This comes from an Iranian marxist enewsletter we just received. I thought folks might be interested in the source of the article.
-------------------------------------------
http://www.againstwage.com/ The South African Transport Union, a Handmaid of Capital
April 2008 - Earlier this month workers in South Africa refused to unload a ship carrying weapons which were destined for land-locked Zimbabwe.
Nancy LaPlante -- Wed, 14 May 2008 17:04:00
The South African Transport and Allied Workers Union, part of the larger International Transport Workers Federation (ITF), has declared that it will neither unload nor assist in the transportation of the arms to crisis-ridden Zimbabwe.
The shipment of weapons from China, which is reportedly carrying three million rounds of ammunition, 1,500 rocket-propelled grenades and 2,500 mortar rounds is currently out of South African waters and it is not certain if it has indeed been recalled to China or is heading to Angola which in the past has been an ally of Zimbabwe. Both the United States and Britain have made statements against the election dilemmas within Zimbabwe and the shipment of weapons. The fact that the workers have refused is comprehensible in that as human beings the workers do not want to contribute to any bloodshed. However, before assuming any sort of ethical or moral stance made by a huge trade union it is important to consider the obvious.
One must question if Trade Unions are now refusing to unload weapons then why is this not happening to weapons destined for other war-torn countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia etcetera? In understanding that the Trade Union is not representing the best interest of workers; then it is not so surprising that the union is following the agenda and politics of another group of bourgeoisie. This is obvious even when Trade Unions support anti-imperialists such as Robert Mugabe instead of the American or British imperialists it would not make a difference for the working class. If any trade union follows other interests of the different sectors of the bourgeoisie rather than the interest of the workers; it would become an anti-worker activity and a tool of capital. So why now do they refuse? It may be important to consider the current economic and political situation in the region.
Zimbabwe is currently reeling from serious economic issues such as 80% unemployment, inflation rate of 100,000%, average life expectancies less than 40 years and similar to other countries, catastrophic food shortages. Furthermore a recent presidential election on March 29th, 2008 to this date still demonstrates no winner. Current President Robert Mugabe who has ruled the Zanu-PF party since 1987 is insisting on a recount, which the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai states is a ploy for an intentional delay to fraudulently repress opposition supporters and declare himself the winner. Furthermore South African President Thabo Mbeki who is currently mediating between the Zimbabwean leaders, continues to exercise his “quiet diplomacy” despite the criticisms of many groups and leaders internationally against Mugabe. Mbeki’s government stood behind the permission that was given to transport the weapons through their nation to Zimbabwe. The leader of the African National Congress in South Africa Jacob Zuma who receives support from COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions), has distanced himself from Mbeki’s stance on Zimbabwe with open criticism of the election crisis as well as the shipment of arms.
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand the simplistic nature of conflicting capitalist ideologies vying for the labour power while embroiled in the political turmoil of the region. The nature of this refusal is interesting in that it raises obvious inconsistencies with how Trade Unions are full players in the capitalist political game; on one hand they do not want to supply weapons to a country where human rights are constantly violated yet everyone knows that the weapons trade has been occurring around the world for many years; therefore in many cases the trade unions are involved. The reason for such a contradiction is that unions are supporting one sector of the bourgeoisie against another one; therefore, the working class are forced to follow on the heels of capitalism. On the other hand they are using the workers’ power for their own gain or to show support for another bourgeois participant.
It is also interesting to note that many mainstream media outlets lauded the stopping of this shipment of weapons. Of course ordinary citizens commend the idea of not exerting violence on people, however, the media which is owned corporately, i.e. by the bourgeoisie, stands firmly with their rulers. Yet since when do the media side with the working class? Well in fact they are not doing this, because in citing countless strikes, work stoppages, there is always criticism of unionized workers who are supposedly inconveniencing the public, such as in many strikes by transit workers (for example both in New York and Toronto); so one must question why all of a sudden are the writers for the big newspapers taking this position? Simply put, they are reflecting the perspective of another ruling class group. For example a recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times writes,
“What is extraordinary about this incident is that African civil society -- journalists and judges, human rights groups and unions, backed by U.S. and British diplomats wisely working behind the scenes -- made it palatable for these African governments to do the right thing.” (“Stopping the Weapons Flow, L.A. Times April 24th, 2008”).
And public opinion of course as stated previously obviously agrees. Therefore to take this stance is both a reflection of the West’s bourgeois as well as gathering public support for the stand that the union took in South Africa.
This sudden refusal to unload weapons by the union is not a sudden moral awakening but rather a complicated result of politics and economics of the bourgeois in these regions as well as their mega-capitalist allies in the West.
At the rank and file level, however this could be seen as a way to stop the capitalist exchange of resources as the weapons trade is an enormous generator of capital. This is true indeed, however, the masses must know that capital or capitalism is not confined to this or that region of the world. The very relation of buying and selling labour power is a global relation. The working class must fight with their local immediate capitalist aggressors while realizing that the struggle is international because capitalism is international. This work stoppage like all other worker actions is a monkey wrench in the wheels of capitalism and is a clear sign that there is power in the disruption of the economic exchange and provides a spark that could ignite a fiercer battle against the violent nature of the global bourgeoisie.
