Critiquing the Green Left's problematic article on Germaine Greer's transphobia

Below is the letter and critique wrote in response to an article, published in issue #1040 of Green Left Weekly, looking at Germaine Greer's recent transphobic and trans erasing comments during her appearance at the Cambridge Union.


Dear Jemma,

I'm writing as a trans woman, a feminist and a Marxist to express my concern about your recent article addressing Germaine Greer's recent comments regarding transphobia at the Cambridge Union. As I have attached a line-by-line critique of your article, I will try to keep this letter brief.

Before I start - I don't know you or how you identify but from how your article positions people I am assuming you are a white cis woman - if those assumption are incorrect I apologise.

When I first saw your article on Facebook the person sharing it said it was positive that GLW had run an article on the issue. While I agree with that sentiment I had a sinking feeling just from the title alone as it reads like an endorsement of Greer's position. When I read your article I found it hard to follow your argument. I felt that your article misses the intent of Greer's statements - which are to deny the validity of the identities of trans people generally and trans women particular. Greer's historic statements and writings around the nonexistence of trans women and that they are instead “deluded men” “masquerading as women” with object of infiltrating women’s spaces, is a position which has a long tradition within transphobic discourse within feminism and broader society.

span id="fullpost"> While your article attempts to combat Greer's gender essentialism it does so inconsistently and in ways that could be seen as both cissexist and as erasing of the experiences of intersex women. Your article also does not address Greer's obsession with "smelly vaginas", which I think reflects an embracing, on Greer’s part, of misogynistic disgust at women's anatomy.

I think you are correct to say that having or not having a vagina does determine a person's status as a woman. However I don't think it is correct to say that gendered violence against women has nothing to do with vaginas. Indeed much violence against women, including street harassment - is premised on women having vaginas.

The use of statistics to discuss transphobia is problematic both in the casual way it is done but also because it both ignores the everyday transphobia that people experience. In addition to the very real threat of violence there are also difficulties involved in navigating medical system to access assistance in presenting as their affirmed gender this combination results in significant levels of psychological injury amongst trans people.

The discussion of statistics is made more problematic with your argument that men are not responsible for violence against women (including trans women) but instead the system. Beyond reifying the system, such an argument denies the agency of those who commit violence towards women – while this violence is based on men embracing sexists ideologies that legitimate their dominance and entitlement to control women – this adoption of sexist ideology by men is not simply a consequence of the power of ideology but as a consequence of these both experiencing material privilege from the subordinate position of women but also their perception that the liberation of women as threat to their own position.

Ultimately there are a number of sections of the article which while trying to explain the experiences of trans women, which would not be seen by trans women as reflecting their experiences and instead would be seen as examples transmisogyny. It is my opinion that when an article is going buttress it’s argument based on what it is to be a trans woman, that the article needs to be either written by a trans woman or written in close consultation with trans women. If this has been the case then it is really important that it is clearly stated that it is not cis people speaking on behalf of trans people. Otherwise you risk having an article which is patronising and alienating at best and outright transphobic at worst.

I hope that both you and the Green Left staff take this letter in good faith and that you find my comments helpful in addressing issues relating trans issues in the future. I’m happy to discuss the content of both this letter and the critique of the article.

In solidarity

Lisbeth Latham

Read more...

How the Left’s Defence of Assange Promotes Rape Myths and Misogyny (and what this says about the left)

- Lisbeth Latham

Trigger Warning: This article will discuss at length how publications have trivialised rape and tried to undermine survivors. It contains references to apologist material.

The question of how to respond to the allegations of rape and sexual assault against Julian Assange has been controversial amongst left-wing and progressive people. Most of Australia’s far-left would argue that they have adopted a nuanced and sophisticated approach which combines standing up for the rights of women and defending the work of Wikileaks from interference from the US government and its allies. A closer reading of Green Left Weekly and Socialist Alternative’s publications Red Flag and Socialist Alternative however reveals a different picture. Whilst they may argue that you “need to take the allegations seriously”[1], the articles they publish fail to support the rights of two the Swedish women “A” and “W” who have brought allegations. Instead, they fall into a range of problematic approaches that tend to trivialise and minimise the allegations against Assange, and, importantly, do nothing to combat the widespread misogyny articulated by Assange’s supporters, whilst placing the most emphasis on defending Assange’s reputation and interests. This failure is important, as these far-left organisations (through the articles published in their papers and on their websites) are helping, rather than combating rape culture, and as a result are creating an environment that is damaging to all survivors of rape and abuse.

A major problem with both Green Left and Socialist Alternative’s coverage of the case against Assange is that many of the articles do not mention, or gloss over, the allegations against Assange; or immediately go from talking about taking the allegations seriously to discussing how the state has a long history of misusing rape allegations[2]. In the first article in Socialist Alternative on the case in early December 2010, Ben Hillier stated that Assange would be “unlikely to receive a fair trial” in Sweden”[3].  This tends to erase the fact that the extradition proceedings initiated by Sweden are part of an investigation of rape, and instead create the impression that these proceedings are part of a formal process to extradite Assange to the US to face espionage charges. While this possibility is a core argument mobilised to oppose any extradition, there is a significant difference between acknowledging that the US government, and many of its allies, don’t like Wikileaks or Julian Assange – that these governments view the allegations against Assange as being useful in undermining him – versus proving that in the current process he is ”targeted because of his political actions, not his personal affairs”[4], or that the extradition to Sweden would “let the US get hold of Assange”[5].


Trivialising Allegations
Green Left has run three articles that state that what was has been alleged did not constitute rape. One of these entitled “Don’t let lying dogs sleep over Assange, Ecuador”, a speech by the Marxist historian Humphrey McQueen, was prefaced by a statement critical of McQueen’s assertion stating:

“Green Left notes that, while most of McQueen’s speech is an entirely justifiable defence of Assange and WikiLeaks, McQueen makes an argument in the case of the allegations of rape against Assange that Green Left strongly rejects. Green Left believes allegations of rape are very serious and should not be dismissed or minimised as simply “misconduct” -- as McQueen does. At the same time, we reject the hypocritical use of these allegations by the US government and its allies as a smokescreen to attack Assange and WikiLeaks”[6].

The disclaimer also stated that the speech did not reflect Green Left’s views and we feel it is important to address this matter among Wikileaks’ supporters[7]. However, Green Left, while also joining in criticisms of British Respect Party MP George Galloway for making similar comments, has not offered similar disclaimers accompanying two other articles that made the same claim that were published prior to McQueen’s speech; nor has the paper been critical of the fact that Assange’s defence team unsuccessfully argued that the Swedish charges did not constitute rape under British law as part of his unsuccessful appeal against extradition[8]. 


 Denying Rape (proceed with caution- this is particularly awful)
Green Left has run several articles that state that the sex between Assange and the two Swedish women was consensual:

“Both complainants admit consenting to sex and that consent to sex was not removed at any stage. The allegation made is that Mr Assange did not immediately inform the complainants that a condom had split or that he was not wearing a condom”[9] 

And:

“Both the women involved said they had consented to have sex. On the facts alleged, no crime would have been committed in Britain”[10].

By arguing that the sex was consensual, the authors argue either that what happened was not rape, or that Sweden has brought ridiculous allegations against Assange, a common argument by Assange’s supporters seeking to paint Assange as the victim of Sweden’s “overly harsh” rape laws. The reality is that no-one has argued that no consensual sex occurred between Assange and the two women – what has been argued that some of Assange’s actions were non-consensual and constituted rape. This should not be too difficult to understand, unless you are of the incorrect view that once a person consents to sex once, you don’t need seek consent in the future.

It is important to understand that while Sweden’s laws around rape are different to those of Britain or Australia, they are not stricter, indeed unlike in Australia or Britain, where consent is central to the definition of rape. In Sweden the key question is the use of force, or threat of the use force[11].

Distorting the facts of the case
There are number of key facts around the case that are frequently misrepresented by Assange’s supporters. Beyond the question of the nature of the charges, US intentions and how these relate, and which decisions were made to prosecute Assange and seek his extradition – are the questions of how the investigation was run, including whether the prosecutors sought to interview Assange prior to him leaving Sweden and motivations behind the bringing of the charges. Writing in June 2012, the editors of Green Left Weekly state,
“When the allegations first surfaced, Swedish prosecutors dismissed the case and repeatedly refused Assange’s attempts to meet with them for an interview. Months later, a different, politically-appointed Swedish prosecutor reopened the case and applied for Assange’s extradition from Britain”[12]. This argument fits with the narrative put forward on websites such as Wikileaks Citizens Alliance Australia and Justice4Assange. However, it doesn’t bear up very well when compared with the timeline of events and the evidence presented at the various court hearings in Britain and the findings in those hearings.
August 20: an arrest warrant was issued for Assange.

August 21: warrant withdrawn, senior Stockholm prosecutor Eva Finne saying “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape,” but prosecutors indicated they would continue to investigate lesser chargers that did not warrant arrest.

August 31: prosecutors interviewed Assange in Stockholm formally informing him of the allegations against him.

September 1: Swedish Director of Public Prosecution, Marianne Ny (who is also head of the department which oversees sex crimes), announced that she was reopening the rape investigation “There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed, considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape”[13]. 

The argument that prosecutors did not try to interview Assange until after he left Sweden, originated with his Swedish lawyer Bjorn Hurtig, who stated this in his witness statement to the February 2011 extradition hearing in the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Hurtig had also provided this information to expert witnesses that Assange’s defence team called during the hearing. However, under cross-examination Hurtig was forced to admit the following timeline:
September 21 or 22: Ny had contacted him to arrange a follow up interview with Assange.

September 27 9.11 am: Ny contacted Hurtig, who indicated he had not been able to Assange. Ny indicated that she would let him know shortly what action they would take given the inability to arrange an interview. Sometime that day Assange reportedly leaves Sweden.

Sometime between September 27 and September 30: Ny informed Hurtig that she intended to arrest Assange.

Ny continues to attempt to interview Assange, including on October 6th as he was scheduled to holding a public meeting in Sweden. However, this meeting never occurred and the interview was unable to occur[14].

October 18: Assange was informed that his request for residency had been denied.
November 18: the Stockholm District Court Approved “approves a request to detain Mr Assange for questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Sweden’s Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says he has not been available for questioning”.

November 20: Swedish police issue an international arrest warrant for Mr Assange via Interpol[15].

Ny has been subject to a range of inconsistent attacks regarding her motivations in deciding to initiate a rape investigation against Assange. While both Green Left and Socialist Alternative argue that the investigation it is part of a politically motivated agenda against Assange, a range of pro-Assange websites including Wikileaks Australian Citizens Alliance and Justice4Assange have, drawing on the “expert testimony” of Brita Sundberg-Weitman, a retired Swedish Judge, have additionally argued that Ny has brought the charges because she is a radical feminist who “regards the prosecution of men, even without sufficient evidence, as in the public interest”[16].

Sundberg-Weitman’s assertion that Ny is a radical feminist is based on comments quoted in a 2001 report for the Act to Protect Women. These are:

“Women who are subject to repeated violence often feel ashamed. They think that they themselves are to blame for what happens. This makes the kicks and blows logical – the victim develops a strategy to explain what she has to go through”[17], 

and

“If the police and prosecutor get enough evidence during the initial investigation, the matter goes to prosecution. Legal proceedings place the responsibility on the persons who resort to violence. Marianne Ny is of the opinion that such proceedings have a beneficial effect in protecting women, even in cases where perpetrators are prosecuted but not convicted”[18].

Sundberg-Weitman interpreted these comments to mean that Ny is “biased against men and takes for granted that everyone prosecuted is guilty ... She is so preoccupied with the situation of battered and raped women that she has lost balance”[19]. Even under cross examination, when it was put to Sundberg-Weitman that Ny’s statements could be taken as meaning “there is a public interest in prosecuting, where evidence justifies prosecution, even if the case results in an acquittal”[20], Sundberg-Weitman rejected this as a possible interpretation .

It is important to remember that in Sweden, like in Australia, there are real problems with low reporting rates of rape and real problems with attrition rates with rape cases being dropped by police and prosecutors prior to cases going to court. The approach advocated by Ny, who has also been involved in policy discussions to strengthen Sweden’s rape laws, would help to address this problem.

Failure to confront misogyny of Assange Defence campaign
Assange’s case has become a cause celebre not just with the far-left but also with significant layers of Men’s Rights Groups. Indeed, the official Justice4Assange site has an entire section on “Gender Politics” or more precisely, how Sweden is a place where crazy feminists have taken over. The introduction to the section states “Gender politics in Sweden has also been decisive in shaping the Swedish Sexual Offences legislation that criminalises conduct that is considered legal in the UK as long as it is consensual (which is the case in the alleged conduct involving Julian Assange)”[21]. 

Assange also very early in the process argued that feminism was a problem. In a December 2010 interview he told The Australian that “Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism” and that he had fallen into a “hornet’s nest of revolutionary feminism”[22]. This denigrates the experiences of both “A” and “W”, and promotes a wide range of inconsistent rape apologism and rape myths. However, Green Left, while asserting that allegations of rape need to be taken seriously and that attempts to trivialise rape need to be debated amongst Assange supporters, has not published any articles that sort to seriously challenge the use of such examining this ugly aspect of the Assange’s support base - beyond saying

“This type of argument hurts the struggle against sexual assault,  where women often face a difficult battle to receive justice.

“Allegations of sexual assault and rape are a serious matter. What is concerning about Assange’s case is
that the serious problems of sexual assault and rape, which do not receive the attention they deserve, are being used in an attempt to discredit an organisation that is a threat to powerful interests.

“The singling out of Assange for severe treatment (such as the initial denial of bail in Britain and ongoing extradition attempts for a man not even charged with a crime), amounts to dangerous abuse and trivialisation of a serious issue”[23].

In addition they have published articles critical of feminists who have raised concerns about the trivialisation of rape by Assange’s supporters, accusing them of “not having a nuanced analysis”[24].

Socialist Alternative has not been as coy on this question. In a November 2012 article, Louise O’Shea argues that:

“Phoney concern about women’s oppression has been instrumental in giving various policies of the ruling class legitimacy over the last decade or more. In addition to helping win support for the invasion of Afghanistan, some feminists have contributed to anti-Muslim racism by advocating a ban on Islamic dress have refused to support the rights of fly-in-fly-out mining workers on the basis that they can be sexist and have opposed defending Julian Assange against the US government because he has been accused of rape. The mindset that much of the left has, that any attention to “women’s issues” must by definition be a good thing, is wholly inappropriate for the times”[25].

A central element in the logic that is applied to justify the downplaying of rape allegations against Assange is the way in which a hypothetical conspiracy between the Swedish and US governments is treated as fact. It is unquestionably the case that the US government, and many of its allies have condemned Wikileaks and Julian Assange, and have sought to undermine Wikileaks. It also undoubtedly the case that these governments view the allegations against Assange as being useful in undermining both him and Wikileaks, however, this doesn’t mean that it can be said that “Whether or not the claims are true, he is being targeted because of his political actions, not his personal affairs”[26], or extradition to Sweden would “let the US get hold of
Assange”[27].

Calling for no trial to occur
Although both Socialist Alternative and Green Left, have published articles that argued “that it’s not possible to know what occurred in Sweden, and the need to take allegations seriously”, Green Left and Socialist Alternative[28] have run articles calling for the Australian government to push for Assange to be brought home to Australia or be freed, which would make justice for both “A” and “W”, impossible – but then again I don’t think they ever cared about that.

These statements are not just an attack on “A” and “W”, but on all survivors – it sends a message that survivors cannot expect the far-left to consistently stand up for survivors, and if your abuser is a member of the left you can expect the left to mobilise rape myths against you and apologise for the perpetrator “for the good of the movement”, Anyone who is serious about supporting the rights of women needs to support survivors. This involves accepting survivors’ stories and combating the rape apologism and victim blaming that legitimises and normalises sexual violence. If we are to achieve a world where rape is viewed as abhorrent we need to fight rape apologism wherever it is found. 


_______________________________________________


Notes

1 Pemberton, A. ‘Anti-WikiLeaks campaign undermines anti-rape campaigns’, Green Left Weekly, 24 Aug. 2012, para. 14, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/51992>, accessed 6 Jan. 2014.
2 Ausburn, K. ‘Why feminists and the left must defend Julian Assange’, Green Left Weekly, 12 Jan. 2011, para. 18, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46421>, accessed 6 Jan. 2014
3 Hillier, B. ‘Truth is a crime in an empire of lies’, Socialist Alternative, 3 Dec. 2010, para. 20, <http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=4148:wikileaks-truth-is-a-crime-in-an-empire-of-lies&Itemid=543>, accessed 7 Jan. 2014.
4 Hillier, para. 20
5 Green Left Weekly, ‘Assange is right to seek asylum’, Green Left Weekly, 23 Jun. 2012, para. 4,  <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/51428>, accessed 6 Jan. 2014.
6 McQueen, H. ‘Humphrey McQueen: Don’t let lying dogs sleep over Assange, Ecuador‘, Green Left Weekly, 22 Aug. 2012, para. 2, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/51975>, accessed 6 Jan. 2014..
7 McQueen, para. 5.
8 Pemberton, A. ‘Anti-WikiLeaks campaign undermines anti-rape campaigns’, Green Left Weekly, 24 Aug. 2012, para. 12, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/51992>, accessed 6 Jan. 2014.
Wikileaks, ‘WikiLeaks: Assange’s detention unfair, dehumanising’, Green Left Weekly, 20 Jun. 2011, para. 9, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/47960>, accessed 6 Jan. 2014.
Pilger, J. ‘John Pilger: ‘Getting’ Assange and the smearing a revolution’, Green Left Weekly, 11 Oct. 2011, para. 3, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/49029>, accessed 6 Jan. 2014.
9 Wikileaks, para. 6.
10 Pilger, para. 3.
11 Amnesty International, Case Closed: Rape and Human Rights in the Nordic Countries – Summary Report (2010)   <http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT77/001/2010/en/5ba7f635-f2c3-4b50-86ea-e6c3428cf179/act770012010eng.pdf> , 9, accessed 2 Sept. 2012.
12 Green Left Weekly, para. 7.
13 BBC News, ‘Timeline: sexual allegations against Assange in Sweden’, BBC, (16 Aug. 2012) <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341>, accessed 8 Jam 2014.
14 Riddle, H. The Judicial Authority in Sweden v. Julian Paul Assange, (City of Westminster Magistrates Court, 2011) <www.judiciary.gov.uk%2FResources%2FJCO%2FDocuments%2FJudgments%2Fjud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf&ei=iS7OUripDNHYkgWO04HIAg&usg=AFQjCNEkM4qYA0FOEwSC4QWBdbn_Aw4zUQ&bvm=bv.59026428,d.dGI>, 7-8, accessed on 3 Sept. 2012.
15 BBC NEWS.
16 Riddle, 2.
17 Sundberg-Weitman, B. Exhibit to Expert Report of Brita Sundberg-
Weitman, <http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.howardkennedyfsi.com%2Fcms%2Fdocuments%2FExpertOpinionofBritaSundbergWeitmanExhibitBSW1.pdf&ei=uzLOUpSKL8X5kgW2k4DADQ&usg=AFQjCNHY3DgYQCywePwlkgo-NIeLVkXerg&bvm=bv.59026428,d.dGI>, 7, accessed on 7 Jan. 2014.
18 Sundberg-Weitman, 8.
19 Riddle, 2.
20 Riddle, 2-3.
21 Julian Assange Defence Fund. ‘Gender Politics’, Justice4Assange [webpage], (n.d.) <http://justice4assange.com/Gender-Politics.html> para. 1, accessed 7 Jan. 2014.
22 Colvin, M. ‘Wikileaks Founder Baffled by Sex Assault Claims’,
Australian, 27 Dec. 2010, para. 16, <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/wikileaks-founder-baffled-by-sex-assault-claims/story-fn775xjq-1225976459286>, accessed 8 Jan. 2014.
23 Pemberton, A. ‘Assange: ‘Gillard must bring me home’, Green Left Weekly, 13 Feb. 2011, paras. 17-19, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46706>, accessed 10 Jan. 2014.
24 Ausburn, 2.
25  O’Shea, L. ‘Jill Meagher, Reclaim the Night and the political right’, Socialist Alternative, 22 November, 2013, para. 26, <http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=7577%3Ajill-meagher-reclaim-the-night-and-the-political-right&Itemid=542>, accessed 6 Jan. 2014.
26 Hillier, 20.
27 Green Left Weekly, para. 4.
28 Pemberton, A. ‘Assange: ‘Gillard must bring me home’, Green Left Weekly, 13 Feb. 2011, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46706>, accessed 10 Jan. 2014.
Bolger, C. ‘The battle over Wikileaks has only just begun’, Socialist Alternative, 23 Dec. 2010, para. 15, <http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=4129:the-battle-over-wikileaks-has-only-just-begun&Itemid=543>, accessed 10 Jan. 2014.


This article originally appeared in issue #3 of the Dealing with an Unsafe Left zine. Check them out on tumblr and facebook > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more...

Declaration of the Executive Committee members of the NPA supporting Position B

Published in the NPA weekly Tout est a nous (TEAN), 30/06/11
Repuplished from International Viewpoint
Anticapitalist, feminist and unitary, for an ecosocialism of the 21st century

At the National Conference of the NPA called to decide on the NPA’s stance in the 2012 presdidential and legislative elections, the supporters of the minority position (known as Position B) made the following statement in the closing of the conference.



1. In line with the positions of a new majority leadership, the National Conference of the NPA has turned its back on the project of bringing together anticapitalists and on any kind of unitary perspective. By doing this, it has gone beyond simply taking a position on the presidential election. It considers that the NPA on its own is capable of responding to the challenges of the period, of contesting, on the basis of an orientation of a break with capitalism, the hegemony of the Socialist Party and of social-liberalism.

The leaders of Position A explain in Tout est a nous that " the idea of regrouping antiliberals and anticapitalists on the electoral terrain and outside it, on the sole basis of non-participation in a government with the SP" is an "obscuring of our project" and that " the central axis of the NPA" must be "the direct dialogue with workers, young people, the unemployed". Never in the short history of the NPA has a majority leadership defended such a strategy: reduced to self-assertion and self-centred construction, breaking with the project of a broad party launched by the LCR. Quite an achievement for a party which wanted to be much broader!

2. This proclaimed and programmed isolation can lead only to a dead end and will deprive the NPA of any ability to influence the debates which will arise from the important developments to come. In a political situation that is rich with potentialities but also full of threats, such a retreat is profoundly worrying. The crisis of capitalism, with its consequences of debt and austerity in Europe, the climatic and environmental threats and the latent food crisis that they involve, the scarcity of resources and the risks of war that they carry, the brutality of the policies followed by the Right and by social democracy, the uprisings and resistances which they provoke, from Greece to Spain, from France to Italy, the rise of the far Right, the Arab spring and the slow and inexorable catastrophe of Fukushima; the situation is new, moving and contradictory. In this context, it is necessary for us to be even more an open party, able to take initiatives, to intervene in an overall way without dissociating the social and ecological needs from politics, the street and the ballot box and thus to carry forward a project of anticapitalist unity independent of the SP, addressing the organizers of the social movement, without circumventing the political forces and currents.

We want the Right and the National Front to be beaten in 2012. It will then be a question of bringing together, in a block of left opposition, the social, ecologist and political forces that will refuse to participate in or support the policies followed by the social liberals. This is a decisive challenge which should be prepared as of now with determination by those who know that such unity is an absolute necessity in order to build an alternative. It is the object of a permanent political battle whose programme consists of a plan for an anticapitalist and ecosocialist break with capitalism, starting from the document adopted at our last Congress: “Our answers to the crisis”.

3. Concerning the possibilities of an electoral agreement with other forces for the 2012 presidential election, we continue to affirm that a single candidature of the forces to the left of the SP was desirable. But for us, any electoral agreement supposes that all the components clearly affirm the impossibility of governing with the SP and of constituting a parliamentary majority with it. We are obliged to recognise that with the Left Front these conditions do not exist.

We think that an active policy on the part of the NPA could have influenced the situation in a positive sense.

We also note that there exist many currents and activists who agree with us, who do not resign themselves to the division which reigns on the left of the Left and who refuse the perspective of a governmental agreement with social-liberalism.

So, as opposed to a counter-productive policy of denunciation and self-assertion, it is necessary to continue political confrontation, to influence the reconstruction and recomposition of the social and political movement (in particular social struggles and the legislative elections).

4. Although we recognize the result of the vote by the members of the NPA, we cannot take responsibility for the consequences of the decisions of this national conference: they express an identity-centred posture of an NPA that no longer has any link with its founding project, which aimed to “represent what is best in the heritage of the socialist, communist, libertarian and revolutionary traditions. ” and to bring together the many who “in and around the parties of the institutional Left, have not given up the aim of radically changing society”.

This project was not to build a party by bringing together “the anonymous" around a core of "genuine anticapitalists”, addressing the masses directly, in an “anti-system” logic. “A party is not an end in itself. It is a tool to bring people together, to gain in effectiveness in the collective struggles” as our founding principles affirmed.

And “to bring together the anticapitalists” involves building initiatives on all terrains in order to create a political alternative which can polarize as broadly as possible anticapitalists of different horizons, traditions, experiences and generations.

The choices that have been made on the programme, the profile of the NPA and the method of designating the candidate are clearly those of a campaign of self-assertion and not of a campaign of uniting anticapitalists. During the national conference almost all the delegates of Position A voted against an amendment which proposed to add to their document a reference to “Our answers to the crisis”, a programmatic document adopted by a majority at the last congress. They also excluded the idea that the NPA should be represented at the presidential election by one of its spokespersons. That will certainly bring reproaches to a feminist organization which finally had the chance to present a woman as candidate. We cannot identify with the launching of this electoral campaign, which does not unite our party. We will continue to play our full role in the party while defending other choices.

5. After this national conference, at which an opposition emerged representing 40 per cent of the membership and of the delegates, we invite the comrades who agree with this orientation for the NPA to organize themselves in an anticapitalist, ecosocialist, feminist and unitary current. We are determined to continue to do everything possible along with all the members of the NPA. And we will also take the necessary measures to maintain the founding project of our party, on which a majority has unfortunately just turned its back. We will organize an assembly to establish this current in October. In the meantime we will discuss how it should function in a collective and democratic way, what means of expression we will have and the type of relations that we will maintain with other political, social and ecologist forces in France and in other countries.

Declaration by the members of the Executive Committee supporting Position B, after a collective discussion between the members of the National Political Committee and the delegates of Position B, who met together on June 26, 2011 during the National Conference of the NPA:

Catherine Faivre d’ Arcier, Coralie Wawrzyniak, Damien Joliton, Emre Cirak, Flavia Verri, Fred Borras, Guillaume Liégard, Helene Adam, Ingrid Hayes, Leonce Aguirre, Marie-Do Bartoli, Monique Migneau, Myriam Martin, Olivier Mollaz, Pierre-François Grond.

Read more...

Ireland: Workers reject bosses’ solutions to crisis

Lisbeth Latham

Irish unions are threatening to escalate protests against proposals that would result in workers bearing the burden of paying for overcoming the financial crisis that has hammered the Irish economy while protecting business profits.

Both employers and the government have sought to delay previously agreed upon wage increases for workers. The Irish government is also moving to implement a levy on public sector workers to help fund shortfalls in pensions.

On February 21, 150,000 people marched through Dublin as part of an Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) rally against the government’s handling of the economic crisis. The protest was the largest demonstration in the Irish capital for 30 years.

The Irish Times reported that ICTU general secretary David Begg addressed the rally, telling demonstrators that a business elite had destroyed the economy and had not yet been held to account for it in any respect.

According to the Irish Times, ICTU president Patricia McKeown told protesters that the government wanted workers who built the economy to make the sacrifices while it protected those who wrecked it, and that the time had come for Irish workers to demonstrate the power they held.

“That power is today on the streets of Dublin, it is in industrial action but most significantly it is at the ballot box”, McKeown said.

“If our government and the elected politicians are not prepared here and now to pledge that they will act now and act on our behalf and act on the proposals we have placed before them then you must be prepared to deny them even a single vote and to send that message out loud and clear.”

The Irish economy has been facing growing difficulties since early 2008 as a result of the global financial crisis. The Irish economy grew sharply during the 1990s, with neoliberal economic policies that halved taxation, reduced import duties and encouraged foreign investment.

However, since the start of the global economic crisis the Irish economy has crashed rapidly; there has been a flight of 10 billion euros in capital during February alone and a series of closures and downsizing resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs. According to the Irish government, the country faces:

• a reduction of up to 10% in national income over the 2008-10 period;

• a loss of more than 120,000 jobs over 2009 and 2010;

• an increase in unemployment to over 10%;

• tax revenues in 2008 that were more than 8 billion euros below expectations, with a further fall projected in 2009; and

• without further adjustments, a general government deficit in the range of 11-12% of GDP for each year up to 2013.

Social ‘partnership’ in crisis

Since 1987, a major characteristic of Irish politics has been the tripartite “social partnership” between the Irish government, employer groups and unions. Social partnerships have been triennial agreements, with the objective of reducing national debt by restraining wage growth, leading to a higher rate of profit growth compared to wage growth.

The most recent social partnership agreement was signed in June 2006 and titled Towards 2016. This agreement had a 10-year framework, but wage-fixing was to be renegotiated in a series of stages.

The second stage of pay terms were agreed to in September, with workers to receive a 6% pay rise over 21 months, following a three-month wage freeze in the private sector and an 11-month freeze in the public sector. Low-income workers receiving less than 11 euros an hour were to receive a 0.5% wage rise.

The agreement also exempted any company that is allegedly unable to afford the pay rises as a result of financial or trading difficulties. Despite this exemption, the Construction Industry Federation (CIF) refused to sign the agreement as it wanted a 12-month pay freeze in construction.

On December 4, the Irish Independent reported that the CIF “will today serve a claim on unions to cut 200,000 workers’ wages by 10pc”, just a week after it rejected the national pay deal.

In response to the economic crisis, employers, unions and the Irish government began a new round of talks to develop a recovery plan. The intention of employers to make workers bear the brunt of the crisis was made clear by the Irish Business and Employers Confederation’s January 23 demand that the previously agreed pay rises be deferred and the increase in the minimum wage be indefinitely delayed.

On January 28, all three sides in the negotiations signed a document that stated: “In developing a Pact, the Government and Social Partners are fully committed to an approach in which all sectors of society contribute in accordance with their ability to do so, and conversely the most vulnerable, low paid, unemployed and social welfare recipients are insulated against the worst effects of recession.”

However, on February 3, the Fianna Fail-led coalition government announced plans for an austerity plan that would cut 2 billion euros from the government’s budget.

The key features of the plan were a freeze on the wage increases for public sector workers previously agreed to under Towards 2016 and a sliding levy on public sector workers to fund government guaranteed pensions — effectively a wage cut. Even public sector workers who are not eligible for a government pension would be levied.

The attacks from both business and government have caused widespread anger across the Irish working class.

The leaderships of the ICTU and its affiliated unions are attempting to harness this anger and draw business and government into negotiations for a new social partnership — despite Irish workers experiencing a decline in real wages of around 3% per year during the first stage of Towards 2016.

In response to government and business withdrawal from the social partnership, Irish unions began organising protests aimed at lobbying government members of the lower house of Ireland’s parliament to oppose the austerity package, culminating in the February 21 mass rally in Dublin.

Trade unions have repeatedly called for the government and business to adopt their new 10-point Social Solidarity Pact, which includes a proposed 48% tax on high earners, full public control of the banks, a three-year moratorium on house repossessions, a national recovery bond, measures to protect the unemployed involving retraining and up-skilling, and income protection.

Unions are planning industrial action in defence of wages and conditions and in support of the Social Solidarity Pact.

On February 24, the ICTU executive council advised the federation’s affiliates that where employers were not adhering to the transitional agreement of Towards 2016, they were “entitled to resort to industrial action”.

The council advised that “to be prepared for this contingency, it is recommended that unions should ballot members” from March 2, “seeking a mandate for industrial action up to and including strike action, to achieve compliance with the terms of the Transitional Agreement, or to achieve an acceptable alternative”.

In addition to action by individual unions, the ICTU is calling a national strike for March 30 in support of the adoption of the Social Solidarity Pact.

Originally published in Green Left Weekly #785

Read more...

Can wage restraint save jobs?

Lisbeth Latham

In the last month, Australian mine workers and mining communities have been rocked by layoffs and mine closures as mining companies have moved to reduce production in response to collapsing commodities prices.

In this context it is understandable and important for workers and their unions to explore solutions that will protect their communities from the devastation of closure. Two weeks ago, workers at Alcoa, who are members of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, decided to defer a four percent pay rise they had won in 2008 until 2010 in exchange for Alcoa not sacking workers.


This decision was made following Alcoa’s January 6 announcement that it would be shedding 15,200 jobs, or 13% of its global workforce, although no announcement had been made of job losses in Australia.

While the willingness of the workers to collectively share pay cuts is a significant display of collective solidarity, it is highly questionable that it will be effective in avoiding job losses and could result not only Alcoa workers but other workers losing more.

The Alcoa workers’ decision follows an ongoing push from the federal government, business and the media that workers should sacrifice wages now in order protect jobs.

No guarantees

While the workers are specifically offering pay cuts in exchange for no job losses, there is nothing to guarantee this is what will happen in the present circumstances: the offer to defer wage is not tied to Alcoa not proceeding with job cuts in Australia. Even if such an agreement was made, it would not guarantee that Alcoa would not conduct sackings in the future, as Alcoa would be able to blame any subsequent deterioration in the company’s financial situation for the job losses.

Previous experience shows that when companies are successful in gaining concessions (whether from workers or governments) they are quick to demand even greater concessions, with jobs ultimately being shed anyway. This should come as no surprise. Capitalism operates on a relentless drive to increase profits: if companies are able to secure an agreement that provides wage cuts under the banner of “saving jobs”, there is an incentive.

A central component of contract negotiations between the US United Auto Workers and US car manufacturers since 1978 has been the union making concessions in the wages and conditions of workers in order maintain the competitiveness of the automakers and preserve autoworker jobs. Despite ongoing promises that concessions would result in jobs being saved, employment at General Motors alone had fallen from 450,000 in 1978 to 73,000 in 2007.

In addition to the logic of concessions within a single company, workers giving up conditions at one company will encourage other companies to seek the same concessions — irrespective of whether they are in need of those concessions — in order to remain competitive.

Following the conclusion of the 1998 waterfront dispute between the Maritime Union of Australia and Patrick’s Stevedores, where the MUA agreed to a range of concessions in exchange for its members being allowed to return to work — including increased casualisation and reduction in staffing cranes — the other major Australian stevedore, P&O, moved to include the same conditions in its next enterprise agreement with the MUA.

It is also important to recognise that job losses have no direct link to either the wages that workers earn or the profits that companies make. Over the past two decades, thousands of bank workers have been made redundant across Australia during periods of high profits. In 2005, the National Australia Bank announced 2000 redundancies immediately following a quarter in which it made a record profit.

A more important factor influencing employment levels is the question of the amount of work to be performed; if this is reduced then capital will look to sack the workers that it deems to be unnecessary. Given the collapse in Alcoa’s revenue is a consequence of both declining commodity prices and declining demand, which has resulted in Alcoa moving to reduce production, Alcoa can be expected to reduce its workforce with the new levels of production that it is looking to achieve.

The only mechanism to avoid this would be to insist that working hours of workers be reduced in proportion with any reduction in production. However wages should be maintained by increasing the hourly rate by the same proportion.

Alcoa’s exact financial situation

A significant factor contributing to further threats of job losses is that company financial figures are not readily available to workers and their unions. This makes it possible for companies to manufacture a financial crisis in order to justify calls for concessions or job losses.

An important factor in Alcoa’s decision to shed workers globally was its poor performance during the December 2008 quarter, when it lost US$929 million. While this did reflect the impact of halving alumina prices between July and December, $708 million of the loss was a consequence of restructuring carried out by Alcoa.

This makes it important that unions have access to a companies’ books to have a clearer indication of their financial situation.

Who should pay?

Calls for workers to defer wage rises in order to limit job losses reflect an outlook that workers should bare the burden of the financial crisis. No such sacrifice has been made by Alcoa’s management or shareholders.

On January 23, Alcoa announced that it would pay a dividend of 17 cents per share, the same payment as had been made for the previous nine quarters. Over the same period of time, Alcoa had made profits totalling $4486 million. These massive profits should now be being used to offset the current losses being made by the company, rather than forcing workers and their communities to suffer.

Workers who sacrifice today to offset the declining incomes Alcoa and other companies are experiencing during the current downturn will not be reimbursed for their sacrifices in the future. Instead, everything given up today will have to be fought for again, as companies attempt to maintain any concessions that they are able to extract.

Unlike Alcoa, workers’ living costs are not going to be reduced during the economic downturn — indeed crucial costs of living such as rent are likely to continue to increase over the coming year. The only way workers can avoid seeing their incomes decline, and the flow-on effects to the rest of the community resulting from declining purchasing power, is for workers to continue to receive the pay rises that they have already won and that they are able to win in the coming years.

Originally published in Green Left Weekly #781

Read more...