$01 DAR TY

Latin America' Brazilian labour becomes force to be reckoned with

BiS BusinessGorporate executives opt for workers' autonomy

South YemenSmall coup. ilot many dead

Journal of Libertarian Socialism. lssue 72. Summer 1986. 60 Pence

SOLIDARITY JOURNAL NUMBER 12

SUMMER 1986 ISSUE

Published four t'imes a year by(London), c/o 123 Lathom Road,United Ki ngdom.

Sof idarityLondon E6,

Edited and produced collectively by theLondon Sol i dari ty Ed'itori al Group.

Sol 'i darity i s al so the i mpri nt of a seri es

of pamphlets and books which now numbersmore than si xty t'itl es; and whi ch havebeen variously translated into fifteenf orei gn 1 anguages . A .l 'i st of those ti tl escurrent'ly i n pri nt w'il I be f oundin issue 1i.

Publish'ing h'istory. The present SolidarityJournal is tfre latest 'in a line oT---rnagazTnes produced by the Sol'idarity Groupand stretching back to the eariy sixties.Sol 'i darity f or Workers Power, f i rst i n

i n l 960 and ranto 89 'issues. Thi s was succeeded by thenati onal 1y produced Sol i dari ty for Soci alRevolution which ranffiln Turn srrcceeded by the current journal .

0ur publ i shi ng hi story 'is compl i catedfurther by the existence in the sixtiesand early seventies of six or sevenregi onal Sol i dari ty magazi nes, among themthose prod-uted_-byThe Scotti sh, SouthWal es, and North I,Jestern Sol i dari tygroups; and by the publication of theshortl i ved, nati onal 1y produced,So.l i daril.y f oL Sel f .M.anage-men!.

Printed by the Aldgate Press, London.

?

ilililililililililil1ililt

L2

AS .[t|E $EE IT

SOUTH YEMEN AND THE SOCIALISTDREAMAs many as one per cent of thepopulation may have lost theirlives in January's bloodYcataclysm. KEN WELLER suggestswhy it went almost unreported.

:r:'=r...=IS AI{ARCHY BOOSTING CORPORATEPROFITS ?Are today's multinationalsbeing run by si-xties droP-outswtro bought-back-in duringthe seventies? EVA BRICKMANthinks this is why, in theeighties, the accent is on' libertarian' managementtectrniques.

I,IORKERS' PARTY GROIIS}-AST IN BRAZILllithout appearing tocompromise, the PartY ofBrazilian labour is movingswiftly out of the wings andinto the political limelight.NICK TERDRE rePorts orl the eveof wtrat may prove a historicmoment.

GCIMME$PCI$I[:]:Letters from the LibertarianEducation collective, and fromDonald Rooum.

16

Cover picture: Rising star, Lula -Brazills charismatic labour leader -iOOiesses the crowd outside the Sao PauloState Assembly buildings, during his bid1 ast year to become State Governor.Photo: Juca Martins / Agencia F4

s0LIDARITY .I0URNAL l? o SUMMER 1986

[0trrlrI$

(^

v,IAc,!oEoPttl

C)oIA]i

I [ [I[!EII I

SouthYemen and thesocialist dream

In a rare picture ta<e:: --e:- oays into the bloody fighting, smoke

billows over the port oj Acen. I{hile Europe's press limited itsattention to the rescue of foreign nationals, socialists have

--:::rented even 1ess. i.:);',::LER asks the ominous question: !'fhy?

IT IS XCIrEWORTHY that, in Britainand elseuhere, many socialists findit. necessary to keep silent overthe ni-sdeeds of repulsive regimeswhich use socialist rhetoric tojustify themselves. The JanuarYcoup in South Yemen, 'the onlYmarxist-leninist state in the Arab

s0LIDARITy J0URNAL L? a SiiMr,lER i986

world', in which pro-Soviettoresident Ali Nasser Muhammed wasoverthrown by an even morepro-Soviet clique led by Abd ElFattah Ismail, libertariansocialists will find a case inpoint. The justification for theseizure of power was that Muhammed

A$ lilt $tt lI

iriffi

was a11egsflly planning a prematureSt. Valentine's Day massacre of hispolitical o,oponents; so Ismail andhis comrades deci<led to get theirretaliation in first. In thesrrbsequent fighting over thirteenthousand people, most of themcivilians, were killed. By way ofcomparison, about eight thousandhave died in Nicaragua in the lastfour years, and thirteen hundred inSouth Africa since September tg9{.

FraternityAmong those kil1ed were Ismail

and several. other l.eaders of thecoup. The rebels seem to have beensupported by the Soviet government,whose advisers play a leading partin the South Yemeni armed forces.The last act of the overthrownregime was to send a column oftanks to bombard the Sovietembassy.

Fratricidal struggles are nottringnew in South Yemen. VIhen theBritish and their client ruLerswere ejected in L967, from what wasthen Aden and the protectorates,there were two main - prevj-ouslyunited - nationalist groups: theFront for the Liberation of SouthYemen (fr,oSy) and the NationalLiberation FronL ( irlf ) . rihil eBritish troops were stil1 in r.heprocess of withdrawing the trr1Flaunched an assault on FLOSy andef,fectively wiped it out.

In L969 the now ruling NLF hacits first real coup, when the'moderate' first president eahtanShaabi was ousted and replaced bythe pro-Pekj-ng Salim Robai Ali. In1978 Ali was himself ejected andexecuted along with his supporters.Both sldes concerned with thisJanuary's coup participated in hisdownfall. Robai Ali was succeededby Ismail, who himsel f resigned in1980 for 'reasons of health' - atimeworrr excuse which was justifiedby the fact that had he remained inoffice he would have been topped.His successor was Muhammed. Ismailwas exiled to Moscow, whence hereturned following Soviet pressurein 1985.

A$ il:

South Yemen, uith a ;rcpulation ofabout 2,25A,COC, is one of thepoorest countries on earth, with anannual average per-capita income ofunder $400. Poor, t"hat is, in allbut ttre whereyittral , lavishlyprovided by the Soviet government,to kill its oryn population. Itinherited from the tsritish arelatively advanced industrialsector around Aden, wittr its oilrefininery and bunkeringfacilities, combined with a pre-medieval set up in the East andllest Protectorates rrhich had been' ind j-rectly ruled ' ( i. e. left torot), and were subdivided intoinnumerabl e mul lah- riddensuLtanates and sheikdoms where theprincipal means of settlingdisputes were tribal warfare andvendetta,

LibertrBefore consolidating its power

the NLF had a phase of ul.tra-leftwindow dressing. Fromising thesetting up of workers' andpeasants ' councJ-l s, their paperstated, "The great tristorlcalexperience of ttre torkers' councilsis there to prove that the workingclass can gpvern themselves withoutdifficul.ty, vithout bureaucracy,anc'sitcout bourgeois competencies"(asi: saarara [ttre sparkl, Muhal1a,naffi_@euoted in Arabiarithout Sultans by rreffiEiday,@

Cme the revolution, the NLFshoseo its true col.ours, establish-inE itself as the sole possessor ofpolitical power. It brutally purgedttre Adeni trade unions whi-ch hadplayed a large part in forcing outthe British, and smashed Islam as apolitical force (although femalecircumeision is stil1 both lega1and common - one has to makecompromises). rn L97L the h1Festablished the supreme People'sCouncil, with I01 members, of whom86 were appointed by the liLF andthe remainder by the nowgovernmental unj-ons. Internalsecurity is intense, with AmnestyInternational regularly reportingdisappearances, executions and

S0LIDARiTY J0URNAL L2 o SUMT,lER 1986

systematic torture. Amnesty haslisted a network of at leastforty- fj-ve prisons and detentioncarnps, the nrost infamous of whichis l'{u jaskar al Fatah in Aden. InL975 the regime enacted a draconiannew state security law which evenmade it illegal to talk toforeigners.

EqualityThe MLF, whose name was changed

to the Yemeni Socialist Party inL978, has about 25,OOO membersittrat was, before ttre Januarymassacres. After gaining power ithas created a ramshackle copy of anEastern European state during theStalinist period, a major functionof which is to provide jobs andprivileges for the ruling elite.Members of the YSP not only havethe best jobs but have privilegedaccess to housing, which is inshort supply, higher educationabroad, scarce imported goods, andeven discounts on public transportand entertainment.

Senior apparatchiks have moreperks. Many of them have severaLhouses and can use governmentproperty for private purposes;there have been cases of the saleof state land and houses forpersonal profit. Corruption isrife. About the only healthy sectorof the economy is the black market.Small wonder, then, that a bitterjoke circulates in Aden to rheeffect that "We used to have sixsultans, now we've got forty-seven"referring respectively to ttre mainrulers in the colonial period andthe YSP's Central Committee.

Events in South Yemen raiseseveral points of interest. tol ibertarian social ists. I{trat hashappened there has been paralleledr:: several second-generationLe::j-nist paradises such asCarbodia, Afghanistan, Lthiopia,,&.ngo1a, even Grenada. In each case,iarge chunks of the so-ca11edsocialist movement have eulogisedther, suppressed awkward facts andmar:ufactured favourable ones, andwhen they can no longer avoid

WE $[[ ilT

reality had a quick case of amnesia.It would be a mistake to perceive

the record of much of the 'left' inrelation to such regimes as duesimply to blind romanticism. lJhatis wrong is their profoundlyelitist and authoritarian idea ofwhat socialism is all about, aconcept reinforced by their owncorporate self-interest. Theauthori-tarian left in bothcomposition and ideology representsa sector parasitic upon the state;they are the actual or poteritialbeneficiaries of such 'socialist'regimes as that in South Yemen. Inthat sense the distance betweenArabia and Lambeth, Liverpool andGreater London is not as far as atfirst appears.

In the past Solidarity opposedPol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro andtheir ilk. Today we oo not supportthe governments of Libya orNicaragua, or whoever now runsSouth Yemen. As the chickens comehome to roost, those who havecovered up the horrors must acceptresponsibility for the illusionsthey have sown and the subseguentrejection of the socialist movementfollowing disillusionment. For us,whether in the First, Second orThird Worlds,

"socialism is not just the commonownership and control of themeans of production anddistribution. It means equality,real freedom, the end ofoppression based on restrictivemale/female social ro1es,reciprocal recognition and aradical transformation in a1 1human relationships. It ispeople's understanding of theirenvironment and of themselves,their domination over their workanci over such social institutionsas they may need to create. Theseare not secondary aspects, whichwill automatically follow theexpropriation of the old rulingclass. On the contrary, they areessential parts of the wholeprocess of soclal transformati_on,for witirout them no genuinesocial transformation wil't- havetaken p1ace". (As We See It)

SOL IDARITY JOURNAL I? O (JI.II."IER 1986

ilIt[[ t illlll P$YI 1lIt0 EI

Is anarchy boostirgcorporate profits ?

American management psychologists have rrade a startling discovery:people work best when ttrey are given the chance to organise themselves

and believe in what they are doing. E!'A tsRICK!{AN has been reading'In Search of Excellence'and 'A Passion for Excellence', two recent

books expounding the new rranagement theory, and discovered a mad worldin which IBtrl personnel sing 'We love you and know you have our welfare

in your heart' to their chairman, corporations are 'mottrerinstitutions', and creative obsession is regarded as a healthy state.

Libertarian ideas are being co-opted in the search for profit.

THOMAS J PETERS' In Search ofExcel 1 ence was puEIITEfEE--fn-I982,6as-oTA-ive million copiesworldwide, and is, according to itspublishers "the most successfulbusiness book ever publ j-shed".Peters' A Passion for Excellence isa fol low@in-T9E'51-Enddesj-gned to incorporate feedback ina recycling of the previous booktogether with handy hints tomanagers on how to put the lessonsinto practice. Together they havebecome buzz-books, managementbibles of the mid-eighties. Thesebooks are important not only forwhat they say but also because ofthe nature of their audience andtheir likeIy effect.

Their message is somewhatobscured by the Iack of definitionof the use of the word 'excellence'and the tendency to pack inanything that might just berelevant. It does mean that muctrinteresting material pops up owingto the lack of self-censorship, butit also means that the books are

6

messy and unfocusseo. They are afsowritten in an 'Ar,erican sincere'and occasionally overblown stylewhich can make you '*ant to throwup. However, scrap:ns away theconceptual barnacles anc stylisticseaweed, the poin-- -s --::is: duringthe recession of -?-?-a:, whilemany US companies :-a: a nard timethrough poor perfcr;a:r3e arc importcompetition, a nu::ie::: -arge UScompanies contj-nue: :: ::a.<e largeprofits and expan: - =='.:=--s. How did!h"y-do_ it? In 9ea=::. :- =xc?11found that these :::::ii.r=S 7 invarying proportic:.s, ;::: firstlyvery close to t}. e:: : '=--:::ers andthus very aware ci --:.e:: :a:.<et;secondly, abl e tc le-- er:€: --:o::a1ef fort and commi--::e:.-- i::: -*:e:rworkforce; and th-::-,.- :::-s-*a;:t1yinnovative.

The authors ocv'::s-r- :.::problems making eG:-'.':- =:-:esbetween actual f rr:: s . S::E examplesof 'excellent' f rr;s -'=:: ---ewl ett-Packard, MacDonaLcs, a:.: :3]1 .

MacDonalds' operat:a:. :s -:';-tech,s0L IDARITY J0URNAL t2 o SUHMER 1986

[1{A1Y$r$

!-

(u

==(u

P16

=

ANAIV$fl$

rule-ridden and rigorously control-Ied from the centre. IBM is saLes-and service-1ed, modestly decent-ralised around individual sal.esoperations as costs centres, high-tech, but not very innovative.Hewlett-Packard is highlydecentralised (to the point ofpluralism), highly innovative andcfose to customers only at theleading edge of their field.

Manage thyself !The authors were thus obviously

pushed to find an abstract formulawhich would allow them to put thesecornpanies into the same conceptualbox. They say that all thesuccessful companiefEad strong'value systems' , 'cuftures' or'elaborated socially integratingr:yths' other than purely financialgain. As we shall see, a good casecan be made, but whether proved (oreven provable) is another guestion.

The most interesting sections ofthese books are where (without

admitting it) the authors abandonthe pretence of universal ity andtalk about the smaller number ofcompanies (not necessarily thetechnically innovative ones) whichhave adopted highly decentralisedand autonomous forms of orcJan-isation. It is worth strinlingtogether a number of quotes frornthese companies to give a taste ofwhat is being said.

"The most commonly practi-sedcrime in industry today is afundamental insensitivity towardspersonal dignity... people needto be 'empower€d', not managed...The Leader's role is to create avision, not to kick someone inthe ass. The role of the leaderis a servant's roIe. It'ssupporting his people... Thecommon wisdom is that managershave to learn to motivate people.Nonsense. Employees bring theirown motivations. What people needfrom work is to be liberated, tobe involved, to be accountableand to reach for their

S0LIDARITy J0URNAL t2 o SUiltr'1ER 1986

potential. . . We don't managepeople here, people managethemselves. . . ordinary peopleturned into vigorous, enthusiast-ic experimenters". (A passion)

It is cLear that these attitudesare underwritten by the authors.But before any of you libertariansout there get too simplistic aboutthis it is worth seeing how theylink these views back to the'values' referred to earlier."We hear the following time andagain: 'Many companies are nowhighly centralised andautocratic. You recommend, almostwithout caveat, radicaldecentralisation and greatlyenhanced doses of autonomy. Butisn't it true that some peoplearen't ready for it immediately?Or ever?' . . . the probfem doesexist... at Hewlett-Packard adivision central manager says,"IrIe can only allow the apparentctraos because of the bone-deepbelief we all share in superiorproduct quality and the way inwhich people should be treated".

Johnson & Johnson may havethe most radically autonomousunits of any company we'veinvestigated. At the same time ithas as rigorous, regular andtightly articulated a value-review process as any we'veobserved - an annual, intensereview of its credo cal]ed fheCredo Chal1enge". (A Passion)They also say: "There is then a

natural order: values first,autonomous teams second... " It ooesnot stretch the authors' meaning torestate this as follows: self-realisation and liberatlon at workcan only come from a mutual respectand understanding and a democracybased on a strared set of values.

A11 this is very intriguing.Libertarians know that groups ofpeople charged up and politically(or socially or religiously)committed can do wonders. It hasprovj.ded a basic plank in argumentswith the authoritarian left overthe necessity for party-structuresof the social-democratic or

leninist type. But the confidencetrick involved in an invitation tothis kind of comrnit:nent to theprofi-ts or advancage of institut-ions outside our influence orcontrol seems so blatant we find itlaughable. Of course we wouldprefer to work with people we likeand with whom we can get thingsdone. Of course we woul.d prefer towork at tasks which give us a senseof personal worth. But we know frombitter personal experience that atwork, to put it at its mildest,"the most commonly practisedcrime... is a fundamentalinsensitivity towards personaldignity". We would say that this isno accident. We would say that itstems from a cfass-based exploit-ative system. And we would find theproject of value-driven decentral-isation and autonomy within thepresent industriat system a bizarreform of capitalist maoism, doomedto failure.

So why the huge interest shown inPeters' books? Ttrere is no reasonto dispute the facts presented. Itis a simple fact that some firmsare radically decentralised intosmal1 highly autonomous units witha strong esprit de corps ( thoughthere ray rr'ell be other simplefacts lef*, out of account). It j_sas if the participatory democraticioeas, the trippy individualism andthe readiness to believe in any:rashy guru which marked the Latesix*-ies radical student movementhas found a home in US management.But, of course, that's verypossibly where many of those peopledid end up. Even given an ideolog-ical1y prepared ground, however, itstill seems an appalling risk forbusiness to take. The sociallydominant form of organisation inour society is the largecentralised'rational' bureaucracy,which is split into cost centres tomonitor economic perforrilance,divisionalj-sed, perhaps, but notdecentralised, and emphatically notcomposed of smaLl autonomoussecti-ons.

I suggest that there are tworeasons why the risk is one which

s0L IDARITY J0URNAL t? o SUr',rMER 1986

L

(u

==(u

+JG,

=

ANAIV$[$

large organisations willincreasingly take. The first is theinternal contradictions ofbureaucracy.- The second, wtrich islinked to the first, is the problemof innovation.

With internal contradictions weare on grounct familiar to readersof Cornetius Castoriadis (see, forexample, the slightly outdatedModern Capita]ism and Revolution) .

organisati-on needs to excludepeople from decision-making to keeppower at the centre, but also needsthe participation of people in theorganisation as a whole to keeP theoperation moving. This has mostlybeen applied to the participationand exclusion of the working class.It could be argued, however, thatbureaucratic capitalism has'sofved' the problem of labour. Toput this at its most contentious: acombination of deskilling, economicmanipulation and automation hasminiaturised and marginalised theproletariat (consider the present

state of the British printingindustry). The working class hasbeen excluded.

Whatever one's views on thatproposition and its consequences(and I would like to see somediscussion), the participation-exclusion contradiction is now atits most acute within the bureau-cratic structures themselves. Onlyin the most routine tasks can theoutprut of bureaucrats be objective-1y measured. The more judgment,initiative and energy is requiredas part of a job, the more thequestion of motivation arises. Thebasic moLivation for energeticbureacrats is careerism. But thisrepresents no necessary commitmentto the firm, its products or itscustomers except insofar as itmakes people look good for ttreirnext move.

Peters and his co-authors arguethat the 'rati-onal ist' approach tomanagement in the hands ofaccountants and organisation mencannot solve thse problems. l,Iore,they argue that the sheer size ofthe organisations, their uniformityof method and their attitude topeople as plug-in componentsencourages the mercenary approachor thumb- in- bum- and- mind- in- neutra 1

time- serving.

Managed anxietyUnder these conditions 'good

management practice' means cost-cutting, close monitoring of staff,slapping wrists and sacking theslackers and the faces that don'tfit. As a resuft you can achievethe high pitch gulag-control ofIBM. (As one IBMer put it to me:"There isn't one meeting that takesplace within IBM that doesn't haveits undertone of fear". lIhat a wayto live your lifel). This approactrcertainly gets rid of the torpor.But it does nothing to stop ttrecareerist war of each against al 1

in the corporate structure, andmakes the major features of auto-cratic bureaucratic centralismchronic lack of initiative andneurotj-c-compul sive behaviour.

solIDARITy J0URNAL L2 o SUMMER 1986

ANAIV$il$

lJe can put the participation-excLusion contradiction at theheart of bureaucracy like this: howdo you simultaneously encourage thecreative energy of the firm'semployees and their collectivecomnitment to the goals of thefirm, and yet exclude them from thedecision-making that they begin tothink of as their collective orindividual right?

Planning innovationThere is afso the small question

of innovation. This is the processthat takes an idea and produces anew product for the market.Innovation is messy. Its originsare individualistic and the problemeach innovation was designed tosolve often bears littleresemblance to the market it finds.Yet j-nnovation provi-des productswith high value-added properties(i.e. the market will bear a priceconsiderably greater than thecost). Areas of business wherethere is low innovation andcost-cutting are the leastprofitable end of the market. So inaddition to being rule-driven andflexible the modern commercialbureaucracy has to be innovativeand individualistic. The commerciallogic is impeccable, but the organ-isatj-onaL contortion is huge.Peters suggests that he's crackedthe problem.

The programme seems to be basedon an acceptance of theconseguences of the rules ofbureaucracy internalised as valuesor ideology. Its major points are:

Cut down the size of sub-units tobetween fifty and hundred peopleto encourage family feeling ( t ).Give these units a large measureof autonomy.De-bureaucratise by slashing backHQ staff and posting senior staffto sub-units.Give the chief executive officerthe job of 'managing the values'for the organisation within thechosen mix of commitment tocustomers, developing the

employees, improving the productand innovating. His methods arereliance upon ctrarisma and show-biz razzamataz.Institute 'management by walkj-ngabout', which appears to involvethe manager in being a mixture ofpolitical commissar, cheerleader, psychottrerapist, qualitycontrol spot checker, champion ofthe underdog and customer liasonof f i-cer.Encourage unofficial experiment-ation and internal competition ina spirit of 'guided autonomy'.

The authors cover their tails bysuggesting that only companiesfounded by charismatic leaders orliving the values for twenty yearscan pull off the trick. But theirtone suggests that you can takethat first step now. The financialrewards are also dangled, althoughit is all done in the best possibletaste. For example, they tell usthat HQ staff cuts of 75 per centhave gone along with threefoldgrowttr. Using a kind of' institutionalisation of theunofficidl', firms have been ableto set up 'ninety-day' rules; anyinnovation has to be run fromperception to prototype in ninetydays or you do it in your own time(and employees do). This theme ofdrastically reducing developmentlead times is of huge commercialimportance. One example given is acomparison between a team of 3750doing badly and a team of 126 underbudget and ahead of time.

The company as ideologyBut while the corporate captains

are rubbing their hands there areIibertarian possibilities thatshould not be ignored. We take as atruism that unofficial, smallscale, democratic, participatorygroups work much better than yourtypical bureaucracy. But if thecorporation has to go through somuch grief to even approximate thathappy state of affairs, why notabolish the corporation? The onlydifficulties facing smalf committedteams are communications and

10 s0LiDARITY J0URNAL l? o SUMr'1ER 1986

ANAIV$fl$

capital. Why not mutuallY-fundedco-ops on the Mondragon model , ot,looking a little furttrer ahead,socialisation of the banks?

So the autonomous smalI grouPstruggling to be free from itsimprj-soning corporate structureopens up interesting possiblefuture developments. But we ignorethe fear of freedom at our peril.There are enough elements of theernpty, nj-gtrtmare qual ity ofpeople's lives mentioned almostunawares in passing in these booksto make us reallY take notice. lrlehave to face the possibilitY thatthe reach-me-down values of thesecorporations may be filling a deePpsychological need. It is remarkedof one company (3M), "The brain-washed members of an extremistpolitical sect are no moreconformist in their centralbeliefs". Its chairman indicateswhy: "Companies like 3M become asort of community eentre foremployees... This has happenedbecause the community in whichpeople live tras become so mobi-le itis no longer an outlet for theindividual . Ttre schools are nolonger a social centre for thefamily. The churches have losttheir drawing power as social-family centres. With ttre breakdownof these traditional structurescertain companies have fil1ed thevoid. They have become sort ofmother institutions but havemaintained their spirit of entre-preneurship at the same time" (InSearch) .

The conseguences are invasive inthe extreme. "By signing up for theproject you agreed to do whateverwas necessary for success. Youagreed to forsake, if necessary,family, hobbies and friends - ifyou had any of these left... From amanager's point of view, thepractical virtues... were manifold.Labour was no longer coerced.Labour volunteered" (A Passion,quoted from Tracy Kidae;=s-ffi Soulof a liew t"tachine ) .

So now creative obsession is nolonger to be the privilege of the

s0LiDARITY J0URNAL l? o SiJt!l'1ER l9Bti 11

individual but merely a part of themanagement plan. The authors say atone point, "So strong is the needfor meaning... that most PeoPlewil I yield a fair degree oflatitude or freedom to institutionsthat give it to them".

Jerking labour's chainWe should neither over- nor

underestimate the devilish cunningof the big corporations. l"tanY ofthe ideas here will be taken uP,but, I suggest, it will be done forthe most part piecemeal andineptly. The response of theworkforce is likely to be thatoutlined in an impromptu speech byone of the authors which is quotedin one of these bizarre yetquirkily honest books:

"I come from the so-ca11edhumanised/humanistic Sil iconValley. I'm here to tell you thatin six out of seven companiesthat I visit in that valley,Mecca of 21st Century Management,the average worker would notattend his or her next qualitycircle meeting if it was the lastday on earttr. They see it forexactly what it is: another wayto jerk labour's chain" (APassion).

Finally, let us note the authors'warning against'insincere'applications of their ideas: "Everydevice we suggest is doomed to beuseLess unfess applied withintegrity. Worse than useless, mostof these devices, used withoutintegrity, will expose you as ahypocrite of the first order...Paint out the executive parkingspots, but treat your people withcontempt, and you'11 find you standconvicted of a kind of fraud" (APassion).

Thomas J, Peters and Robert H.WatermanIn Search of Excellenceuarper anT Row; -Iqdr--t6 . 50

Totn Peters and Nancy AustinA Passion for ExcellenceeolTin s -, -I-Yg f - - - fff :q5-

lzahE

(J

!

oErd

L(IJ

ANAIV$il$

liltil littBt[[

Workers'party growsfast in Brazil

In the mid seventies it was fashionable to talk about the economicmiracle being actrieved by Brazil's military rulers. Now, in the mid

eighties, some see signs of a possible political miracle - theemergence of a popular politi,:al party which sides with the working

class. NICK TERDRE files his second report from Brazil.

GROWING DISILLUSIONMENT in Brazilwith the country's new civilianregime could, over the next year ortwo, thrust the Partido dosTrabalhadores (Pt) - the Workers'Party - not only into the politicallimelight but possibly into ahistori-c rol e .

This prospect is the result bothof developments in society at largeand of the appropriateness of thePT's own policies to the times. ThePT is the only party identifiedwith the oppressed working cfassesand the more radical sectors of themiddle class, and it is benefittingfrom a growing hunger among thesesectors for the type of politics itrepresents.

lJhen state government electionscome up in November, the Possibil-ity of a PT victory Ln Sao Paulo,though not great, cannot be ruledout. The conseguences of such avictory - in Latin America'siargest indr:strial centre - wouldbe enorlDous, and coul.d wellrepresent' a sufficient threat tothe bourgeoisie t.o provoke amilitary coup.

Ir: 1985, after twenty-one yearsof n:ilitary oppression, civiliangovernment was finally restored inBrazil. The end of military rule

Political opposites: Left, Luis Ignacio daSilva - Lula - the leader of the radicalPT party. Popu'lar and charismatic, he isdifficult to heckle. R'ight, Janio Quadros,leading member of the PTB party. A formerPresident of Brazil, he defeated Lula forState Governorship of Sao Paulo in 1985.At the microphone Quadros is a virulentlyanti -cormuni st demagogue.

l2 s0LIDARITY J0URNAL L2 o SUFlt',tER 1986

ANAIV$[$

atlart(l,t-o-

E(uP(o

()ovt,h

was clinched by a fantasticmovement which exploded onto thestreets in L984 and left no doubtabout the widespread desire insociety for profound changesdemocratic instead of authoritariangovernment, the country's resourcesfor its people and not internation-al creditors, a decent standard ofliving for the masses instead ofluxuries for the rich, land forrural workers and peasants, and anend to violence and sPeculation.

While ttre movement was genuinelYpopular, the teadership was takenover by politicians from theopposition parties, in particularthe Party of ttre BrazilianDemocratic Movement (pt'lpe). At thesame time, ds the militarY's daYsin power were clearlY numbered,mass desertions oecurred from theruling party set up to suPPort thegovernment. It is politicans fromthese two groups who now form thenew government, maintaining intacta political system and a choice of

economic policies designed tobenefit primarily the bourgeoisie.

On taking office in March 1985,the government enjoyed a honeymoonperiod when all problems couldstill be blamed on the military.The troneymoon having now ended, andthe problems stil1 remaining, thegovernment's inability - or lack ofdesire - to institute far-reachingchanges becomes daily more evident.

The elections for mayor in thestate capitals last Novemberprovided an important pointer tothe popularity of the newgovernment. For the ruling alliance- dominated by PMDB in partnershipwith the smaller Liberai FrontParty (Pff,), a right-wing group -the result was little strort of adisaster. In the major politicalcentres PMDB-PFL lost to populistgroups. In Rio de Janeiro and PortoAlegre, victory went to the theDemocratic Labour Party (PPt)headed by 'socialist' LeonalBrizola. In Sao Paulo the winning

s0LIDARITY J0URilAL L2 a SUr.rt-{ER 1986 13

candidate was the authoritarian andrigtrt-wing former President .lanioQuadros of the Brazilian LabourParty (PfS). (In grazil a party'sname usually symbolises what itdoesn't stand for).

Principled stand pays offMeanwhile the PT unexpectedly won

Fortaleza in the north-east, andwould have won in Goinania in thecentre-west but for electoral fraudby PMDB members. In Sao Paulo,Quadros' victory was blamed on thePT, which had refused to sub-ordin-ate itself to a 'left-liberaL'aLliance under PMDB. Together thetwo parties would easily have won.But the PT is now gathering thefruits of its principled stance onsuch issues. It has always refusedthe pragmatic vote and the ideathat under present circumstancesits own interests - and ttrose ofthe workers - should be set asidein favour of supporting the 'left'or the 'national bourgeoisie' . Forthe same reason it incurred wide-spread public hostility when, aloneof all the parties, it refused toparticipate in the indirectpresidential elections organised bythe military regime in 1985.

Since ttre mayoral elections,PMDB, in reality a ragbag of groupscovering a wide range of thepolitical spectrum, has begun tofragment into its constituentparts. The PT, on the other hand,has continued to grow, and is soonto launch a recruitment campaign tocapitalise on its popularity.

The PT's current wave of successis by no means due only to itsrecord in election campaigns and inthe country' s representative bodies.So far it has remained true to itsroots - it was born in the historicstrike in ttre Sao Palo industrialsuburbs in L97e which brought to anend ten years of quiescence in thefactories enforced by machine gunsand torture chambers. Since ttren ithas stood by its commitment tosupport workers in struggle. It isthe only political party to showits presence consistently in

ANAIV$[$

strikes and land conflicts. Thoughurban in origin, it is now strongin many rural areas. Several dozenparty militants have already losttheir lives at the hands of gunmenemployed by the lanCowners. InL982, when recession and job-lettino were at a peak, it shockedconventj-onal political opinion byorganising an unemployed workers'camp outside the Sao PauJo stateassembly. The party is currentlyrefusing to go along with thegovernment's desperate pleas toagree a social pact to controlprices and wages, backed by a banon strikes. Its strong line onthese issues does not leean that itrefuses inflexibly to negotiatewith other parties. Altiroughrefusing the government's socialpact, it has proposed a nationalagreement to fix rnini-curr! uagelevels for a temporary period, buton condition that t'he right ofparticular groups of rorkers toorganise their oun L-age gampaigns,backed by strikes, is rct impeded.

Meanwhil e , the party, togetherwith the central trade unionorganisation, the C[.If, set up byit, are contin'.:ing Eo develop acampaign in favour of a forty-hourweek (ttre averagie rcrked in Brazilis over forty-eight hours) r three-monthly instead of sir-monthly wageincreases ( necessary because theannual rate of inflation is over230 per ceat), land reform, arealistic level for the minimumwage (ttre Pt is calling for a leveIover Lhree times that set bY thegovernment) and a price freeze onbasic aoods. To back their demandsthe Flt and CUT are preparing theground for an eventual generalstrike.

Internal flawsIt '*nould be ridiculous, ?towever,

to suggest that the PT has no flawsor that it never makes mi-stakes.trts weaknesses lie mainlY in itsinternal makeup. It is a curiousrixture of the trade unionists whofounoed it, left-wing intellectualsand far-1eft groups practising deepentryism. The latter include both

14 SOLIDARITY JOURNAL L2 O SUMMER 1986

ANA[V$[$

ilillililililillilililililillillillllililililillllllillllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

trotskyists such as the Conver-gencia Socialista and DemocraciaSocialista, and the PartidoRevolucionario Communista (pcR), abreakaway from the maoist Partidocommunista do Brasil (Pc do B). ThePT at leirst had the good fortunethat wtren the end of the militarYregime was in sight, most of themarxist groups - PC do B, theMoscow-aligned Partido CommunistaBrasileira and other smalleroffshoots - decided that "objectivecircumstances" required them to goand militate inside the PMDB: tostrengttren the forces of theliberal bourgeoisie.

The groups that have joined thePT, however, have at times causedsubstantial problems, and beenresponsible for the decision of nosmal l number of ottrer members toleave. These grouPs do not havesufficient support to exercise adecisive influence within the PT,although in some areas theYdominate some local branches. Acertain amount of politicking aLsotakes part i-n ottrer sections of theparty. Lula, the PartY Presidentand best-known member, is acknow-ledged to have great charisma. Thisfunctions outside the PartY, butnot so much inside. Although anexcellent speaker, Lula is not muchof an ideas man, and PerhaPs wouldnot have maintained his Prominentrole in the partY had he not beenadept at making the right kind ofalliance at the right kind of time,sometimes with one or other of theentrist groups. The level ofpoliticki.g, and the disruPtiveactivities of the entrists, have sofar not caused serious damage tothe party's activities in thefie1d. There is no guarantee,however, that theY might not do soat some future date.

lfith a bit of luck, or judiciousction on the Part of those

conscious of the Problem, thisdanger will be averted. For thetime being the PT is the mostpositive force in Brazil, and itwill be a pity if internal Problemsscrew up its chance to make alittle - or a 1ot - of historY.

!I

s0LIDARITY J0URNAL L? o SUMt'lER 1986

L.I II I I

ITIIIIIIIII

! Special free book

I oifer to all ne- subscribers !I Don't 1et yoursel f m'i ss

I 8li'13ll.J'i:i'^ll

tIIt

IJournal.

Subscribe now and we wi I I

send you comp'letely freeI ;Tih i;;'"Ii'ist i slue a

Ii3[{,'1.'r3#r ffiE-rkabl e account ofI the human underside ofIIIIIT

IIIIIIIIIIIIIT

I

Name:

Bri tai n's war effort,the people out of steP with I'IWII.

Pl ease f i l'l out thi s f orm, ti cki ng

appropriate boxes and send (making

your cheque payabl e 'Sol i dari ty' )

SuascntPTIoNS, SoLIDARIT\, c/o 123

LATHOM ROAD, LONDON E6, UNITED

K I NGDOM .

Pl ease send me So1 i dari tYJournal and So11?ariTy-p:uE-lTcations as they arepubf ished, to a total value oft6 ( 'i ncl udi ng postage ) .

Pl ease send me So1 i dari tyJournal and SolTd'aFltypu6TTcations as they arepublished, to a total value ofL1? ( i ncl udi ng postage ) .

I am filthy rich, and havingnothing better to do with mY

money am enclosing an extra [10towards your venture.

n Pl ease send me mY free coPY ofI I You, You and You!

IItolIIIT

IIIIIIIIIIIIIT

T

Ii5

tr

Address:

I capi ta1 of

r liiii;.T'

code:

Subscriptions are thethe anti - capi tal i st

need your subscriPtion to

Zi p / Post

Remember:

YglrrYd

llBr[Ilillr tIllElil0lt

There isspark in t

magazlnFrom the LIB ED collectiveWhen the Libertarian Educationcollective read your recent reviewof our magazine we were bothdisappointed and angry. Adversecomment we can take but destructivecrit.icism from supposed comrades issomething else. Your review readsrnore like a judgment from on highthan a careful constructiveassessment. from alongside. Thereviewer Cecided that they didn'tlike our politics but didn't letthe reader in on how they hadarrived at that judgment. Did thereviewer read the four point state-ment outlining our perspective onpage two? What did they think ofit? t+hich articles seemed mostpoliti-caIly flawed and in what way?Which statements and concl.usionsdid they find unacceptabel and forwhat reasons? If we have been foundguilty of political unreliabitiry,can we at least hear the evidence?

The simplest way to give readerssome opportunity to evaluate Lib Edfor themselves is to print ouf-position-statement. It reads asfollows:

This magazine is againstauthority.Schools and colleges use theirauthorit.y to define, to grade andto discipline, in order totransform the learners into thesort of rproducts I that the st.atedemands.

In contrast, libertarianeducation sees education as

ahee

16 s0LrDARrTy J0URNAL t2 o SUMMER 1986

liberation. The learner, youngor old, is the best judge ofwhat they should learn next. Inour struggle to make sense outof 1ife, the things we most needto learn are the things we mostwant to learn. The liberatedlearner controls tbe processno longer the victim.We donrt pretend to have al1 theanswers. Lib Ed magazine is aforum for-E-eryone uho isintErested in the liberation oflearning.

Now these points together withthe magaziners articLes haveprompted a lot of criticism (seethe letters page cf issue tyo! ) butfortunately iL has been rcrefocussed and constructive than thatoffered by your revier.

If we are serious about formingthe structure of the l$etr Societywithin the shell of Lhe old we willneed to offer each other rcretrust, support and i-rrdeed rpresolidarity, than your reviewexempl ified.

Yours sincerely

ilililililililflililililililil1t Illllllilililililililfi

Quick footno-;: --:review of 'Cu:--:

Getting theflavour right

From DONALD i---r -: --:

Trgtskyl':ffi ofTroskyist pa:--'es as *-he 5ivarieties did Dot originate withthe old Solioarity cartooni I firstheard it uffi-ffirrilip sansom atSpeakers' Corner in 1950.

Best wishes,

TH['It':t

u'onntsP0IttIEt