Media release RAM – Residents Action Movement 20 August, 2009 RAM – Residents Action Movement is offering full support to a private member's bill from Maori Party MP Rahui Katene. The bill, announced yesterday, aims to remove GST from food. Last year RAM initiated a People's Procession to Parliament, delivering a petition to remove GST from all our food. The petition, signed by more than 25,000 people, is now before Parliament's Finance and Expenditure Select Committee. "This private member's bill is needed now more than ever", said RAM chair Grant Brookes. "Grassroots people are feeling the pinch of the recession. Food prices are increasing twice as fast as last year, according to the Otago University Nutrition Department. "Getting GST off food is a simple step the government could take right now to help families struggling to pay the bills. But instead, finance minister Bill English is showing National's real agenda as a party of the market by considering proposals to increase GST, to 15 or 20 percent. "Although opinion polls showed more than three quarters of people wanted GST off food, the Maori Party was the only party in parliament to support our petition last year. "Will the Greens and Labour now honour their claims to be standing up for ordinary Kiwis and back Rahui Katene's private member's bill?" Read Rahui Katene's speech to parliament GST off food.

A couple of dozen grassroots campaigners gathered in Wellington on August 9 to organise community support for Unite Union’s campaign to raise the minimum wage. The goal of the campaign is to gather the 300,000+ petition signatures needed to trigger a Citizens Initiated Referendum asking, “Should the adult minimum wage be raised in steps over the next three years, starting with an immediate rise to $15 per hour, until it reaches 66% of the average total hourly earnings as defined in the Quarterly Employment Survey?” Matt Jones from Unite talked about why the union had decided to initiate the petition, and how the campaign was going so far. “We’re still putting our feelers out to the wider activist communities across New Zealand to try and get a support base”, he said, “before we push out into the streets and make our campaign known to the wider public. So we're still at the initial stage where we make our arguments to people such as yourselves.” Although the immediate goal of a $15 minimum wage, and then linking the rate to 66% of the average wage, are both in line with Council of Trade Unions policy, there's been a noticeable lack of active, top-level support from most other unions. One exception is the Maritime Union of New Zealand. Joe Fleetwood from MUNZ talked about how his union was gathering signatures, and also how he saw it fitting into the wider political picture. “The flyer and the petition went out. Our communications officer put that into all our magazines, that go to about 3,000 members. All worksites down on the wharf – especially our passenger vessels – have got these packs already. Our young activists are out there asking passengers, while they're travelling on the ferries, to sign the petition.” The public meeting was jointly organised by RAM – Residents Action Movement, and the Alliance Party. Growing cooperation between these two parties in Wellington had already seen the start of joint street stalls, gathering petition signatures. “Small parties like RAM, the Alliance and the Workers Party have stood in elections and campaigned against the market-driven policies of National and Labour”, said RAM chair Grant Brookes. “But what we urgently need is a bigger, broader, more united Left that can take the fight to National and become a credible alternative for all those without a voice. The petition can bring together Left and grassroots activists – like those of us in this room – and build connections for joint action and cooperation in other areas as well.” After the meeting, RAM and the Alliance decided to take their collaboration further by producing a joint leaflet. To get involved with the community campaign, or help out on the Saturday street stalls in Lower Hutt, Newtown and other areas, contact Grant on 021 053 2973.

Media release RAM-Residents Action Movement 29 July 2009 A petition calling on the government to remove GST tax from all our food will be discussed by Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Select Committee today. It will be introduced by Maori Party MP and committee member Rahui Katene. The high profile petition, initiated by RAM – Residents Action Movement last year, was presented to Maori Party MPs Rahui Katene and Hone Harawira at the culmination of the Peoples Procession to Parliament in October. It carried the signatures of over 25,000 people. “News headlines were reporting ‘pain at the checkout’ as families struggled with rocketing grocery bills”, said RAM chair Grant Brookes. “Opinion polls showed more than three quarters of people agreed with the petition. Yet the Maori Party was the only party in Parliament to support it. “Petition gatherers spoke with tens of thousands of grassroots Kiwis. We got a strong sense of their views on the government. “Ordinary people feel that they don’t count in the eyes of the corporate politicians in Wellington. They don’t see much difference between Labour and National. Both main parties only look out for the rich. “The select committee has an opportunity to disprove this perception by endorsing the petition in its report back to Parliament”, he commented. In the nine months since the petition was presented, the need to remove GST from food has grown even more urgent. Researchers from Otago University’s Human Nutrition department do an annual survey of the cost of a weekly supermarket shop that meets nutritional requirements. Earlier this month, they reported that this year’s cost increase was at least twice that of previous years and warned of “long term health impacts” for New Zealand’s population. Although the Budget deferred tax cuts planned for 2010 and 2011, Finance Minister Bill English has said there could be room for further tax cuts in the “medium term”. “Rather than reducing the top tax rate to 30 percent to benefit high income earners, as he has suggested”, added Grant, “New Zealand should move away from GST, an unfair ‘flat tax’ which falls disproportionately on the poor who can least afford it, starting with GST on food.” The Finance and Expenditure Select Committee has requested RAM to supply answers to a number of questions, to provide additional background information. To read RAM’s backgrounder click here.

Conference participants discuss Broad Left unity

Several dozen activists attended Socialist Worker's Marxism Alive conference on June 27. It was broadest gathering of the Left in Auckland in recent memory. Over the course of the day-long educational forum, the panel speakers and participants contributed to a penetrating analysis of trends and charted moves to unify the Left. A series of video highlights from key debates will be posted on UNITYblogNZ over the coming days.

Is National the new natural party of government? Will Labour return to social democracy?

In the latest issue of UNITY Journal there is an article by Vaughan Gunson in support of Marxists joining together with other leftists in the attempt to build mass-based broad left parties, Responding to the crisis: Broad left unity to mobilise masses of people. Don Franks, from the Workers Party of New Zealand, was invited to respond. His reply is The rocks of opposing class interests. Th e question of how Marxists should politically organise in response to the global economic crisis, and dangers and opportunities the crisis presents, is a vital one. UNITYblog invites any responses to these articles or other contributions to the question of how we best organise today to give leadership to the grassroots masses. Send contributions to UNITYblog editor. Or post a comment directly.

by Vaughan Gunson from UNITY Journal May 2009 Facing the left today are incredible challenges. The global economic meltdown, combined with the nightmare scenarios of runaway climate change and resource depletion, looms as a human disaster of an unimaginable scale. The question we are all asking ourselves: is how can we organise ourselves and grassroots people into a movement that has the strength and vision to set the world on a different course?

by Don Franks, Workers Party of New Zealand from UNITY Journal May 2009 In his article Responding to the crisis: Broad left unity to mobilise masses of people, Vaughan Gunson writes: Over the last decade Socialist Worker-New Zealand, a small Marxist organisation, has moved towards the realisa­tion that we need to be building alongside other activists a broad left party which has the breadth and reach to give leadership to masses of people. And that we need to begin now, not later. Socialist Worker-New Zealand may have come to this realization over the last decade, but I don’t think they have arrived at a new political discovery. There have been many socialist attempts to build – or infiltrate – broad left parties. In New Zealand the Alliance is a recent example. At least two Marxist groups were early participants in the Alliance, the Permanent Revolution Group and the Workers Communist League. Both groups were rebuffed. The PRG, more open about their politics, were tossed out very early. WCL comrades were more used to working in united front organizations and at that stage were particularly prone to compromise their politics in the process. So remnants of the WCL hung around unhappily inside the Alliance for a while, marginalized from any positions of power as the party steadily formalized into a standard issue parliamentary machine. It was clear from the start that there was to be no accommodation of anticapitalism in the Alliance venture. The endgame saw the Alliance indelibly disgraced by its association with support for US invasion of Afghanistan.

The global debate about how Marxists should organise politically in the current epoch is continuing. The debate centres on the question of whether Marxists opt to maintain a narrow Marxist organisation or join together unreservedly with other leftists in broad left political formations. This crucial debate is intersecting with the question of how the left responds to the global economic crisis. Without a viable political force which mobilises masses of people the result of the crisis will be devastating for ordinary people. Socialist Worker-New Zealand supports the broad left strategy, which has been articulated in the articles and statements. See History calls for a broad left party and Organising to build a global broad left movement. Our ideas have been raised within the International Socialist Tendency (IST), to which we are affiliated. In the interests of furthering this important debate we are posting on UNITYblog an exchange of ideas between Alex Callinicos, leading British Socialist Worker Party member, and European activists Panos Garganas and François Sabado. In International Socialist Journal (ISJ) issue 121, (Winter 2008) Garganas and Sabado responded to Callinicos's original article Where is the Radical Left Going? (Issue 120, Autumn 2008). See:

• Panos Garganas, The Radical Left: A Richer Mix.
• François Sabado, Building the New Anticapitalist Party.

In turn, Callinicos replies in ISJ issue 122: Revolutionary paths: a reply to Panos Garganas and François Sabado In his reply Callinicos appears to make concessions to the idea of building broad left parties where Marxists do not organise as a "party within a party" and block vote. Something which the British SWP did with disastrous consequences in Respect. The shift in position is noted by current Respect activist Liam MacUaid in his blog post A shift of position (8 April 2009). Socialist Worker-New Zealand (SW-NZ) is very interested in this unfolding debate, reflecting as it does the crucial question of how Marxists work cooperatively in broad left political formations. As an organisation SW-NZ is continuing to work alongside other leftists in RAM - Residents Action Movement. We want to see a mass-based broad left political alternative built in New Zealand that can win the respect of masses of people. A task which today is only in its infancy. At the same SW-NZ maintains its own organisational structures, organises Marxist Forums for political discussion, and produces independent Marxist publications, UNITYblog and UNITY Journal. We retain our ability to represent Marxist ideas through these forums and publications at the same time as we are committed as individual members to the political outreach work of RAM. Please forward any new contributions (short or long) on the broad left debate or responses to any of the above articles to UNITYblog editor

• An extended period of economic depression likely to last anywhere from three to 12 years which will go through distinct stages.
• A tidal wave of job losses and wage cuts as bosses make workers pay for capitalism's crisis.
• A tsunami of house evictions and other social miseries which engulf sections of the middle class as well as the working class.
• Growing trends towards trade wars and shooting wars, intersecting with a climate crisis that threatens life on Earth.
• Epic upheavals in economics, ecology, governments, institutions and ideologies which will mean that nothing remains the same.

The two previous Combo Crises showed a tremendous capacity by the grassroots to unite in defence of their living standards and social rights, noted Grant. In today's Combo Crisis, the grassroots will not want to go like sheep to the slaughter. As past certainties crumble, many more people will be looking for alternatives to the old ways. Already the resistance is growing overseas. A much greater space will open up for the NZ left if we unite around realistic alternatives so that we are seen as having a good chance of success. Closer co-operation among the left is crucial. RAM is looking for avenues of practical co-operation, and we sense that many other leftists are of a like mind. The scale of the crisis demands broad left unity. While RAM's activists come from socialist, ecological, left Labour, social justice, union and other traditions, we embrace a common philosophy. We are transitionists. We advocate transition away from the corporate market and its political and institutional structures, and towards participatory democracy, without insisting on a particular final blueprint. Our plans will expand in connection with practical steps taken by the grassroots majority, concluded Grant. CRISIS & CAMPAIGNING The opening discussion at conference was on the Combo Crisis and RAM's campaigning. A question was raised about whether RAM should just concentrate on concrete demands. After discussion, there was general agreement that RAM's campaigning must combine two key elements: THE BIG PICTURE Why is the Combo Crisis happening? What can the two previous Combo Crises tell us today? Where should society head to overcome economic depression and the intersecting climate crisis? And other big picture questions needing answers if people's uncertainties, fears and hurts are to be turned into knowledge, activism and organisation that challenge the corporate elites responsible for the crisis. CONCRETE DEMANDS Linked to the big picture, RAM must promote concrete demands that protect people from market meltdown, wherever possible in conjunction with other leftists and unionists. The RAM Plan, adopted by the 2008 RAM Conference, features many concrete demands which can be popularised through RAM's campaigning. The point was made that politics is less about policies and more about what people think they can do in these times of growing crisis. RAM needs to carefully gauge what image our policies invoke in the popular mind. A question was raised about whether some of RAM's policies should be toned down a little to make them seem more reasonable to people feeling negative at present and therefore having low expectations. For instance, should RAM's policy of "free public transport" become instead "cheap public transport"? After discussion, a dualistic approach was generally accepted by conference participants: POPULAR POLICIES RAM should continue to advocate policies like free public transport which have proven popular, as shown by the great response to RAM's "Ten Commandments" leaflet. Calling for "cheap" public transport would not be inspiring, inviting perpetual haggling over how cheap is cheap. And only "free" would take the market out of public transport, helping society to transition away from corporate economics. COALITION COMPROMISES RAM must also recognise that many on the left who we wish to unite with in electoral and community campaigns would support "cheap" but not "free" public transport. Therefore RAM might accept "cheap" as the joint policy of a broad left campaign while we made clear that RAM still promotes "free". That would advance the cause of public transport up to the point beyond which other leftists will not yet go, while preserving RAM's independence of thought and action. It was pointed out that, at a time when mainstream analysts have no answers to fundamental problems like the housing crisis, traditional ideologies and institutions will be questioned by a growing number of people. In America, slogans like "Bail Out Homeowners, Not Bankers" are being raised by the grassroots. The fear that is gripping more Kiwis will, in the months and years ahead, turn to either despair or anger. There needs to be determined campaigning by RAM and other leftists to turn the fear into anger, so that the grassroots organise and act to defend themselves. There was consensus about the need to experiment and let the results speak about what works best. At this time of flux, what worked in the past may not in the future,. Anyhow, the mood at the grassroots will fluctuate dramatically just as the Combo Crisis will go through different stages. At present there is a wide perception that Key's government is centrist. In a time of great crisis, however, the centre cannot hold. The elites are demanding that the politicians protect corporate profits first and foremost. The majority want the government to adopt "fairer" Keynesian stimulus policies. RAM must not get swept up in Keynesian policies which seek to reshape or even limit the corporate market, but only to save the market from internal crisis, not transition away from it. At the same time, RAM must understand where the majority are coming from, so that our campaigning can gain their ear. As RAM campaigns out on the streets during 2009 and beyond with a series of different leaflets, we will get to hear what the grassroots are really thinking. The point was made that the thinking of everyone on the left will need to change under the impact of crisis-related social changes. It was noted that the system we live under is perfectly designed to produce what it does, including crises. Problems cannot be solved with old solutions. The power of money can be partly challenged by concrete steps towards an alternative economy, such as people's collectives, local currencies, work timebanks and community barter. Arising from the discussion, five general principles for RAM's outreach work were put forward:

• Experiment with different approaches to the grassroots.
• Learn from the mistakes of ourselves and others.
• Leaflets which combine education with concrete proposals.
• Conduct a two-way dialogue with the grassroots.
• Transmit a genuine sense of excitement.

CLIMATE CAMPS IN NZ The third discussion at conference was on climate camps which are in the early stages of being organised around the country. These camps will help build a climate justice network in Aotearoa and shape strategies to more effectively counter the climate chaos threatening life on Earth. The RAM Conference supported the climate camps. Two link people were elected to facilitate RAM's communications with other climate camp promoters. NZ TOUR BY VENEZUELAN DIPLOMAT The fourth discussion at conference was on a possible tour of New Zealand by Nelson Davila, who is Venezuela's Canberra-based diplomat for the Pacific region. The democratically elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, is promoting what he calls "socialism of the 21st century". The shift of wealth and power from the elites to the grassroots in Venezuela over the last decade is an inspiration in this era of global economic slump. The RAM Conference invited Nelson to tour the country, requesting two months notice to build for well-attended events. Bronwen Beechey, an Auckland RAM activist, was elected as North Island tour organiser. The VAMOS collective in Christchurch will be asked to nominate a South Island tour organiser. Both organisers will liase with other leftists to make the tour a broad-based affair. LEADERSHIP BODIES OF RAM The last discussion at conference was on the structure and personnel of RAM's leadership bodies. After discussion, there was general agreement that RAM needs two main leadership bodies:

• A representative governance body dealing with strategy and other big picture issues.
• A compact management body dealing with tactics and other day-to-day issues.

Until the conference, RAM's governance body had been called the RAM Executive. This name that was felt to be in discord with its function, yet was enshrined in RAM's Rules of Incorporation. To avoid going through the bureaucratic hassle of amending the Rules of Incorporation with the Registrar of Incorporated Societies, David C proposed this motion: The RAM Executive will be commonly known as the RAM Council. David's motion was passed unanimously. The name of RAM's management body remained unchanged as the RAM Secretariat. Three competing slates of candidates for the RAM Council were proposed to conference:

• A 17-person slate proposed by Grant Morgan.
• An 11-person slate proposed by Daphne Lawless, Oliver Woods and Elliott Blade.
• A 15-person slate proposed by Bronwen Beechey.

Slates 2 & 3 did not include anyone different from the people on Slate 1, just fewer of them. In a secret ballot, Slate 1 gained a clear majority of votes on the first round, with 13 supporters, against three votes for Slate 2 and eight for Slate 3. Consequently, the RAM Council comprises these 17 people (in alphabetical order): Bronwen Beechey Elliott Blade Grant Brookes David C Michelle Ducat Roger Fowler Vaughan Gunson Bernie Hornfeck Peter Hughes Michael Lai Daphne Lawless Grant Morgan Pat O'Dea Len Parker Sam Quayle Curwen Rolinson Oliver Woods With the election of the RAM Council, RAM's 2009 conference came to an end. Photos of the conference can be viewed at: http://www.facebook.com/editphoto.php?oid=8350031854#/photo_search.php?oid=8350031854&view=user
RAM COUNCIL MEETING Conference was followed by a meeting of the RAM Council. After discussion among the RAM Council about other leadership roles, Grant Morgan proposed: RAM chair to be Grant Brookes. RAM vice-chair to be Elliott Blade. RAM Secretariat to comprise these four people (in alphabetical order): Elliott Blade Grant Brookes Daphne Lawless Oliver Woods Grant M's motion was passed unanimously by the RAM Council. The Council also elected RAM activists to fill these roles: Kaumatua Publicity Committee Union Committee Community liaison Ecology liaison Treasurer Finance officer RAM trustees

Below is a good account of the global economic crisis by Martin Jaques of the New Statesman. He raises some possible global political consequences which are worth considering. Though Jaques is silent on the likely emergence of an international grassroots movement demanding more fundamental changes to the system than the bankers, corporate politicians and business elites will want. The outcome of this coming global confrontation between masses of ordinary people and the mega-rich elite will determine what the world is going to look like in a decade or so. The RAM Plan http://www.ram.org.nz/pdf/the_ram_plan.pdf, which represents the combined thinking of activists and social movements in New Zealand and internationally, has some good common sense ideas for establishing a rational human-centered society. Check it out.

The New Depression by Martin Jacques from New Statesman 17 February 2009 We are living through a crisis which, from the collapse of Northern Rock and the first intimations of the credit crunch, nobody has been able to understand, let alone grasp its potential ramifications. Each attempt to deal with the crisis has rapidly been consumed by an irresistible and ever-worsening reality. So it was with Northern Rock. So it was with the attempt to recapitalise the banks. And so it will be with the latest gamut of measures. The British government - like every other government - is perpetually on the back foot, constantly running to catch up. There are two reasons. First, the underlying scale of the crisis is so great and so unfamiliar - and, furthermore, often concealed within the balance sheets of the banks and other financial institutions. Second, the crisis has undermined all the ideological assumptions that have underpinned government policy and political discourse over the past 30 years. As a result, the political and business elite are flying blind. This is the mother of all postwar crises, which has barely started and remains out of control. Its end - the timing and the complexion - is unknown.

Continue

by Grant Morgan Chair of RAM (Residents Action Movement) 6 February 2009 US president Barack Obama yesterday penned a perspectives article for The Washington Post called The Actions Americans Need. Given that Washington's actions affect the world, it's fitting that non-Americans (like myself) respond to Obama's strategy. Here are five representative quotes from Obama's article, along with my responses: QUOTE #1: DEEP Obama: "We have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression." Me: Just days ago, New Zealand's Reserve Bank governor Alan Bollard flatly denied that today's global crisis is anything like the Great Depression. Many other world leaders are saying similar silly things. Now Obama is linking the two Combo Crises. This breathes a welcome sense of reality into official pronouncements on the depth of the slump. QUOTE #2: DEEPER Obama: "If nothing is done, this recession might linger for years... Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." Me: Implicitly, Obama is raising the spectre of a slump growing so bad that it threatens the continuation of capitalism, as did the Great Depression. Of course, the US president softens his words with the usual politik-speak about the worst only happening "if nothing is done". QUOTE #3: HOPE Obama: "That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. With it, we will... strengthen our country for years to come." Me: Here the US president is doing what Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression: planting the flag of hope in the midst of an economic blizzard. Obama is hoping that the expression of hope will (as it mostly did in FDR's time) keep the grassroots from revolt even when reality fails to match the expressions of hope. QUOTE #4: SILENCE Obama: "In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis... I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change." Me: Yet Obama is silent on the fundamental reforms needed to bring about real change beneficial to the grassroots. Such fundamental reforms would include moves to permanently socialise the banks and other corporate monopolies (instead of merely socialising their losses) as part of democratising control of the economy. QUOTE #5: IDEOLOGY Obama: "We can pull together... We can place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles." Me: Behind an ideological swipe against ideology, Obama ends with a somewhat tired battle cry in favour of the very old ideology of social democracy. This ideology claims that crisis can only be overcome if all social classes and political forces "pull together". Yet that would leave intact the old class and state hierarchies which have given us today's economic and climate crises, and will give us new horrors tomorrow unless there is a bottom-up refoundation of society. WHAT DOES HISTORY SAY? Obama is outlining a crisis-inspired manifesto to save capitalism from itself in a re-play of Roosevelt's role in the Great Depression. Where might Obama's strategy lead? Let's look quickly at what history can tell us (if we wish to listen, of course). Roosevelt's New Deal created some jobs (but not enough) and expanded social welfare (again, not enough). These commendable achievements helped many struggling citizens (yet again, not enough). There is a dark side as well, however. Because Roosevelt left intact the old power structures, his strategy led directly towards an era of perpetual imperial bullying, a war on ecology, expanding corporate domination, third world poverty, increasing labour exploitation and the many other sins of global capitalism. Thus Roosevelt's New Deal planted the seeds of today's job-destroying Combo Crisis as well as a life-threatening Climate Crisis. Will Obama act on history's lessons? We should applaud Obama's call for "change". At the same time, we should shout out that real change must challenge the dictatorship of the profitariat if we are to escape further social and ecological calamities. You can go to The RAM Plan (viewable at ram.org.nz) for some grassroots Kiwi ideas on the path towards a humanistic and ecological society.

by Grant Morgan RAM Chair 5 February 2009 A telling document has been published in The Independent, one of Britain's foremost social democratic papers. Titled "A manifesto to save the free market", it sets out business editor Jeremy Warner's prescription to save global capitalism from erupting social discontent sparked by the world's first Combo Crisis since the 1930's Great Depression. (reprinted in full below.) Although Warner admits that "unfettered markets would seem manifestly to have failed us", he continues social democracy's historic compromise with capitalism by promoting a 10-point action plan to save the market from itself.

Below is the text of a RAM leaflet (http://www.ram.org.nz/) produced for a Wellington protest on 6 January against Israel's attacks on Gaza: STOP THE KILLING IN GAZA! “It’s horrible, but what can we do about it?” That’s the reaction of people everywhere to the pictures of dead Palestinian children and the pleas of the doctors in Gaza. Israel’s military might can seem unstoppable. But the ongoing attacks are only possible because of the diplomatic, financial and military support they receive from the US state, its allies and friends. Around the world, people are taking action to end their government’s acceptance of the Israel attacks. We can: Protest Protests have the power to keep the plight of innocent victims in the public eye. They can help people at home, feeling sickened by the TV news, to feel they aren’t alone. It’s hard for a lone individual not to shrug their shoulders and look the other way. It’s natural for people to come together at times like these to say they want it to stop. Protests can keep hope alive. Tell our government to take a stand National’s foreign minister, Murray McCully, has said almost nothing about the biggest international crisis of the day. He did declare that the NZ government “won’t take sides”. This is a continuation of what Labour called its “even handed approach”. But if a boy poked out his tongue at another in the school playground, and the second clubbed him back with a baseball bat, is it good enough to “not take sides”? British prime minister Gordon Brown has called for an immediate ceasefire. Venezuela’s campaigning president, Hugo Chavez, condemned the Israeli attacks as “criminal” and called for a “massive campaign of repudiation”. Our government should do similar. Boycott Israel In the 1980s, Black South Africans asked the world to impose an academic, sporting, political and economic boycott of their country. This added to the pressure which eventually ended South Africa’s racist apartheid system. Today, Palestinians are calling for a boycott of Israel. We can support it by refusing to buy Israeli products and by writing to the shops that sell them. Food brands include Beigel Beigel and Silan (sold by Pak’N’Save). Children’s toys (including Happy House) are sold by Bunnings Warehouse and Edukids. DIY hardware includes Chromagen hot water systems and Keter plastics (manufacturer of some Black & Decker toolboxes, sawhorses etc, stocked by Placemakers and Mitre10). And we must put pressure on the NZ company Rakon, which supplies components for Israeli guided bombs, to stop. Find out more With our news media full of official statements and interviews with the powerful, relying on mainly US and British reports for overseas news, the whole story is rarely told. Find out more about what’s going on and what’s behind the headlines: Global Peace & Justice Auckland http://www.gpja.org.nz/ Palestine Human Rights Campaign http://palestine.org.nz/ Boycott Israeli Goods http://big.org.nz/ Wellington Palestine Group http://wellingtonpalestinegroup.blogspot.com/ Auckland University Students for Justice in Palestine http://ausjp.wordpress.com/

29 July 2009 Questionnaire for petitioner 1. What remedy are you seeking? "Remove GST tax from all our food" 2. Advise if you have approached the relevant Minister or Prime Minister (where the petition results from Government or departmental practices). What was the outcome of such an approach? The petition was presented to Parliament on October 3, 2008. The then Prime Minister, Helen Clark, had earlier responded through the media stating that removing GST from food would be "too complicated". The Finance Minister, Michael Cullen, declared via the NZ Herald that, "the Government will not change the GST system". And Revenue Minister Peter Dunne likewise opposed calls to scrap the tax on food and defended the "universal application" of the current GST system in the media. Peter Dunne, of course, remains Revenue Minister in the new government. He has publicly reiterated his opposition to removing GST from food several times this year. The current Finance Minister, Bill English, has also ruled out removing GST from food through the media, as has Prime Minister John Key. The only party represented in the current Parliament to support this remedy has been the Maori Party. Given the public consensus among the "relevant ministers", what would be gained by private approaches to them? Among the tens of thousands of grassroots people spoken to by petition collectors, there was understandably a strong sense that "we don't count", "we are invisible" to the "corporate politicians". Better to have a discussion of the petition in a public forum, such as this select committee, where an independent-minded MP might reach their own conclusions. 3. Outline why you are petitioning Parliament. Identify any relevant responsible statutory bodies that may have been approached in relation to your petition. Include results and/or any reviews supplied by these bodies. "Rising food prices" were headline news in early 2008. It was a global phenomenon. Dozens of countries saw food riots, price controls on food or both. Here in New Zealand, "food basket to the world", the phenomenon was experienced as increased hardship and worsening public health for grassroots New Zealanders. These are the reasons why, in February 2008, RAM – Residents Action Movement decided to initiate the petition to remove GST tax from all our food. This remedy is a simple step that the government could take quickly to give relief to struggling families. For the year to December 2007, Statistics NZ reported that food prices rose by 5.4 percent – well ahead of inflation. The strain on household budgets was reflected in the media. The number of references to "food prices" in New Zealand based on-line news sources catalogued by Google, for instance, rose steadily over the 12 months from February 2007 to reach a level ten times higher by February 2008. In the 2008 calendar year, food prices rose even faster – 9.1 percent, according to Statistics NZ. These official figures for overall food prices, however, under-estimate the impact on the grocery bill for grassroots people. The NZ Herald surveys the cost of a trolley of basic supermarket foods. In April 2008, it found the price was 25 percent higher than a year earlier. Some staples like butter, cheese and some varieties of bread had more than doubled in price. These facts were behind the news headlines about "pain at the checkout". And they are one reason why we are petitioning Parliament. The other reason is the impact on public health. Changes in the health of a population – like climate change – are gradual. In the short term, they can be hard to detect. But like climate change, once under way they are hard to reverse and potentially catastrophic. Early signs of changing dietary patterns and nutritional status of the New Zealand public were reported by researchers at Otago and Massey Universities in August last year. John Birkbeck, Professor of Human Nutrition at Massey University, said the increasing costs were forcing people to choice between good food and other basics such as fuel and rent. Professor Jim Mann of Otago University said the rising food prices show it is time the Government looked seriously at removing the GST on food to make healthy choices more affordable. The Public Health Association and the National Heart Foundation both called for GST to be removed from the nutritious basics of the New Zealand diet – fruit, vegetables, milk. More than a year after the petition launch, its relevance is greater than ever. Earlier this month, the University of Otago Nutrition Department published its annual survey on the cost of a weekly grocery shop in the five main cities. "This year the survey found the rise was at least double that of other years", reported the Sunday Star Times. Associate Professor Winsome Parnell "said the high price of food, coupled with the recession, could have long-term impacts on public health". The bodies we chose to approach in relation to this petition are those most closely involved with the well-being of grassroots people. The result was active support from a wide range of organisations, from the Maori Party to Grey Power Associations, local body politicians to Salvation Army churches and Christian social service organisations, trade unions to residents coalitions. Views expressed by these bodies are too numerous to include in this questionnaire. A number of bodies and public figures, however, have spoken out against the petition. Among these opponents, a handful of common objections have been raised. Some of these will no doubt be discussed by the select committee. 1. Removing GST from food would be "too complicated". This objection was answered in a press release by Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia on 29 April 2008: “The Maori Party has welcomed the call for a wider debate about removing GST on food, sparked off by the latest grim report from the Child Poverty Action Group, 'Left Behind'. "Desperate times call for bold responses – and that is what the public is wanting – not policy cowardice" said Mrs Turia. "We need to be looking at the big picture – about how we can improve the health and well-being of our most vulnerable citizens, now". "And yet what we get from Labour and National is that they have ruled out even talking about dropping GST from food with the excuse that it may be too 'complex' or 'difficult to implement'". "What utter rubbish" said Mrs Turia. "Since when have good ideas been squashed because they may involve a bit of tricky policy thinking?". 

 "Being administratively challenging is not a good enough excuse to avoid being socially responsible" said Mrs Turia. "If there is a will, there is a way". 

 "National and Labour need to stop thinking up reasons why not and get to grips with the urgent crisis facing this nation – how the social and income inequalities are damaging our children". 

 "We are not interested in playing a game of political point-scoring, heaping blame on the policy failings of the 80s and 90s – our focus is about investing in the future of this nation" said Mrs Turia. "If we are serious about eliminating poverty, and caring for the well-being of our children, we must listen to the good ideas of the people and be prepared to do something about it". 

 "If it is so difficult, perhaps officials could talk to their counterparts in Australia or Britain to see how they have been able to achieve the goal of removing GST from food" ended Mrs Turia. 2. Sellers wouldn't pass on GST cuts as lower food prices if the tax was removed. While sellers have a degree of flexibility in regard to managing their profit margins, they are not a law unto themselves. Customers ultimately dictate the course of a business, and New Zealand has a very competitive retail environment. If GST-off-food became a reality, Kiwis would not tolerate retailers or their suppliers not removing the 12.5% tax on their food items. There would be a mass exodus to sellers who didn't hike their prices, forcing the others to retreat. 3. Removing GST from food would deliver a one-off benefit which would be quickly eaten up by rising prices. Removing GST from food provides a permanent benefit. Prices will always be cheaper by the amount of the GST than it would otherwise be if this 12.5 percent tax remained. In fact, as food prices rose over time in line with general inflationary trends, the amount of the benefit of removing GST would grow in value. 4. There are other options the government should consider to deal with rising food prices, like raising wages, benefits and pensions so people have more in their pocket. Why is this a reason not to remove GST from food? For those who support these options (including RAM), wouldn't it be better to have GST off food as well? 5. Lost GST revenue would impact on the government's ability to fund public services and welfare payments, and/or credit-worthiness during the current economic crisis. The cost of removing GST from food was estimated at "around $2 billion" by respected NZ Herald political correspondent John Armstrong. This is substantially less than the $3.3 billion in personal tax cuts (which benefit the wealthy more than the rest) made by Labour and National in October 2008 and April 2009. Although the Budget deferred tax cuts scheduled for 2010 and 2011, the Finance Minister has since said there could be room for further tax cuts in the medium term. But rather than further reducing the top tax rate, New Zealand should move away from the GST flat tax, since it is so unfair to low-to-modest income Kiwis. The poorest person in the land pays exactly the same amount of GST on a litre of milk as the richest person. GST is the product of Rogernomics and the whole Business Roundtable agenda. We need to return to progressive tax systems where the rich pay a fairer share. RAM, as the initiators of the petition, simultaneously promoted to petition signers the idea of a Financial Transactions Tax to make up lost revenue and capture greedy speculators in the tax net which they now escape under GST. Given the role of speculation in the financial sector in destabilising the economy and creating the current crisis, this idea has even more merit today. I look forward to hearing the results of your deliberations. Grant Brookes Chair, RAM – Residents Action Movement grant.brookes@ram.org.nz

Speech to Wellington Public Meeting 9 August 2009 Hardly a month goes by, it seems, without John Key announcing some bold new plan to tackle the economic crisis. Even before they won the election, National had signed up to a scheme to guarantee bank deposits to head off a potential credit crunch. In February they held the high profile Jobs Summit. In March the government announced a national cycleway and their "9 day fortnight" plan. The Budget in May cancelled the tax cuts planned to 2010 and 2011 as the government deficit worsened. Last month it was a subsidy scheme for McDonalds to take on unemployed workers. And now they're talking about getting young people off the dole by creating jobs or training places for every 16 to 18 year-old in the country. Even these few examples underscore the seriousness of today's economic crisis. Some commentators have started talking about the "green shoots" of economic recovery. These are often the same people who failed to see the recession coming in the first place. And their talk is based largely on a recovery of some US share prices. Stock markets go up and down. There was a similar rally in 1930. A year after the great Wall Street Crash of 1929, commentators were also talking about the worst being over. The Great Depression, of course, got much deeper and lasted another decade. The International Monetary Fund said in April that the world economy will shrink this year for the first time since 1945, by 1.3 percent. And it keeps getting worse. Two months later, the World Bank revised that figure and predicted a 3 percent contraction of the world economy. Even after the worst is over, they say, there won't a recovery to anything like the growth we've seen over the last ten years. The world is in for a long period of economic stagnation. So what's been the result so far of National's flagship schemes to tackle the crisis? The "Big Four" banks, now underwritten by the taxpayer, made a record $4.5 billion profit in the last year. Excluding bad debt provisions, their profitability is still rising today. Meanwhile – thanks to the government refusal to attach conditions to its bank guarantee scheme – home owners are suffering high interest rates, while those who don't own their own home struggle to get a loan. Despite the Jobs Summit and the 9 day fortnight, 24,000 people lost their jobs in the three months to June – the sharpest rise in unemployment over 20 years. The government itself has led the way, cutting 2,000 public sector jobs since the election. Those still working in the public sector – a quarter of a million people, including nurses, doctors and teachers – are facing a pay freeze from next year. In the private sector, pay rises are also rapidly falling to below inflation. Prices for basics like food and power, meanwhile, are rising faster than ever. No sooner had Bill English cancelled the tax cuts for 2010 and 2011 than he said he'd like to cut taxes for businesses and top income earners "in the medium term". Even if John Key's rosy predictions for youth training schemes pan out – and they won't – they would provide just 2,000 free places at polytechs and wananga and 4,000 paying jobs for the 17,000 young people already on the dole. The main effect will be to scrap the unemployment benefit for all under-18s. Meanwhile, National is pushing ahead with the free trade deals that fuel an international race to the bottom in pay and environmental protection. They're talking of more privatisation – including the likely sell-off of Auckland assets under the new super-city. So behind the smiling face of John Key, the reality is clear. National, as a party, stands for the market and market forces. The government is determined to protect the rich and powerful who are most responsible for the economic crisis and push the cost of the recession onto the people at the grassroots. If we don't get organised and take action, the grassroots majority are going to be steam-rollered. Who is fighting all this? Labour under Phil Goff are dutifully making their muted criticisms in parliament. But they are directing most of their fire at the moment onto personal bad behaviour of individual National MPs. This is because while they may quibble with the details, they agree with the basic thrust of National's market-driven approach. Of course they won't be organising ordinary people to take action, for the simple reason they can't. The Greens, who many hope will come out against National's agenda, have just tied one hand behind their back by signing a deal to cooperate with the government on areas of common interest. The long term effects of this are unknown. But the signs don't look good. Already they're supporting National's downsizing of the national cycleway to a few local bike tracks. Sadly, even the Council of Trade Unions has so far clung in practice to its policy of partnership with the government of the day. While there are some signs of possible change, the union movement so far hasn't mobilised its members into action. It is not actively supporting our $15 minimum wage petition. This is why the petition initiated by Unite Union is so important. It represents one plank of an alternative approach to combatting the recession – an approach that shifts the burden off the backs of grassroots people. As Unite's national secretary, Matt McCarten, has said: "The economic crisis facing the world is the toxic product of insatiable greed at the top and the free-market policies of governments that removed all controls. The end result is a skewing of income and wealth so that the rich got richer and the poor fell off the edge. “Restoring the minimum wage would be an important step towards replacing the greed and inequality of the past three decades with policies that protect jobs by enhancing the purchasing power of those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Those who have missed out on the prosperity that those at the top enjoyed deserve their fair share now that the wealthy elite and their political servants have brought us to the state we are in.” The petition can do even more. It can bring together left and grassroots activists – like those of us in this room – and build connections for joint action and cooperation in other areas as well. Because it's not just the economic crisis bearing down on grassroots people. Human-induced climate change is threatening every living thing on the planet. The Greens and mainstream environmental groups are opposing National's back-tracking on climate change targets. But their solution – relying on market mechanisms like Emissions Trading Schemes – won't save our planet. John Key is edging closer to plunging New Zealand into an escalating war in Afghanistan. The government's erosion of civil rights and democratic freedoms in recent years looks set to continue. I think it's fair to say that most grassroots people in New Zealand today are without a political voice. Small parties like RAM, the Alliance and the Workers Party have stood in elections and campaigned against the market-driven policies of National and Labour. But what we urgently need is a bigger, broader, more united left that can take the fight to National across the board and become a credible alternative for all those without a voice. For those who share this perspective, the petition for a Citizens Initiated Referendum on raising the minimum wage is a great opportunity to connect with a broad cross-section of people. The petition is overwhelmingly popular. In Wellington hospital where I work, for instance, 160+ staff signed it in the first two weeks. Just three people opted not to sign. It appeals to everyone from cleaners and orderlies to charge nurse managers. Some sign because $15 is more than they're earning now. Others have children on the minimum wage, or remember what it was like when they were earning that themselves. Some see the health impacts of low pay, poor housing and nutrition. I've been involved with many petitions over the years. This level and breadth of support is extraordinarily high. But it's not just the numbers. When staff see the petition, it's as if a floodgate opens in their minds. Out come all sorts of views on the government, the kind of society New Zealand has become and how that needs to change. RAM and the Alliance have started holding street stalls on Saturdays in Lower Hutt and Newtown. We'd like to extend these, if more people are willing to help, and broaden out the organising if other groups would like to take ownership as well. Before you leave the room today, I would like you to think about how you can get involved in spreading this petition and gathering signatures – in your community, sports club, church, workplace, tertiary institution, or wherever – and join the movement that starts with the push for a $15 minimum wage.

by Don Franks, Workers Party of New Zealand from UNITY Journal May 2009 In his article Responding to the crisis: Broad left unity to mobilise masses of people, Vaughan Gunson writes: Over the last decade Socialist Worker-New Zealand, a small Marxist organisation, has moved towards the realisa­tion that we need to be building alongside other activists a broad left party which has the breadth and reach to give leadership to masses of people. And that we need to begin now, not later. Socialist Worker-New Zealand may have come to this realization over the last decade, but I don’t think they have arrived at a new political discovery. There have been many socialist attempts to build – or infiltrate – broad left parties. In New Zealand the Alliance is a recent example. At least two Marxist groups were early participants in the Alliance, the Permanent Revolution Group and the Workers Communist League. Both groups were rebuffed. The PRG, more open about their politics, were tossed out very early. WCL comrades were more used to working in united front organizations and at that stage were particularly prone to compromise their politics in the process. So remnants of the WCL hung around unhappily inside the Alliance for a while, marginalized from any positions of power as the party steadily formalized into a standard issue parliamentary machine. It was clear from the start that there was to be no accommodation of anticapitalism in the Alliance venture. The endgame saw the Alliance indelibly disgraced by its association with support for US invasion of Afghanistan. Inside the last decade, Socialist Worker-New Zealand initiated a different approach to creating a broad left party; a movement around a left magazine called Workers Charter paper. This was an attractive lively publication, heavily subsidized by its producers and mostly distributed free. It continued for a year or so but eventually failed to pick up enough support to sustain itself. Hopes of an ongoing Workers Charter organization folded with the paper’s last issue. The next Socialist Worker-New Zealand initiated attempt to make a broad left party was built around single issue campaigning. As Vaughan points out, RAM (has) achieved visibility and respect for campaigns like rates justice, free & frequent public transport, and GST off food. In the 2004 and 2007 local body elections in Greater Auckland RAM received mass votes. Last year, RAM moved to become a nationwide broad left party that contested New Zealand’s 2008 General Election. Vaughan concludes: While the final electoral result was poor, there were posi­tives, including the good reception by grassroots people to RAM’s “Ten Commandments” leaflet.” With respect, RAM’s own, “good reception” opinion of their leaflet’s reception is a pretty slim picking to net from a huge expenditure of election effort. RAM’s broad party approach netted just 465 votes, fewer than the 932 of the Workers Party, whose candidates openly advocated socialist revolution. Vaughan proceeds to enunciate ten points for future political work. First is: “moving away from the corporate market”. Moving – to where? The corporate market, or more accurately, the capitalist system dominates the globe. It can either be accepted or opposed. It is not nitpicking semantics to charge that electing the formula “move away from” fudges the issue. Point 2 refers to a multiple front class war on a global scale. The only problem I have with this formulation is its variance from the main thrust of Vaughan’s text, which is not about class war at all, but about “credible broad left parties or coalitions which win the respect of grassroots people” (more on that later). Point 4, titled “Mobilising masses of people”, continues: The goal of unity is to build credible broad left parties or coalitions which win the respect of grassroots people. Why this need to create a nebulous, unscientific category of “grassroots people”? It is not even in particularly common usage. By “grassroots people,” do you mean employed workers, unemployed workers, retired workers, soon to be workers? If so why not just say “the working class”. If that is not the social category you mean, then what is it? Vaughan continues: Now there’s deep concern at the worsening economic crisis and a simmering anger. This is the dry fuel that left activists should be working to ignite. Really!? Have left activists not constantly been attempting to do this? Vaughan’s estimate of his group’s own attempts to ignite the dry fuel runs: Last year, a small number of RAM activists launched a campaign to remove the GST tax off food. With food prices rising rapidly in New Zealand in mid-2008 removing this neo-liberal tax was a concrete demand that intersected with the public mood. The campaign was able to achieve a level of mass awareness that was encouraging. Yes, it did, up to a point. Many people signed the petition. But then, where did it go? Labour dismissed tax off food as “a gimmick”, to no discernable mass reaction. Only a few dozen people were moved to gather for the petition presentation at parliament, most of those older already committed activists. After that action, the campaign came to an end, its goal unfulfilled. What specific conclusions are to be drawn from those facts? Apparently that: the left needs to come up with other such demands at the right moment in response to events. We have to pay close attention to what is happening at the grassroots. What are people most angry about? What do people themselves feel is a reasonable demand that is achievable and com­mon sense? “What are people most angry about?” Various things. Some workers feel longer prison sentences is a reasonable demand. Others, that “jobs for Kiwi workers first” is reasonable common sense. Others, probably at this stage a small minority, believe in fighting for every worker’s job irrespective of existing national borders. In my opinion that position is the one which is principled and consistent and should be publicly advocated, however many people are currently opposed to it. The history of progressive social change is not an endorsement of populism. The women’s suffrage movement, the anti-apartheid move­ment and the anti-Vietnam war movement all began very small. Tiny groups and scattered individuals went against an apparently invincible tide to struggle for the principles they knew were right. When these few activists won arguments and made converts, they were building their movement on sure foundations, which could eventually turn back the strongest counter tide. I think Vaughan’s argument for beginning with “what people are most angry about” is made from the best of motives, but is actually the opposite of what is required. Point 5 searches for “the right strategies and tactics”, suggesting: It’s the grassroots masses themselves who have the power to effect real and lasting change; We understand that the prospects for advancing the struggle towards a human centred society are not infinite. There are strategies which have the objective possibility of success, and those that will not fly and will fail. Pursuing a wrong strategy or the wrong campaign that does not “grip the masses” is a possibility; Fear of getting it wrong can’t overwhelm the need for action, of trying something that attempts to push the but­ton of mass consciousness; We study with open minds the political conditions at any one time and we grasp the multiple forces at work. Understanding the world as correctly as we can will mini­mise political mistakes; We learn from our mistakes. A cliché perhaps, but true nevertheless; We learn from struggles going on in other countries. As well as learning from and updating the strategies and tactics of historical political leaders who have understood that the transformation of society is the act of the grass­roots themselves; All of the above are common truisms. They are also completely abstract. Concrete specifics are what count. Which particular overseas struggles can we best learn from, and what, specifically, do we try to learn? Vaughan continues: We tell ourselves again and again, and then another time, that we must be in dialogue with the grassroots majority. They can and will teach the leaders. This “grassroots majority” appears to be some sort of exotic race apart, like a recently encountered tribe with an entirely different language and culture. In my perception the workers I communicate with daily are basically pretty much the same as myself, the difference in most cases being the possession of a different set of political ideas. Further along, Vaughan declares: Freedom of will and action can only come from an absence of any hierarchies of power. Our cards are laid on the table. There is no backroom decision making and factional orga­nising, both of which can only lead to destabilisation and the likely implosion of a broad left formation. That is a glowing self description of an organization. Those having experienced a close association with Socialist Worker will have their own assessment of its validity. Finally Vaughan says: The vast majority of people today are not going to be won to joining the movement away from the corporate market by first being won to the idea of socialism or revolution. To build a political vehicle capable of engaging with and giving leadership to masses of people Marxists need to be working alongside other leftists. That is an artificial construct. I don’t know of and have never met any Marxist who insists on acceptance of socialism or revolution as a prerequsite for participation in anticapitalist struggle. All the Marxists I’ve ever known have recognized the necessity of working alongside other leftists and other people generally. This has not always been done well, but it has always been attempted. Vaughan adds: The Marxist tradition does maintain some core principles that define it as a lasting political tradition. I’d argue that Marxism defines itself as dialectical materialism in the service of working class liberation. The practical application of that requires the painstaking creation and development of a Marxist party. In a capitalist society such a party will necessarily be relatively small up until a period of revolutionary upsurge. Because of that, it is imperative that Marxist parties reach out widely and creatively to engage in struggle alongside the largest possible number of non party workers. A Marxist party can arrive at considerable cooperation on various issues with social democrats and non Marxist radicals. Sometimes there can be temporary unity on specific issues with capitalist parties like the Greens. On a number of key issues Marxist parties will find no accommo­dation whatsoever with capitalist parties, particularly when it comes to matters of bourgeois law, ‘business confidentiality’ and imperialist war. Independent working class revival requires breaking from the vain hope of real change inside the present social structure. It means building our own vision of a world run for and by workers. It requires questioning, rejecting and actively working to replace the capitalist system. Over the last few decades society has become manifestly more unequal. The old methods of redress haven’t brought real improve­ment for the mass of workers. That’s why we need to seriously put revolution on the agenda. Impatient attempts to hurry the process of revolutionary change by attempting the creation of revolutionary/reformist parties inevita­bly founder and dismember on the rocks of opposing class interests.

by Vaughan Gunson from UNITY Journal May 2009 Facing the left today are incredible challenges. The global economic meltdown, combined with the nightmare scenarios of runaway climate change and resource depletion, looms as a human disaster of an unimaginable scale. The question we are all asking ourselves: is how can we organise ourselves and grassroots people into a movement that has the strength and vision to set the world on a different course? Over the last decade Socialist Worker-New Zealand, a small Marxist organisation, has moved towards the realisation that we need to be building alongside other activists a broad left party which has the breadth and reach to give leadership to masses of people. And that we need to begin now, not later. Below are 10 ideas in support of the broad left strategy. These thoughts are the product of experiences as an activist in recent years, alongside other activists who have contributed much of the thinking – in particular Grant Morgan, leading member of Socialist Worker-New Zealand and Residents Action Movement (RAM). Crucially these ideas are informed by political practice. With RAM, a grassroots campaigning organisation which has also stood in elections, we have laid the foundations at least for a broad left party to emerge in New Zealand. RAM has achieved visibility and respect for campaigns like rates justice, free and frequent public transport and goods and services tax (GST) off food. In the 2004 and 2007 local body elections in Greater Auckland RAM received mass votes. Last year, RAM moved to become a nationwide broad left party that contested New Zealand’s 2008 general election. While the final electoral result was poor, there were positives, including the good reception by grassroots people to RAM’s “Ten Commandments” leaflet. The writing of “The RAM Plan”, which brings together concrete demands and a broad left vision that attacks the whole market ethos, was another achievement that continues to attract attention. (See http://www.ram.org.nz/pdf/the_ram_plan.pdf to read “The RAM Plan”, which includes RAM’s “Ten Commandments”). Through involvement in RAM, Socialist Worker members have learnt from activists from other political traditions, and vice versa. So these 10 ideas have behind them some practical experience. They’re also informed by political initiatives happening in other parts of the world, where activists are coming to the same conclusion: at this historical juncture we need mass-based broad left formations. 1. Moving away from the corporate market We have to believe that a human-centred society based on the values of equality, democracy, ecology and peace is possible. We have to stop the race for corporate profits corrupting everything else. We must put an end to obscene wealth controlled by a tiny minority while billions of people go without the basic necessities of life. And we must urgently reverse the environmental degradation that’s taken the planet to the brink of catastrophe. To do these things we need be moving away from the corporate market. Many people, perhaps even a majority, recognise this in some way. What we have to do, however, is turn the desire for a better world into a real process of change. 2. A multiple front class war on a global scale The global economic meltdown, which Grant Morgan has called “The Great Implosion”, has unleashed the conditions for a global class war fought on many fronts. (See “The great implosion’’, http://unityaotearoa.blogspot.com/2009/02/great-implosion-second-and-third.html, February 27, 2009.) Trillions and trillions of dollars of money wealth has been wiped out by the bursting of the bubble economy, leading to a massive contraction of the real economy. Combined with rapid resource depletion there’s simply less to go round, when for many scarcity was already the norm. The crisis is so acute because workers over the previous three decades of neoliberal hegemony have already been squeezed. There’s no give in the system. Such are the conditions for an escalating conflict between the mega-rich, doing everything they can to maintain their wealth and power, and the greater humanity of people of modest means. Bosses around the world are already reacting as the logic of corporate competition dictates. They’re laying-off workers, forcing workers to take a pay cut, or work longer hours for less pay. This is creating fear amongst workers, but also anger, which will turn into outbreaks of resistance. Any increase in class conflict will result in quickening political and ideological polarisation. Some established political parties will try to claim that they govern in the interests of “everyone”, but as Grant Morgan has stated: “[T]his façade is bound to crack as the crisis continues. Throughout capitalist history, every major slump has forced politicians to favour either the market or the masses.” (“Protecting the people from the market crisis’’, http://unityaotearoa.blogspot.com/2008/02/feature-article-protecting-people-from.html, November 19, 2008.) 3. We need unity Activists all over the world understand that we need to be united in opposition to the corporate market, especially now. They know it in their gut. That’s why there’s impatience with the fractured nature of the left in many countries. But unity does not mean giving leadership of the struggle against the corporate market to the market liberals who control the New Zealand Labour Party, or its equivalent in other countries. There must be principled unity based on opposition to corporate control of society and government policies that help the mega-rich at the expense of the grassroots. It’s a unity of those who wish to maintain and extend public services, defend workers’ rights, and who wish to see public solutions (not market-based “non-solutions”) to global warming. Unity based on these types of fundamentals may be very broad, especially in times of unprecedented global crisis. It may include supporters and grassroots leaders of formerly social-democratic parties, like the Labour Party. Or from other parties or organisations that have previously shown little inclination to resist the market. This process will be helped by any move towards “unity from below”. Grassroots people moving closer together, in response to external realities created by the crisis, and through leadership given by the left, will not have in their minds the political divisions that the left is capable of erecting. Grassroots people without rigid denominations of political faith will have little patience with factional politics, academic point scoring, or any other divisive behaviour. Uniting different political traditions in practice will require ongoing dialogue and negotiation. The extremes of the present historical moment, however, will be a powerful force for unity as people realise that something larger than themselves must be built. Otherwise we will all be swept away by more powerful forces. 4. Mobilising masses of people The goal of unity is to build credible broad left parties or coalitions which win the respect of grassroots people. And in doing so, achieve a position of trusted leadership, where the spark of an idea, the call to take a step in this or that direction, is heard and picked up on by masses of people. Any follower or participant of team sports knows that success breeds confidence. Right now in New Zealand, and in many other countries, confidence is low among grassroots people. Union membership is only a fraction of the total number of working people. People have been hit hard by years of corporate punishment dished out by bosses, international moneymen and neo-liberal governments. And there’s the incipient influence of individualistic thinking that’s eaten away at traditions of solidarity and co-operation. Overcoming the thought patterns of the market and its emphasis on competition will be a struggle for all of us. Turning it round and building a winning team will be an immense task. But we know there’s resentment towards the mega-rich and their partners in government. And now there’s deep concern at the worsening economic crisis and a simmering anger. This is the dry fuel that left activists should be working to ignite. Last year, a small number of RAM activists launched a campaign to remove the GST tax off food. With food prices rising rapidly in New Zealand in mid-2008 removing this neoliberal tax was a concrete demand that intersected with the public mood. The campaign was able to achieve a level of mass awareness that was encouraging. The left needs to come up with other such demands at the right moment in response to events. We have to pay close attention to what’s happening at the grassroots. What are people most angry about? What do people think is a realistic and achievable demand? A well-chosen campaign (which contains within it the dialectic of the wider struggle for a better world), if achieved, would give a tremendous confidence boost to people. While it won’t be easy getting masses of people moving in a general direction away from the market – and we have to acknowledge that – neither will stopping masses of people in motion. The world’s capitalist rulers know this. They know that the failure of the unrestrained market has created a crisis of legitimacy, undermining the institutions, governments and political parties that have backed the market. That’s why, as many already understand, the unfolding economic disaster is an historic opportunity for the left. To grasp it we need to achieve the dialectical fusion of principled leadership and masses of ordinary people. If the confidence that grassroots people have in their collective ability to influence the world grows then new opportunities and goals will be possible. Our first task, however, is to get the masses moving. No small or narrowly defined political group will be able to achieve this historical task. It calls for a united broad left. 5. Finding the right strategies and tactics This must be the hardest part of political leadership. We know the general direction we want to go, but we also need clear strategies and tactics that are responsive to fast changing circumstances. Some say this takes political genius, which only a few people have. Well, in the absence of genius, normal brains can only do what they can, but perhaps we can keep in mind these principles:

• It’s the grassroots masses themselves who have the power to effect real and lasting change;
• We understand that the prospects for advancing the struggle towards a human-centred society are not infinite. There are strategies which have the objective possibility of success, and those that will not fly and will fail. Pursuing a wrong strategy or the wrong campaign that does not “grip the masses” is a possibility;
• Fear of getting it wrong can’t overwhelm the need for action, of trying something that attempts to push the button of mass consciousness;
• We study with open minds the political conditions at any one time and we grasp the multiple forces at work. Understanding the world as correctly as we can will minimise political mistakes;
• We learn from our mistakes. A cliché perhaps, but true nevertheless;
• We learn from struggles going on in other countries. As well as learning from and updating the strategies and tactics of historical political leaders who have understood that the transformation of society is the act of the grassroots themselves;
• Our campaigns and slogans seek to undermine the market, but are always realistic in the eyes of grassroots people;
• We tell ourselves again and again, and then another time, that we must be in dialogue with the grassroots majority. They can and will teach the leaders. We do nothing that is not ultimately aimed at reaching masses of people.

6. Everyone an activist Mass leaflets, hardcopy and internet publications, social networking internet sites, poster campaigns, media campaigns – we need to be reaching people through all the available tools of mass outreach. This emphasis on mass outreach will encourage a culture of doing, not just talking. We see what works, reflect and discuss, and then do some more. Getting it wrong sometimes, but always with the same shared goal: how to encourage masses of people to get behind an idea. So that they start a conversation in the workplace, pass on a leaflet, letterbox their neighbourhood, forward an email – all modest measures, but when done by thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions, becomes of a qualitatively different character. We need a redefinition of activism to include small acts by ordinary people. Just as the political traditions of members of a broad left party will be, and must be diverse, so must the criteria by which we judge activism. The broad left party should fight for a broad-based activism of people fed up and angry with the market, who are encouraged and inspired, in the first instance, to take small steps to do things which effect the people around them. From this mass force will come the impetus for people to join a protest march or take part in a political strike. Ultimately, a broad left party must aim to be a mass organisation, which in the New Zealand context might include tens of thousands of members and supporters. Only that way will a critical mass of people be brought together, reaching into the heart of grassroots communities. If an organising apparatus consisting of a core of committed broad left activists can play an activating role in these communities, then real, substantial and lasting change can be achieved. 7. A broad left party contests elections There’s a general consensus across the left that we need to stand in elections. A broad left party or coalition should contest elections with these factors in mind:

• We use electoral contests to raise concrete demands which have the potential to become mass campaigns;
• Grassroots people will get a big lift of confidence from a broad left party or coalition that achieves electoral success;
• We aim to win parliamentary seats or other elected positions. Over time we work towards the goal of a broad left party forming or being part of a government, or a majority on a regional or local body council. At the national level and local level there are important leverages of power that a broad left party can use strategically and tactically to advance the mass movement;
• We look at how leftists in other countries have used electoral contests and governorship to advance their struggle. Of particular relevance are the governments of Bolivia and Venezuela, which are using various constitutional and organisational means to roll back the market with the backing of the majority of the population.
• Any broad left party or coalition that contests elections must never get sucked into the parliamentary bubble. We remain mass activists focused on mobilising ordinary people to take action.
• If a broad left party maintains a grassroots campaigning style, and has within its ranks grassroots people who are willing to stand up and take leadership roles, then the masses will evaluate honest mistakes and dishonest attacks from the corporate media fairly. A broad left party, if it’s truly of and for the people, will not be bound by the rules that the media and “spin makers” would like to dictate.

8. Comrades in the struggle People from different political traditions (ecological, anarchist, Marxist, social democratic, etc.) who are genuine in their attempts to relate to grassroots people, to talk with them, to listen to them, and who understand that the movement of masses of people will protect us in the current crisis, are comrades in the struggle. Comrades talk to each other, they listen, they conduct debates in a way that’s open and constructive. They work to ensure that decisions are democratic. Our cards are laid on the table and every effort is made to achieve an atmosphere of trust. There’s no backroom decision making and factional organising, both of which can only lead to destabilisation and the implosion of a broad left formation. Building a particular broad left formation in the current context must be the political priority of all members. 9. Transitioning together away from the market A vision of a new society has to remain fresh and exciting. It should be evolving, while keeping in sight core principles like equality, democracy, ecology and peace. People need to feel that they have a stake in determining what the end goal is. That way they will be more motivated to join the struggle. For a broad left formation to work it must agree that the path lies away from the corporate market, without forcing any agreement on what exactly a future society may look like, which is impossible anyway. The minutes to RAM’s 2009 national conference refer to activists from different traditions on the left all embracing a common philosophy, which is that “we are transitionists”. (See RAM’s 2009 national conference minutes at http://unityaotearoa.blogspot.com/2009/04/minutes-of-rams-2009-conference.html.) In the end how far a movement advances and which direction it takes will be determined by grassroots people. 10. Marxists at the heart of the movement Change, even revolutionary change, is a process. And change, even revolutionary change, is the action of masses of people. From these two truths, which history would show to be correct, it’s apparent that political leaders cannot be anywhere else than with the grassroots masses. It’s they who must push forward the process of change. Right now the struggle for a better world requires a “transitional mechanism” that’s far broader than a narrow Marxist organisation. The vast majority of people today are not going to be won to joining the movement away from the corporate market by first being won to the idea of socialism or revolution. To build a political vehicle capable of engaging with and giving leadership to masses of people Marxists need to be working alongside other leftists. Marxism, with its emphasis on material realities, class struggle, and understanding events in their complex totality, has an enormous amount to offer the movement. Marxists can provide a well of ideas for other activists to use and consider. And Marxists, of course, must be active learners. The Marxist tradition will only remain vibrant and relevant through engaging in an outwards focused political practice that connects with workers and other grassroots people. No one can ever lose sight that ideas convince people when they match with their own experiences of the world. Accepting ideas as true is a process of learning. All new learning bridges what we already know and believe with a new understanding. Ideas have no compulsion.

***********

The global economic crisis and its political aftermath will radicalise and energise, testing the ideas of everyone. All participants in a democratic broad left formation will share in the co-ownership of new ideas, and the adaptation of old ones that best meet the known and unknown political problems in front of us. And we will see what works in practice. It’s a basic principle of Marxism that people change their situation and themselves though collective action. In new situations, new mass realities, political discussion will take place at a higher level. And Marxists and socialists from a variety of backgrounds and traditions will have plenty to say as part of a mass democratic debate. You only have to look at what’s happening in Venezuela to see what might be possible when a mass movement has chalked up some serious victories against the market. There’s a truly mass discussion happening under the umbrella of “socialism for the 21st century” between activists and masses of people. It’s a discussion that’s informed by the history of struggle from below and people’s own experience of struggle in Venezuela today. It’s an incredibly exciting dynamic, which is helping reinvigorate socialist ideas. Grant Morgan has written: “The structures of a tiny minority can triumph over the values of the vast majority only so long as the majority remain divided, uncertain and disorganised.” (“Protecting the people from the market crisis’’, http://unityaotearoa.blogspot.com/2008/02/feature-article-protecting-people-from.html, November 19, 2008.) The urgent and monumental task of the left today is to provide the leadership and organisation that prepares the way for a mass movement demanding, organising and fighting for a human centred society. Only mass-based broad left formations will be able to achieve this task. All who wish to fight in a principled and consistent manner against the market are needed. In moving forward together we can best breach the outer perimeter of the crumbling corporate castle and usher into the world a political alternative.