abandoned these principles and prepared the way for the counter-revolution led by Gorbachov.
That setback for the working class, nationally and internationally, was not the result of Marxism-Leninism but of opportunism and revisionism.
The only Marxist-Leninist party in Britain is the New Communist Party and its paper, the New Worker has an important role to play in this urgent situation.

Sinn Féin: peace process moves forward but much remains to be done

Sean Oliver, Sinn Féin Co-ordinator for England, Scotland and Wales, talks to Theo Russell about the effects of the economic crisis in Ireland and the future of the peace process following the elections in the north and the change of government in London.

Theo Russell: How has the economic crisis affected the north of Ireland in comparison with the Republic?

Sean Oliver: There’s a much larger public sector and state employment in the North than in the south, partly because of the history of the conflict and the lack of investment, so we haven’t been as badly off as the South so far.
The spending cuts just announced include £128 million for the north, with possibly big cuts in health spending which accounts for 40 per cent of the overall Executive budget, so we are going to be hit.


TR: What is Sinn Féin’s strategy for tackling the crisis?

SO: We are attempting to grow the private sector in the North, developing indigenous industries, the social economy and local business people, but we are also saying that what we need is an all-Ireland economy.
At the moment we have two separate economies competing for investment, with 1.5 million people in the north and 4-5 million in the south, two tax systems, and two currencies, which makes things very complex, especially in the border areas.
At the moment we are completely dependent on the block grants from London. In the past the Unionist parties have said no to local taxation powers, with a Sinn Féin motion calling for fiscal powers for the Assembly failing due to unionist opposition.
In the last years of direct rule there was an attempt to introduce water charges, and there has been pressure for privatisation, but this has been ruled out by Conor Murphy, the Sinn Féin Regional Development minister with responsibility for utilities.
We have seen substantial sums invested in infrastructure in the North by the Irish government, and work is ongoing on major improvements to the route linking Dublin and Donegal. The Unionists have always opposed “interference” from Dublin in the north’s politics, but they don’t seem to have any problems when it comes to handing out money.

TR: What’s your assessment of the Westminster election results in the north?

SO: Sinn Féin topped the polls, not for the first time - we also achieved this in the 2009 European elections - and we are also the biggest party in Belfast, in terms of votes.
In South Belfast former Belfast mayor Alex Maskey pulled out of the contest to attempt to maximise nationalist representation by giving a clear run to the SDLP candidate. Many hoped that the SDLP might do the same in Fermanagh-South Tyrone, allowing Michelle Gildernew of Sinn Féin a clear field, but the SDLP didn’t respond.
This episode damaged the SDLP’s image, many SDLP supporters were unhappy, and their vote fell by 50 per cent in Fermanagh-South Tyrone.
Michelle Gildernew eventually won the seat for Sinn Féin by four votes, after three recounts – and this was despite all three Unionist parties - the new UUP-Tory alliance (UCU-New Force), DUP, and Traditional Unionist Voice - not standing candidates to give independent Unionist Rodney Connor a free run against her.



TR: How do you see the future of Unionist politics developing after the leaders of both the main parties lost their seats?

SO: There is an ongoing debate among Unionists about re-aligning Unionism in the face of Sinn Féin’s growing electoral success. The DUP had a good result in the election apart from the loss of Peter Robinson’s seat, where Unionist voters rebelled over revelations over his luxury lifestyle, expenses claims and suspect business dealings.
The rejectionist Traditional Unionist Voice led by Jim Allister (which broke away from the DUP after they went into power-sharing with Sinn Féin) did very poorly compared to their 2009 performance, lacking any strong candidates other than their leader, as well as any clear alternative programme, and failed to win a seat.
The DUP had a much more positive campaign, dropping its anti-Sinn Féin rhetoric and offering devolution as the best option on offer, in contrast to the TUV’s negative “doom and gloom” message. After this election hopefully the DUP will feel under less pressure from the rejectionists.
Up to now the DUP hasn’t really prepared it’s constituency for change or consulted its members about change, with Paisley going into devolution in a very sudden, and to some unexpected, way. But now things are very different and they are realising this is the real world.
The loss of the last remaining UUP seat at Westminster was the end of an era. The UUP were the rulers of a one-party state for 50 years, and the bigger unionist party right up to the early 2000s.
North Down MP Sylvia Hermon was previously one of the UUP’s strongest assets. She refused to stand under a Tory banner as her natural leanings were closer to Labour. She stood this time as an independent and was re-elected.

TR: Was the electoral pact between the UUP and the Tories a blunder on David Cameron’s part?

SO: When the ‘Ulster Conservative Unionists - New Force’ came to appointing candidates, almost all of them were UUP and hardly any Conservatives stood in the North.
The Conservatives’ Northern Ireland spokesman, Owen Paterson, presented Tory policies as a “new politics for the UK, with no sectarianism or Orange-Green tribalism”.
But then it was revealed that he had been talking to both the main Unionist parties about unionist unity. The secret talks he organised caused major damage for the Unionist-Tory alliance and he was seen as lining up with the Orange Order and Unionism. (The secret talks led to several prospective Conservative Westminster candidates resigning).

TR: Do you expect any problems with the peace process with the new government in London in place?

SO: Sinn Féin has met with Cameron and Paterson, and has made it very clear that there is no option to change the Good Friday Agreement, an international agreement guaranteed by both the Irish and British governments. Given his role in the ‘secret talks’ debacle with the unionists, Martin McGuinness has commented that Paterson is now on “a steep learning curve”.
After the 2011 Assembly elections there is a strong possibility that Sinn Féin could be entitled to hold the position of First Minister in the Executive. Although the First Minister and Deputy First Minister posts are in reality co-equal, the title is still psychologically important to unionism. In this situation the Unionists may consider the attraction of uniting into a single party, but there would be many obstacles to be cleared on their way to that.

TR: What are Sinn Féin’s priorities for its work in Britain at the moment?

SO: We were very pleased with the success of the London Irish unity conference (on February 20 this year), but we see that as just the beginning of a process of putting Irish unity on the political agenda. We want to follow up on the issues which arose at the conference, as well as to develop our work outside London, and continue working with the Irish community and progressive forces.

TR: How does Sinn Féin see the peace process going forward?

SO: Developing relations with the Unionist community is a major priority, working in the Assembly and Executive and with the Unionist community. The north-south process is still ongoing, and twelve years after the Good Friday Agreement the all-Ireland Parliamentary and Civic Fora still haven’t been set up, so those are also important priorities.

TR: What’s your assessment of the dissident republican groups at the moment?

SO: The dissident groups still have the capacity to carry out armed actions, but they don’t have any significant popular support and haven’t stood candidates in elections since 2007. There are now a plethora of dissident organisations, with a small number of people moving between them. They also have links with anti-social and criminal elements involved in drug dealing.
I also believe that some sections of the British security establishment can’t come to terms with people like Gerry Adams and Gerry Kelly being in government, and share the same interest as the ‘dissidents’ in damaging the political institutions. It is widely suspected by many nationalists that some of these groups have been infiltrated to the highest level.
In another development, the INLA and Irish Republican Socialist Party ended their armed campaign last year and also declared support for the peace process and institutions.

TR: What is the current situation regarding crime and policing in the north?

SO: Drugs are a big issue for everyone, while extortion and gangsterism remain big problems in working class Unionist communities. There are more nationalists joining the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland), but, rather than acting as a recruiting sergeant in the nationalist community, Sinn Féin’s position is that the PSNI needs to prove itself.
We are now in also daily contact with the PSNI dealing with issues in local communities, and part of all of this we recognise that they too are on a learning curve, with some in that organisation finding it a new experience to adapt to ‘normal’policingwork.

Let us commemorate 65th Anniversary of the Victory!

joint statement of communist and workers parties







On 9th May we commemorate the 65th anniversary of the victory over Nazi-fascism - the most violent and brutal expression of the monopoly domination in a capitalist system in deep crisis – which led humankind to one of the worst catastrophes in its history, with the barbarity of concentration camps and the Second World War’s procession of death and destruction for the peoples.

The communists were in the frontline from the very first moment, mobilising and organising workers and peoples in the resistance. The anti-fascist struggle, to which millions gave their lives, was marked by the firm and determined action of communists.

The heroic contribution of the USSR, of its Red Army and of its people, which suffered around 27 million deaths, was decisive for the victory over the fascist hordes.

It was with the Victory in 1945 and the formation of the socialist camp that millions of men and women undertook their emancipation, freeing themselves from exploitation, oppression and colonialism, with the working class movement winning enormous social and political victories, on a progressive path never before attained in human history.

In the current situation, in a time of capitalism’s deep crisis in which the offensive carried out by several imperialist organisations, like NATO and the EU, is hitting so seriously the toiling masses, humankind is again facing great danger resulting from imperialism’s deepening contradictions, from the arms’ race, from the reinforcement of aggressive military alliances and from the attempt to forcefully impose the brutal increase of exploitation, precariousness in labour relations, dismissals and unemployment, poverty and the negation of the most basic necessities for millions of human beings.

We therefore appeal to the commemoration of the 65 years of the victory over Nazi-fascism, as an important action in the struggle for peace and against the monumental falsification of history and anticommunism – which, as history proves, is always anti-democratic – that, by trying to place fascism and communism on an equal footing and erase the communists’ decisive role in the peoples’ liberation from the yoke of Nazi-fascism, seeks to prosecute, to make illegal and to suppress, not just the actions of the communists but of all democrats who oppose capitalist domination and exploitation, with the purpose of pursuing and repressing all of those who, in any way, resist and fight in an organised manner against monopoly and imperialism.

For us, communists’ evoking the 65 years of the victory is to reaffirm our deep belief in the struggle for social emancipation, in the justice of our values and liberating ideals. It is a reaffirmation of our determination to fight the causes and the forces which were at the root of the fascist horror; we reaffirm our unshakeable confidence that the future does not belong to those who oppress and exploit, but to the workers and peoples who resist and fight for humankind’s emancipation from the shackles of the exploitation and for a society in which the workers fully enjoy the fruits of their labour and in which social progress, peace and welfare prevail. The future belongs not to capitalism, but to socialism and communism.

8th May 2010



The Parties

Algerian Party for Democracy and Socialism
Communist Party of Armenia
Communist Party of Azerbaijan
Communist Party of Australia
Communist Party of Belarus
Workers Party of Belgium
Communist Party of Brazil
Communist Party of Canada
Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia
Communist Party of Chile
Socialist Workers Party of Croatia
Communist Party of Cuba
Communist Party in Denmark
Communist Party of USA
Communist Party of Finland
New Communist Party of Britain
Communist Party of Britain
German Communist Party
Unified Communist Party of Georgia
Communist Party of Greece
New Communist Party of the Netherlands
Hungarian Communist Workers Party
Communist Party of India (Marxist)
Communist Party of India
Tudeh Party of Iran
Iraqi Communist Party
Communist Party of Ireland
Communist Party of Israel
Communist Party of Kazakhstan
Communist Party Kyrgyzstan
Lebanese Communist Party
Communist Party of Luxembourg
Party of the Communists, Mexico
Palestinian Peoples Party
Communist Party of Pakistan
Peruan Communist Party
Philippine Communist Party (PKP-1930)
Portuguese Communist Party
Communist Party of Poland
Communist Party of the Russian Federation
Union of Communist Parties - CPSU – Russia
South African Communist Party
Communist Party of Spain
Party of the Communists of Catalonia
Communist Party of the Peoples of Spain
Syrian Communist Party
Communist Party of Sweden
Labour Party (EMEP) Turkey
Communist Party of Ukraine
Communist Party of Uruguay
Communist Party of Venezuela

May Day

Africa Before the Slave Trade

Medieval West African art at the British Museum

By Edwin Bentley


ALMOST a defining characteristic of humanity is our ability to justify and explain away our actions, however outrageous and harmful they may be. When money is involved, that ability has no limits. From the establishment of the first permanent Portuguese trading post in Elmina in what is now Ghana in 1471, Africa has continuously served as a place from which Europe can take out whatever it needs without any obligation to offer anything in return.

Africa was certainly very different from Europe, but those first European visitors had little interest in finding out about the totally unfamiliar, often frightening, always amazing cultures they encountered. Making money was, quite literally, the only concern. Africa offered huge possibilities for vast fortunes as capitalism replaced the old feudal order in Europe, and the merchant class became the powerbrokers of society.

The transatlantic slave trade developed as a huge international business. This was the trade that created from plantation agriculture in the Americas the capital needed to launch the Industrial Revolution in Britain.

The Atlantic slave trade in large part created racism as we know it today. Kwame Nkrumah emphasised that slavery was not born of racism: rather, racism was the consequence of slavery. Slavery as such was always an economic, not a racist, proposition. But because the European ruling class treated and used Africans as beasts of burden and commodities, they inevitably became less than worthy of respect in European eyes. Put simply, Africans were classified as savages because the European capitalists used them as savages.

In defence of the international slave trade, European apologists claimed that slavery benefited the Africans, who were said to be sunk in misery from which they were incapable of rising. The African was presented as fundamentally sub-human, in need of the white man, whom he always acknowledged to be his superior.

Direct European colonialism in Africa only started in the latter part of the 19th century, and the old arguments that had previously justified slavery were used to propagate the idea that Africa had to be brought under European rule because the Africans were incapable of ruling themselves and needed to be civilised. Europe was, in fact, supposed to be doing Africa a tremendous favour as British and French troops razed villages to the ground, hanged and shot anyone who resisted, and destroyed local economies to clear vast areas for the cultivation of export crops and the industrial exploitation of mineral resources!

When the British army marched into Benin City in Nigeria in 1897, to assert British rule by looting everything of value, hanging local rulers and burning every building, the greatest trophies stolen were hundreds of medieval bronze plaques (actually made of brass). These were sold off and dispersed throughout Europe, and a good number are at present in the British Museum. Not surprisingly, the colonial authorities refused to accept that these works of art could have been created by Africans, but the Benin bronzes have since become powerful
emblems of West African culture.

However well-known the “bronze” casts and sculptures of Benin may be, an earlier African civilization had mastered the art of perhaps even more impressive depictions of the human form. This was the Yoruba kingdom of Ife, which flourished as a powerful city-state from 800 AD onwards. Ife is still regarded as the spiritual home of the Yoruba people of present-day Nigeria, a place where their culture started. It is literally a meeting place between heaven and earth, in the same way that Christians and Jews will venerate Jerusalem. The founder of Ife, Oranmiyan, came to be venerated as a man-God and father of all Yoruba people.

By the time of the British military invasion and destruction of the West African states in the 1890s, Ife had long sunk into decline. It had been eclipsed by Benin and Oyo. But the city retained its spiritual and cultural importance, even though it had never had military power or a standing army. The king of Ife – known as the ooni – had precedence as custodian of Yoruba identity and also of the legitimacy of the kings of the Edo state of Benin, who were originally from Ife. However powerful they became in their own right, kings of Benin always paid tribute to the ooni, as did the Yoruba rulers of Oyo.

Ife was the centre of worship of the creator gods Oduduwa and Orishinla, and the city was surrounded by religious shrines and sacred groves in the forest. The whole life of Ife was dominated by the cult of the gods in which everyone participated. Human and animal sacrifice was practised. Clay figures were kept on the altars of religious shrines as reminders of sacrifices that had been offered to the gods. Some of these were of animals, such as sheep and goats, but a good number depicted human victims, often with ropes around their necks waiting to be strangled.

Ife was a monarchy, but the ooni was always answerable to the council of chiefs and elders. His main role was as a cultural and religious figure, descendant of Oranmiyan the founder. The court of the ooni provided employment for a very large number of craftsmen and artists, who were organised in trade guilds to preserve their skills. Trade was essential, as the source of wealth, even reaching out across the Sahara desert to the Mediterranean. Slavery was a feature of everyday life, but slaves were integrated into families and clans, and the children of slaves were free.

The current exhibition “Kingdom of Ife: sculptures from West Africa” at the British Museum is the first opportunity in this country to experience treasures drawn largely from Nigerian museums, and organised jointly with the Nigerian National Commission for Museums and Monuments. Anyone visiting this exhibition will seriously question the endlessly repeated statement that the Benin bronzes have to be kept in the British Museum because Africans are incapable of conserving their own patrimony.

The artistic heyday of Ife culture extended from the 11th to the 14th century, and the chief relics of this period are the many figures of the human form made of brass, copper, and terracotta. The style is completely life-like, and generally life-sized. The brass heads that figure so prominently in this exhibition were cast using the lost wax process. Firstly, the figure was carved out of wax. This was covered in soft clay, and then heated until the wax melted and could be poured out, leaving a clay mould. The craftsmen then repeatedly poured small amounts of molten brass into the clay mould, swirling it around to cover the inside with a uniform thin layer of metal. When it had all cooled, the clay was chipped away, leaving the hollow figure. Files and grinding stones were then used to put the finishing touches.

Anyone familiar with Benin metal work may come to the Ife exhibition expecting formal, almost caricatured human figures. But almost everything here is quite overwhelmingly naturalistic, the figures somehow filled with life and spirit. The finest sculptures of Greece and Rome amaze us with their anatomical exactness. But these African figures, whether of brass, copper, or terracotta, go one step further – they portray living, breathing human beings so perfectly that the viewer can understand the personality, the thoughts and the state of mind, of the subjects portrayed.

The first European study of the art of Ife was carried out at the beginning of the 20th century by the German archaeologist Leo Frobenius. Not surprisingly, with the racist attitudes of the time, Frobenius found it impossible to consider this as African art. At first, he thought that the work was Portuguese, and then came up with the theory that what he had found were relics of the land of Atlantis, rescued before it sunk beneath the waves! It was only with the excavation of eighteen metal figures in 1938 that the indigenous origin of Ife art became universally accepted.

Exquisite art can be enjoyed for its own sake, but the current exhibition at the British Museum also presents many aspects of the social and religious life of the city’s inhabitants. Readers of the New Worker will see much evidence of the structure of Ife society. The mere existence of these works of art testifies to a developed human society with plentiful supplies of food, extensive external trade, a centralised hierarchical administration and a profound sense of identity. Small details of daily life shed much light on our idea of medieval Africa – I was particularly fascinated by the fact that the roads of the city were paved with countless pieces of broken pottery, arranged in fishbone patterns like a mosaic. A section of this paving is on display here.

This exhibition can be enjoyed on so many levels; firstly, simply as great art. But it does even more urgently call our attention to the unsettling fact that civilisation is not simply European. The history of the world is more than just what white men did. This Yoruba art affirms the universality of human life, of the desire to explain and take control of our surroundings. Ife would have been a strange, apparently even barbaric society to European minds. But it was not inferior, simply very different. In Europe we rightly venerate the memory of the Greeks and the Romans, of Michelangelo and the Renaissance, and the science and technology of recent centuries. “The Kingdom of Ife: sculptures from West Africa” reminds us that we are also heirs of the human experience throughout the world. The Yoruba craftsmen of 800 years ago shared that same human life, and they had an extraordinary, perhaps unsurpassed, ability to preserve it for the future.

The exhibition “Kingdom of Ife” is at the British Museum until 6th June. Admission is £8. A very worthwhile audio visual guide with personal headphones is available for an additional £4.50. Allow at least two hours to see and appreciate everything.

For Peace! No to Nato!

joint statement of communist and workers parties

In a context that is marked by an ever-deeper structural crisis of capitalism, by deeper exploitation of the workers and peoples, by inter-imperialist rivalries and by complex processes of realignment of forces on a world level, imperialism is embarking on new anti-democratic thrusts and militarist interventions, and is advancing with coercive solutions trying to perpetuate itself and defend its class interests.
The militarist offensive unleashed by the imperialist powers and by NATO has a global and multi-faceted nature.
Imperialist war is being intensified globally under the pretext of combat against terrorism. Imperialist blocs, like NATO, are being consolidated. The militarization of the European Union is being speeded up with the fraudulent adoption of the Lisbon Treaty that encompasses the concept of the European Union as NATO’s European pillar. There is an ongoing arms race and investment in new and deadlier weapons. Military spending reaches record levels, particularly in the U.S. and the European Union. NATO's areas of influence and imperialist military-strategic alliances, namely through the so-called “Partnership for peace” are being expanded in Asia, in the territory of the former Soviet Union, as well as in Africa.
The world-wide network of US and NATO-member countries' military bases is being expanded. Military forces are being deployed from Latin America to Africa; from the Middle East, Indian Ocean and Central Asia to Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and the Black Sea.
The occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq continues, whilst new military aggressions are being launched against various countries. Plots and interference continue in Latin America and in various countries of the African continent. Provocative maneuvers are multiplied, as in Lebanon. The Palestinian issue remains unsolved, likewise the issue of Western Sahara, while imperialist crimes continue with impunity. Provocations against the People's Republic of China, that the arms sales to Taiwan by the U.S. is a particularly serious example, and threats against countries such as Iran and Syria are being stepped up.
There are growing attacks against the sovereignty of States, notably with changes of borders, of which the self-proclamation of the independence of the Serbian province of Kosovo is a serious example. The International Law that emerged from the correlation of forces resulting from the defeat of Nazi-fascism in the Second World War is being seriously undermined and is the target of a process that aims its destruction.
In the name of “security” and the “war on terrorism” securitarian thrusts are revived; xenophobic nationalism and religious and cultural intolerance is being instigated; crimes against human rights, such as social, economic and democratic rights and the right to political and social participation and organization, are being committed; anti-Communist campaigns are being promoted and the forces that stand up against imperialism's offensive and defend the social and national rights of peoples, are persecuted.
The reality of the world at the beginning of the 21st Century belies the campaigns to rehabilitate the image of US imperialism which were undertaken with the election of Barack Obama. The nature and goals of US and NATO policies are clear: the control over natural and energy resources; control of technology; the expansion of markets; military and geo-strategic domination. In other words, a response, based on the use of force, to the relative weakening of the position of the USA in the international framework.
The rhetoric of “multilateralism” and “dialogue” is exposed by the war-mongering and interventionist policy of the US, the European Union and NATO, by the ongoing imperialist offensive and the real risk of new military conflicts, from the Middle East and Central Asia to Latin America. Despite the antagonisms between the USA and EU, both turn against the people’s social and national rights. War and aggression are but the other side of the coin of imperialist economic globalization, and NATO is a key player in its strategy of hegemonic domination and persecution of those forces and countries that stand up in opposition. NATO plays a central role in the militarization of international relations and in the arms race and is the main driving force of conflicts and tensions today. Alluding to «new global threats» - a concept that has replaced the old pretext of the «communist threat» - NATO imposes a large-scale escalation of wars and weapons – of which the war in Afghanistan is a key aspect.
NATO will hold a Summit in Portugal, this November. It seeks to renew its strategic concept, which represents a new and highly dangerous qualitative leap in that Organization's role, mission and goals.
With its new strategic concept, NATO seeks to put in its written doctrine that which is already a reality in practice: the geographic extension of its intervention and projection of force to the entire planet; the expansion of the nature of its missions to issues such as energy, environment, migrations and internal security of the States; to reaffirm itself as a nuclear military bloc, despite the rhetoric about nuclear disarmament, by envisaging the use of nuclear weapons in military attacks; to further develop the military-industrial complex and military research and demanding an increase in military expenditures from all its members; to include in its missions acts of direct interference and occupation, under the guise of peace-keeping missions; to profound the instrumentalization of the UN in order to pursue its purposes and strength its role as the armed arm of imperialism.
Imperialism appears to be all-powerful but it is not. As the facts are proving, the major threats arising from imperialism's force-based response to the crisis of capitalism are being confronted by the progressive and even revolutionary struggle of the peoples. In various parts of the world, the peoples are taking into their own hands the defense of their rights and of their countries' sovereignty and independence. They are resisting in the most diversified ways. They are imposing defeats to imperialism's strategy of domination.
In this context, expressing our profound conviction that, through the struggle it is possible to defeat the war-mongering and militaristic goals of NATO and build a future of peace, progress, social justice in which each people can freely decide on their own future, inseparable from the struggle for Socialism, we the Communist and Workers' Parties that are signatories to this statement:

 Demand an end to the arms race, nuclear disarmament beginning by the major nuclear powers in the world as is the case of the USA, elimination of all chemical and biological weapons and an end to foreign military bases.

 Call upon the workers and peoples of the whole world, on the popular and anti-imperialist forces, on the working-class movement and other social organizations to mobilize and strengthen their struggle, for peace, against war and NATO. We reaffirm our long-standing support for the peace movement. We congratulate the World Peace Council for its 60th anniversary and for its campaign against NATO.

 Declare our intention to mark the 65th anniversary of the victory over Nazism and Fascism as an important day of struggle for peace and against the monumental historical distortion that attempts to erase the crucial role of Communists in the liberation of peoples from the yoke of Nazi-fascist and to equate Nazism with Communism.

 Reaffirm our solidarity with the peoples that resist imperialism’s occupations, aggressions and interference and that are waging difficult battles for their self-determination and independence, namely the peoples of the Middle East, like the Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian peoples, and Central Asia. We demand the immediate withdrawal of all the military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and from all the other imperialist interventions around the world.

 Demand the dissolution of NATO and support the peoples’ sovereign right to decide on the disengagement of their countries from this aggressive alliance. We reaffirm our frontal opposition to the militarization of the European Union and its militarist and interventionist policy, to the expansion of NATO and to the deployment of the new US and NATO “anti-missile shield” in Romania and Bulgaria. We express our solidarity with the Cypriot people (Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots) in its struggle against the Turkish occupation and for the reunification of its homeland, for a just solution to the Cypriot issue.

 Demand an end to the provocations and interference in Latin America and Caribbean. We express our solidarity with Socialist Cuba and with the peoples, the political forces and national governments with a democratic, progressive, popular and anti-imperialist character, such as Bolivarian Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. We demand the release of the five Cuban patriots unjustly imprisoned in the USA. We reiterate our support for the struggle of the people of Honduras for democracy and against the coup regime, so that the people may determine the future of their country. We demand the recall of the Fourth US Fleet deployed to South and Central America and the closing down of US military bases in the region, namely Guantanamo and the bases in Colombia. We denounce the USA’s military intervention in Haiti and we demand from the United Nations that the Haiti mission be civilian in nature. We demand that the actions of solidarity and cooperation with the Haitian people contribute to the strengthening of the independent national State and to the economic and social progress in the Country.

 Express our solidarity with the peoples of Africa in their struggle for the right to development and with the people of Western Sahara for their right to self-determination. We demand an end to imperialist interference and militarization of the continent, namely in Somalia and its shores, in the whole region of the Horn of Africa, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Sudan. We reaffirm our commitment to continue the struggle against the US military Command for the continent (AFRICOM).

 Express our support for the peace movement, the class-based trade union movement, the youth, women and other organizations which, in Portugal, are promoting the campaign for peace and against NATO. We pledge to do everything we can to support and mobilize for the actions of struggle against NATO and its new strategic concept which are scheduled for November of this year in Portugal.

The Parties:
• Portuguese Communist Party
• South African Communist Party
• Workers Party of Belgium
• Communist Party of Brazil
• Communist Party of Cuba
• Progressive Party for the Working People (AKEL)
• Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia
• Communist Party of Greece
• Communist Party of India (Marxist)
• Communist Party of India
• Lebanese Communist Party
• Communist Party of the Russian Federation
• Communist Party of Spain

• PADS Algeria
• Communist Party of Australia
• Workers Party of Bangladesh
• Communist Party of Bolivia
• Brasilian Communist Party
• Communist Party of Britain
• New Communist Party of Britain
• Communist Party in Denmark
• German Communist Party
• Hungarian Communist Workers Party
• Tudeh Party of Iran
• Iraqi Communist Party
• Communist Refoundation – Italy
• Party of the Italian Communists
• Communist Party of Luxembourg
• Party of the Communists of Mexico
• Popular Socialist Party of Mexico
• Communist Party of Norway
• Peruan Communist Party
• Communist Party of the Peoples of Spain

Communist women in conference

Report on the seminar of Communist and Workers’ Parties on the 100th Celebration of International Women’s Day: The Role of Communists in the Struggle for the Parity and Emancipation of Women.


by Daphne Liddle
New Communist Party of Britain delegate at the seminar

HOW CAN communists work most effectively to achieve parity and freedom for women? That is the question that delegates from some 27 communist and workers’ parties debated in a chamber in the European Parliament building in Brussels on 27th March, at the same time as a debate in the main chamber debated what help would, or would not, be given to Greece to resolve that country’s economic plight.

But the same global economic crisis and its consequences dominated the discussions in both chambers. And Greece figured large in both debates. But while the weakness of Greece’s bourgeois government and its ability to resolve the economic crisis dominated the debate in the main chamber, in the smaller chamber it was the strength and vitality of the Greek Communist Party (KKE) that enabled the debate in the smaller chamber to happen.

The Seminar of Communist and Workers’ Parties to mark and celebrate the 100th International Women’s Day was organised and funded by the KKE, with local logistical support from the Belgian Workers’ Party (Partie du Travail Belgique, PTB).

Delegations came from the former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Russia as well as Hungary and the Czech Republic. They also came from Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Spain, Cyprus, Iran, France, Portugal, Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Britain and of course Greece and Belgium.

The Cuban ambassador to the EU, Senor Rodriguez, dropped in to convey his government’s good wishes to the seminar and representatives from the Pole de Renaissance Communiste en France were special guests.

Parties from Cuba, the Philippines and Brazil were unable to attend but sent written contributions. A couple of intended delegates failed to get visas, reflecting EU bureaucratic obstruction. Most delegates were women, many of them from high elected office in their own parties and countries. But a couple – those from Hungary and Belarus – were men, reflecting the common view of all these parties that women’s equality is a class issue rather than a gender issue and is of equal concern to male communists.

The seminar was opened with an address from Aleka Papariga, the general secretary of the KKE. She began by reminding the seminar that 100 years ago the second International Conference of socialist women had adopted the proposal of Clara Zetkin to celebrate 8th March every year as the anniversary of working women’s sacrifice on 8th March 1857 in New York.
Comrade Papariga said the anniversary was an opportune moment to evaluate the progress of women’s emancipation over the last century. And: “At the same time, it is urgent to discuss according to which strategy and tactic will we tackle with the deterioration of the women’s position under the conditions of the capitalist crisis, as a special issue and integral element of the life of the worker’s families of the working people in general.”

She pointed out that most of the advanced bourgeois countries have been forced – under pressure from the organised working class and from the great advances in women’s rights in socialist countries – to make some concessions to women’s right. This has led to official recognition of women’s equality in law, though not always implemented as it should be. Meanwhile women in some parts of Africa and Asia continue to suffer forms of oppression dating back one or two centuries. “This phenomenon marks the uneven development of capitalism and cannot be attributed to several cultural or traditional particularities of so-called patriarchism or androcracy,” she said.

But, Comrade Papariga said, the current crisis exposes the historical limits of the capitalist system and the rights of women and children are now deteriorating. “Nowadays, we are not witnessing only the abolition of our rights, or the deterioration of our life; we also face the danger of a dramatic increase in the gap between our contemporary needs and the situation that will be formed in the near future.”

She explained that although the role of the workers’ and people’s movements was to fight for socialism and that this, when attained, would be a giant advance for women’s rights, there is “no contradiction between the struggle for socialism on the one hand, and the urgent need to attract working, popular forces, both men and women to the organised class oriented struggle for their acute problems on the other.

“It has to do with the orientation, with the ability and the quality of the guidance so as to orient the daily struggle to the overthrowof monopolies state power, of the bourgeois political power in order for the people to become the owners of the wealth.”

She added: “The women’s question as a historical phenomenon constitutes a complex of economic, political and cultural inequalities and discriminations which are evident in all social relations including the relationships between the two genders and emanates from the class relations of exploitation.

“The founders of scientific socialism-communism, Marx and Engels, analysed the women’s question on its true basis; they proved its class nature, they showed its reflection in the legal, political, ideological, cultural superstructure ofevery exploitative socioeconomic system as well as the preconditions for its solution.

“The women’s question objectively constitutes part of the contemporary strategy against the crisis that will lead, even after its overcoming, to a slight recovery compared to the past, to a new cycle of crisis under the conditions of acute intra-imperialist rivalries.”

The KKE “refuted the EU misleading theories that gender equality means equality in all aspects of life. This position leads to the unjust and non-scientific equation of the productivity of both genders, to the underestimation of maternity and its needs. We revealed the lies that women themselves demand part-time and temporary employment and flexible working relations because they need time for their families.”

This is why the seminar used the term parity for women, rather than equality. It is because the bourgeois granting of exact equality, not taking into account women’s extra needs because of their roles as mothers and carers, still leaves them disadvantaged.

Comrade Papariga went on to give a history of the women’s struggle in modern Greece and a report of the 8th March big demonstration organised in Athens and many other towns and cities by the PAME Greek Women’s Federation. “These demonstrations turn a new page in the alliance of progressive labour and the women’s movement,” she said.

Nina Ostanina, delegate from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), a deputy in the Russian parliament, the State Duma, and central committee member of the CPRF spoke of Russia’s proud history of pioneering full equal rights for women. “The idea of equality between women and men in Russia was realised long ago; our Party on this day once again recalled that this wonderful holiday was obliged for its very existence to the great revolutionary woman, Clara Zetkin, and the Bolsheviks-Leninists, who committed the socialist revolution in distant 1917, for the first time realised in practice the idea of women’s equality in economical, social and political spheres.”

But although the equality in law remains, nowadays “most of the problems associated with discrimination against women are hidden and very difficult to be recognised by the authorities.”
“In the structure of Russia’s government there is no longer an institute, which would have been assigned responsibility for the fight against discrimination against women in all its forms,” Comrade Ostanina added.

She reported the efforts of the All-Russia Women’s Union “Hope of Russia”, initiated by women members of the CPRF faction in the State Duma, which makes itself a thorn in the flesh of the state power and sustains links with progressive women’s organisations around the world, in defiance of the government’s policy of sending its own tame stooges to international women’s meetings.

Comrade Ostanina also reported that communists in the State Duma have rejected the programme of anti-crisis measures “where in the ‘manual control’ mode it is supposed to bail out 295 particular companies, the owners of which are close to oligarchs and the money is allocated to major banks.”

The CPRF has submitted to the State Duma a draft for a federal law on state measures for state support for families with children during the crisis period.

Bumairam Utashevna Mamaslitova from the central committee of the Communist Party of Kyrgyzstan, who is an elected member of the Jogorku Kenesh (parliament) and chairs the Social Policy Committee, spoke of the social and economic problems caused to her country since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

She spoke of the rise of violence against women and their loss of equality. She has succeeded in getting a law passed in the parliament criminalising violence against women – but getting it implemented fully is still a work in hand.

Tskhondia Tsitsino from the United Communist Party of Georgia reported that her country is now the poorest country in Europe, with 40 per cent of families below the poverty line, with very high unemployment. The service sector has fared a little better and employs mostly women, leading to women being the breadwinners in many families.

It is a very patriarchal society and many women have emigrated but when they do they are often exploited even more than before. Trade unions are weak with a lack of experience in fighting capitalism. Now there are long hours – 12-hour shifts – no days off and very low pay.
There is a high rate of trafficking and sexual exploitation of women; hundreds of thousands of women are victims, forced into prostitution in conditions of virtual slavery.

Gyula Thurmer, president of the Hungarian Communist Workers’ Party reported: “Hungarian women have lost a lot during the last 20 years. They have lost not because they are women. They have lost because Hungarian workers have lost socialism and capitalists took over both political end economic power.”

He added that “capitalism has many times declared the principle of equal pay for equal work. But it did not realise it. The gap between the salaries of women and men is larger than in the socialist period. Generally, Hungarian women get 18 per cent less money for the same work.”
Comrade Thurmer reported that the whole Roma community and Roma women in particular are facing a very hard time: “Capitalism turned the Roma problem into an enormous social issue threatening Hungary with serious consequences. There are at least 800,000 of the Roma minority in Hungary. Capitalism created enormous problems for both Roma men and women. By the end of the socialist period 75 per cent of Roma men and 50 per cent of Roma women could find work. Today only 15 to 18 per cent of men have regular work, and only a miserable number of women can work.

“By the end of socialism 90 per cent of Roma girls and boys finished the eight classes of elementary school. The number of Roma girls in secondary schools was even higher than the number of Roma boys. Today only about 65 per cent of the Romas finish elementary school. The future seems to be worrying.”

Comrade Dr Marie Nassif-Debs of the Lebanese Communist Party outlined the problems the women’s movement faces in her country from its class and ethnic divisions.
She said: “Indeed the political regime in Lebanon is a class-infested regime, where the bourgeoisie holds the reins of power through its alliance with the residuals of political feudalism. In other words, the political feudal families have lost the economic and financial position as the owner of the lands and what and who was on it. But these families still exert political influence and feudalistic leadership without any materialistic control.

“This bourgeoisie hides behind a vertical division in society which allows its members to continue to exert their influence and to reproduce this fundamentally flawed and unjust system. What we mean by the vertical division is the sectarian and religious divisions that render Lebanon a group of fiefdoms and princedoms and makes its political system like a confederate union between 18 sects that constitute Lebanon. And at the forefront are the six main sects (that is the Maronites, Roman Orthodox and Roman Catholic sects for Christians; and Sunnis, Shias and Druze sects for Muslims).

“The sects in general do distinguish between males and females and do discriminate against women and even between one female and another. In this context the sects have one thing in common: they all agree on the subordinate, inferior role of women in society, albeit to varying extents. They also agree on denying women any leadership role to the various sectarian authorities, especially in the political sphere and within the decision-making circles.”

Comrade Nassif-Debs’ friend, Hanad Badwa of the Syrian Communist Party and a civil engineer, spoke of a very different situation in her country – next door to Lebanon.
Syria still boasts the culture and traditions of the progressive but short-lived United Arab Republic that included Nasser’s Egypt and is now governed by a Baathist-led popular front that includes the communists. Women there have achieved a much greater level of equality and respect.

Selam Gurkan, vice president of the Turkish Party of Labour (EMEP) delivered a harrowing report of the inequality and double exploitation of women in Turkey. Women mostly work in the unregistered sector, especially in agriculture. Being unregistered means they have no protection of labour laws. They are categorised as family workers, have no regulated working hours. They work from sunrise to sunset for very low w ages and are at risk from frequent accidents at work.
The Turkish government denies that it is being affected by the global crisis but unemployment is rising steadily and the wages and conditions of all workers but especially women are getting worse. Violence against women is also increasing.

“For the Kurdish woman, whose identity is despised, language forbidden, child, husband, brother killed, it is made impossible to exist in her own language and identity, to develop her culture, to access education, health and other public services in her mother tongue,” said Comrade Gurkan.
Lydie Neufcourt of the Belgian Workers’ Party reported the battle her party is fighting against huge job cuts that are hitting the service sector jobs where women workers predominate. She reported a 23 per cent wage gap in Belgium and low wages and fixed-term contracts predominate in the “feminised” sectors. Women are also forced into part-time jobs.
In particular she reported the current battle against the giant Carrefour supermarket chain against plans to cut 5,000 jobs.

Willy Berend of the New Communist Party of the Netherlands reported that the fight for women’s rights in her country had been hampered by the old, revisionist Netherlands Communist Party where bourgeois feminists had predominated.

“In a communist party, the struggle for emancipation of women should always be a part of the anti-capitalist struggle,” she said. “In the former Dutch Communist Party it became more a struggle from women against men and vice-versa, and the class struggle became less important. It changed into an emancipation party instead of a communist party. The party’s secretary even said a few years later that she never was a communist….

“The NCPN thinks a strong fight for emancipation of women means first of all strengthening the communist and workers’ parties. The anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist struggle is the best base for all forms of emancipation.”

The New Communist Party of Britain statement called for prioritising the battle for equal pay and universal high-quality childcare to give women economic independence.

There were many other experiences of the struggle reported and views expressed; Clara Zetkin and Fredrick Engels’ work, The Family, Private Property and the State were quoted many times. Many more informal discussions happened during the breaks, at the hotel, travelling to the EU conference centre and back and at a dinner provided by the PTB comrades on the evening before the seminar.

The New Worker, it seems, is well known and respected among the representatives of these communist and workers parties.

This is a continuing struggle but there are a lot of very good women and men comrades out there with clear heads and a sound Marxist-Leninist understanding of how to wage this part of the class struggle in many different circumstances and conditions. It was very encouraging.

photo: Greek communist leader Aleka Papariga opens the debate