International Socialists

Dear Socialist Review,

I greatly enjoyed reading the excellent article by Andrew Cooper, entitled "Time for a new fees fightback!" in the last issue of Socialist Review.

I participated in virtually all of the major protests against rising fees and debt at the University of Otago during the 1990s. While we are constantly told that protests involving marches and occupations do not achieve anything – in reality these forms of protest are the best way of fighting back that we have. The fee increases, student loans scheme, and cuts to student allowances, all would have been far worse if the National Governments from 1990-99 had not been confronted by mass militant protests on campuses throughout the country.

While Andrew’s article makes this point very clear, another point needs further elaboration. This concerns the conservative, and sometimes treacherous, role played by student union presidents and executives in the great anti-fees struggles of the 1990s. Because the administrative bodies of student unions attract students who often have careerist aspirations, reformist political leanings, and most important of all, because real substantive democracy is limited within student unions, student union presidents and executives tend to adopt very conservative positions with respect to the strategy and tactics of education campaigns.

In all of the major struggles against rising student fees and debt at Otago, militants, including centrally members of the International Socialist Organisation but many others as well, repeatedly had to argue the way forward. All that our "leaders" argued for was moderation – writing letters to MPs, staging small-scale street theatre, cuddling up to the university administration, and so forth.

In contrast, we relentlessly argued that the only way forward was to organise mass demonstrations, involving the largest numbers of students possible, culminating in mass occupations of political targets. We also argued that the anti-fees campaign should, wherever possible, highlight the common interests of both students and staff in opposing the neoliberal reform of our educational system.

During the 1993 protests we played Rage Against the Machine. For me one line stands out: "F**k You, I Won’t Do What You Tell Me."

We had to learn, the hard way, that this sentiment often had to be directed, not just towards the government that was putting up student fees in order to help fund tax cuts for the rich, but also towards student union politicians who were trying to undermine the militancy and effectiveness of our struggles.

Yours in solidarity,

Brian Roper

Dear Socialist Review,

The Iraq invasion showed just how wide the gap is between politicians and the people. The lies used to justify the invasion were more blatant than ever – but the wave of protest that swept the world on February 15 – the largest ever single day of protest – showed that millions of people refused to swallow the lies.

Given this gap, reliable information is essential; doubly so, given the continuing crippling of independent journalism (e.g. the "embedding" of reporters). More crucial: articles that make connections between international news, domestic politics, and everyday life and offer ways to take action.

Socialist Review is on its way to fulfilling that need, but accuracy must not be sacrificed for argument. Marxism is a means of making sense of history and of current events – but it’s a science not a doctrine. That means developing theories by trial and error on an empirical basis.

For example, in a recent article it’s claimed that Iraq’s infrastructure is in a mess but "the US government, with all its vast resources, hasn’t lifted a finger."

As far as I know, the US is fixing infrastructure and it’s in their interests to do so. I think this is one case of rhetoric overstepping reality. The use of exclamations like "What a fraud!" is also unnecessary.

Tone down the moral outrage, and amp up the accuracy and analysis.

Cheers,

Mike Tait