Youth Rates Speech.

Last Saturday I was at the youth rates protest in Dunedin. There were about 50 other people so it was good to see such a turn-out in such a small amount of time. At the same time there were two other protests going on in Dunedin, one against oil drilling and the other to save jobs at the Hillside train factory in South Dunedin. Funny how nothing goes on for weeks and then three separate protests are organised for the same day! At the protest I was shouted at by the ISO. I'm sure you know I'm not part of the ISO anymore. I have co-founded the organisation OGNA- Organisation for Global Non-Violent Action, thus splitting from the ISO. We still aim for socialism but for us the only way we can truly achieve socialism is through non-violence. The revolution to overthrow capitalism has to be non-violent. If not you are empowering a select few, better and probably male individuals to mow down those filthy capitalists. We are against killing, animals included (I've got some improvement to do on that one!), you only live once but most importantly, who is to decide who shall and shall not live? That in itself is unjust. Even that filthy capitalist has a right to live, with dignity. He is as much a product of the system as we all are. We are taught to behave as individuals in a competitive world. I think this is against human nature and so does Aristotle and Plato and Marx and all those current revolutionaries in Egypt, Tunisia, Spain and beyond. Proof that refutes this capitalist notion happens every time there is a natural disaster, or when communities start to face the worst. We all go back to those who we can trust- we belong in communities. The only reason these communities are divided is because of the system.

The ISO shouted at me because I publicly advertised our group- as well as the protest- on the radio. They say we have not given a letter of resignation, "that's what political groups do". Well we thought we'd made it clear enough, not attending meetings and anouncing the creation of our new group.. to them... But some people are just too keen to read upto that last full stop, which is redundant

Here is my speech:

I worked a graveyard shift last night, I've only had three hours sleep but I'm still here. I and we shall not remain passive before these laws, we will not buy into these neo-liberal theories of trickle down effects or recessions.

While production rises, while we are forced to work more hours our wages effectively decrease due to gst and inflation.

I'm here as a student, a socialist, a worker and I find it hard to pay my bills. It doesn't matter if I'm young or about to retire, where I work or where I'm from I find it hard.
The truth of the matter is this [youth rates bill] fits into the system. It's here to divide us into age, gender, ethnicity or nationality. But we shall remain united... Only throughh unity can we achieve justice. Through union cooperation and worker's protests.

I do not want 30% less pay.I'm worth more than that and I earn more than I pay already!

Expressing dissent is akin to sin in totalitarian societies.

It would be wrong to say that no matter the size of a totalitarian society, it will always be bad. The bigger, the worse. A small movement has much less potential of harming millions who digress with them and will also be much less influential in the political sphere.

I strongly believe in beliefs. I don't believe in a God, but I do believe that everyone is genuinely a good person, I believe in second chances and I believe strongly in free speech. All three together, for me, constitute the basis for socialism, lets call it global equality. I'm happy to say I live by the three too.
I was doing the stall for the ISO today, a right-wing friend came by and we had a small chat. In the meanwhile the other three members of the organization doing the stall walked away and sat at a table nearby. I heard my name several times, but I figured I was just being paranoid. To be honest I almost should be hearing things, me and the ISO have had a fall out of late. When the three came back they sat around me. We made random chit-chat and then they made the move: one of the members (namely the one who is still more open to my differing opinions) started poking me. "What will your non-violent ways do against this huh?!" he said. I was going to take it as a joke when one of the other members asked me if I was a pacifist. He pretended to act surprised, but I've been openly a pacifist since it first came up in an ISO meeting a couple of years ago; his surprise was false and his tone gave it away. I said I was and that is when the barrage of questions and shouting started. They were shouting, they were condescending and it was three against one. I felt intimadated and I told them, they were ganging up on me.
I'll just mention that I am one of the most active members of the organization. I have written many articles and speeches, I have sold many magazines and been at practically every protest there has been since I entered the group, or shall I say society. Yet one differing view, a view that in student politics means bullocks is non-violence, but they cannot respect my individuality. The ISO, I quote "isn't formed of individuals" you see. They are an organization that hide behind a facade of 'true socialism', but what is true? They say they are democratic, yet they cannot accept dissent. They say they are pro-equality, yet they don't practice it; I know a couple of female members who feel disrespected and down-talked. They say they are going for a better world, yet they haven't even envisaged what it could look like. And if it's theirs we will be back to the mines and the factories and jackets of steels will be worn by those who pretend to be the most equal of us all.

The three members asked me what force meant to me, what violence was and then posed examples to prove that violence is legitimate. They truly think that violence will help solve problems, not create more. I didn't feel like it was a debate. It was an intent of brainwash. They would pound there points on me, and harder if I couldn't reply. What am I meant to say when they ask whether it is violent if a woman pepper-sprays her attackers when it is three against one- as well! look at that!- and they've pushed her down a dark alleyway, with all the connotations present in mind? I understand of course why she would pepper spray them. It is still vioent though, just like the act that the three attackers are committing. Both actions are wrong, that doesn't mean one is more justified than the other...

Non-violence doesn't seem to be a possibility within the ISO, even though non-violence is much more forceful. They would find legitimacy in some assassinations and mass murders of a minority. I can't. I believe that we each live life once only, due to this we should all have a second chance. People improve but above all, people are subjects of the conditions they grew up in and the conditions they live in. A disrespect for differing opinions is something you mimic when you see it as a child. That doesn't mean people will always be disrespectful, just that they are copying the behaviours of their elders. Aren't societies meant to evolve though? Shouldn't we by now open up to other opinions and be taught by them?

I'd rather not be down in a mine. I'm quite happy as a "middle-class bourgeois" studying my books. Of course, it'd be much more fun if everyone else could, but we all have perverse dreams.

Military and the Revolution.

At the ISO's meeting today we talked about the military's power in social revolution, it was interesting, fairly weighty stuff. Of course we don't want the Egyptian revolution to die down, but it seems the army is acting in counter-revolutionary ways: hey are trying to get those still camped out in Tahrir square to budge, to go back to work.
It's important to note the army will never be able to create a state like the one it witnessed fall. By now the people are conscious of their power, they know they can achieve what they want and they know that they can shut down the most powerful state in the Middle East. There has been a shift in consciousness that has proved that revolutions are still possible in the 21st century, indeed revolutions aren't a bit of the past but maybe an undeniable piece of future. As a comrade said, we are more connected now than ever, it is easier for us to organize, an example of this is the UKuncut campaign that has blocked stores of companies that dodge tax, including vodafone.
However, capitalism is an always shifting system, it continuosly gives more powers to the rulers, but their technology will always trickle down. In order to keep the revolution working and to keep the new military government in check, people will always have to be one step quicker than the governments. They will have to keep their demands and not bend down.

The army doesn't have to go against its people, right now I'm not commenting about the situation in Egypt. In Portugal in '74 the army helped topple down the fascist dictatorship of Salazar. Within three weeks of the provisional government, the number of unions rose by a thousand percent.

In part this is because the army will always have a working class element. Even though it is one of the state's traditional powerhouses, they are mostly formed by the working class. Those who get their hands all bloodied are sons of workers. So they will always be reluctant to go against the people, because they too have worked as tanners or in market stalls or on the dumps of the city.
The army and the police are quite different.  The army is nationalistic, it exists to protect its citizens from foreigners and it is a working class source of pride to be in it.The army is seen as the ultimate power symbol of the country and because it represents the country in all its classes, it will not always go against the people.
For example, in the more than famous Tianamen square protests, reform protesters had been demonstrating for weeks. The army was present, it was the local branch though so it felt unable to shoot against people they potentially knew. In order to 'disperse' the crowds, China was forced to send troops from elsewhere. Then the tanks rolled in, curtains fell and hidden behind sheets thousands were murdered. This shows that the military is reluctant to shoot its own people, the same isn't true of the police. The police were the ones reported to kill many in Egypt and Tunisia and very recently in Bahrain.

The police, on the other hand, exist to maintain the status quo ante, the class system. It is there to protect the richer. If there is a robbery in a store, the police will be there quick, if there is a robbery in a house, the police will take more time, it simply isn't as important.

The military could thus be seen as a potential weapon in favour of the revolution, but of course, who says armed revolutions work out?

Non-violence.

I have to say, I am one of the spines of the ISO in Dunedin. As we've often commented ourselves, we are a small organization in the backwaters of the backwaters of the world. Dunedin is much more cultured than the countryside surrounding it but still, the area tends to be conservative especially when it comes to issues such as socialism. It is almost a taboo word here too. We do our best to spread socialist ideas, through our quarterly mag, through public meetings and in general being quite loud or just there. This annoys many, no doubt.

I'm non-violent though. The group often gets into more or less agressive agressive arguments about what violence means and how a non-violent revolution is a laughable state of affairs. To me it seems logical though: if one imposes their ideas, people will rebel against them, maybe just in thought though. However if one slowly debates his/hers ideas, they will either be picked up or not. If they're not, well free speech says that we should be able to think what we want to. After all, a new society will come when a majority wants it. There will always be people against it, this is what makes each of us human: we can all decide to follow the ideas that we think are best.

The Spanish Civil War: One enemy but no friends.

The Spanish Civil war was one of the bloodiest and most brutal conflicts of the 20th century. It is often untalked about or even unknown, but Spain was the first battleground in which Fascism and the Rest fought out for victory. It started when Franco wanted to reimpose the monarchy with a coup d'etat. The 2nd Spanish Republic was trying to lift Spain out of the feudal system it was still in. Only three regions had been industrialized: the Basque Country, Catalonia and Madrid. The rest of Spain was still agricultural and some parts, still remote. The Republic was in charge of introducing democracy into the country and of passing laws for agricultural reforms. However, because parliamentary democracy is a slow process and the country's peasants and workers had been organized by Anarchists and Socialists in unions or not, within weeks the country was paralysed by strikes and demonstrations. Very soon the Republic was forced to bring in the military, to maintain its power over the people, who were increasingly growing restless. The traditional centres of power: clergy, nobility and military and those close to them saw that the Republic could not control the situation and in 1936 organized a 'secret' coup d'etat. I say 'secret' because the Anarchists in the CNT-FAI (Anarchist Union) had discovered it through their espionage apparatus. So, in part, we could say that the Spanish Republic took part in the coup, as it did nothing to stop it; it ignored the information the Aarchists gave them. The Socialists and Anarchists practically controlled the factories and the fields. So when the military rised in every city in the country two days before the planned time, the resistance replied defeating half of them and giving out the weapons to the citizens. In the Spanish Civil War we can see how amazing workers unity can be and also how sectarian it can become. First of all, they took over half of the military forts of the country and then, when the power of the Republic had dissapeared, collectivised the land. Factories continued to run and communities continued to work, but without the elite in charge. But secondly, the many groups that formed part of the resistance: The International brigade and forces, Catalan and Basque nationalists, trotskyists, stalinists, anarchists and progressive capitalists were the key to the downfall of the movement. There was no cohesion amongst them. There was one common enemy, but the resistance would not fight in unity against it. In the backlines political skirmishes were constant. Barcelona had become the scene of "the civil war in the civil war". Its streets were a battleground amongst all of the resistance factions, even though the enemy was closing in 300 km to the west.
In the end the Republic collapsed and Franco won. 39 years of a fascist dictatorship followed, which caused many people to exile and at the end of the day a lot of suffering.

This lack of cohesion is still apparent in the revolutionary left. We may all have our differences and the way we reach our goals may be different, but it pays to create ties and help eachother every now and then, for specific long or short-term campaigns. The ISO may be trotskyist, Worker's Party Maoist and Beyond Resistance, Anarchist; but we all want to improve worker's rights. We all know that the parliamentary parties will not give us workers any improvements, so we should earn them ourselves, united. This doesn't mean we have to accept every opinion of the other groups, just that we have to remain united for the sake of the workers. This won't dilute our politics, it can only strengthen them. Through debates, arguments and demonstrations.

YFTR.