Che Guevara
Chris Slee's review of Mike Gonzalez's book Che Guevara and the Cuban Revolution (GLW #614), while challenging the author's anti-Che biases and cliches, unfortunately introduces a few of his own.
Che did not intend to "initiate a guerrilla war in Bolivia in 1966-67" without "win[ing] popular support and build[ing] a strong party or movement capable of leading a successful struggle", as Slee claims. In fact, Che's work in Bolivia was based on a careful analysis of the rising tide of working-class struggle in the entire region, from the increasingly militant anti-government strikes and mobilisations of the Bolivian miners to the deepening popular uprisings of the Argentine masses. A careful review of Che's Bolivian Diary reveals a far more broadly conceived strategy to link up with and support the already expanding struggles there.
What Slee misses is the deception and betrayal of the Bolivian Communist Party, which, after welcoming Che to the country, used its enormous political influence to block his efforts to forge a broad revolutionary leadership with the miners' union and other popular forces. It was this, and not some romantic notion in Che's head, that most contributed to the isolation of the guerrillas and their ultimate defeat. That this isolation, imposed by circumstances, has been widely and constantly misinterpreted as Che's strategic emphasis on guerrilla war over mass revolutionary action, is not his fault.
Fortunately, the massive murder and betrayal machine known as international Stalinism has collapsed. New generations of young fighters, freed of this massive obstacle, will find their way to the revolutionary road pointed out by Che and Fidel. In so doing, they will reconquer the rich legacy of Che's contributions not only to Marxist theory and politics, but revolutionary tactics and strategy as well. And they'll go right to the source, rather than rely on self-appointed experts. Actually reading The Bolivian Diary and other writings by Che helps sweep away a lot of the dross.
Peter Anestos
Cuernavaca, Mexico
Sex industry
As a feminist who has worked in the sex industry, I strongly agree that no person should ever be forced into sex work through physical or financial coercion. This applies equally to any work that violates an individual's belief system, personal limits or safety.
However, Lara Pullin ("The state as pimp", GLW #614) was wrong to describe prostitution as the "sale (rental) of a woman's body". The client does not have the right to do whatever they please to a worker's body (which is rape), rather the worker provides a service to the client. Sex workers and their organisations have been educating workers and clients about this issue for years.
Pullin's claim that "progressive 'sex-work' collectives require that their staff have left this form of work" is patronising and incorrect. The most progressive organisation I have encountered is Scarlett Alliance which is run by current sex workers and does not allow business owners to join. They have done some particularly good work involving illegal migrant workers. See <http://www.scarletalliance.org.au>.
Rather than re-enforcing stereotypes, progressive groups should be campaigning to remove all forms of coercion and showing solidarity with sex-workers' struggles. Only through breaking down social barriers that prevent sex-workers from organising and speaking openly will conditions improve.
Ema C
(full name withheld at writer's request)
Via email
Refreshing
I stumbled upon your website and would like to say it is really refreshing to see that someone is actually standing up for what they believe in — without fear of being squashed by big powerful and moneyed right-wing politicians and corporations.
It seems so much in the world today is dominated by people like US President George Bush and his Aussie lackey John Howard — who use the excuse of the "war against terror" to take away our rights as human beings making it harder and harder for people to have independent thought — let alone earn a decent wage in a decent job.
You guys seem to give them a run for their money — way to go!
I lived in Australia for four years and had the unfortunate displeasure of working for media corporate moneygrabbers named Tony O'Reilly as well as the chap who owns the Brisbane Courier Mail — I was told I was working for newspapers — but in reality they were John Howard mouthpieces and there simply to make money and profits for the above (already extremely rich and greedy men). They make that money no matter who they have to stand on, throw away or get rid of to do it. These companies are full of miserable people who are trapped there because they need the pittance they get to pay their bills — how sad!
Karen Jackman
Singapore
Social welfare
As the federal government prepares to make some social security payments harder to get, a right-wing myth is being spread. It claims that, by comparable international standards, Australia already has a particularly financially generous social security system for lower-income people.
The truth is that, in the mid-1990s, 13 OECD nations were investigated and Australia spent a below average proportion of GDP on social security transfers to the poorest 30%. Furthermore, recent OECD publications show that, relative to wages, social security benefits are, on average, low in Australia.
The 1990s research found that Australia had unusually high market income inequality and where there is higher market inequality there is a greater need for fiscal redistribution.
After allowing for both welfare transfers and income tax, the Luxembourg Income Study estimates that Australia has the sixth largest percentage gap between rich and poor out of 23 surveyed OECD countries. This demonstrates that, relative to need, our social security system is already comparatively ungenerous.
Brent Howard
Rydalmere, NSW
Ancient liberties
British Law Lords voted eight to one against Blair's 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act. The act provides for detention without charge or trial.
Judge Lord Hoffman said that the law called into question "the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention".
It seems that, unlike Philip Ruddock, eight out of nine British Law Lords know enough law to defend Britain's "ancient liberties".
Denis Kevans
Wentworth Falls, NSW
From Green Left Weekly, February 16, 2005.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.