The People's Supermarket - Shoppers of the World Unite!

Yet another store opened its doors in the past few weeks, selling an array of items from organic muesli and recycled toilet paper to ecological soap and fairtrade coffee. Its enthusiastic staff, sporting eye-catching bright yellow T-shirts, work the tills and replenish the shelves. There are carrier bags, crips, baskets, and customers young and old. But this is not just another run-of-the-mill supermarket - this is the People's Supermarket (TPS), run by the people and for the people.

For a membership fee of £25 and a commitment to volunteer for four hours a month, you become a part-owner of TPS. You will be able to vote on what foods are stocked and influence how it is run and get a 10% discount on everything you purchase there.

The main driving forces behind this 'socialist supermarket' are a group of social entrepeneurs led by Arthur Potts Dawson. He is a successful eco-friendly chef who set up Waterhouse, Britain's greenest restaurant. Arthurs says: "This supermarket will be communal. It will be friendly, local, cheap and democratic."

He is striving to introduce a more ethical social alternative to the big supermarket chains. Funding from the local council, the Development Trusts Association and private donors have brought this project to life.

The concept is not new. It is modelled on the famous Park Slope Food Co-op in Brooklyn, New York, which first opened its doors in 1973 and now boasts over 14,000 members. Park Slope's slogan is 'Good food at low prices for working members through co-operation.' It offers members who volunteer at the store savings of up to 40% off their weekly grocery bill. In stark contrast with most capitalist stores in the United States which have 100% mark-up on items, Park Slope has just 20%.

The Park Slope Food Co-op even provides free childcare to children of co-op members while their parents or guardians are working and/or shopping at the co-op. There are plans to introduce similar provision in TPS, alongside a café, kitchen and meeting place.

Co-ops are offering an affordable alternative to rapacious supermarket chains. They favour selling organic, minimally processed and healthy produce, seeking to avoid products involving the exploitation of others. They also have admirable green policies, seeking out local ecological producers with fruit and vegetables sourced from some of the best local farmers markets.

The Park Slope model, embraced by TPS is exposing the myth that you can only have either cheap or good food and never both. One of TPS's mission statements is to sell the best food at the lowest possible prices. Potts Dawson, evidently passionate about delivering affordable food to the masses, lambasts big supermarket chains.

"Supermarkets control how we buy food and what we can eat and they make an absolute fortune from us. I want this to be a real wake-up call for people to see what supermarkets are doing to them and to show that there is an alternative model."

They have an arduous task on their hands in challenging the traditional large capitalist supermaket. Out of every £8 spent in Britain, £1 is spent in Tesco. The giant supermarket chain amassed £3.4 billion in pre-tax profits, up over 10% from the previous year. The pockets of its chief executive, Sir Terry Leahy, are bulging after notching up over £5.2 million in salary and bonus last year. The company's eight-person executive committee will share £24 million between them.

With TPS and its egalitarian ideology, any profits will go back into making the food even cheaper still. There will be no obscene largesse with ridiculous dividends for shareholders or massive bonuses for bosses. It is the members who will benefit, all equally.

Potts Dawson criticises the behaviour of giants like Tesco. "Supermarkets are making massive demands for profit to satisfy their shareholders and that's very destructive for the world economy. They are flying cheap products across the world while local producers struggle to get their goods into local shops".

On opening day in TPS, one store product label proudly professed: 'I am the People's Milk. I am British, fresh and cheaper than Tesco.' Although also stocking household brands in addition to The People's Pint, TPS also sells 50 own-brand goods for £1 or less - including 'The People's Loaf', free from additives and preservatives.

TPS has arrived at an opportune time with weekly shopping bills rising and Tesco alone currently expected to lose £85 million of food per year as 'waste'. The money we spend at the supermarket is not just spent on the food we eat - it also pays for the food they have to throw away. It is an unsustainable and foolish system. The co-op supermarket concept is giving the world real food for thought.

Chávez takes 'anti-people firms' into public ownership

During one of his 'Alo Presidente' six-hour weekly state television shows packed with political announcements and revolutionary pronouncements, Venezuela's socialist President Hugo Chávez announced plans to take over more private companies.

In his 11-year tenure, Chávez has taken a host of businesses into public hands, from oil to to food production. The profits of these companies, which were previously siphoned off into the bank accounts of the wealthy, are now being used to bankroll Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution and to fund its numerous accompanying social programmes.

The words 'nationalisation' and 'expropriation' have negative connotations in the Americas that have been encouraged by the capitalist media, who equate them with theft. However, under Venezuelan law, the owners of all companies that have been nationalised are compensated with their market value. Chávez himself said that he will only nationalise those companies which contravene laws, infringe on workers' rights, and adversely affect the national economy. To los capitalistas, the nationalisations are only acceptable when they are designed to bail out bankers; for them, nationalising profits is an act of despicable communism.

On June 2nd, thousands of Venezuelans marched in favour of nationalisations and anti-corruption measures, which took place in the wake of the recent arrest by the Bolivarian Intelligence Agency (SEBIM) of state-owned food producer PDVAL President Luis Pulido on charges of hoarding food. Over 30 tons of decomposed food products, including oil, sugar, coffee, butter, rice, meat, pasta and milk, were discovered by authorities in containers. This was an act of economic sabotage with corrupt officials trying to provoke product shortages. Chávez publicly condemned the corruption, stating that such practices are anathema to the raison d'etre of PDVAL and its noble mission of providing food at state-regulated prices and called for those responsible to be imprisoned.

The Venezuelan Government is also expropriating several small food distributors and other companies who have violated price controls and have hoarded items to create shortages and raise inflation, which currently stands at 30 per cent. Chávez remarked: "The bourgeoisie have declared economic warfare against me and I call on workers to join with me in the fight to take back our economy."

President Chávez also spared some vitriol for Lorenzo Mendoza, billionaire owner of Empresas Polar, the nation's largest food and beverage producer and distributor.

Mendoza's company has been implicated in hoarding goods in its warehouses, resulting in public panic, and then releasing them at higher prices, causing inflation and crippling the economy. They have also been criticised for attacks on workers' rights, pay and conditons. He warned Mendoza that if his company continues these immoral practices then he will nationalise it. He directly challenged Mendoza in his combative style, saying: "Let's see who lasts longer - you, with your Polar and your riches, or me, with my people and the dignity of a revolutionary soldier."

This policy of nationalising companies is strengthening worker particpation in society and empowering the forgotten masses. It is an integral part of Chávez's construction of 21st century socialism. It is putting companies at the service of the people under the direct control of workers. In response to criticisms that nationalised companies are performing poorly, Venezuelan vice-president Elas Jua claimed that production has increased in 80 per centof nationalised companies over the last decade.

José Mora, a leader of the Union of Socialist Workers and National Assembly member, lauded nationalisations stating: "We are producing for the country. We are producing for the population. Business people produce using workers to get richer, exploiting workers."

It is a practical implementation of a great socialist ideal of producing on a collective basis for the collective well-being and, much to the chagrin of Venezuela's capitalist class, it is working.

On May 15th, speaking of Plan Guayana Socialista, Chávez appealed to workers to promote workers' control and the election of managers from below. One small example of workers producing without bosses is the Gotcha Workers, a group of female textile workers whose previous owners closed down their factory. The former bosses fled without providing any compensation for the workforce. The staff responded by taking control of the factory and are now producing and selling direct to the local communities. Two weeks before, Chávez told a gathering of workers: "Wherever you see a private company, a capitalist company that is exploiting the workers and is not complying with the laws, that is hoarding, denounce it, because the government is willing to intervene. Factories that close down should be occupied by the workers."

In his most recent address, Chávez also criticised large multinational companies Coca-Cola and Pepsi for wasting water and using large quantities in their poduction processes. Water shortages have resulted in power cuts and rationing. He said: "Water in the first place belongs to the people. Water is social property."

The conservative assertion that private is good and public is bad is being directly challenged in Venezuela. As capitalism wreaks increasing havoc throughout the world, it is inspiring that Venezuela is not only preaching about an alternative socialist economic system but is actually putting it into practice.

Rising fortunes of German Left

TWENTY years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Germany is once again experiencing a transformation of its political landscape. Die Linke, The Left in English, are capitalising on a nation’s discontent with capitalism, and are articulating a socialist alternative to Angela Merkel’s conservative government. They seem to be striking all the right chords with a substantial section of the German population and are turning this support into tangible electoral gains. In the Bundestag 2009 Federal Elections, Die Linke, with just under 12 per cent of the vote, secured 76 out of 622 seats, making it the fourth largest party in Germany. It is the largest party in the GUE/NGL grouping in the European Parliament. In the EU Parliament elections, it increased its vote to 7.5 per cent.

Die Linke was founded in June 2007. It was a merger of the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) – the successor party to the Socialist Unity Party of Germany who ruled the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) for four decades - and the Electoral Alternative for Labour and Social Justice.

Despite its powerbase and membership coming predominantly from East Germany, it is enjoying increasing electoral success in the West. Die Linke is a broad church of the left comprising members from a range of left-wing political backgrounds from disillusioned Social Democrats to hard-line communists. There are several platforms within the party but they have garnered support by logically concentrating on their common objectives rather than differences.

TERRITORIAL UNITY, SOCIAL DIVISION
Germany though territorially unified, is in many ways still socially divided. The majority of promises made by proponents of German reunification remain unfulfilled. The gap between rich and poor has grown and with it the disparity between incomes in the West and the East. The welfare state has suffered dismantling and Germany’s elite have pro-actively supported the unpopular invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The reunification has been criticised as hasty, ill-thought out and biased towards the West. Literally overnight 16 million Eastern Germans were incorporated into the new Federal Republic. However, many soon felt like second class citizens, as unemployment soared and poverty increased in their regions. State assets were sold off for a pittance. Ostalgie – literally East nostalgia and meaning nostalgia for the GDR, soon set in as Easterners longed for the strong social protections of the former Eastern state. The SPD’s abandonment of social democracy and warm embrace of New Labour economics under Gerhard Schröder caused a vacuum on the left which Die Linke is now filling.

It was due to the attack on Germany’s welfare state by Schröder and his supporters that Oskar Lafontaine, current co-chairperson of Die Linke, resigned from his position as then minister with SPD in 1999. Lafontaine, who was born along the French border to a poor, working class family, is a charismatic leader who has drastically improved Die Linke’s popularity in the West. Known as ‘Red Oskar’, Lafontaine became Finance Minister in a Social Democrat-Green coalition which dislodged Helmut Kohl’s Conservatives from power. In his governmental role Lafontaine cut tax rates for those on low-incomes, introduced new levies on big businesses and tightened controls on financial markets. In less than a year however he resigned from his post after becoming increasingly disillusioned with Gerhard Schröder and his Blairite shift to the right. He is castigated by the right as a “leftist populist” but is revered by supporters as a highly effective leader, articulate and amiable.

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM
Die Linke’s other co-chairperson is Gregor Gysi, an East German born and bred lawyer whose father was an ardent communist who actively organised underground resistance against Hitler’s Nazis. Gysi, a passionate communist himself, is balanced in his views of the GDR. He praises its admirable social achievements in education, employment, culture and general welfare protections but is critical of the state’s former repressive methods.

The Left’s explicit aim is the achievement of democratic socialism. Their ideology is unapologetically left-wing. They reject privatisation, are anti-capitalist and pro-social justice, and argue for a redistribution of wealth through higher corporation tax and increased tax for wealthy individuals. They also support natural resources being under public ownership. They want to introduce a national minimum wage, expand affordable housing and advocate generous maternity leave. They have been steadfast in their opposition to the war in Afghanistan and Germany’s unpopular involvement and have campaigned for a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. According to their Key Programmatic Points, for Die Linke another world is not just possible but necessary.

Like many European countries, there is little that separates Germany’s two main parties, namely the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Social Democrats (SPD).
Both parties shared power in the a so called ‘grand coalition’ between 2005 and 2009. The SPD have since been criticised for spending more time and energy criticising Die Linke while cosying up to their former senior conservative government partners. What is perturbing them now is that Die Linke is gaining ground, not just in its traditional East strongholds, but in the West. Now it is virtually impossible for the Social Democrats and the Greens to form governments without the Left Party.

The 2005 electoral alliance between the two main groups that now comprise Die Linke enhanced the left’s electoral performance. Bucking a familiar trend on the left of splitting, Germany’s Left Party has opted for unity and seems to be reaping the electoral rewards.

Latin America's left turn

For four long decades in Latin America, the Caribbean island of Cuba thread a lonely socialist path through a capitalist quagmire. With the exception of the Sandinistas progressive yet turbulent rule in Nicaragua from 1979 to 1990, Communist Cuba was isolated and treated as a pariah state by the rest of Latin American countries. The latter were backed to the hilt by the United States and force fed a strict Washington Consensus diet of privatisation, neo-liberalism and free-market capitalism – euphemisms for greed, exploitation and oppression. North American dollars flowed to prop up right-wing dictators and their paramilitaries to quell popular left wing revolts. Now, with a left-tide engulfing Latin America, the political landscape has been transformed and the future of the continent’s 520 million citizens looks much brighter and full of hope.

The catalyst for Latin America’s recent surge to the left was unquestionably the 1998 election of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Not only has Chávez radically transformed the domestic situation in his own country, by channelling massive profits from the country’s vast oil wealth to education, health and subsidised food programmes, but he has also been instrumental in the whole region. Chávez has injected vibrancy into and brought the concept of “Socialism of the 21st Century” to life. Chávez has introduced a viable and workable alternative to capitalism. With the assistance of Latin American leftist presidents he has boldly stated that “we are creating the axis of good, the new axis of the century”.

From San Salvador down to Buenos Aires, the people have reacted to the rapacious capitalist system that has wreaked havoc in the region and have voted into office one leftist president after another. In 2003 Brazil elected Lula, a founding member of the Brazilian Workers Party. Although he has proven to be one of the more circumspect leaders, he has been re-elected by an electorate who admire his more humane leadership, with his opposition to the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and his Zero Hunger programme. In 2005 Uruguay elected its first left-wing president in its entire history, Tabaré Vasquez. Although he has moderated his socialism as a member of the centre-left Frente Amplio (Broad Front) he remains committed to social justice, wealth redistribution and against privatisation. The following year in 2006, left-leaning Michelle Bachelet beat her centre-right billionaire businessman opponent in Chile’s Presidential race. The same year also witnessed the election, for the second time, of Sandinista ex-guerrilla Daniel Ortega as President of Nicaragua. Although Ortega receives much criticism from the left over alleged corruption and a watering down of his previous firebrand Marxism, there are still progressive elements in the FSLN (Sandinista National Liberation Front).

In neighbouring Honduras President Manuel Zelaya, who was recently the victim of a reactionary right-wing coup d’état, sparked an about-turn in his country by shifting it from an unbending pro-US stance towards Latin America’s anti-imperialist crusade headed by Chavismo. Zelaya angered his country’s oligarchs with his social programmes for the poor; by raising the minimum wage by 60 percent; providing free school meals and pensions for the elderly; reducing the cost of public transport and by signing up to an alternative to the Free Trade Agreements.

More significant were the elections of Bolivia’s first indigenous President Evo Morales and Ecuador’s Rafael Correa in 2005 and 2006 respectively. These two Presidents are staunch allies of Chávez and are firmly positioned in his socialist camp. Morales has proven a fearless advocate of “Socialism in the 21st century”. When he took over he pledged that “the looting of our natural resources by foreign enterprises is over” and he has not disappointed. He has given the country’s indigenous minority, for so long trampled on, more power and dignity. He has also carried out land redistribution and renegotiated and nationalised contracts for the country’s vast gas wealth, which he is using to fund social projects for the people. His Movimiento Al Socialismo (MAS – Movement towards Socialism) grew out of the highly-organised organic social movements that brought down previous presidents over the highly unpopular and unjust attempts to privatise water in 2000, more commonly referred to as the ‘water wars’.

In Ecuador outspoken Socialist Rafael Correa has also tackled multinationals head on and has kept his promise of ensuring that the country’s natural resources will benefit its citizens. He wants to build a “more just, fair, and dignified country”. Ecuador’s recently approved new constitution is one of the world’s most progressive and Correa, ironically an economist who studied in the United States, has proven another Latin American thorn in the side of the US Imperialist Empire.

In 2008, Fernando Lugo, Paraguay’s “Bishop of the Poor” or “Red Bishop” broke the 60 year presidential stranglehold of the right and emerged victorious. He is renowned within liberation theology circles, believing that capitalism is exploitative and a sin and that through political action social justice can be achieved for the poor and oppressed. Most recently, El Salvador’s Mauricio Funes of the FMLN (Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front), former left-wing guerrillas, won his country’s presidential race. He has pledged to end the privilege of the few who have amassed their wealth at the expense of the rest and champions social justice and solidarity.

Due to these developments, all democratic and peaceful, Latin America is no longer merely an annex of the United States. The continent has suffered untold poverty, misery and exploitation at the imperialist hands of the US and its bloody military dictators and proxies. Multinational corporations no longer have as free a reign to exploit and plunder natural resources. The Washington Consensus is no longer as prevalent. Privatisations are being reversed on a frequent basis. Dignity is being handed back to citizens. The masses are being politicised and are taking their destiny into their own hands, opting for progressive change through the ballot box. With their numerous referenda, presidential and recall electoral victories, Latin America has never known such democratic Presidents as Chávez, Morales and Correa, much to the chagrin of the capitalist democratic pretenders.

Latin America socialism is not mere rhetoric. ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance for Latin America, is proving a genuine alternative to capitalism. ALBA grew out of an original agreement between Cuba and Venezuela in 2004 and has huge potential. Now it has nine members including Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Honduras. It is a direct opponent of the Free Trade Agreements. ALBA puts people before profit. It is a system of mutual economic aid, akin to a socialist bartering system. The perfect example is in return for daily cheap Venezuelan oil, Cuba provides doctors and health care workers. Operación Milagro (Operation Miracle) is another example of a purely socialist economic exchange at work, and has provided over 1.5 million free eye operations. There is no exploitation, no pillage of natural resources. Citizens from both countries enjoy mutual benefit. Daniel Ortega summed ALBA up stating that it “represents the American peoples’ aspirations for independence and their rejection of the policies promoted by the United States, which have created a social emergency in Latin America”. It is fitting that ALBA translates as ‘dawn’ in Spanish.

Chávez has been pivotal in expanding his 21st century socialism. He is heavily influenced by his hero Simón Bolívar, Latin America’s great revolutionary who fought for Latin American independence and unity. Through new companies and organisations, the level of Latin American integration is unprecedented. Petrosur is attempting to integrate the region’s energy industries while Petrocaribe supplies oil at preferential prices for impoverished Caribbean nations. Codesur promotes regional defence collaboration. Telesur is a network that broadcasts an alternative message to that of the right-wing capitalist dominated media. Bancosur is a creation that could see the replacement of the neo-liberal IMF in the region, by supplying loans to countries for social projects without the stringent privatisation stipulations associated with the IMF.

Unquestionably Latin America is turning red. However there is no room for complacency and the left must remain vigilant. This became all too apparent recently when Honduran troops seized President Manuel Zelaya from his bed and flew him to Costa Rica under arrest. Despite the inauguration of US President Barack Obama initially signalling new hope for the region of Latin America, the US government’s lack of action and condemnation has been striking. Despite Obama’s charm, intellect and sophisticated articulation, the United States remains a capitalist superpower committed to imperialism. They continue to send millions of dollars of aid to Honduras, have not recognised what happened as a coup and continue to maintain diplomatic ties with the illegitimate Honduran government. Evo Morales has directly accused the US of being behind the coup which is certainly not unbelievable. He stated that “the imperial structure remains in force”. Hugo Chávez has blamed the US for “giving oxygen” to the illegitimate Honduran government.

The coup’s organiser was General Vasquez, the head of the Armed Forces and graduate of the infamous School of the Americas, euphemism for the School of death squads and coups. Many former right-wing military dictators and their generals were trained by US personnel here, including Panama’s former corrupt dictator Manuel Noriega, anti-Castro terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, former army officers of Augusto Pincohet and Guatemalan general José Montt who was responsible for the slaughter of thousands of Guatemalans. If the Honduran coup is allowed to succeed then it could prove an inspiration to those who want to return to the dark days of military dictatorships and halt the spread of Latin American socialism.

The right will always react, violently if needs must, to the threat posed from the left. The US attempted to invade Cuba in 1962 at ‘the Bay of Pigs’ because it was fearful of its Socialist revolution and ideals. How dare the Cubans offer healthcare and education free to its citizens, surely these should be commodities available only to those who can afford them? In 1973 Chile’s democratically elected Socialist President Salvador Allende was viciously overthrown, with CIA connivance, by notorious human rights abuser General Augusto Pinochet who went on to rule Chile with an iron fist under a ruthless dictatorship. After the successful Sandinista revolution which overthrew corrupt dictator Anastasio Somosa in 1979, the US backed the Honduran-based ‘contras’ to fight against the Sandinistas in a civil war to prevent the spread of progressive socialist programmes and reforms. The US also funded ruthless right-wing regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980s and 1990s to extinguish the threat from left-wing guerrillas in the popular rebellions. In 2002, the CIA was directly involved in the coup d’état that threatened to unseat Hugo Chávez from power.

The right only accept true democracy when it favours them and facilitates them to exploit the masses and hold onto their privileges. A defeat for the left in one country is a defeat for the international left. Solidarity is crucial. Not just words but actions. As the global economic system implodes, Latin American Socialism of the 21st Century provides a shining beacon to progressive people throughout the world and must be protected at all costs. Viva el socialismo del siglo 21!

Shell’s Private Army?

At approximately 4.00am on 16 April this year the Hotel Las Americas in Santa Cruz in eastern Bolivia shook with the sound of machinegun fire. Bolivian armed police stormed five adjoining rooms and shot dead three of the occupants while arresting two others. The Bolivian government subsequently announced that they had foiled a cell of right-wing mercenaries who were plotting to assassinate Bolivia’s Socialist President Evo Morales.

In room 457 lay the slain body of Irishman Michael Dwyer, a 24 year old from Balinderry, Tipperary. According to reports, Dwyer was fascinated by guns, computer war games and was an Airsoft enthusiast; a form of mock combat with replica guns. Several photographs of him brandishing guns in Bolivia have since been published. He was also employed by an Irish company, Integrated Risk Management Security, who are based in Naas, Kildare. I-RMS is owned by former Irish Army Rangers James Farrell and Terry Downes. They confirmed that Dwyer worked for them up until October 2008, and was based guarding the Corrib site in Glengad, County Mayo where Shell are attempting to construct their controversial gas pipeline.

At the end of 2007 I-RMS ‘security operatives’ replaced the majority of security guards employed by Shell. A substantial number of these ‘operatives’ have military backgrounds and dubious far-right political links. I-RMS have faced numerous complaints from protestors, having been accused of assault, heavy handedness and failure to wear or present their Private Security Authority licences. They have also routinely filmed protestors and indeed Dwyer himself was involved in this gathering of intelligence for Shell. On their website, offline and ‘under construction’ in the wake of Dwyer’s death, I-RMS had advertised their services, specialising in “international armed and unarmed security”, “customised security solutions” and “special services”, unquestionably all euphemisms for mercenary work. I-RMS have also been used by Fianna Fáil at their last few ardfheiseanna. So not only does I-RMS protect the nefarious multinational Shell in their robbery of Irish gas, they also defend the politicians who facilitated this grand theft. Who said three’s a crowd? Maura Harrington, the courageous veteran Shell to Sea campaigner, castigated I-RMS as “Shell’s private army in North Mayo”. This hired muscle for capitalism has been doing the state’s dirty work, while Gardaí turn a blind eye. They are no more than a hired gang of thugs and fascists.

Dwyer originally left Ireland in November 2008 on the pretext of doing a three month security course in Bolivia, a course that never was. He originally travelled with two Hungarians and a Pole. It is thought that he met Eduardo Rósza Flores, the leader of the mercenary cell who was also shot dead, through their mutual friend Tibor Révész, who is believed to be still resident in Ireland. Révész is the leader of the Szekler Legion, a Hungarian organisation that openly promotes neo-nazism and race hate. The other members of the Bolivian mercenary cell were Árpád Magyarosi, who was shot dead, and Elod Tóásó, who was arrested. Both were members of Révész’s Legion. On its website it sells patches emblazoned with a skull surrounded by a Celtic design associated with defending the Corrib project relating to Operation Solitaire Shield. The Solitaire is the name of the ship used for pipe-laying at sea. It has also advertised I-RMS courses. I-RMS have refused to comment on whether they had or are employing international right-wing fascists as security guards for Shell. Over a third of the 22,037 people licensed as private security guards have not undergone any form of Garda background checks and Sinn Féin’s Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, Aengus Ó Snodaigh, has already demanded “an urgent investigation into what these extremists have been doing in Mayo and whether proper security checks have been followed”.

While the general Irish media have portrayed Dwyer as innocent, naïve and non-political, sinister details have been emerging ever since. While the 24 year old was in Glengad he met and befriended eastern Europeans with fascist links. Eventually he met up with Eduardo Rósza Flores in Santa Cruz. 49 year old Flores had a chequered past to say the least. He fought in the Balkan conflict in the 1990s with Croatian paramilitary troops as part of the notorious Zenga unit that took part in the ethnic cleansing of Serbs. He was a fascist mercenary, anti-communist (although he was a former leader of the Hungarian Communist Party’s youth wing), anti-semitic (though part-Jewish), a recent convert to Islam, who mixed left-wing ideals with racial and cultural separation. He seemed as politically indecisive as Senator Eoin Harris. Flores, born in Bolivia but grew up in Hungary, returned to Santa Cruz, (the eastern region in Bolivia rich in natural resources) illegally, in his own words to “organise the defence of the city and province”, and to do it not by marching with flags, but to “do it with arms”. According to Bolivian Vice-President Álvaro García Linera “Rózsa was in the country to recruit and train paramilitaries to destabilise the country”.

Bolivia’s Socialist President Evo Morales has nationalised his country’s abundant natural gas resources much to the consternation of Shell. While the multinational will face imminent court hearings in the US over the deaths of nine Nigerian activists in 1995, their mercenaries and state forces continue to be mired in deep controversy throughout the world. Is Shell’s insatiable avarice to pilfer natural resources at whatever cost the common denominator here?

The rise of the Right must be resisted

LAST WEEKEND, people throughout the 27 EU member states cast their votes to elect 736 Members of the European Parliament.

Turn-out was a paltry 43%, the lowest in the three decades of European voting. Voter apathy was widespread with over half of the electorate choosing to stay at home, politically apathetic due to ubiquitous corruption scandals, democratic deficits and failing to see a real political alternative in their respective countries. In some eastern European countries, turn-out languished around the 20% mark. Despite the fact that the European Union is responsible for 80% of member states’ legislation, to voters the EU seems distant and not worthwhile, a suspicious unelected bureaucratic monster for many with its mysterious yet powerful Commission. There was only one victor in these European elections, and it certainly was not the Left. Conservative and far-right parties enjoyed electoral success and subsequent seat gains.

Martin Schulz, German MEP and leader of the Party of European Socialists group, admitted: “Overall, this is a very bitter evening for us.” The centre-right consolidated its power whilst the xenophobic far-right made worrying forays into the political mainstream. With the scapegoating of immigrants for society’s ills, the far-right appealed to a substantial number of voters, some for different reasons.

The British National Party (BNP), heirs of the neo-nazi National Front, won two European Parliament seats. Veteran racist and former National Socialist Movement and National Front member Andrew Brons was elected for Yorkshire and Humber with the BNP polling nearly 10% there. Their leader, Nick Griffin, pelted by eggs on Tuesday by anti-fascist protesters at an aborted BNP press conference at Westminster, won a North-West seat with 8% of the vote, an increase from last time out. This is a party that refuses membership to black people and has stated that “Britain is full up” and immigrants should be ‘sent back’. The BNP actually secured fewer votes than last time out but gained two seats – its first ever – because of the low turn-out for the other parties, particularly Labour. It is the Labour Party’s worst election since 1918.

FRACTURED LEFT
In France, Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy and his conservative UMP convincingly defeated a fractured left that is in disarray. In neighbouring Spain, the ruling socialist PSOE were beaten into second place by the centre-right Partido Popular.
In Italy, although controversial leader Silvio Berlusconi’s Freedom Party support dropped slightly, his far-right coalition partners, the xenophobic Northern League, which prides itself on its anti-immigration stance, rose to 10.6%. Italy’s main opposition, the Democratic Party, an eclectic mix containing Christian Democrats and Socialists, nosedived 7%.

The German Social Democrats suffered electoral ignominy with its worst showing since the Second World War. Even the new left German Party, Die Linke (The Left), failed to fulfil prior expectations, polling only 7.5%. In Poland, the governing pro-capitalist Civic Platform party amassed 25 seats, with the homophobic Law and Justice party scooping 15. In the Czech Republic, the centre-right Civic Democrats were successful despite the appallingly low turn-out of below 30%.

The far-right gained considerably in the Netherlands with a return of four MEPs for Geert Wilder’s Freedom Party, criticised for its anti-Islamic nature. Austria’s Freedom Party polled around 13%. In Hungary, the notorious radical, anti-Semitic and neo-fascist Jobbik Party won three seats, almost beating the ruling Socialists, rocked by corruption scandals, who got one more. Fidesz, the main centre-right opposition won 14 of the available 22 seats.

Romania’s far-right Greater Romania Party also increased its vote and in Denmark, running on a nationalist, anti-immigrant and populist platform, the Danish People’s Party got two seats. Glimmers of hope for the Left surfaced only in Greece, Latvia, Malta, Slovakia and Sweden.

PROTEST VOTE OR SINISTER DEVELOPMENT?
So does one take this electoral advent of the far-right as a consequence of a protest vote or is it a more sinister development with fascism being embraced by some as an alternative? Voter apathy is a major problem. The rise of the Right has been possible due to the crisis on and fragmentation of the Left. There are nominal socialist parties throughout Europe who have failed to articulate an alternative to the current capitalist system that is in crisis.

Instead of moving to the centre, these parties should be forging left links, building a mass movement and tackling xenophobia, racism, and sectarianism head-on. We should be countering the Right’s attempts of dividing the working-class along religious, ethnic, national or whatever lines. The sore of fascism will fester only if the Left continues to be its worst enemy and turn on itself. The collective energy of the Left should be aimed at combating and defeating the Right. The EU is once again in the hands of the Right, though not in the right hands. A ratification of the Lisbon Treaty would have major repercussions which such pro-capitalist parties at the European helm.

Four years after the Wall Street Crash and Great Depression, Hitler came to power in Germany. It is the Left’s role to ensure that such a development is never allowed to happen again.

Thatcher: 30 years on

Marking 30 years since Margaret Thatcher came to power
14 Bealtaine 2009


WITH the possible exception of the genocidal Oliver Cromwell – whose men butchered thousands of Catholics in Ireland in the mid-17th century – nobody provokes such vitriol and anger from Irish republicans as Margaret Thatcher. Just over 30 years ago, on 4 May 1979, Thatcher became Britain’s first female prime minister. She continued at the helm of British politics for over 11 years, leaving in her wake deep social unrest, mass unemployment, poverty and death. She had the audacity to paraphrase St Francis of Assisi as she first arrived at 10 Downing Street, stating: “Where there is despair, may we bring hope.”

Thatcher became notorious for her obduracy and inhumanity with her refusal to negotiate with the 1981 Hunger Strikers, which culminated in the deaths of 10 republican prisoners. These men were fighting for their five demands. Thatcher was adamant that she would not negotiate with “the men of violence”, rather hypocritical in that she befriended and supported US war-monger Ronald Reagan and Chile’s murderous dictator, General Augusto Pinochet.

Even after Bobby Sands secured 30,493 votes and became MP for Fermanagh/South Tyrone, making a mockery of the British Government’s attempts to criminalise the republican struggle, and her insistence that the ‘terrorists have no mandate’, Thatcher remained intransigent, insisting:
“We are not prepared to consider special category status for certain groups of people serving sentences for crime. Crime is crime is crime. It is not political.”
It must be noted that Special Category Status (POW status) was removed in 1976 by a Labour Government but Thatcher was insistent on carrying on. When Bobby Sands MP died on 5 May 1981, after 66 days of a tortuous and selfless brave hunger strike, Thatcher remarked:
“Sands was a convicted criminal. He chose to take his own life.”
Always first to claim that she was protecting democracy against evil, Thatcher’s government hurriedly ratified the Representation of the People Act, which prevented other IRA prisoners from contesting elections. The British criminalisation policy was shown up, with fellow Hunger Striker Kieran Doherty TD for Cavan/Monaghan, blind and on his deathbed, defiantly declaring:
“Thatcher can’t break us; I’m not a criminal.”

FERVENT UNIONIST
Thatcher was a fervent unionist, once proclaiming that “Ulster is as British as Finchley” (her north London constituency which first elected her MP in 1959). She revelled in her nickname ‘The Iron Lady’, given to her by the Soviets.

Her record in the North of Ireland became synonymous with controversial policies.
From 1982, the infamous shoot-to-kill policy was employed by British forces (the SAS being the main culprits) carrying out extra-judicial executions of IRA members and suspected republicans. In tandem with collusion, it was a method of eliminating political opponents without recourse to the law. All of this, obviously sanctioned in the British corridors of power, resulted in many unarmed republicans being executed by British forces. The British Army and RUC were also culpable of deliberately killing suspects without any attempts to arrest them and bring them to trial. This was Thatcherite democracy in action. The ‘supergrass’ (paid perjurer) system was also deployed from this time, rewarding informants with financial gain and immunity from prosecution. Nevertheless, many convictions based on the supergrass testimonies were later overturned.

In the early hours of Friday 12 October 1984, an IRA bomb ripped through Brighton’s Grand Hotel, location of the Tories’ annual conference. Thatcher was extremely fortunate to escape with her life as the explosion destroyed her bathroom. The subsequent IRA statement urged Thatcher to “Give Ireland peace and there will be no more war.”

On 15 November 1985, Thatcher and Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which gave a formal role in relation to the North to elected representatives of the 26 Counties, albeit restricted to matters of security and the treatment of Catholics. Gerry Adams dismissed this as “a powerless consultative role given to Dublin”.

RUTHLESS
Thatcher displayed equal ruthlessness in her own country. Her name is inextricably linked to neo-liberalism, privatisation and free-market capitalism. She became known as ‘Thatcher the Milk Snatcher’ when, as Education Secretary in the mid-1970s she presided over education cuts, including the abolition of free milk provision for schoolchildren. In 1975, she surprisingly became leader of the Tories. In power, she reduced public spending in education and housing. Unemployment rocketed to 3.6 million while manufacturing crumbled.

On 2 April 1982, Argentina attempted to reclaim the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) and Thatcher ordered a military response. The war lasted over two months, claiming 258 British casualties. Thatcher’s domestic popularity rose on a wave of jingoistic nationalism and she cruised to a second electoral victory.

She continued selling most of the large national utilities to private companies. In 1984, she shifted her attention to trade unions, particularly the National Union of Miners. She was adamant and largely successful in neutering the power of British trade unions as she labelled the miners, with their just demands and courageous working-class defiance, as “the enemy within”. It was a calculated attack and an act of class warfare on behalf of the powerful and wealthy.

Thatcher’s rejection of imposing economic sanctions in 1986 on apartheid South Africa further exposed her immorality. Thatcher also caused outrage with her complete support for Pinochet in Chile, who violently ousted the democratically-elected socialist leader, Salvador Allende. She commended the bloodthirsty fascist on “bringing democracy to Chile”.

NO SUCH THING AS SOCIETY
In 1987, Thatcher infamously stated that there is “no such thing as society... only individuals and families”. She signalled it was not the state’s role to provide housing for the homeless or financial assistance to the poor. It was essentially up to individuals to work hard and sort out their own problems. Her beliefs spurred on personal greed. Her introduction of the Poll Tax was instrumental in signalling the beginning of the end for the Iron Lady as thousands took to the streets to protest. According to this highly inequitable tax, she thought it positive that “the duke and the dustbin man” should pay the same amount of local tax despite the differences in their wealth and the value of their property. Protests culminated with 200,000 angry protestors engaging in pitched battles with police in London’s Trafalgar Square.
When she resigned in November 1990, she was driven away from Downing Street in tears. She left behind a quarter of British children in poverty and a country in the depths of recession.

By her own admission her greatest achievement was the creation of ‘New Labour’, a party addicted to privatisation, profit and capitalism. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who adopted Thatcherite policies, have brought Britain to the brink of economic collapse and social implosion. New Labour’s affair with Thatcher continues with current attempts to privatise the Royal Mail postal service.

At 84, now Baroness Thatcher’s time on earth is coming to a close. A state burial has been mooted but this has been met with murmurs of opposition. The Iron Lady’s reign was too corrosive and divisive for so many people who suffered from it.