The success of being dangerous
Y taking our slogan ("Workers of the world unite!) and turning it upside-down, they were - in a sense — ridiculing our own internationalism. They forcefully claimed that the internationalism of the post-Cold War era was an internationalism built and defended by capitalists, for capitalists. Lately, however, IN the neoliberal ice-age of the early 1980s through to the end of this confidence has been shaken, if not the 1990s, global capitalists and their supporters expressed supreme shattered. The lead editorial in a recent confidence in their victory over us. This confidence is symbolized in issue of the Economist views anti-capitalist the posters and billboards launched by the Financial Times in the protests as "angry and effective."
mid-1990s, declaring: "Capitalists of the world unite!"
More importantly, the editorial warns that globalization is not inevitable and irreversible as the neoliberal ideologues have insisted for the past two decades. Rather, the very fact that globalization can be reversed is what makes anti-globalization movements so dangerous. The Economist makes it very clear that open declarations of capitalist confidence are harmful at the present time.
Instead, the legitimacy of globalization and, crucially, of capitalism — must be restored. The tactic for achieving this is to focus on Third World poverty. That's why the magazine goes on to argue that the greatest beneficiaries of globalization are the Third World poor, and it's the antiglobalization protesters who are condemning them to continued poverty.
The post-Seattle WTO has also recast itself as the ally of the poor and marginalised. As Mike Moore, the DirectorGeneral of the WTO, declared: "It is poor people in poor countries who are grasping the opportunities provided by trade and technology to try to better their lives."
So it seems that restoring the legitimacy of the WTO, after what they called "the setback in Seattle" involves greater emphasis on world poverty as the main issue. At the same time, some of the world's largest TNCs - with the worst records of labour repression, cultural and ecological destruction and genocide (of which Nike and Shell are just two examples) have founded a new partnership with the United Nations to save the world's poor.
•Helping the world's poor under the UN corporate partnership makes it a commercial activity - a commodity like everything else. Without having any effect whatsoever on what these TNCs actually do to the planet and the mass of the people on it, this tactic serves to restore the legitimacy of corporate rule and regain the confidence of previous years.
But Mike Moore has gone a step further in these troubled times. In sharp contrast to the days of ridiculing our internationalism by misusing our slogans, we now find Comrade Mike talking about our internationalism as the shared tradition of the WTO: "We on the Left have a lot to be proud of. We built the Welfare State that looks after people when they are sick, poor, or old. We fought for the equality of women and minorities. We argued passionately for internationalism, for solidarity between workers in Sweden and those in Africa." (Mike Moore, WTO Director General, July 26, 2000).
### Rhetoric
At one level this is just a change in rhetoric. It's a tactical maneuver, not a change in strategy. It's certainly not a fundamental shift in the nature of the globalization project. This tactic seeks to restore a degree of legitimacy and limit the damage done by the anti-globalization movements. In other words, it's a way of making us less dangerous.
However, it's important to recognise that the protests in Seattle also produced its share of rhetoric. The slogan "Shutdown the WTO" may have meant abolish the WTO" for many progressive labour and social activists, but for more conservative unions and social groups it meant "shutdown this particular WTO meeting " In this sense it was merely symbolic. Dozens of WTO-related meetings among technocrats preceded the Seattle meeting, and as many have taken place since.
The rhetoric was even more apparent when the president of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, declared at the start of the protests, "Today we are making history!" Even before the protests had ended he
GERARD GREENFIELD announced, "We have made history!" It was less a first step than the last. The WTO was shaken, but not broken, and it was time for the AFL-CIO to get back to the negotiating table to insist on a reformed WTO — with a social clause and without China. The tactics behind the slogans were not only lacking a strategy, but lacked a common goal.
It no longer makes sense to simply accuse the WTO and other agencies of global capitalism of neglecting the poor, failing to recognise the importance of ... (insert any social or environmental issue here), or lacking democracy. Since Seattle there have been numerous speeches and publications churned out by the WTO technocracy which assert the importance of democracy, human rights, environmental protection, social needs, the primacy of "the social market" over the "the free market", and the need to eradicate poverty. Meanwhile, since Seattle, five more coun tries have joined the WTO (another 25 will join in the next couple of years. Key agreements have been expanded, and the number and intensity of trade talks and backroom deals has increased — not decreased. So where does that leave us?
As an oppositional strategy, pointing out what is missing in the WTO doesn't really tell us very much about what it is we're up against. Those unions, NGOs and social coalitions which want to reform agencies like the WTO employ tactics of lobbying, alternative policy input, and social clauses. The tactic of including those things they believe are missing from the WTO agenda is based on certain key assumptions about what the WTO is and what it does. For a start, they assume the WTO and agencies like it are institutions or organisations. They also assume that the International Viewpoint #326 December 2000 27
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
* Globalization main function of institutions like the WTO is to make and implement policies or trade agreements. Based on this, the problem becomes narrowly defined: in these institutions and making policies and agreements there is too much corporate control and not enough control by social, labour and environmental groups (collectively called "civil society"). This then means that globalization itself is not seen as a problem. It's the kind of globalization that is in question. This then becomes a contest between corporate globalization and a people-centred or more humane kind of globalization.
### Rhetoric
By accepting globalization and focusing on the rhetoric of poverty, democracy and social inclusion, these civil society groups are in fact helping the WTO out of its crisis of legitimacy. This occurs at a time when the very thing we should be doing is deepening the crisis. More importantly, these civil society and social groups are creating conditions that would render the anti-globalization movements less dangerous both for themselves and for the political and economic elite. They've clearly missed the point. We can only be effective if we continue doing whatever it is that makes us dangerous — and do it better. It's in being uncivil society that we find we can challenge the WTO and what really lies behind it.
To launch such a challenge it's important to understand that the WTO is not about institutions and agreements. It's not even about trade. The following is an example of the changes under globalization which suggest that trade is not the primary issue. In 1999 the value of global exports totaled US$7 trillion. In the same year the value of sales by the 690,000 foreign affiliates of the world's 63,000 TNCs was nearly double, at US$13.5 trillion. It's also significant that while worldwide exports tripled in the period from 1982 to 1999, the sales by TNCs' foreign affiliates increased six times — at twice the rate (UN World Investment Report 2000). What this suggests is that free trade is not really about increasing the flow of goods and services across borders, but in increasing the dominance and control of local markets by TNCs. More fundamentally, it increases our dependence on these TNCs.
This dependency reflects a critical dimension of what the WTO, NAFTA and 28 International Viewpoint #326 December 2000 other free trade agreements really are. They are not just institutions and agreements, but are regimes. Basically, a regime is an arrangement of political power. In this case free trade and investment regimes refer to an arrangement of political power between countries and between corporations and governments. For example, under the WTO regime the arrangement of power between countries freezes the members of the WTO into a hierarchy of "developed", "developing" and "leastdeveloped."
By banning certain kinds of industrial and development policies in the "developing" and "least-developed" countries and increasing overall dependency on TNCs, the WTO regime ensures that only those countries which are already "developed" stay at the top of this hierarchy.
Free trade and investment regimes also establish an arrangement of political power between corporations and governments. It's already well understood that the free trade agenda is about increasing the power and freedom of corporations, especially TNCs. This kind of freedom is what defines globalization: •"I would define globalization as the freedom for my group of companies to invest where it wants when it wants, to produce what it wants, to buy and sell where it wants, and support the fewest restrictions possible coming from labour laws and social conventions." (Percy Barnevik, President of the ABB Industrial Group)
Getting rid of these restrictions has meant redefining domestic regulation in ways that protect the interests of TNCs while placing new restrictions on the ability of governments to regulate them. For example, between 1991 and 1999 there were 1,035 changes worldwide in laws on foreign investment. Of those changes, 94 per cent increased the freedom of foreign investors and reduced government regulation (UN World Investment Report 2000). The effect of such changes is not only to force policy-making and the judicial process to become more like the US, but to restrict the future possible actions of governments and isolate them from the pressure of labour and social movements.
### Assault
As we saw in the NAFTA challenge by Ethyl Corp against the Canadian government in 1997, and in the recent NAFTA ruling in favour of Metalclad Corp against the Mexican government, it's not just an assault on environmental regulation that we should be concerned about. It's an assault on the original local struggles that brought this legislation into being in the first place. In this sense, rolling back social and environmental legislation under free trade means rolling back the past victories of labour and social movements.
What the NAFTA challenges also showed was that federal governments are often willing to lose these cases so that they discipline provincial, state or municipal governments which have adopted progressive social and environmental policies. Where federal governments do not have the legal or political power to reverse such legislation, it can allow the external intervention of NAFTA and the WTO to act on its behalf.
The WTO is often accused of secrecy and a lack of democracy. This easily leads to proposals for greater transparency and openness. Yet such an approach ignores the fact that we need to have the ability to do something about what we see, otherwise we'll just be spectators in a transparent process. It's not just the absence of democracy in the WTO and NAFTA that is the problem, but the outright hostility towards democracy. Aggressively cutting back our ability to impose democratic priorities on capital is not an afterthought -it lies at the very heart of the globalization project. It also reminds us that the entire WTO process of becoming a member and obeying the rules rests on threats and coercion. It's the threat of trade sanctions that drives it, not human needs or common sense.
The continued spread of international and local protests against globalization in recent months has deepened the WTO's crisis of legitimacy — a crisis which was most apparent in Seattle in November 1999. This is not only an external crisis. There are serious disagreements between the governments of developing and developed countries over the WTO rules, deadlines and procedures which have stalled several negotiations. Despite this, key governments (especially the US, EU, Japanese and Canadian governments) are attempting to expand the scope of WTO agreements and to strengthen its powers. To effectively challenge this we must not help the WTO out of its crisis of legitimacy by calling for its reform. Instead we need to deepen the crisis and create the political conditions necessary to abolish the WTO and the
free trade and investment regimes which lie behind it.
We should be clear that a world without the WTO and NAFTA would not be a world without rules on international trade. Rules already exist at the local and national level in most countries, providing much needed social and environmental protection and regulating the trade in goods and services in ways that are less harmful (and sometimes even beneficial) to working people.
What is needed now is that these rules are strengthened and expanded to manage trade more effectively in the interests of working people on both sides of any trading relationship. But this isn't simply a matter of replacing free trade with fair trade. Having fair trade makes no sense if a country has been forced for the last hundred years to grow and export coffee, or if people are starving and exporting rice at the same time. What this suggests is that we need a fundamental rethinking about why we trade, what we trade and the need for local alternatives.
However, for the countries in the South such alternatives can't even be considered as long as they are burdened by international debt. The total and immediate cancellation of Third World debt and increased, unconditional international social assistance is necessary before any system of fair trade can be truly effective
The claim that a world without the WTO would be a world without rules is untrue because at the international level we already have a wide range of rules: treaties and conventions on human rights, labor and trade union rights, economic, social and cultural rights, as well as rules which restrict harmful forms of international trade such as toxic waste and military arms. These international rules were the result of a long history of popular struggles worldwide, and it's necessary now more than ever before to reassert the priority of these conventions and principles.
To move forward labour and social movements must first regain their ability to force governments at all levels to regulate trade and investment in ways that subordinate the activities of TNCs to the broader social needs and interests of working people. This makes it necessary to abolish those free trade and investment regimes which lock the state "upwards" into the global interests of TNCs and "away" from popular pressure from below. *
Not by
politics
alone
IS the recent republication of a
French edition of Leon
Trotsky's "Literature and
Revolution"' a sign of a resurgence of interest in Trotsky in our epoch of (anything but innocent) confusion between
Bolshevism and Stalinism?
### MICHEL LEQUENNE
T will be interesting to see whether the leading lights of contemporary literary criticism greet it once again with silence. But it will be a safe bet to say that, with the assistance of postmodernism, the general tone will be negative, despite the fact that it takes tremendous intellectual confusion to read into Trotsky the opposite of what he wrote.
To anticipate the criticisms, let's note at once the most frequently committed sin in reading of texts from the past: anachronism. This study from 1923 was written in a brief moment of calm and freedom between the end of the civil war and the Soviet Thermidor, ie. the elimination of Trotsky and the seizure of power by the Stalin-Zinoviev-Kamenev triumvirate. Trotsky was enjoying a breathing spell at a time when the battle of schools was raging among the intellectuals. All his life, even during the civil war, Trotsky read to relax. He was without doubt one of the most cultivated •of the Bolshevik leaders (Annenkov, the great painter, a Left Social Revolutionary, who left the USSR in 1924, said in the 1950s that Trotsky was the only cultivated Bolshevik leader. This was unfair, at least to Lunacharsky). Like Lenin, Trotsky was at that time disturbed by the leftist and workerist drift on the art and literature front. The idea of a socialist, or proletarian art was for him a nonsense, not only impossible in the period of transition and in a country where even the working class was culturally backward, but quite simply because the proletariat could
Globalization / Review * only realize itself by abolishing itself and a new art, a new culture could only exist in a classless society. What was possible and should be the intelligentsia's objective, was a revolutionary art and literature, of which Trotsky gives two possible definitions corresponding, one might say, to two stages: "the works whose themes reflect the Revolution, and the works which are not connected with the Revolution in theme, but are thoroughly imbued with it, and are Colored by the new consciousness arising out of the Revolution"
### October divide
Far from underestimating what emerges then, he emphasizes what he calls the "October divide". Admittedly, this is open today to qualification insofar as the date seems excessively precise. In fact, the revolution in art and literature — in Russia as in the whole of Europe — began in the first years of the century, but precisely as harbinger of the ideological impulses which were to come to fruition with the revolution. And with the benefit of hindsight, we can see clearly the ways in which the October revolution strengthened and clarified the avant-gardes which were going to dominate the century. Distance even allows us to discern how the radicalization of art, poetry and fiction spread following the waves of the revolution, from Russia, through Germany and thence to France and the rest of the world.
In 1923, Trotsky was probably the only person to have developed the Marxist analysis of literature to such a point. He is severe, "and that smacks of censorship" according to our modern critics, who know only how to flatter fashionable contemporaries and worship the hallowed dead. In Russia, these latter were Trotsky's contemporaries and, in the violent intellectual debates of the day, the absence of any crit-
International Viewpoint #326 December 2000 29
* Review icism of one of the schools would have appeared as support, which, coming from such a senior figure, would have had precisely the "authoritarian" effect for which his critics have unfairly reproached him.
However, Trotsky could not be and was not neutral. He clearly perceived the dangers lurking in the demand by some schools to be proclaimed the only authentic artistic expression of the revolution, the theory of proletarian culture and literature, as well as Soviet cultural chauvinism. Was it not on such theoretical foundations that the edifice of "socialist realism" was erected?
### Opposed
This was what Trotsky most violently opposed, condemning "Marxists in literature who have taken an arrogant attitude toward Futurists, the "Serapion Fraternity", , Imagists and all the fellowtravelers in general, together or separately". And, contemptuously rejecting the criticisms of the supporters of this "proletarian art", according to whom the absence of intervention would be, on the Party's part, the expression of an "eclectic position
", he states: "The Marxian method affords an opportunity to estimate the development of the new art, to trace all its sources, to help the most progressive tendencies by a critical illumination of the road, but it does not do more than that. Art must make its own way and by its own means. The Marxian methods are not the same as the artistic. The party leads the proletariat but not the historic processes of history. There are domains in which the party leads, directly and imperatively. There are domains in which it only cooperates. There are, finally, domains in which it only orients itself. The domain of art is not one in which the party is called upon to command".
I want to stress the fact that Trotsky stated his support for creative freedom loud and clear in 1923. There was therefore no change of position when he insisted, in the 1938 Manifesto for an Independent Revolutionary Art, on proclaiming "total freedom for art", rejecting even the reservation proposed by André Breton of "except against the proletarian revolution".
This clearly shows the meaning of his criticisms of those for whom he had the highest regard. It is significant that the poets and novelists to whom he devoted 30 International Viewpoint #326 December 2000 the most important chapters are precisely those we continue to consider as the classic writers of the Soviet revolutionary perod: Yesenin, Pilnyak, Blok and Mayakovsky — the highpoint of Soviet futurism. As for his criticisms of them, it should be borne in mind that Pilnyak was only at the beginning of his rise, which was moreover swiftly checked, and that Mayakovsky's "gigantism" was both the essence of his greatness and of his weakness in the short-circuit with the moral wretchedness of the rising bureaucracy.
In the text Trotsky wrote on the poet's death, when advice was no longer appropriate, he talked about Mayakovsky's "enormous talent" which was "touched by genius" and wrote that he had been "one of the most indisputable precursors of the literature which the new society will being forth". He pointed out, finally, that his suicide came two months after the capitulation represented for him by the obligation to join the "administrative kolkhoz of the supposed proletarian literature", the Soviet Association of Proletarian Poets.2
Criticism
Is the criticism Trotsky wrote in exile fundamentally different from that of 1923? Those who have insisted on this point have tended to emphasize that the "dictator" had moderated his severity. Here too this is the product of a distorted starting point. Without this distortion, admittedly, one can descry an evolution in his approach to modern literature. But this has nothing to do with his personal situation. It is the result of the development of culture itself and how Trotsky discovers and develops his own appreciation of it.
The paradox is that what developed after the "October divide" was unexpected even for the person who had underlined its importance. Let us not forget that Trotsky was thirty-eight in 1917. The culture of any cultivated person of the period was essentially based on the major European writers of the end of the 19th century, many of whom were still alive in 1914 and even later and that the new trends were barely perceptible, even for the educated sections of the general public. For Lenin, Tolstoy remained the crucial figure in contemporary Russian literature.
Trotsky (and Lunacharsky) stood out for their openness to the new trends. But, in the final period of his life, he had even less time for reading than in his youth. His criticism is not that of a professional striving to find everything of importance which might be emerging, but of a revolutionary fighter who selected what he found was best able to throw light on the motive forces of intellectual trends in society, particularly works produced by people he was close to, and which most powerfully expressed international intellectual trends. Thus, his later texts do not present an overview of interwar literature like in the 1923 book, but simply the reading of a revolutionary in that period. And, from that point of view, the most surprising thing is that he was drawn precisely to the essential authors of the time and analyses them with an insight they did not meet with from contemporary professional critics.
For Trotsky, art and culture in general are in no way a kind of "decoration" on life floating above it for the benefit of the powerful alone. They are the wealth of life, its culmination and this gives them their value: "man does not live by politics
. Before discussing the issue of the "closing of the scissors" between industrial and agricultural production, Trotsky discusses that of closing the scissors between Russian cultural poverty, including that of the proletariat, and the high culture of the Russian intelligentsia which starts from the highest European level.
To achieve this goal, nothing escapes him, not only the problems of changes to the family, the influence of the Church and the curse of alcohol, but also the need for politeness, concern for detail, and so on. And, emphasising the scientific advances of the time, he sees the central role which cinema could play in the new culture, while, ahead of our own time, he raises the issue of linking the contributions of Freud and Pavlov, i.e. of psychoanalysis and what was then behavioural psychology and today neuropsychology.
All that would come to an abrupt end with the Stalinist counter-revolution, whose character as an "anti-divide" 1S again demonstrated in these texts. * 1. This article was originally written for our dossier on the legacy of Leon Trotsky in IV 324. The collection of essays known as Literature and Revolution was originally published by the Soviet Government in 1924. Quotations here are from the version transcribed for the Leon Trotsky Internet Archive by N. Vaklovisky in June 2000 from an uncopyrighted 1957 Russell & Russell. New York edition of Literature and Revolution. 2. Stalinist criticism never budged from the position that the causes of Mayakovsky's suicide were purely private. Until the end of his life, the ignoble Aragon boasted of having physically assaulted an artist who had known Mayakovsky in his final days and had spread the rumour of the political cause of his death (interview in Lui).
A humanitarian catastrophe Porto Alegre primaries
Angola
Pierre Beaudet 27(322)
Argentina
Consensus and apathy
Pedro Brieger 13(319)
Asia
Making Asia nuclear free
Dhaka conference 36(320)
(319) Luiz Marques 23 (323) Another world is possible Luis Pillar Vares 12(325) Britain Livingstone's gamble Veronica Fagan 2 (320) Socialism vs. Liberalism Ken Livingstone 6(320) New unity on left
Index *
Zhang Kai 10(319)
An incurable disease
Zhang Kai 21(320)
Colombia
Operation without anaesthetic
Ernesto Herrera 6 (324)
Against Plan Colombia
Resolution 16(326)
Behind the war on drugs
Gearoid O Loingsigh 17
(326)
Australia
A contradictory history
The service Thatcher could- Debt
John Tully 29(321)
A stunning success
John Tully 4(324)
Austria
The rise of Jorg Haider
Boris Jezek 29(320)
Bolivia
Andean storms
R. Gutierrez and A. Garcia
Linera 12(323)
Brazil
PT Congress
Fernando Estima and Rosana
Ramos 14(317-8)
Socialist Democracy
Congress
Em Tempo 16(317-8)
•Democratic and popular' government
Adam Novak 20(319)
Debate at PT congress
Carlos Henrique Arabe 34
Alan Thornett 7(320)
n't kill
John Lister 11(320)
Tony Cliff - an appreciation
Alan Thornett 3(321)
The General in the labyrinth of law
B. Skanthakumar 15(321)
A new party
Frances Curran and Murray
Smith 32(322)
Body blow for Blair
Dave Hudson 34(322)
British fuel crisis
Alan Thornett 24(325)
Canada
Stalemate to checkmate
Raghu Krishnan 27(321)
China
Privatising China
Lau Yu Fan 12(317-8)
Reforming state enterprises
The debt bomb
Eric Toussaint 29 (317-8)
Much ado about nothing
Denise Comanne and Eric
Toussaint 8(323)
Denmark
'No' vote defeats Euro elite
Finn K. Johansen 20(325)
Ecuador
No road but the struggle
Juan Montenegro 17(320)
Face to face
Juan Montenegro 16 (323)
"We are tied to the pain of the people"
Interview 18(323)
European Union
Just in Time?
Soren Kirk Christiansen 7
(317-8)
The European Union: a
International Viewpoint #326 December 2000 31
Francois Vercammen 2 (319) Gerard Greenfield 28 (326)
* Index world power?
The Lisbon summit
Francois Vercammen 12 (322)
Single market mark 2
Francois Vercammen 15 (322)
A "democratic" swindle
Francois Vercammen 4 (323)
EU enlargement
Catherine Samary 22 (325)
Fundamental rights at risk
Marie-Paule Connan 3 (326)
The Nice Summit
Francois Vercammen 5 (326)|
France
A shamefaced neoliberalism
Christian Piquet 7 (322)
The world struggle
Interviews 6 (323)
Globalization
Here to stay
Interview 4 (325)
Declaration of Prague 5
(325)
Debt crisis and adjustment plans
Eric Toussaint 6 (325)
IMF, World Bank, WTO...
and us?
Nicolas Benies 8 (325)
Seoul: a new stage
Eric Toussaint 27 (326)
The success of being dan-
32 International Viewpoint #326 December 2000 gerous
Germany
Crisis in the CDU
Paul Kleiser 33 (320)
Greece
A traumatized left
George Mitralias 27 (323)
Haiti
Workers' victory
Batay Ouvriye 40 (324)
Hungary
The Hungarian left
Laszlo Andors 13 (326)
Imperialism
Interview with G. Achcar
25 (323)
India
Communalism, women and violence
Soma Marik 10 (317-8)
Indo-US relations
Achin Vianik 31 (322)
The anti-nuclear campaign
Interview 33 (323)
Italy
A new milestone
Livio Maitan 25 (320)
Reflections on globalization
Fausto Bertinotti 20 (326)
Convergences and remarks
Livio Maitan 23 (326)
Kosovo
To self-determination?
Catherine Samary 12 (326)
Lebanon
A tremendous victory
Salah Jaber 2 (322)
Mexico
A strange defeat
Adolfo Gilly 2 (323)
Mozambique
The agony continues
Eric Toussaint 16 (320)
New Economy
Lessons of a mini-crash
Maxime Durand 17 (322)
World crisis or new expansionary long wave?
Marc Bonhomme 22 (322)
Culture in perspective
Francisco Louca 24 (322)
Capitalist stagnation
Gianni Riagaci 26 (325)
A new productive order?
Henri Wilno 29 (325)
Nicaragua
FSLN leadership decompos-
Vima Nunez 22(321)
es
Norway
Strike against greed 36
(321)
Workers reject austerity 6
(322)
Pakistan
Labour Party raided
Farooq Sulehria 22(320)
Socialists hold first congress
324)
End all out war!
Resolution 19(326)
Portugal
Portugal's Left Bloc
Joao Carlos Louca 2 (317-8)
History of the Left Bloc
Joao Carlos Louca 6 (317-8)
A new left
Francois Vercammen 27(320)
Index * ance
Denis Horman 23 (317-8)
Southeast Asia
Indigenous struggles
Syed Husin Ali 46(324)
Sao Paulo Forum
Declaration of Sao Paolo
Forum 20(320)
Bloc that makes a difference Spanish state
Salah Jaber 32 (321)
New repression
Farooq Sulehria 36(325)
Palestine
A war of independence
Michel Warschawski 2 (325)
Road to a just settlement
Resolution 7(326)
An urgent appeal to the
Israeli public 8(326)
Peru
Interview with
Hugo Blanco 19(321)
A detestable regime
Hugo Blanco 22 (323)
Philippines
Communists in peace talks
Jean Dupont 8(319)
Philippine army launches war in Mindanao 34(321)
War continues in
Mindanao 31(323)
Some notes on the national situation
RPMP 41
Luis Branco 15(325)
Reviews
Unquenched flame
Alex Callinicos 49(324)
No greater power
Joe Auciello 35 (325)