Category Archives: China

Corporate Bosses Endanger Workers’ Lives During COVID-19 Epidemic

Waterfront Bosses Hide COVID-19 Case from Workers

Corporate Bosses Endanger Workers’ Lives
Even More During COVID-19 Epidemic

4 April 2020: The greed of capitalist bosses knows no bounds. They have always stolen the fruit of workers’ labour. And in their drive for still higher profits, they have always been willing to endanger workers’ lives by cutting corners on workplace safety. Now, since the COVID-19 outbreak, the cruelty of their drive for profits has reached new levels. On the one hand, many business owners, at the first sign of a decrease in revenue or the need to temporarily shut down for quarantine reasons, are throwing out of their jobs the very workers whose manual and mental labour made these bosses their fortunes. On the other hand, some of those workers still in work are being exposed to the COVID-19 virus due to the bosses’ callous disregard for workers’ well-being. The latter is what is taking place, for example, at the Hutchison port at Sydney’s Port Botany.

We received the following message tonight from a waterfront worker at Hutchison who is also a Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) member:

levitra canada pharmacy Some other possible causes to which female infertility is attributed are premature menopause, thyroid disorder, chemotherapy and radiation treatment, delayed puberty, diabetes, exposure to pesticides and pollutants, genetic factors, lifestyle problems such as smoking and alcohol abuse. If you are suffering from impotency then you buying sildenafil amerikabulteni.com tend to increase some of the psychological problems. Texas Rangers baseball player Rafael Palmiero and NASCAR’s Mark levitra 10 mg Martin endorse this pill. It is critical to india online viagra guarantee that one is not given the guaranteed of the side effects of some other medicines.

“COVID-19 outbreak at my work. Hutchison terminal in Sydney again stands still. This time due to COVID-19 where there is one confirmed case – not contracted in the terminal. Problem is the six shifts since March 24 prior to our [MUA] member being notified by NSW Health. The numbers exposed are greater than the company is revealing. 

“Hutchison deliberately concealed a positive COVID-19 test from workers and the Union [MUA]. Then they had wharfies working ensuring the ship got away before revealing on April 3. 

“Believe it or not Hutchison will still not reveal to the workforce or Union who was on shift and who crossed over the six shifts. 

“The terminal remains shut down until workers are satisfied all safety concerns have been agreed and implemented. 

“These people are beyond belief. 

“It’s criminal behaviour that puts the whole community at risk.”

Victory to the stop-work action of Hutchison workers! Solidarity with the endangered Hutchison workers!

Hutchison was started by British capitalists in the 19th century after Britain stole Hong Kong from China through the Opium War. In 1979, still during the period of British colonial rule, Hong Kong real estate tycoon Li Ka-shing took a decisive stake in Hutchison, then called Hutchison Whampoa. Today Li and his sons run Hutchison. Li has an estimated wealth of $A52 billion. Not surprisingly then, this capitalist has given tacit support to the pro-colonial, anticommunist opposition movement in Hong Kong. This movement expresses the interests of Hong Kong’s rich who know that their selfish interests will be harmed if socialistic China exerts more control over Hong Kong. A prominent leader of Hong Kong’s biggest trade union federation, the pro-Beijing Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, aptly referred to Li Ka-shing as the “king of cockroaches” (see: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-tycoons-li-exclusiv/exclusive-in-face-of-criticism-hong-kong-tycoon-li-ka-shing-says-hes-getting-used-to-punches-idUSKBN1Y11KW). We say that Red China should confiscate Hutchison and the other holdings of this king of cockroaches as well as those of the other Hong Kong tycoons and bring them all into public ownership so that the benefits of the socialist system can be brought to the people of Hong Kong; and improvements can be made to the conditions of workers employed in Hutchison Port operations around the world.

Unfortunately, the disregard for workers’ health shown by the bosses at Sydney’s Hutchison Ports is just one example of the attitude of greedy capitalists throughout Australia to the dangers to workers posed by COVID-19. In this time of the COVID-19 pandemic, working class people and our union movement will need to fight extra hard to stop layoffs, to prevent the bosses eroding our working conditions and to protect our very lives.

Update, 6 April 2020: The situation has now gotten worse at Hutchison Ports in Port Botany. A second worker has been confirmed as being infected and approximately 30 workers are now in isolation due to being high risk of exposure to COVID-19. See:
https://www.mua.org.au/news/port-botany-stevedore-exposes-workers-coronavirus-and-hides-positive-test-0

Socialistic China is Overcoming the Corona Virus Threat

Photo Above: Medical staff in China’s Wuhan celebrate on March 9 after all COVID-19 patients at the temporary hospital that they worked at were cured and discharged from hospital.

Socialistic China is Overcoming the COVID-19 Virus Threat

30 March 2020: Over the last few days, huge crowds in Wuhan have lined the streets to thanks the nurses and doctors from other parts of the Peoples Republic China (PRC) who heroically volunteered to go to Wuhan and help treat COVID-19 patients. The medics were given honorary police escorts as they went in buses to Wuhan airport to fly back to their home provinces happy in the knowledge that, in part through their brave efforts, the people of Wuhan have, at least for now, overcome the virus threat.

Please see the following short but powerful and emotional video of the people of Wuhan thanking the medics. The nurses and doctors leaving Wuhan break down in tears of joy as they receive thanks from Wuhan residents. The video can be accessed through our Facebook post on the subject here:
https://www.facebook.com/TrotskyistPlatform/posts/2807949902592547?__tn__=K-R

or through the direct link here:  https://twitter.com/OcastJournal…/status/1243791022489882624

The people of Wuhan now feel safe to congregate together in huge numbers, confident that the virus threat has been overcome.

The Peoples Republic of China has reduced the number of community transmission cases to almost zero. This is a stunning achievement for a country with 1439 million people – that is one in five of the world’s people. There is of course still a danger of a second wave. An average of around 30 to 50 people per day infected with COVID-19 have been coming into China as large numbers of Chinese people residing in the U.S. and Europe rush back to the safety of China. However, the numbers of COVID-19 infected people arriving are tiny compared to China’s overall population. Moreover, those infected people have been quickly identified and moved into hospitals for treatment.

Unlike Australia, the U.S. and many other countries, China has not closed its borders to citizens of any country at this time, despite the main risk to China now being from imported cases. Those coming into China are required to quarantine at designated hotels but this rule applies to everyone whether they are Chinese citizens or foreign nationals. Certainly there is nothing in China like the outrageous quarantine at the Christmas Island Detention Centre that the racist Australian regime forced mainly ethnic Chinese Australians – who had left Hubei Province – to have to endure when they returned here in early February. And from accounts of foreign nationals quarantined in China, it seems that they are not subjected to the harsh conditions experienced by those recent arrivals from overseas put into compulsory quarantine in Australia who have complained about intimidating guards, bad food, no fresh towels and no cleaning done (see: https://www.sbs.com.au/…/australians-in-quarantine-at-sydne…).

When the Australian mainstream media have had to grudgingly acknowledge that China has been at this time largely able to stop further spread of the virus, they have spun the myth that this is due to “authoritarian” measures. This is a lie. Indeed the lock downs currently in place in Britain, Spain, Italy, India and many other countries are in many ways stricter than the ones that were in place in China. To be sure, Wuhan had been in a stringent, complete lock down and so were many other parts of Hubei Province. However, Hubei only makes up 4% of China’s population. To be sure, in the rest of China, schools, universities and all non-essential workplaces were also closed as the PRC authorities extended the Chinese New Year holidays that had begun when the outbreak emerged and prioritised saving lives and stopping the spread of the virus over business profits. However, in these parts of China outside Hubei, including in major cities like Beijing and Shanghai, people while discouraged from unnecessary travel and required to wear masks when outside, were still able to move around. By contrast the lock downs in Britain, Spain, Italy, India and many other countries are completely nationwide.

Infopirate bookmarks blogs unique copyrighted worldwide 80 adshare 10 referral adshare infopirate has morphed into a revenue sharing bookmarking website. levitra no prescription cute-n-tiny.com sildenafil tadalafil Natural substances too can lead to side effects. Lots of kinds of research study have shown that picking proper supplement can help in improving your cognitive power and can increase libido prescription female viagra and sperm count. buy levitra no prescription There are many antivirus solutions available in treatment forms.

So why has China, at least for now, been able to achieve a victory over the COVID -19 threat? Simply, it is because of the advantages of her socialistic system based on public ownership of the economy and working class rule – despite the fact that the workers state in China is bureaucratically deformed and undermined by the wavering government having allowed too much of a capitalistic private sector. So socialistic state-owned developers in China were mobilised to build two massive brand new hospitals in Wuhan in less than two weeks. They also converted in rapid time, large numbers of public facilities like gymnasiums and cultural halls into makeshift hospitals. This meant that although Wuhan’s hospitals were at the start overwhelmed, before long all COVID-19 patients in China could actually be treated in hospitals rather than be made to self-quarantine at home, as is the case with most corona virus infected people in Australia and the U.S. deemed to be “non-serious cases.” By ensuring that all people confirmed to have COVID-19 were treated in hospital and that others suspected of being infected were moved into either hospitals or centralised quarantine, the PRC guaranteed not only the proper treatment of infected people but, through ensuring that all infected people could be guaranteed food and essentials without having to go shopping for such goods, they ensured that the quarantine of these people was total and thus that they would not spread the disease to others.

Moreover, China also had a massive mobilisation to test people for COVID-19. This included not only specific testing for the corona virus but very frequent temperature testing of people in their homes, workplaces and at public transport venues in order to identify people who were more likely to have been infected. As a result COVID-19 patients or those considered likely to be infected could be identified early and sent for treatment and quarantine.

Meanwhile, Chinese state-owned manufacturers – even aircraft manufacturers, car factories and oil giants – were quickly turned into factories making masks, ventilators, personal protective gear for medics, thermometers and testing kits. Such a mobilisation on this scale is not possible in capitalist countries because the private manufacturers here are totally driven by profit and will only agree to switch production if they can make a quick buck out of it. Similarly, if private developers in Australia had been asked to build a massive brand new hospital in ten days they would have demanded a massive premium for such an urgent construction and would have wasted days if not weeks haggling for a bloated price before even thinking about starting construction. In contrast, in the PRC, not only does the socialistic public sector put social needs above profit but because the smaller private enterprises are beholden to the large public sector that dominates the markets and supply chains and because private firms have a tenuous existence under a workers state, even some private companies felt compelled to join the mobilisation to provide for the medical relief effort.

A society dominated by a collectivist economy breeds a collectivist, community spirit amongst its people. So in China, during a crisis, people, by and large, have a sense of civic duty and community responsibility. To be sure, given that there is also a sizeable private sector in China that operates alongside the socialistic state sector and which operates largely on the capitalist mode, the dog-eat-dog mentality dominant in capitalist countries has infected Chinese society to some degree and there were some cases of selfish behaviour by individuals during the outbreak. Moreover, in a country with a population 60 times that of Australia’s, one could find a few cases too of over-zealousness by local officials. And the Western media did their best to try and find such isolated cases and deviously portray them as the norm in China. So too did Australian prime minister Scott Morrison when he deceptively claimed, at a recent news conference, that China’s response to COVID-19 was typified by welding doors shut to quarantine people (how many actual cases of that happening in China were there – like five cases in a country with a population of 1439 million!). But for all the cases of self-centred behaviour by a small number of individuals and the cases of bureaucratic heavy-handedness by a few Chinese local government officials, the big picture reality is that China’s current victory over the virus threat is in good part due to the overall community, collectivist spirit of her people – a spirit that has been created by the dominance in the PRC of the socialist economic mode. It was this spirit that led to a massive grassroots mobilisation in China to respond to the COVID-19 threat. Neighbourhood collectives, Communist Party of China local committees and volunteers organised to ensure deliveries of food and other essentials to people in lock down or quarantine as well as for vulnerable people like the elderly and disabled. They also organised frequent temperature testing for people in their own neighbourhoods. Meanwhile, they provided care for the children and even pets of nurses and doctors from other provinces who volunteered to join the emergency medical brigades to Hubei Province.

The capitalist Australian media are doing their best to mask this truth about China’s mobilisation to overcome the virus threat. Other than spreading the tale about “authoritarian methods,” the other way that the media are shrouding the truth about Red China’s stunning mobilisation is by trying to find some capitalist country that they can hold up as a positive model of successful response to the virus threat so that people don’t focus on the elephant in the room when it comes to successful response – Red China. The country that the Western media have designated to be their capitalist positive model is South Korea. Yet South Korea’s rate of COVID-19 infection among its people at 188 cases per million people is more than three times China’s and is actually in fact slightly higher than Australia’s rapidly climbing infection rate is at this point. And South Korea’s number of deaths per million people is already 35% higher than China’s and is climbing at a much higher rate than China’s death rate is climbing. This is despite China having had the added difficulty of being the country where the virus first spread in a big way (at least in terms of known spread) and thus had to not only take time to recognise and identify the threat but had to develop treatment methods from scratch. The fact is that the model of successful response to COVID-19 is socialistic China and not capitalist South Korea.

Tragically, at this time 3304 people have died from COVID-19 in China as part of the more than 35,000 people who have been killed by the disease worldwide. Our solidarity and heartfelt condolences go out to the friends, loved ones and families of all the victims of the virus in Australia, China and the entire world. But to put things in perspective, the number of deaths per million people in China from COVID-19 is not only significantly lower than in South Korea but it is already (as of 30 March) three times lower than in Germany, three and a half times lower than in the U.S., six and a half times lower than in Sweden, nine times lower than in Britain, 17 times lower than in France and nearly 85 times lower than in Italy. (see the second last column in this real time table for example: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries ). This is despite the virus having basically been contained, at least for now, in China while it is spreading at an frighteningly increasing rate in these capitalist countries.

The PRC has now moved in a big way to provide aid to other countries affected or potentially affected by the virus. In Iran, the worst hit country outside Europe and the U.S., China actually first sent in medical experts to help with the virus response on February 29, when she was still in the heaviest days of her own battle with COVID-19. In Iraq, a PRC medical team helped establish a new COVID-19 testing facility that has quadrupled the daily testing capacity of that war-torn country. Meanwhile, the PRC has sent several sets of medical experts as well as large amounts of ventilators, medical masks, testing kits, medicines and protective equipment for nurses and doctors to the country with currently the world’s highest death toll, Italy. China has also flown in medical experts and/or donated badly needed medical supplies to Cuba, Laos, Ethiopia, South Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Algeria, the Philippines, Egypt, Chile, Cambodia, Serbia, Spain, France, South Korea, Japan and dozens of other countries.

That so much can be achieved by a socialistic country so squeezed by the relentless pressure of richer imperialist powers – and one which is undermined by the intrusion of capitalistic enterprises and weakened by the lack of genuine workers democracy – shows what we could achieve in a fully socialist world. At this time of public health emergency and with millions of working class people in Australia and the rest of the capitalist world being thrown out of their livelihoods every day we need to fight all the more energetically for a society based on public ownership and working class state power.

Resist the Anti-Chinese Racism Sweeping Through Australia

Above photo: The Christmas Island detention centre where Chinese-Australians who had recently been in Wuhan are being held.

MIXED MESSAGES & RACIST TRAVEL BANS
FROM THE CAPITALIST AUSTRALIAN REGIME

WHILE RED CHINA RESPONDS TO THE COVID-19 THREAT
WITH SOCIALIST PLANNING AND BY BUILDING
TWO LARGE NEW HOSPITALS IN TWO WEEKS

Resist the New Strain of Anti-Chinese Racism Sweeping Through Australia

5 February 2020 – People of Chinese ethnicity in Australia are once again under attack. The latest bout of anti-Asian racism is being masked as fear of the novel coronavirus. People of East Asian appearance have been abused on public transport, at shopping centres, in schools and even at hospital waiting rooms. In a typical incident in Sydney, a white person yelled at an Asian background mother travelling on a train with her baby in a pram. The despicable racist demanded that the Asian-Australian woman go to a corner of the train because she was “spreading viruses.” Meanwhile, last Friday in Port Hedland, a Woolworths staff member threateningly ordered customers of Asian appearance out of the store over supposed virus fears.

Anti-Chinese racism is hardly new in Australia. From the time of Captain Cook’s landing 250 years ago, the colonial regime’s murderous dispossessing of Aboriginal people has infected the culture of Australian society with virulent racism. Daily nourished by the capitalist ruling class’ ever present need to divert the anger of the masses whom they exploit away from they the exploiters and onto racial minorities, the virus of white supremacy has been able to mutate into many different strains. That is why the number one migrant-based target of racist attacks will swap from Chinese migrants, to the Vietnamese community, to South Asian students, to Muslims, to African (and especially Sudanese) youth and back again to people of Chinese background. Overall, the Chinese community have probably been second only to Australia’s brutally oppressed Aboriginal people in being hit with White Australia racism. Many of the diseased racists attacking the community today are hardly genuinely concerned about the coronavirus. Indeed, some of the people they are targeting are not even of Chinese origin – let alone recent arrivals from China. But the rednecks hardly care. For them anyone of East Asian appearance and indeed any person of colour is “fair” game.

The spread of anti-Asian bigotry is being encouraged by Australia’s capitalist elite. The newspapers in Australia owned by billionaire magnates Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan have sought to spread prejudice against the Chinese community. Sydney’s The Daily Telegraph had a huge front page headline, deliberately written in bold text made to read as a command, that shouted, “China Kids Stay Home.” However, what has most spawned xenophobic fears are the actions of the right-wing Morrison government. On Saturday, they announced an outright, temporary travel ban on Chinese nationals and other non-citizens who have arrived from China. As a result over a 100,000 international students from China are not able to return for the start of classes. Many are furious at the Australian regime. And because the government’s ban was implemented without any notice, a large number of people were left stranded when they arrived in Australia only to find that a ban on them had been decreed while they were mid-flight. In Sydney airport alone, some 80 Chinese people were detained, many of whom were interrogated for hours while being denied access to food. Many of these people were either then placed into detention or were immediately deported back to China regardless of their health. The Chinese embassy has rightly condemned this outrage and called for compensation for the victims of this draconian policy.

The Australian regime’s travel ban goes directly against the recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO) warning against such actions. Yesterday, the WHO head emphatically stated that:

“We reiterate our call to all countries not to impose restrictions inconsistent with the International Health Regulations.

“Such restrictions can have the effect of increasing fear and stigma, with little public health benefit.”

Very few other countries have applied the same blanket ban on arrivals of non-citizens from China as Australia has done. Those countries that have are Trump’s United States, Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel and Narendra Modi’s India – all countries administered by vicious, right-wing regimes – as well as the Ardern government in New Zealand, which is a coalition between the social-democratic Labour Party, the Greens and the xenophobic NZ First Party. Russia and Singapore have also imposed harsh restrictions on the entry of Chinese nationals but have not gone as far as the likes of Australia and the U.S.

Where the Australian regime is completely unique is with its quarantining of those Australian citizens evacuated from the virus epicentre of Wuhan in an immigrant detention centre 2,600 kilometres from the mainland in Christmas Island. Even the proudly racist Trump regime has not gone that far! Already many newly arrived evacuees have expressed their outrage at the conditions that they face in the detention centre which is unclean and has poor food. One evacuee, Belinda Chen, who is at the centre with two of her children, told ABC News that “the hygiene issues make it worse than a prison” and that her children were “too scared to touch their beds.” Even the mayor of Christmas Island denounced the government’s policy as “regressive colonial era ideas” that “would create a convict colony.”

The only reason that the government has implemented such outrageously heartless measures is because most of the evacuees are of Chinese ethnicity. You can bet that if the evacuees had been wealthy white businessmen they would not have been dumped in a remote detention centre. And as an Asian-Australian activist, Erin Chew, aptly said of the travel ban:

“When previous viruses happened such as mad cow disease or the swine flu, Australia didn’t ban non-citizens from Britain and the US. Nor was the blame placed on the people in [those countries].”

The Morrison government knows that its policies are doing much to nurture hostility to the Chinese community. The aim of the Liberal-National government is to send a message that it is OK to exclude Chinese and other non-white people. They want to legitimise White Australia xenophobia. Yet the Coalition is hardly alone in doing this. After initially being critical of the Christmas Island detention plan, ALP leader Anthony Albanese has now fallen right in behind the government’s travel ban policies saying yesterday that: “Australia has got to make decisions in our own national interest.” Indeed, it was actually Queensland Labor premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, who egged on the Morrison government to place the travel ban on people coming from China in the first place. Just hours before the Morrison government announced the ban, Palaszczuk called to stop all incoming flights from China and apply in Australia the same ban implemented by the Trump government. We say: Lift the Morrison/Palaszczuk/Albanese ban on arrivals from China! Support Beijing’s demand for the Australian regime to compensate arrivals from China deported due to the travel ban! Bring everyone from the Christmas Island immigration detention centre to the mainland! Let them stay in their own homes! Free too all the refugees and other immigrants detained in Christmas Island, Nauru, Manus Island, Villawood and other Australian migrant detention centres!

IRRATIONAL FEAR-MONGERING, INADEQUATE PUBLIC HEALTH MOBILISATION, RACIST FAKE NEWS AND SOME MORE RATIONAL SPECULATION

The Australian government’s xenophobic policies under the guise of containing the new virus outbreak have no scientific basis. In creating an irrational panic about the coronavirus, Australian mainstream politicians and media are spreading a thinly veiled racist message: that people ought to be scared about the “evils” coming from China. At the same time, the Australian regime has failed to mobilise the health and production resources needed to provide sufficient testing of people with symptoms, adequate numbers of testing kits and enough protective masks for health workers. Moreover, they have been incapable of ensuring the creation of adequate public hospital beds and spare capacity in the health system to deal with a potential rapid virus spread in this country. For the coronavirus is indeed infectious and deadly. To date 492 people have died from it worldwide.

Thanks to the swift action of the Peoples Republic of China’s (PRC) authorities and their transparency in sharing information, the spread of coronavirus outside China is at the moment – at the start of February – limited. To be sure, if the virus were to spread widely into countries with less capable health and social systems than China, the effects could be devastating. And even though Australia is a wealthier country, you can’t rule out the possibility, given that everything in capitalist societies run for the sake of profits for the big end of town, combined with the Australian regime’s tendency to swap xenophobia for sound scientific practice, that the ruling class here and similar capitalist ruling classes abroad will botch their response to the new virus.

Encouraged by the xenophobia and anti-China bias of Australia’s mainstream media, conscious white supremacists here are spreading fake news stories in order to create hostility to the Chinese community. One social media post, that went viral, masquerading as if it was from Queensland Health, warned people to avoid suburbs in Brisbane with a certain proportion of Chinese background residents in order to avoid contracting the virus.

The usa cialis discover address effect works well up to 6 hours. Keep expectations about performance cialis low cost away in your sex life. The information on this sildenafil soft tabs article is presented for educational, informational purposes only. Likewise; men cannot have purchase generic levitra the same level of sexual activity is closely involved with zinc.

Meanwhile, within Chinese communities, there is widespread speculation that the new virus was spread by the U.S. regime as a New Cold War attack on Red China and to help Trump get the advantage in his trade protectionist campaign against the PRC. Unlike the racist fake news stories, this speculation is more plausible. This is because U.S. intelligence agencies have actually used such biological warfare methods in the past – namely, against socialistic Cuba. To damage the Cuban economy, the CIA once spread swine fever in Cuba causing Cuba to have to slaughter 500,000 pigs. Most seriously, in 1981, the CIA spread dengue fever in the island causing the death of 158 Cubans. What has heightened speculation about the virus outbreak were findings by Chinese scientists reported by China’s official state media seven days ago. The scientists found that contrary to interim findings that the virus had spread entirely from Wuhan’s Seafood Wholesale Market, the virus appeared to have spread from multiple locations (see: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-01/29/c_138741063.htm). In the rare case that a virus jumps from an animal to a human, it is likely that this will occur at one location and then the virus will spread from one human carrier to the next. Should multiple animal to human transmissions occur, the probability that they will take place almost simultaneously at multiple locations is tiny. So if initial transmissions to humans did, in fact, occur almost simultaneously at multiple locations, this opens up the possibility that the virus was deliberately spread. One of the telling things about the 1981 dengue fever “outbreak” in Cuba is that it started simultaneously in three different parts of the country. Nevertheless, to date, there is no direct evidence that the coronavirus was started by U.S. intelligence agencies. What there is evidence of is that while the coronavirus was first discovered in Wuhan, the human form of the virus may not have initially started in Wuhan or even in China but rather was accidentally brought there from abroad by carriers with mild symptoms and then spread rapidly once it got into the Wuhan’s Seafood Wholesale Market. Experts in Japan have suggested that a few of the 14,000 people who died of influenzalike symptoms during the last U.S. flu season may have actually died of the coronavirus rather than influenza but the U.S. health system at the time had not picked up that they were victims of a new virus.

ANTI-CHINESE BIGOTRY WAS ALREADY RAMPANT
BEFORE THE NEW CORONAVIRUS EMERGED

The new strain of anti-Chinese racism spreading through Australia in recent weeks is hitting a Chinese community already under attack. From racist assaults against Chinese high-school and university students in Canberra bus stops and class rooms to violent attacks on Asian-background residents in busy Sydney suburban streets in Randwick and Burwood, the last three years have seen a wave of violence and abuse directed at people of Chinese heritage. There are three factors spawning this outbreak. First is the racist scapegoating that the capitalist rulers engage in against all people of colour in order to blame others for the social decay, lack of secure jobs for young people and lack of affordable rental accommodation caused by their system. Second is the growing economic nationalism in Australia. Those who claim to stand for workers interests (like the ALP and Greens) but who have no program for militant struggle against the real cause of unemployment, casualisation and low wages – that is, the capitalist bosses and their greed – seek to improve conditions for the masses by setting them up to support protectionist schemes against foreign guest workers and imported goods. Such economic nationalist schemes do not protect the interests of local workers. Overseas producers simply respond with their own counter-measures and all that ends up happening is that workers of different countries are set against each other leaving the Aussie bosses as well as the overseas cohort of capitalists laughing all the way to the bank. Regardless of the intentions of those who promote it, such economic nationalist schemes inevitably rebound against local migrant communities who become targeted as a fifth column of the overseas producers supposedly “stealing Aussie jobs.” Given that China is by far Australia’s largest trading partner it is inevitable that the xenophobia spawned by protectionist agendas especially targets people of Chinese background.

The biggest factor that has germinated anti-Chinese racism in recent years is the Australian ruling class’ anti-communist campaign against socialistic China. Australian politicians and mainstream media are making increasingly hyped-up claims against China. They accuse the PRC of everything from cyber-hacking, to “threatening Australia’s sovereignty,” to supposed bullying behaviour in the South China Sea. The most ridiculous claim is the one that “China is imprisoning over one million Muslim Uighurs.” This assertion has about as much credibility as the fake news stories doing the rounds saying that eating certain Asian food like fortune cookies could spread the coronavirus! The outright lie about the detention of Uighurs is spread by some of the most openly Islamophobic regimes in the world, including the Trump regime, the Morrison regime and fascist-infested governments in Switzerland and Austria. However, the lie is so grotesque that it has been completely refuted by most Muslim majority countries, not only those friendly to China like Palestine, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Algeria, Djibouti, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan but even by many Muslim-majority governments thoroughly subservient to Washington like those in Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The effect of all this anti-communist, anti-China propaganda is that backward parts of the Australian population come to see Chinese people as savage and as a “threat” to Australia’s people. This became heightened further last year during the anti-communist protests by pro-colonial, rich kids in China’s Hong Kong. While Australia’s establishment hailed students who held rallies in Australia supporting the anti-PRC rioters in Hong Kong as “expressing their right to free speech”, international students from China who expressed their right to free speech by bravely rallying in defence of Red China were pilloried for “interfering in Australia’s internal affairs.” Most sinisterly, early last spring, the Australian government announced the creation of a new Federal Government taskforce to look into “foreign interference” on Australian campuses – a move clearly aimed at intimidating pro-PRC Chinese students studying in Australia.

The anti-communist section of the Chinese community has also played an active part in the campaign against the PRC and her local Chinese and international student supporters. Even though anti-Chinese prejudice could rebound against them, they have nourished a movement that combines anti-communism with white supremacist racism. Thus, Hong Kong anti-PRC students distributed at a rally that they held in Sydney’s Martin Place last year a leaflet calling to keep out of Australia migrants from the PRC. Meanwhile, members of the far-right Chinese group Falun Dafa – that masquerades as a religious group but which has an agenda of racial segregation, the shunning of mixed race people as “subhuman,” extreme homophobia and hostility to women’s rights movements – has held joint meetings with violent Australian white supremacist forces.

CHINA’S RESPONSE TO THE VIRUS EMERGENCY SHOWS
THE GREAT ADVANTAGES OF THE SOCIALIST SYSTEM

China’s response to the new virus outbreak is a stunning refutation to all the propaganda spread against her. She has responded with humanity, speed and coordination. Fortunately, China has not gone down Morrison’s road of holding anyone who has been in Hubei in remote detention centres. Instead, people have been asked to self-quarantine at home and wear masks when outside. Those ill are moved into hospital and many people who are thought more likely to have been infected have been moved into hotels or newly furbished accommodation in public buildings. What has enabled China to respond so effectively is that, despite her wavering leadership having allowed too much capitalism into the economy, the PRC remains a socialistic society in which public ownership plays the dominant role. And it is the PRC’s socialistic state-owned enterprises that have been at the forefront of her response to the virus epidemic. State-owned energy companies are providing free electricity and gas supplies to makeshift new hospitals and state-owned pharmaceutical manufacturers are leading the drive to provide badly needed medical supplies. One state-owned developer even built a 1000-bed hospital in just 10 days in the virus epicentre of Wuhan. Try doing that in a capitalist country! A capitalist developer would demand a massive premium for mobilising that amount of labour and raw materials in such a short time. Here, reconstruction for most of those who lost homes in the bushfires has not even started, even for those who lost homes early in the fire season.

In capitalist countries, the system runs for the profit of the business owners. During the bushfires, many business owners and supermarkets here got away with cruelly jacking up their prices to take advantage of desperate bushfire victims. But in China, when some tried that – including outlets of French supermarket chain Carrefour – they were promptly stomped on by PRC state authorities. Meanwhile, even private business owners in China have been ordered to step up production of masks and medical kits to aid the medical emergency. This reflects the fact that the PRC – for all its bureaucratic deformations and its leaders’ concessions to world capitalism – is a workers state that was created by the 1949 revolution. One way that the PRC state has moved to limit the spread of the virus is by extending the Lunar New Year holiday. While we only get one day off for New Year, in China they already get one day off for January 1 plus five week days off for Lunar New Year (people in the PRC get a minimum of 18 workdays off for public holidays each year as opposed to 9 for most people here). Now the Lunar New Year is being extended across China by a few days and in some regions by much longer. If a government tried to do that here, the capitalists, whom the governments ultimately answer to, would have the measure stopped as they are not about to let their filthy profits plummet by giving workers longer holidays. Meanwhile, back in China, the empowerment that the masses feel in a workers state has led to a huge grassroots mobilisation to respond to the crisis. Teams of volunteers are being established to provide food for potentially infected people self-quarantining. Neighbourhood committees are organising people to go around with loudspeakers spreading scientific information about the virus. Celebrities and entertainers are providing free live streaming entertainment and exercise programs to liven up the moods of those stuck at home due to self-quarantining.

OPPOSING ANTI-CHINESE RACISM MEANS
OPPOSING THE COLD WAR DRIVE AGAINST THE PRC

Everyone who is not blinded by either white supremacy, “First World” arrogance or anti-communist hostility can see that the PRC is doing an excellent job responding to a serious virus outbreak in a developing country with a population density fifty times greater than Australia’s. Following an inspection trip to China, WHO Director General, Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus hailed China’s mobilisation:

“China identified the pathogen in record time and shared it immediately, which led to the rapid development of diagnostic tools. They are completely committed to transparency, both internally and externally….

“The fact that to date we have only seen 68 cases outside China, and no deaths, is due in no small part to the extraordinary steps the government has taken to prevent the export of cases. For that, China deserves our gratitude and respect. They’re doing that at the expense of their economy and other factors.”


Press briefing on WHO Mission to China and novel coronavirus outbreak, 29 January 2020, WHO website (see: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/press-briefing-on-who-mission-to-china-and-novel-coronavirus-outbreak)

Yet the capitalist-owned Western media are desperately thrashing around trying to find some angle that they can attack the PRC over. So are those sections of the Australian Left – unfortunately the majority right now – who are lined up behind the capitalist class’ Cold War drive against the PRC state. Thus, the Socialist Alternative (SAlt) group, in an article published two days ago, claimed that: “When it comes to the political system, there’s no denying that local authorities in Hubei province tried to hush up the outbreak in December. Chinese people suffer from their corrupt political leaders.” Although SAlt do also criticise the U.S. and Australian rulers as well, their attacks on the PRC are even more extreme than the mainstream media which grudgingly has had to acknowledge positive aspects of the PRC’s response to the coronavirus.

At the same time as echoing the anti-China propaganda of the Australian ruling class, SAlt are emphatic in stating opposition to anti-Chinese racism. They are part of a left social democratic and left-liberal milieu who think that it is possible to both join the Cold War crusade against Red China and stand against anti-Chinese racism. Others in this trend include other left groups like Solidarity and Socialist Alliance. The main element, however, and the one who the social democratic “far left” groups pander to is the Greens. The problem is that it is not possible to walk on both sides of the streets in this way! Ever since China’s 1949 anticapitalist revolution created near hysteria amongst the Western capitalist establishment, anti-communist hostility to the PRC has gone hand in hand with anti-Chinese xenophobia. For example, the anti-PRC, “pro-democracy” movement in Hong Kong that these groups all rabidly support, are characterised by a nativist hostility to Chinese people from mainland China. It is hard to fathom but the yuppy rioters in Hong Kong, seeped as they are in the values of the British Empire, believe that, even though they are themselves ethnic Chinese, they are superior to Mainland Chinese because they are closer to being British! No wonder Western, extreme white supremacists have been flocking to join the anti-PRC protests in Hong Kong as have more mainstream hard right forces, like Liberal MP, Tim Wilson. Wilson, who visited Hong Kong to march with the anti-PRC forces, is notorious for having been a director of the extremely conservative, Institute of Public Affairs, as well as for speaking out for the “rights” of vile racist media commentator Andrew Bolt. Today, the pro-colonial opposition in Hong Kong is demanding the complete closure of Hong Kong’s border with mainland China to keep out mainland Chinese. The likes of the Greens, SAlt and Solidarity are in a united front with people in Hong Kong – and their Hong Kong student supporters in Australia – who have as a central plank of their platform a xenophobic measure to keep out people from mainland China that is even more severe than the ones that the Australian government has implemented. Meanwhile, progressive NSW Greens senator David Shoebridge has made common cause with the most hard-right politicians in Australia in his xenophobic opposition to the China-connected Chinese language institute, the Confucius Institutes program.

Stepping back a little, the basic reason why it is not possible, regardless of ones intentions, to consistently oppose anti-Chinese racism if one is supporting the Cold War drive against Red China is that both anti-Chinese racism and hostility to the PRC are policies undertaken by the capitalist rulers because it serves their interests. Racism serves the exploiting class because it divides and diverts the masses that they exploit. Propaganda against the PRC serves Australia’s capitalist rulers because it serves to “justify” their hostile actions against Red China. These actions include a military build up targeted at China, the deployment of Australian naval vessels and aircraft thousands of kilometres away from home in waters off China and Korea and the supporting of anti-PRC Chinese exile organisations. Those actions the Australian capitalists see as necessary because they know that supporting the U.S.-led drive to undermine socialistic rule in China is in their very own interests. Although the Australian capitalists make a fortune from exporting to China, they calculate that they could make even more if socialistic rule was destroyed there so that China could be turned into a giant sweatshop and market for unrestricted capitalist exploitation. Quite bizarrely, while the Australian ruling class opposes the PRC precisely because it remains a socialistic state, groups like SAlt and Solidarity oppose the PRC because they claim that it is actually “capitalist.”

But facts speak loudly. And the fact is that China has responded to the novel coronavirus threat with compassion and with a determined mobilisation that is only possible when the decisive sectors of the economy are in the hands of the people. In contrast, the response of the Australian capitalist regime has been shaped by xenophobia and cruelty. That gives us just one more reason why we need to eradicate capitalist rule in this country: along with the need to stop union-busting attacks on workers rights, to stop the degrading treatment of unemployed workers and to bring secure, permanent jobs for all, alongside the need to end homelessness and achieve a massive increase in public housing, the need to bring true equality for women, the need to stop racist state terror against Aboriginal people and the need to stop the Australian military’s role in imperialist wars abroad and to stop the Australian capitalists raping the people of the South Pacific.

However, capitalism does not fall by people simply saying a lot of times how bad it is. It comes through the masses being trained in struggle against all the particular atrocities of capitalism and against all the contagious ideologies that the capitalist rulers seek to infect the minds of the exploited masses with. That is why we in Trotskyist Platform are proud that we not only stand against anti-Chinese racism but stand against all the different components fuelling it. Today, we fully solidarise with the stand taken by those in the Chinese community who are bravely starting to respond to the epidemic of racism that has accompanied the coronavirus outbreak. We fight for actions to demand: Immediately lift the ban on arrivals from China! Bring everyone from the Christmas Island detention centre to the mainland. Let them stay in their own homes! We also say: Down with protectionism! Down with xenophobic campaigns against Chinese imported goods and investment! Say no to campaigns to keep out guest workers – fight for full rights of citizenship, local pay rates and full union coverage for all guest workers! Very crucially right now we also fight to mobilise struggles to demand: Down with the repressive attempts to silence the political voice of pro-PRC Chinese international students! Down with the Cold War witch-hunt against the Confucius Institutes, Huawei, Chinese international students and Chinese community social groups with links to the PRC! Defend socialistic China against the U.S./Australian capitalist rulers!

We have confidence in the future success of this program, even though xenophobia and Cold War anti-communism is running rampant right now. This is for one simple reason. While this program is against the interests of Australia’s capitalist ruling class it is very good for the vast majority of this country’s people. Working class people and all the oppressed need to fight against racism and xenophobia if they are going to be able to unite into a force capable of challenging their oppressors. Defending socialistic China is in the interests of the masses because having the world’s most populous country remain under at least some sort of socialistic rule enhances the struggle for liberation of the working class and oppressed the world over. Indeed, that is partly why the Australian ruling class has been so nervous about the presence of a large number of international students from China. On the one hand they need these students as a cash cow. On the other hand they are fearful that these students might start telling their Australian class mates and friends that all that they hear from the mainstream media about China is false; and having lived in both socialistic China and one of the more developed of the capitalist countries, Australia, that they still love the PRC and still support socialism. The Australian rulers are fearful that if these pro-PRC students become involved in political activity here, what the Australian regime sees as the virus of support for socialism could spread from China and infect people in Australia too. We say let it spread rampantly! Let as many people know the benefits of socialistic rule – even when it exists in as imperfect and unfinished a form as it currently does in China! The “right to free speech” must include the right to support socialistic countries like the Peoples Republic of China! Down with anti-Chinese racism! Long live socialistic rule in China!

释放Chan Han Choi – 一位在澳大利亚的社会主义者政治犯!

释放Chan Han Choi  –
一位在澳大利亚的社会主义者政治犯!

2019年11月23日,集会,在悉尼的唐人街:
释放Chan Han Choi – 一位在澳大利亚的社会主义者政治犯!
Libido is never constant; it varies no prescription cialis over the course of life. The profile looks cialis 40 mg just like any other you’ve visited on the social network. What’s left are lower fat foods like most fruits, veggies, soy protein, nuts, cheapest viagra canada bran. A few companies will cheap tadalafil pills ask for you to print out your order form and send cash for your order to be sent.

反抗对亲中华人社区的种族主义、扣“赤色分子”帽子式的政治迫害!
为营救澳州政治犯社会主义者Chan Han Choi而斗争!
抵制对左派进行新的冷战政治迫害的黑流!

2019年11月28日: 今天, 华人社区中的亲华群体不仅面临着重新兴起的针对这个国家所有有色人的白澳种族主义, 而且还面临着在正在出现的新冷战时期对社会主义中国支持者的政治迫害环境下的特意污蔑。

澳大利亚正在出现的冷战政治迫害开始扩大, 已经不仅仅针对中国的支持者。这一点在澳大利亚亲朝鲜的社会主义政治犯Chan Han Choi的案件中很为明显。在过去23个月中, 他被无耻地拒绝保释, 部分原因是他是朝鲜支持者, 对此,检方声称这意味着他对澳大利亚没有忠诚。因此, 就像诽谤亲华学生一样, 又发生了人们因赞同或同情社会主义国家而被剥夺权利的案件。

Choi是一名澳大利亚公民,从韩国移民过来差不多已经有31年了。Choi被指控违反联合国经济制裁,帮助朝鲜出口物资。尽管当局在严酷的条件下拘禁他,但他仍然蔑视并要做“无罪”辩护。即使这些针对Choi的指控证实属实,但从工人阶级的角度来看,他当然不是罪犯。恰恰相反!如果Choi确实试图通过交易来帮助朝鲜,这只会证明他冒着巨大的个人风险来帮助朝鲜人民,他们正经受着没有任何其他国家经受过的最严厉的摧残式制裁。 Choi反对制裁不仅基于他的人道主义,而且基于他对朝鲜社会的平等主义和社区精神的热爱。无论人们如何看待朝鲜的某个特别领导人,朝鲜都是一个以所有主要银行,工业,农业用地和矿山的集体所有制为基础的工人国家。在支持这种基于公有制的社会主义国家的过程中,Choi和所有遭受以资本主义私有制为主的经济而带来的痛苦的澳大利亚人的利益是一致的。他和遭受资本主义社会造成的种族主义暴力和虐待的澳大利亚原住民以及亚洲,穆斯林和非洲少数民族社区是站在一起的。所以澳大利亚和世界的工人阶级有必要支持Chan Han Choi。我们现在必须要求清除对他所有指控。

除了拒绝Choi保释外,澳大利亚政府还限制支持者访问他,切断他的电话,阻止他的儿子去监狱里探望他,并阻止他的律师去访问。剥夺他的权利以及基于他对朝鲜的支持而否决他的保释是澳大利亚新兴的冷战式政治迫害社会主义国家支持者的一部分。这种逐渐侵入的麦卡锡主义也出现在澳大利亚华人社区的成员和中国国际学生中,他们被澳大利亚国家和媒体妖魔化,只是为了他们对红色中国的同情, 现在也受到了迫害 。

世界各地的所有人都反对帝国主义的欺凌行为,那些代表基于社会主义公有制的制度的人和反对冷战式政治迫害左翼的人有必要参加竞选活动,以要求释放Chan Han Choi。我们还有必要与Choi一起反对资本主义大国,利用制裁来对朝鲜人民进行经济恐吓,使他们默许资本主义征服,以及亿万富翁,西方银行家,房地产投机商和血汗工厂老板的收购。帝国主义对朝鲜的压力最终也是为了破坏其邻国和盟国中国的社会主义政权。

Chinese Community Marks 19th Century Anti-Chinese Riots amidst Growing Anti-Chinese Racism in Today’s Australia

Above photo: February 2017, a Chinese Australian woman named Lina who was bashed by a white racist man in broad daylight near the main shopping mall in the Sydney suburb of Burwood. The attacker, who is completely unknown to Lina, started screaming racist abuse at her, yelling at Lina to ‘Get out of my country’ before punching her in the face.

Chinese Community Marks
19th Century Anti-Chinese Riots
Amidst Growing Anti-Chinese
Racism in Today’s Australia

28 December 2018 – Two months ago, Trotskyist Platform comrades were invited by leaders of a working class Chinese group to participate in a community event marking the second anniversary of the erection of a monument to the victims of the anti-Chinese riots during the mid-1800s Gold Rush. The October 14 commemoration was held at Rookwood cemetery in Sydney’s Western suburbs. The anti-Chinese riots that the memorial event marked were truly horrendous. The most notorious of these was the June 1861 Lambing Flat riot (near the modern NSW town of Young) when a horde of thousands of white racists violently attacked hundreds of Chinese miners and their family members and destroyed their tents and other possessions. Despite the best efforts of official Australian history to whitewash this truth, it is widely known by the Chinese community that several Chinese people were actually murdered by the racist mobs. The response of the colonial governments to these riots was not to come to the aid of the Chinese community. It was, instead, the very opposite: they enacted special legislation to exclude and discriminate against Chinese people. This was followed the next century by the White Australia Policy which excluded Chinese people as well as Indians, Indonesians, Pacific Islanders, Africans and, indeed, all people of colour from entering Australia.

An artwork depicting Chinese people fleeing during the 1861 Lambing Flat riots (near the modern NSW town of Young). The riot saw thousands of racist white gold prospectors attacking the Chinese miners and their family members, destroying their tents and murdering several Chinese people.
When an adult male is in the andropause stage, he might experience temporary ED even though he has no psychological problem. appalachianmagazine.com order viagra It is very essential for the men to be prescription de viagra canada away from embarrassment. In fact, the online classes are quite cheap and people from all strata of the society can easily opt viagra 25 mg for them. Prostatitis has a certain degree of influence on purchase cheap viagra the fertility, but not very big.

Yet the significance of commemorating the 19th century anti-Chinese riots is not mainly about the past. It is about the present and the future. Whether and how we mark major events of the past is both a reflection of where we stand today and an important part of the struggle for the kind of society that we want tomorrow. Thus, it was rather concerning what a speaker from the Chinese Heritage Association of Australia pointed out at the October 14 commemoration: that study of the anti-Chinese riots has been dropped from being a mandated part of Australia’s High School intermediate years’ history syllabus. Instead, it has been relegated to an optional segment that may or may not be taught at the discretion of the teacher. The authorities’ aversion to telling the truth about anti-Chinese racism in the past can only be understood as a sign of their willingness to pander to – and even foster – anti-Chinese prejudice today. It is much like how when, four years ago, then prime minister Tony Abbott contemptuously dismissed the vibrant, pre-1788 Aboriginal societies – remarking that Sydney was “nothing but bush” prior to the arrival of the First Fleet – he was advancing the agenda of current Australian regimes to perpetuate their brutal dispossession of Aboriginal people.

The main reason why it is important to commemorate the 19th century anti-Chinese riots is because we are seeing an escalation of anti-Chinese racism in Australia today. In July last year, threatening posters appeared in the University of Melbourne and Monash University – Melbourne’s two most prestigious universities – warning Chinese students that if they entered they would be deported. Then this May, extreme racists unleashed a poster blitz in the multi-racial Sydney suburb of Ryde demanding, “No More Asians” and making a series of vile racist slurs [1]. However, most worrying are not the verbal insults and threats but the very real, racist physical violence that is being unleashed. In October last year, three Chinese high-school students were bashed by racists at a bus stop in Canberra. Two months before this, a white supremacist university student at Canberra’s ANU pulled out a baseball bat during his Statistics class and beat and tried to kill his tutor of Chinese origin and four other Chinese students. The situation has become so alarming that last December, the Chinese consulate in Melbourne felt it necessary to issue a warning to Chinese students of threats to their safety [2]. And it is certainly not only international students who are being targeted by violent racists. In May, a racist man went on a rampage in the Sydney suburb of Randwick specifically attacking any Asian looking person he could find – punching and kicking at least seven people including women and a 70 year-old man [3].

Canberra, October 2017. Left: One of two Chinese high-school students brutally bashed when they were set upon by a pack of about ten racists screaming “F….g Chinese! Go back to your country!” Right: In a separate attack in the same city around the same period, racists chased a female, young Chinese student causing her to bruise her knees after falling

The response of the Chinese community to this reality has been varied. This was evident in the speeches made at the October event marking the 19th century anti-Chinese riots. A few community members bravely spoke of the racism that Chinese and other “ethnic” communities continue to face in Australia. However, others thought it best to ignore or downplay the reality of growing anti-Chinese racism in Australia today. They spoke of anti-Chinese violence as wholly an issue of the past. At most anti-Chinese racism was referred to as something that we need to be vigilant against the return of but not something that society is currently being threatened by. These community members hope that minimizing the extent of today’s racism in their speeches and only speaking of contemporary Australia as a “wonderful, multi-cultural society” will somehow diminish the problem. They no doubt feel that by expressing their love for the current Australian social structure this will bring the Chinese community greater acceptance. History has proven however that this approach does not work. In May 1901, many members of the Chinese community in Melbourne showed their loyalty to the ruling establishment by participating in commemoration events to mark the visit of the Duke and Duchess of York to open Australia’s first national parliament. Yet just seven months later, Australia’s ruling class turned around and kicked the Chinese community in the face when they brought into force the Immigration Restriction Act. That notorious act, which formalised the White Australia Policy, provided for the exclusion of all people of colour from entering Australia and was particularly aimed against Chinese would-be migrants. It also facilitated the deportation of Chinese and other non-white people already living in Australia.

A despicable racist Australian cartoon from the late 1880s. In good part, the racist Australian establishment saw federation as a way to ensure that people from Australia’s neighbouring Asia and Pacific region – especially Chinese people – were excluded from this country.

The different responses of individuals in the Chinese community to the growing racism in contemporary Australia is shaped in good part by their own class position. Those who are wealthy business owners, affluent professionals or others who have been decorated by official Australian society are, in general, less willing to call out the intensifying racism. Although racism affects all classes within targeted groups, those doing well under the current social structure are more willing to grit their teeth and endure racist outrages because they are “grateful” to the current society for bringing them a privileged social position and don’t want to do anything to criticize or undermine a status quo that has served them very well. At the other end of the class spectrum, working class Chinese people suffering low wages and harsh working conditions in, say, the construction or retail sector or who are struggling to find any secure work at all don’t have much reason to be loyal to Australia’s current social structure. Consequently, they are, in general, less willing to absolve Australian society for any of the racist outrages that they are hit with. Meanwhile, their more vulnerable socio-economic position also makes them less able to mitigate the effects of racism. Thus, a working class Chinese person seeking to rent a home at the overcrowded low-end of the market is much more affected by the notorious discrimination in the housing market against people of Aboriginal, Asian, Middle Eastern and African heritage [4] than a wealthy Chinese person able to buy a high-end property. It is therefore telling that it was a working class Chinese organisation – having a membership policy that like our trade unions and most avowedly left-wing political parties excludes business owners using hired labour from membership – that took the initiative to spearhead the campaign for the erection of a monument to the victims of the 19th century anti-Chinese riots.

CONTEMPORARY VERSIONS OF THE LAMBING FLAT RIOTS

To underscore why events like the 19th century anti-Chinese riots sadly cannot be considered merely as incidents of Australia’s distant past, we only have to look back 13 years when the Sydney beachside suburb of Cronulla witnessed a mass racist riot in the style of the Lambing Flat riots. Thousands of racists savagely rampaged against people of Middle Eastern and South Asian backgrounds and, indeed, against anyone without white skin. An Aboriginal youth and many people of Afghan, Bangladeshi, Iranian and Lebanese background were amongst those brutally bashed. Indeed, anyone at the beach who did not appear White enough was attacked. Thus, among those physically attacked was at least one boy of Jewish heritage and one girl of Greek background.

Then, not much more than two years ago, a racist upsurge in the Western Australian town of Kalgoorlie-Boulder culminated in the killing of 14 year-old Aboriginal youth, Elijah Doughty. In that case, unlike at Lambing Flat and Cronulla Beach, the mass racist outpouring was not initially in the form of a physical mob but, rather, a social media lynch mob. The lynch mob masked their racist essence as opposition to the alleged theft of dirt bikes by Aboriginal youth. In the lead up to the murder of Elijah, two local community Facebook groups were not only infused with extreme racist bigotry towards Aboriginal people but included calls for violence. Just a week before Elijah’s murder, after a woman posted a claim that two Aboriginal youths had broken into a ute, a man replied, “Feel free to run the oxygen thieves off the road if you see them”, while another man wrote, “Everyone talks about hunting down these sub human mutts, but no one ever does.” Then, as racists on the social media pages continued to use derogatory terms to refer to Aboriginal people – such as “darkies” and “non-reflectives” – one user wrote: “How many human bodies would it take to fill the mineshafts around Kalgoorlie? A: We’re one theft closer to finding out!” Undoubtedly charged up by all this extreme racist bigotry, a 56 year-old white man driving in his 4WD ute, chased 14 year-old Elijah who was riding a small motorbike down a dirt track. The murderer then rammed into Elijah’s motorbike after having revved up to a speed so much faster than the child’s bike that he smashed it into three main pieces and split the Aboriginal child’s skull in two.

The Chinese community in Australia should not take any comfort that the direct targets of these contemporary versions of the Lambing Flat Riots were not people of Chinese heritage. This is not only because all attacks on people because of their race or religion are abhorrent acts. It is also because racist attacks against one targeted group inevitably inflames the white supremacist bigotry that leads to increased attacks on other victimized communities. It is worth focusing on a slightly smaller, copy-cat version of the Cronulla riot that took place just over three years after the “original” Cronulla pogrom when hundreds of white males at Manly Beach went on a rampage attacking any non-white person who was driving a car. On that 2009 “Australia Day” – which Aboriginal people and their supporters know as Invasion Day – the main targets of the racists were people of Asian appearance rather than people from the Middle East (who were the main victims of the Cronulla riot). Indeed, during the “Australia Day” Manly Beach riot, the violent racists assaulted an Asian woman so badly that she was sent to hospital in an ambulance.

WHITE SUPREMACY AND ANTI-CHINESE RACISM

In Australia, Aboriginal people continue to suffer the most all-sided racist discrimination and abuse. In the last decade alone, 147 indigenous people have died in state custody in Australia, many of whom were outright killed by racist police or prison guards. This extreme racism against Aboriginal people has a particular character because it stems, in part, from the truth that Aboriginal people are this country’s first peoples who were brutally dispossessed by murderous colonial forces. The powers that be continue to oppress and vilify the Aboriginal community in order to perpetuate and “justify” this historic dispossession. On top of all this, Aboriginal people also suffer racism simply because they are not white and such racism is also experienced by all people of colour in Australia.

Who the second most victimized ethnic community in Australia is – after Aboriginal people – seems to change almost like the whims of fashion for the racist rednecks committing the attacks. In the late 1980s and then less than a decade later, Asian origin people were especially targeted coinciding with John Howard’s push to curb Asian immigration and then Pauline Hanson’s rise to prominence. There was also a period when the Vietnamese community were singled out with hysterical media and politician hype about “Vietnamese crime gangs” making some suburbs “no go areas.” For much of the last two decades, the Muslim community have been in the cross-hairs of racist laws, police harassment, vilification from politicians and media and violent attacks on the streets. In the December 2005 Cronulla riot and the media incitement that preceded it, racists especially targeted Lebanese origin people in a lynch-mob upsurge directed, more broadly, at all non-white people. Then in the 2008 to 2010 period, there was a spate of racist assaults against Indian and other South Asian students and to a slightly lesser extent Chinese students. South Asian communities continue to be targeted by racist rednecks. Just two months ago, racist vandals set fire to the Barathiye Mandir Hindu temple in Sydney’s Regents Park. Scrolling the word “Jesus” on walls of the building, they destroyed the building’s interior [5]. Meanwhile, over the last few years, politicians, neo-Nazi gangs and the mainstream media have made hysterical claims about the supposed “threat” of Sudanese “gangs” in order to whip up racist hostility towards African origin people. This is after migrants from Africa and their children have been made to suffer decades of racist police harassment in Australia as well as blatant discrimination in employment and housing. In the last few years, racist forces have also, once again, lined up the Chinese community in their cross-hairs.

Looking back over the last 200 years as a whole – and thus including the riots against Chinese people during the Gold Rush, the 19th century anti-Chinese laws and then the 20th century White Australia Policy – it is arguable that people of Chinese background have been second only to Aboriginal people in copping racist attacks in Australia. This has a lot to do with the nature of racism: it is in good part based on irrational fear. Since Chinese people are the largest ethnic group in the Asian region that borders Australia – and indeed the largest ethnic group in the entire world – one of the darkest, White Australia racist fears is that Chinese immigrants will one day outnumber whites; and that this will lead to the tremendous natural wealth of this country having to be shared with a greater number of people which, according to the demented “logic” of xenophobia, will lead to the high standard of living in Australia being reduced to the levels of neighbouring Asia-Pacific lands.

THE TOXIC INGREDIENTS
FUELING ANTI-CHINESE RACISM IN TODAY’S AUSTRALIA

There are three components to the fuel that is powering the resurgent anti-Chinese racism in Australia. Firstly, there is the scapegoating of migrants and all non-white ethnic groups by mainstream politicians and media for the key problems facing the masses. Australia is a country of great inequality. The richest 200 people have a total wealth of more than $282 billion [6]. Yet this country, despite its tremendous resource wealth, has a much higher proportion of homeless people than the resource-poor, Peoples Republic of China. Faced with the possibility that the dispossessed will unite to rebel against such inequality and facing mass anger about job insecurity, stagnant wages, unaffordable rents and inadequate infrastructure, the politicians and media that serve the rich business tycoons seek to blame minorities for the problems that corporate greed and the capitalist system’s failings cause. Since Chinese background people are the biggest non-white ethnic group in Australia, it is inevitable that racist scapegoating of migrants and people of colour greatly impacts the Chinese community.

Extreme right-wing politicians like Pauline Hanson, David Leyonhjelm and Fraser Anning and media shock jocks like Alan Jones are spearheading the charge against migrants and coloured ethnic communities. Right now they are especially targeting this country’s African community. However, the Liberal/National government is not far behind the most rabid racist bigots in parliament. Last month, prime mister Scott Morrison blamed migration for traffic congestion, crowded public transport and a lack of school places when he pandered to open racist forces and flagged a cut to migration numbers. What the government does not want to tell people is that migrants, by working and paying taxes, provide resources to fund schools, infrastructure and public transport and that a larger population actually makes expanding public transport more viable. Morrison and Co. don’t want people to know this or else people may realise that inadequate funds for social services and infrastructure are actually caused by governments allowing a small class of ultra-rich tycoons to hoard so much of the wealth of this country. Yet the ALP opposition has barely opposed the Liberals’ move to cut the migration intake. Bill Shorten’s response to Morrison’s migration cut plan was to say that the focus should, instead, be on cutting the number of people arriving on temporary work visas. Meanwhile, ALP leaders occasionally try to outdo their right-wing rivals in racist scapegoating. In May, then NSW Labor leader, Luke Foley, inflamed hostility to non-white migrants by claiming that refugees are swamping Western Sydney leading to a “white flight” of Anglo families from these suburbs.

The second component of the fuel powering anti-Chinese racism is economic nationalism in its various forms. One of the economic nationalist refrains chanted in recent years by the mainstream media and many politicians is the claim that Australia is “being bought up” by China. This claim is completely false and serves to get the local, all Aussie billionaires who really own this country off the hook. The truth is that Australia is not being taken over by any foreign country. The lion’s share of its wealth has been snatched by local tycoons like Anthony Pratt, Gina Rinehart and her feuding family, Andrew Forrest, the Lowys, James Packer and their ilk. Moreover, as far as foreign ownership in Australia is concerned, China is only a small player. You wouldn’t think so given the media hype but China, the world’s most populous country, is only the ninth biggest foreign investor in Australia. China makes up only a tiny 2% of all foreign investment into Australia [7].

Another mantra recited by those promoting economic nationalist “solutions” to unemployment and tepid industrial development is the notion that schemes are needed to restrict imports and to favour locally produced items in infrastructure projects. The basis of this Donald Trump-like protectionist doctrine – which in Australia often targets Chinese steel imports – is the idea that imports “steal local jobs.” The reality however is that a protectionist program does not save local jobs. For just as one country can put barriers to imports from another country the other country or third countries can do the same to the country that originally placed the restrictions. Think what would happen if protectionists had their way and curbed imports from China and China naturally responded by doing the same? Australia currently exports nearly a whopping $50 billion more goods and services to China than it imports from her [8]. Therefore, mutual trade restrictions would lead to huge job losses here. It would also cause increased prices for the smartphones, computers, TVs, whitegoods, furniture, toys and other items currently imported from China.

The economic nationalist demand most frequently promoted in recent years in Australia has been the call to restrict temporary skilled migrant workers (formerly known as 457 Visa workers) who it is claimed are “taking Aussie jobs.” Yet these workers make up only a tiny 0.5% of the total Australian workforce. What is more, like other migrants they pay taxes and spend the money they earn – thus creating as many jobs as they supposedly “take.”

Economic nationalism is not always based on open racism. Indeed, whereas it is still a minority of Australia’s population that is rabidly racist – although unfortunately quite a sizable minority – the majority of this country’s population buy into economic nationalist slogans in one form or another. However, while economic nationalism is not the same as racism it certainly fuels racist prejudice. For any policy that calls for putting the interests of (mainly white) Australian workers over (overwhelmingly coloured) lower paid workers from “Third World” countries will inevitably appeal to and reinforce White Australia xenophobic attitudes as well as “First World” arrogance. This was most evident in an ALP video advertisement boasting that they would “Employ Australians First” that had visuals where nearly all the Australians shown were white Anglos. The advertisement, which was released in May last year, had an unmistakable racist message: white people had to be supposedly protected from having their jobs taken away by non-white people. Let us not forget too that the White Australia Policy itself – including the notorious 1901 Immigration Restriction Act – was motivated in good part on economic nationalist grounds: supposedly to stop the employment of Chinese, Indian and Pacific Islander workers from undercutting the pay and conditions of white workers. Given that China is, today, Australia’s largest source of imports, the third biggest source country for temporary skilled migrant workers and mythically the country that is investing a lot in Australia, economic nationalist appeals are doing much to fuel anti-Chinese racism – just as they did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

31 July 2015: Union-led rallies against the China Australia Free Trade Agreement (CHAFTA) were based on the divisive nationalist agenda of giving greater support to local bosses in trade and purchasing over overseas producers. The rallies were also shot through with irrational fear mongering about China as seen by this sign (Right) at the Sydney anti-CHAFTA protest. The national-chauvinist essence of the protest was indeed so strong that the fascist Party For Freedom felt comfortable enough to participate and brandish its openly racist slogans (Left). Economic nationalism fuels racial prejudice. Such divisive agendas must be driven out of our union movement in order to unify the working class, focus the masses on the necessary struggle against the job-slashing local capitalists and strengthen the ability of the union movement to wage class struggle resistance against the greedy bosses.

The most fanatical in promoting economic nationalism are the far-right parties like Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and Katter’s Australian Party. However, all the current parliamentary parties promote one form of economic nationalism or another. Thus, although the ALP has, overall, not been as strident in promoting direct anti-immigrant racism as the Liberals and although the Greens have opposed some of the most blatant anti-refugee and racist policies and statements of both major parties, the ALP and Greens have actually been even more zealous in making economic nationalist appeals than the conservative Liberal-National Coalition.

Unfortunately, the leadership of many of our trade unions have also been making economic nationalist demands on the grounds that this will help protect local jobs and wages. However, protectionism does not actually protect workers jobs and conditions. In fact, it does the very opposite. Firstly, by dividing workers across national lines – and this also causes divisions within local workers on ethnic lines as Australian workers originating from the country targeted by protectionist appeals are inevitably looked on with suspicion – economic nationalist agendas weaken the workers movement and make it less able to stand up to greedy, job-slashing bosses. Secondly, calls to favour local businesses, by making out that local capitalists are somehow benevolent, undermine workers understanding that improvements in their working conditions and stopping job cuts can only come through struggle against these local exploiters.

It is true that profit-obsessed business owners will try to use insecure, guest workers with few rights – and the constant threat of deportation hanging over them – as a source of labour that they can super-exploit (like they already do to youth workers, apprentices and many casual workers). Our unions are right to be concerned about this. However, the way to undercut bosses’ attempts to undermine working conditions is not to pit local workers against guest workers with divisive slogans, like “Keep Out 457 Visa Workers!” which many of our current union leaders promote. What is needed, instead, is to fight to ensure that guest workers are paid the same rates as local workers and to win these workers the same rights as citizens so that they are able to stand up for their rights. There are many past examples of overseas workers employed in Australia fighting for their rights and cases when these struggles won important backing from local unions. In January 1942, left-wing Chinese activists in Australia, together with the Seamen’s Union of Australia, helped organise seafarers from China working on ships docking in Australian ports into the Chinese Seamen’s Union (CSU). The Chinese and other coloured seafarers were paid much lower rates and had worse conditions than their white counterparts. However, in the same month as the CSU was formed, 500 Chinese seafarers from six ships docked in Fremantle went on strike and occupied the ships demanding equal pay as white workers and improved working conditions. The strikers bravely faced off armed troops. The Australian troops attacked the Chinese workers and killed two of the heroic strikers. Nevertheless, the brave struggle of the Chinese strikers in Fremantle and in other subsequent battles helped to eventually win pay rises for all Chinese seafarers working in Australia. Later, after racist ALP immigration minister, Arthur Calwell introduced, in 1949, the War-time Refugees Removal Act to deport current and former Chinese seafarers who had remained in Australia after being stranded during the war, Australian unions supported the campaign of the CSU and pro-communist Australian-Chinese activists against their deportation. Eventually their struggle was won and the Menzies government had to abandon Calwell’s racist Act. Today, our unions sometimes do make laudable efforts to win justice for guest workers who are being severely mistreated. However, this is undermined by many union leaders’ divisive, nationalist calls to restrict the entry of these guest workers in order to “protect local jobs.” The pro-ALP leaders of our unions look to such protectionist “solutions” to unemployment and worsening working conditions in proportion to the degree with which they bow to anti-strike laws and turn away from what is actually needed to fight for workers’ jobs security and decent wages. It is militant industrial action that is needed to win higher wages, to secure permanency for casual workers and to prevent companies slashing jobs.

The third component of the toxic cocktail fueling anti-Chinese racism is anti-communist hostility to the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). The last few years have seen Australian politicians, mainstream media, think tanks and so-called “experts” increasingly making up hyped-up claims against China. They accuse the PRC of everything from cyber-hacking, to interfering in Australian political life, to sending in Chinese international students to spy in Australia, to supposed bullying behaviour in the South China Sea to giving too much aid to Australia’s Pacific neighbours. This propaganda campaign waged by the Australian ruling class serves to “justify” their hostile actions against Red China. These actions include a military build up targeted at China, the stationing of U.S. troops in Darwin aimed against China and North Korea, the deployment of Australian naval vessels and aircraft thousands of kilometres away from home in waters off China and Korea and the supporting of anti-PRC Chinese exile organisations. So why do Australia’s ruling elite want to do this given that China is by far Australia’s biggest export destination and given that these exports to China have been holding up the entire Australian economy? Well, the capitalist bigwigs who run this country calculate that as much profit as they are currently making from sending exports to China and as much as the conciliatory policies of the Chinese government already allow Australian investors to make a bit of profit from some degree of exploitation of workers within China, they could make even more if China’s socialistic system were to be overthrown and the country thus turned into a giant sweatshop for unrestrained exploitation of labour. Moreover, today, by providing infrastructure and development assistance to Australia’s Pacific and Asian neighbours in a mutually beneficial way, the existence of China as a socialistic power is undermining Australia’s neo-colonial stranglehold over countries like PNG, East Timor, Fiji and Vanuatu. Hence, for the Australian government, “containing” China is a matter of protecting the super-profits of unscrupulous Australian corporations operating in neighbouring Asia-Pacific countries.

The Australian regime’s anti-China propaganda blitz causes hostility to the Chinese community within Australia. For it leads to the Chinese community inevitably becoming seen by backward elements as a fifth column serving the PRC state. This is all the more so since the Australian media and mainstream politicians have made hysterical claims that a “large number” of Chinese people in Australia are acting as agents of the PRC. As much as relatively liberal stalwarts of the anti-communist, China-bashing campaign, like Political Editor of The Sydney Morning Herald, Peter Hartcher, try to draw a distinction between China and the Australian Chinese community, the reality is that ever since the triumph of China’s 1949 anti-capitalist revolution, anti-communist hostility to Red China and “Yellow Peril” xenophobic fear of East Asian-origin people have fed into each other. Racism and anti-communist hatred of Red China are tightly intertwined because both are irrational ideologies foisted on the masses by the ruling class in order to deceive and divide the toiling masses and keep them subdued. Thus, often the most rabid in attacking the PRC are also the same ones who most fervently push racist agendas. For example the most extreme anti-PRC federal government parliamentarian is hard-right, Christian fundamentalist Andrew Hastie. It was Hastie who on May 22 used parliamentary privilege to launch a hysterical tirade accusing the Chinese Communist Party of covertly seeking to influence Australia’s media, universities and politics. A month prior to this rant, this same Liberal MP was at the forefront of the white supremacist campaign for a special race-based visa to give white South African farmers refugee status on the ridiculous basis that they are being “persecuted.” Hastie is also notorious for criticising the Islamic community in Australia. He has become a hero amongst racist media commentators like Andrew Bolt and the 2GB sty of shock jocks for his militant opposition to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act that makes it unlawful to insult someone on the basis of their race, colour, nationality or ethnic origin. Although, since it is overseen by a legal system that itself is racist, this law has done little to protect minorities against abuse, the charge against Section 18C has become a cause celebré of extreme racists who want their “right” to offend non-white people legally enshrined.

Meanwhile, anti-communist opponents of the PRC within the Australian Chinese community have chosen to make an alliance with white supremacists. Thus, supporters of the U.S. government-funded, ultra-right wing group, Falun Gong (sometimes known as Falun Dafa) and other anti-PRC Chinese organisations have been joining Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party, despite anti-Asian racism being a foundation stone of that outfit. A Falun Gong activist, Shan Ju Lin, who likes to rant that Australia is being taken over by the Communist Party of China, was even selected as a Queensland state candidate for One Nation. She endorsed her leader Pauline Hanson’s attacks on the Asian community [9]. Presumably, this first ever Asian-origin candidate for this xenophobic, anti-Asian party believes that she is a “good Asian” because she is stridently opposed to the PRC and because she “understands” why people like Pauline Hanson attack Asian migrants. Shan Ju Lin was later dis-endorsed as a One Nation candidate only when she made a homophobic comment that was so fanatical that even Pauline Hanson found it an embarrassment to her party. Meanwhile, some Falun Gong members also joined the fascist Party for Freedom. Four years ago, Falun Gong representatives were even guest speakers at a China-bashing film night in Sydney put on by this white supremacist outfit! [10]. The practice of anti-PRC activists in the Chinese community promoting extreme white supremacists is happening, too, in other Western countries. In Germany, the German-language edition of Falun Gong’s newspaper, Epoch Times, specializes in running negative stories about refugees [11] and in promoting the racist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party [12] and the even more extreme, neo-Nazi NPD party [13].

Above Left: The 8 April 2019 episode of the ABC Four Corners documentary program was devoted to hysterical claims that Communist China was “interfering” in “Australia’s democracy.” The main source for much of the material in the program was hard-right, Liberal parliamentarian Andrew Hastie, who is known for his stoking of Islamophobia. It was fitting that the China-bashing ABC documentary featuring Hastie came on exactly the first anniversary of the racist rally in Perth calling for “refugee status” for white South African farmers in which Hastie was the fêted speaker (Above Right). Shot through with racist placards (Below Left), like those calling to “Let the Right Ones In” – i.e. let in wealthy, white agricultural business owners and not dark-skinned refugees from South Asia, the Middle East and Africa – violent white supremacist activists made up a sizable proportion of this rally championed by Hastie. Below Right: A body of one of the 51 Muslim people murdered in Christchurch by an Australian white supremacist just three weeks before the Four Corners documentary featuring Andrew Hastie was aired. In Australia, anti-communist China bashing has always gone hand in hand with racist xenophobia.

Despite the fact that the Cold War-style campaign against Red China is avidly driven by hard-right racists and their allies, some nominally socialist groups in Australia, even though they are avowedly staunch opponents of racism, have joined the anti-PRC crusade. These groups such as Socialist Alternative, Solidarity, Socialist Alliance and the Melbourne-based Socialist Party are, in practice, not communists but left social-democrats. They recoil in horror at the stern measures that workers states – like the PRC – operating in a still capitalist-dominated world need to take in order to defend socialistic rule. Thus, they refuse to defend the PRC from hostile capitalist attack and invent a theory that the PRC is actually just another capitalist country (or “state capitalist”) to justify this stance. And their hostility to the PRC is so great that they are prepared to contribute to the hysteria against her even though this anti-PRC, anti-communist campaign is a part of what is fueling racist hostility to the Chinese community within Australia. Thus, they not only act in the same way as do right-wing Chinese exile groups like Falun Dafa but ally with some left-wing small-l liberal, anti-PRC elements within the Chinese community. The latter, while priding themselves on being “progressive” and “anti-colonial”, are quietly so comfortable with their upper-middle class social position that they share the same hostility to “Communist China” as the capitalist White Australia establishment that they claim to oppose. Moreover, many are hostile to the PRC for the same reasons as their more right-wing, anti-PRC allies within the Chinese community. That is, they are yuppy descendants of the former capitalist and landlord exploiting classes of China that were either kicked out of power by the 1949 anti-capitalist revolution or who fled to Taiwan to grab that island following the 1949 Communist victory on the mainland. Others descend from the criminal-infested, capitalist elite of Hong Kong – or the privileged upper middle-class layers around them – who were able to maintain their domination of that enclave through 155 years of servile collaboration with British imperialism. Although these left-liberal, ethnic Chinese opponents of the PRC have pretensions about being “progressive,” their whole outlook with respect to China is shaped by the feeling that it is still they and their ilk who have “inherited” the “right” to be the rulers of China and not the supposedly “uncouth” masses asserting “mob rule” through the Communist Party of China. If these people looked at themselves closely in the political mirror, the best, most sincerely “anti-colonial” of them would be horrified at how much their anti-PRC activism is lockstep with the agenda of Australia’s racist rulers and their far-right shock troops.

WE NEED TO BUILD AN INTERNATIONALIST WORKERS PARTY

When one is aware of what is inciting anti-Chinese racism then one is able to evaluate the political groups that claim to “support the Chinese community.” A few politicians eager for votes realise that they cannot simply ignore the concerns about racism from Chinese communities given that people of Chinese background make up over 5% of Australia’s population. Thus, at the October 14 commemoration of the 19th century anti-Chinese riots there were three politicians present from the ALP (and as far as we could tell no representatives from any other political party other than ourselves). These politicians spoke at the event and condemned the past anti-Chinese riots. One of the Labor politicians even spoke about the danger of anti-Chinese racism today. That is well and good. However, that’s what these politicians were saying to an audience entirely composed of the Chinese community and their supporters. It was easy to make those comments to such an audience. The question then is what are these same politicians saying to the broader Australian population about issues connected with anti-Chinese racism? The answer is that they are part of a political party that partakes in pouring into society all three ingredients of the fuel that is powering anti-Chinese racism. The Labor Party refuses to seriously challenge the right-wing Coalition’s scapegoating of immigrants for unemployment, poor services and inadequate infrastructure; and sometimes (as in the case of Luke Foley) even tries to outdo the conservatives on this. Secondly, the ALP is at the forefront of promoting economic nationalism: especially that which is aimed against guest workers and against Chinese steel imports. Thirdly, the ALP – and the anti-PRC, nominally socialist groups that tail after them – is just as committed as the right-wing government to pursuing a policy of political and military hostility to the PRC. At times they have even been more hawkish than the Liberals in pushing for the Australian Navy to provocatively sail through PRC-claimed waters off China’s coast.

So working class Chinese people should not put their trust in the ALP. Let us never forget that the ALP was founded on the basis of ardent support for the White Australia Policy and extreme economic nationalism. However, Chinese workers in Australia, like workers of all ethnicities, certainly do need a workers party. Just not one like the ALP that accepts the capitalist order and, thus, imbibes all the reactionary ideologies that go with it. What we need instead is a party thoroughly opposed to capitalist rule. Such a party would necessarily stand by those states created through the overturn of capitalist rule – like the Peoples Republic of China. A party committed to the struggle against the capitalist order would also value above all else the unity of the working class across race and national lines. It would be fiercely internationalist, standing actively against economic nationalism and campaigning energetically against all forms of racism.

THE THREAT OF A FUTURE TAKEOVER OF POWER
BY HITLER-STYLE EXTREME RACISTS

The growing number of racist attacks on the streets of Australia comes in the context of the frightening reality that racist, far-right groups have been growing throughout most of the world (China itself is actually a lone exception to this trend among large countries). In Australia, fascist groups under the banner of “Reclaim Australia” held large, race-hate rallies in 2015 and 2016. Although that movement’s main stated enemy was the Muslim community, their demonstrations were actually aimed against all non-white people. Meanwhile, the posters put up last year in Melbourne universities threatening Chinese students (referred to earlier in this article) was the work of a neo-Nazi group calling itself Antipodean Resistance. Now, in an especially worrying development, a violent white supremacist group linked to that outfit has established a paramilitary training centre in Ashfield (at 34 Thomas St), a centre of Sydney’s ethnic Chinese community [14]. This is a serious physical threat to the entire Chinese community in Sydney and, indeed, to all people of colour – especially to those living in the Inner West, Southwest and Western suburbs of Sydney.

Although people from ethnic minority groups in Australia are subject to a very large number of attacks from garden-variety, racist rednecks – that is, racists who do not necessarily consciously subscribe to a far-right political agenda – in other countries, actual far-right political movements have been growing even faster than here. In Austria, Switzerland, the U.S., Italy, Israel, Brazil, India and Hungary, hard-right forces are either in government or part of governing coalitions. Although actual fascism – which involves the violent dispersal of all independent trade unions and left-wing, pro-workers political parties and open systematic terror against minority communities – has not yet over-run these countries, the ascendancy of hard right forces there have emboldened fascists and rednecks to unleash ever more brazen racist attacks. In the U.S., for example, Trump’s rise has seen an increase in violent attacks and verbal abuse against Muslims, blacks, Asians and Hispanics. In August last year, the U.S. had a mass racist riot that could be considered a modern day, American version of Australia’s mid-19th century Lambing Flat riots. Hundreds of neo-Nazis and other extreme white racists, many armed with semi-automatic weapons, rampaged through the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia chanting racist slogans and violently assaulting anti-racist counter-protesters. One of the racists participating in the far-right event deliberately rammed his car at high speed into a crowd of counter-protesters murdering anti-racist activist, Heather Heyer, and injuring 40 other people. Then, just four months ago, the German city of Chemnitz had a horrific racist riot that even more closely resembled the Lambing Flat riots. Seizing on the death in Chemnitz of a man during an alleged fight with immigrants, thousands of fascists descended on the city chanting “foreigners out” and giving Nazi salutes. The neo-Nazis rampaged through the city bashing any person of colour they could find. Terrified immigrants stayed locked in their houses for days. Although the 1990 capitalist reunification of Germany triggered an increase in neo-Nazi violence, Germany has not seen a racist rampage of the type seen in Chemnitz since the days of Hitler’s Third Reich!

August 2018, Germany: A modern day version of the Lambing Flat riots. Thousands of Neo-Nazis and other violent racists rampage through the city of Chemnitz chanting “foreigners out” and giving Nazi salutes. The neo-Nazis bashed any person of colour they could find as terrified immigrants stayed locked in their houses for days. Germany has not seen a racist rampage of the scale seen in Chemnitz since the days of Hitler’s Third Reich!

The strength of racist gangs in the Chemnitz and Charlottesville events shows that there is a real danger that in the future – likely during another serious economic crisis like the late-2000s Great Recession – we could be subject to not just more racist rampages but, in one or a number of countries, we could be hit with the actual takeover of political power by a violent racist movement; in other words the ascendancy to power of Hitler-style fascists! If far-right groups have, thus far, not grown as fast in Australia as they have in certain other countries it is only because Australia did not suffer a deep recession like much of the rest of the capitalist world during the late 2000s – early 2010s global economic crisis. Racist forces can grow quickly during such times because, if the working class movement fails to strongly put forward a program of class struggle resistance to job slashing by business owners, the far right’s false blaming of minorities for unemployment and economic insecurity can gain traction.

The sole reason that Australia did not suffer a major recession during the last global economic crisis is because of China. During that crisis, the PRC’s booming state-owned enterprises continued to purchase large amounts of Australian exports which in turn kept the whole Australian economy afloat. It is ironic, especially given the Australian ruling class’ hostility to Red China and her state-owned enterprises in particular, that it is the PRC’s socialistic public sector enterprises that are holding up Australia’s capitalist economy. Yet, this current reality will not last forever. The PRC government is deliberately moving the focus of the Chinese economy away from low-end manufacturing and fossil fuel-based power and towards services, renewable energy, high-tech industries, advanced manufacturing and information technology. Therefore, China will gradually have lower demand for Australian iron ore, coal and liquefied natural gas. Thus, should Australia remain under capitalist rule, eventually, even the PRC’s roaring socialistic economy will not be able to save it from the global economic crises that are inherent to the capitalist system – crises that are becoming noticeably deeper as the system increasingly decays. And when such a crisis hits this country, what then? Post-1788 Australia is already a country blighted by deep-seated racism and shaped by the genocidal dispossession of Aboriginal people and by last century’s official White Australia Policy. In the absence of a powerful mobilisation by the working class movement to defend workers’ jobs and rights, the onset of a major economic crisis in Australia could lead to the rapid growth of extreme racist, fascist forces and eventually (perhaps two major recessions from now) … their actual coming to political power! This may seem unthinkable. However, let us not forget that this is precisely what happened in Germany, Italy, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Croatia and Bulgaria at various times during the early-mid part of last century.

All the intended victims of fascists in Australia should be concerned about this possibility: Aboriginal people, people of Asian, African, Pacific Islander and Middle Eastern heritage, Muslims, Jews, LGBTI people, leftists, trade unionists, the disabled and the homeless. People of Asian background – and the Chinese community in particular – should be aware that they will likely be near the very front of the firing line (and this could be in the very literal sense!) if Hitler-style fascism were to gain the ascendancy in Australia. To know this one only has to see how much Asian-origin people – alongside Muslims and African youth – are at the centre of the hostile agitation of current Australian fascist groups.

It is worth analysing the different aspects of fascist rule and comparing how that relates to the Chinese community in today’s Australia with how it impacted on the main (but far from sole) ethnic community persecuted by Hitler’s Nazis, the Jewish people. There are four main agendas of fascist forces. Firstly, to smash all independent trade unions and all working class-based, or other left-wing, political organisations. Secondly, to use terror to drive out, if not completely exterminate, racial minorities. Thirdly, to implement extreme protectionist measures and other stern economic nationalist policies. Fourthly, to wage war to crush workers states. Let us first look at how these four aspects of the fascist program played out for the Jewish minority in Nazi Germany. The trade unions and left-wing parties crushed by Hitler were led by people of different ethnicity, mostly by ethnic Germans as they made up the overwhelming majority of the country but also by some Jewish people. So, this aspect of the Nazi program did not directly target Jewish people in particular. However, part of the Nazi’s stated reason for waging war against Jewish people was that they were considered to be prone to sympathy for the political Left. As for the second aspect of fascism, horrific terror against racial minorities, the Nazis, as is well known, particularly aimed this against the Jewish community who were the largest racial minority in the country as well as against Roma (who are commonly but inappropriately referred to as “Gypsies”), people of mixed African-German background and, later, Poles. As the Nazis and their allies took over more of Europe, they followed up their ghastly crimes within Germany with even larger-scale slaughter of Jews, Roma and Slavs throughout Europe. Now, the economic nationalist agenda of the Nazis was especially aimed against Germany’s French, British and other imperialist rivals. So this aspect of fascism did not directly fuel the war against the Jewish people. However, it did contribute to possessing a chunk of the German masses with the extreme nationalist spirit that helped push them into committing the most horrific crimes against non-German peoples. The fourth major aspect of Nazism, a fanatical drive to crush socialistic workers states, meant in practice waging war on the one workers’ state existing at the time: the Soviet Union. As Jewish people had been badly persecuted in Tsarist Russia, many Jews participated in the October 1917 Socialist Revolution in Russia that led to the creation of the Soviet workers state. The fascists thus linked communism to Jewish people. The Nazis described their war against the Soviet Union as a war against “Jew-Bolsheviks.”

Now, let us analyse how these four agendas of fascism would play out for the Chinese community here if fascist forces were to, in the future, gain the ascendancy in Australia. Firstly, as in Nazi Germany, all communist and social-democratic parties would be obliterated and all independent trade unions crushed. This would target worker and left-wing activists of all ethnicities. However, given that, even now, the Chinese community is labelled as being populated by a large number of supporters of Communist Party-run China, any war against Australian pro-communist movements would inevitably stir up particular hostility to people of Chinese ancestry. The second agenda of fascism – to drive out or exterminate racial minorities – would target Aboriginal people and all people of colour. Given that people of Chinese background make up the largest non-white ethnic minority in Australia, the fascist drive for racial “purity” would inevitably make Chinese people one of the main enemies of this crusade. The extreme protectionist agenda of fascism would hit all countries and peoples who Australia imported from, who invested in Australia or who worked here as guest workers. Given that China is the biggest source of Australian imports, is reputed to be (though this, as we have pointed out earlier, is actually far from true) the main country investing in Australia and is one of the bigger sources of temporary visa workers, the obsessive economic nationalist agenda of fascism, should it engulf Australia, would incite hatred against the Chinese community who would be linked to the “big, bad China” that will be hysterically accused of “taking away Australian jobs” and “buying up Australia.” Now, what about fascism’s compulsion to go to war to smash workers states? In today’s world, Hitler’s drive to destroy the Soviet Union, then the only workers state, would be replaced with a compulsion to destroy today’s largest socialistic state, the Peoples Republic of China. Even right now, the overwhelming majority of the capitalist ruling class in the U.S. and Australia want to see the downfall of socialistic rule in China. However, when the Western world again enters a period of deep economic crisis, precisely the period when it is possible for fascists to gain the ascendancy, the ruling class’ desperation to smash the PRC workers state would reach fever pitch. When their system is in such a crisis at home, the only way that their economy could survive is if they have access to a gigantic, new source of labour to exploit – which capitalist restoration in China would enable – and decisive control of the vast Chinese market that they thus far have not been able to dominate. Moreover, the deeper that capitalism lurches into economic crisis, the more the capitalist rulers cannot tolerate the existence of a successful socialistic model which they know would give their “own” working class masses “bad ideas” on what needs to be done to relieve the crisis. Indeed, part of the complex of circumstances that would facilitate the ascendancy of fascists would be that a section of the capitalist elite, in the midst of an economic crisis, should decide that they, albeit with many misgivings, entrust administration of their state to the fascists in order for the latter to use extreme nationalism and repression to herd the population towards military confrontation with Red China. And given that the ascendancy of fascists in Australia would likely be part of similar developments in at least a few other Western countries, including, most probably, the U.S. where it is plainly obvious that fascist forces have been gaining strength, then the alliance between the U.S. and Australia when both countries are under fascist rule would very likely lead to the ANZUS allies indeed attempting a war to destroy Red China. Such a war, or even the active preparation for one, will inevitably contribute to severe persecution of the Chinese community in Australia. Let us not forget that during World War II, the Australian government imprisoned in harsh conditions nearly all ethnic Japanese civilians living here – including many who worked in the pearl diving industry, people born in Australia and those of mixed Japanese-White Australian ancestry [15]. The Curtin Labor government imprisoned over 4,300 Japanese civilians in all, most of whom were forcibly deported to Japan after the war. And Australia was not even under fascist rule then! Given the agenda of fascists and the particular history of anti-Chinese racism in Australia, one would expect a possible future, fascist regime in Australia to persecute the Chinese community even more cruelly during the context of active preparations for a war against Red China.

There is, however, an important difference between the Jewish community in 1930s Germany and the Chinese community in today’s Australia. At the time of Hitler’s ascendancy, Jewish people only made up some 0.75% of the German population. By contrast over 5% of Australia’s residents have Chinese ancestry and nearly a quarter of Australia’s population are people of colour from various backgrounds. That naturally means that it would, theoretically, be more difficult for a future fascist regime in Australia to commit genocide against the Chinese community or other non-white communities in the way that the Nazis mass murdered the Jewish community. More difficult but, unfortunately, far from
impossible. Let us not forget that as well as murdering Jews, Roma, Afro-Germans and Poles, the Nazi regime brutally persecuted and smashed the German Communist Party, the Germany Social Democratic Party and the trade unions who together had some 15 million members and supporters when Hitler came to power. The Nazis were able to carry out this repression by first targeting one group and then relying on their other intended victims remaining passive and cowered or otherwise not showing solidarity with the immediately targeted group before moving onto their next target. If the nightmare scenario of a fascist takeover in Australia eventuates, we can expect that the new fascist regime would first go after a smaller and thus more vulnerable target – like, say, the African community who are being so viciously vilified even today – and in doing so hone their methods of repression and propaganda. Hoping that their future targets – like the Chinese community and the trade unions – remain passive and cowered and fail to show active solidarity with this first targeted group, the fascists will succeed in their initial repression, strike fear in the hearts of their other intended victims and gain momentum for the smashing of their next target. That is why when facing violent racists, passivity ends up being akin to suicide. Moreover, just as fascists in power rely on passivity, cowardice and a lack of active solidarity between their intended victims to carry out their murderous agenda, they also rely on all this to come to power in the first place. That is why in a world where violent far-right groups are gaining strength, all the intended victims of the fascists must show courage by coming together in active mobilisations to stamp out fascist threats. We need to stamp them out now before we have to face an enemy that has grown terrifyingly in momentum and numbers. A good start would be for the trade union movement, leftists, the Chinese community and other non-white communities present in Western Sydney to unite in action to sweep away the military training base that the extreme racists have established in Sydney’s Ashfield.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

In the face of intensifying oppression of Aboriginal people, growing anti-Chinese racism and vicious attacks against the African community, Muslims, South Asian origin people and all people of colour in Australia, we cannot leave it to the police, courts, governments or local councils to protect targeted communities. History has shown that these state bodies in Australia – no matter which party is holding government – invariably protect racist groups. We only have to look what happened today at Melbourne’s St Kilda Beach. A group of far-right extremists started threateningly videoing African youth kicking a soccer ball around and when they protested against the racists’ provocative actions, the police intervened. However, the person that the cops arrested was not one of the extreme racists but one of the African youths who was being harassed! The police, to the cheers of the far-right racists, pepper sprayed and held to the ground this African youth, causing the young man to vomit. The police had the same slant when anti-racist counter-demonstrators opposed the “Reclaim Australia” mobilisations held by extreme racists in 2015-16 when police protected the racists and violently attacked anti-racist protesters. Indeed, at the 18 July 2015 race-hate rally in Melbourne, a policeman even publicly high-fived a member of the extreme racist United Patriots Front.

The state enforcement institutions in capitalist Australia ultimately serve the ultra-rich, big end of town who need racism as it keeps the masses that they exploit divided and distracted. Moreover, as we know all too well, the government and state enforcement organs are themselves purveyors of racism. That is why it must be our multi-racial trade unions, drawing together all working class people and all the targeted communities that must act to oppose the racist attacks of today and retard the future threat of a fascist takeover. This is a matter of not only protecting communities targeted by racist violence but of defending the class interests of the working class. Racism is a mortal threat to the trade union movement and the struggle for workers’ rights. By dividing working class people racism undermines the unity which is so crucial to any working class people’s struggle for wages, improved working conditions, jobs and public housing. That is why it is in the very interests of the workers movement to be at the forefront of the struggle to oppose racist attacks and to resist the threat from violent far-right outfits.

The working class movement and racial minorities must come together with the following action program:

Mass mobilisations of trade unionists standing alongside people from Aboriginal, Chinese, other Asian, African, and Middle Eastern backgrounds as well as Muslims, Jews, LGBTIQ communities and leftists must stop the fascists when they try to mobilise in public. It is difficult to mobilise against the numerous, disparate acts of racist violence by garden-variety rednecks that occur every single day. However, by dealing severe blows in public to the politically racist elements, we can send a strong message to the unorganised racists that it is not in their interests to stick their ugly necks out and commit racist attacks. A priority right now is to get rid of the violence training base that the extreme racists have established at 34 Thomas St, Ashfield.

All racist attacks of any kind must be opposed no matter which community they target. Attacks on one community, when unopposed, give racists the taste of blood that will inevitably encourage them to target other racial minorities as well. That means there must be determined struggle against the state’s systematic oppression of Aboriginal people – oppression which leads to so many black people being killed in state custody by racist police and prison guards. We must also stand with the African communities that are being so viciously scapegoated today and with Muslim people who have been copping ongoing racist attacks over the last two decades. We must fight to free the refugees, stop all deportations and win the rights of citizenship for all refugees, guest workers and overseas students.

New, ever more repressive laws in Australia, which can be used to persecute minorities and thus further incite racist sentiments, must be opposed. These include the “foreign interference law” passed in June that aims to witch-hunt pro-PRC Chinese people, the various anti-terror laws that are so draconian that they often lead to Muslim people innocent of any crime being victimised (such as student of Sri Lankan Muslim background, Mohamed Kamer Nizamdeen, who was recently falsely imprisoned for four weeks in harsh conditions on blatantly false terrorism charges) and the myriad of measures associated with the government’s racist “Intervention” into Aboriginal communities.

We must counter the government and mainstream media’s propaganda blitz against socialistic China. This campaign of lies not only “rationalises” the ruling class’ measures against a workers state, the PRC, but inevitably ends up inciting hostility to the Chinese community in Australia as well. The anti-PRC propaganda blitz can only be effectively opposed by pointing to the class nature of the PRC as a state that, for all its deformities and harmful concessions to capitalists, serves the interests of working class people. Trotskyist Platform (TP) is proud to have built actions for public housing in Australia that have favourably pointed to the PRC’s spectacular building of public housing over the last decade as an example of what is needed here to ensure affordable rental accommodation for working class people [16]. We have promoted the slogan: “Massively Increase Public Housing – Just Like Socialistic China Is Doing!” TP has also initiated united-front eemonstrations supporting particular crackdowns by the PRC authorities on Australian capitalist exploiters operating within China. When executives – including greedy Australian bigwig Stern Hu – of part Australian-owned mining behemoth Rio Tinto were sentenced to lengthy jail terms in China in 2010 for ripping-off PRC public sector enterprises and when Aussie billionaire James Packer’s high-flying executives were prosecuted by Chinese authorities for corruption in 2017, we cheered these anti-capitalist actions [17] [18], saying “China is Cracking Down on Private Sector Corporate Greed. Working Class People: Let’s Do The Same Here!”

When the PRC succeeds in its campaign to pull all people out of extreme poverty in two years time – which it is on track to do – supporters of the PRC and opponents of anti-Chinese racism should organise demonstrations here to welcome this victory for working class people the world over. This will not only help to counter anti-PRC propaganda but, by pointing out how the PRC’s state-owned banks and state-owned enterprises and its public housing drive were key to the success of this poverty-alleviation campaign, we will help spur the badly needed struggles in Australia against privatisations, for the nationalisation of the banks and for a massive increase in public housing.

We must actively campaign against economic nationalist proposals. Protectionism does not save jobs but, instead, by pitting workers in one country against another, makes it harder for workers to unite to stop their bosses from slashing jobs. In opposition to economic nationalism we must advocate a program to save workers’ jobs that is based on class struggle actions to prevent profitable businesses retrenching workers.

There must be struggle against the conditions of unemployment, casualisation of labour and inadequacy of infrastructure that provide the climate for the growth of racist movements. To win secure, permanent jobs for all, we need to build a movement to force capitalist business owners to increase hiring of permanent employees at the expense of their fat profits. We also need to demand a massive increase in funding for public hospitals, public housing, public schools, childcare and public transport financed through confiscating the wealth of the big end of town.

All our struggles for a better life for working class people come up against the very essence of the capitalist system which operates not on what is needed by the masses but on what is most profitable for individual, wealthy business owners. Meanwhile, all struggles against racial oppression come up against state enforcement organs that were created to enforce the exploitation of the working class and to administer the racism that is needed to help ensure this. Therefore, in the course of all campaigns against racist attacks and for improvement of the conditions of working class people we need to popularise the need to replace the capitalist system with a system based on socialist, public ownership of the economy administered by a workers state.

In all these struggles, politically conscious working-class people – whether of Chinese, Aboriginal, African, Middle Eastern, Indian, Filipino, Vietnamese, Nepalese, other Asian, Pacific Islander, Latin American or White Australian background – must be the spearhead. However, we can only implement this agenda if we simultaneously struggle for a new program to gain the ascendancy in our trade union movement and the broader working class: a program that rejects economic nationalism and that refuses to buy into illusions that the parliamentary and enforcement institutions of the current, capitalist, state can help workers win a better life. We must also turn our back on the current leadership of the workers movement’s practice of supporting the Australian capitalist ruling class’ reactionary foreign policy agenda, which ranges from hostility to socialistic states like the PRC and DPRK to supporting Israel’s brutal oppression of Palestinian people. Our working class organisations need a program based on militant class struggle, on firm opposition to the racist ruling class and its domestic and international agendas and on the building of genuine unity between workers of all races: local, guest and international workers. This is what is needed to not only make our unions weapons in the fight against racism but to turn them into centres of militant class-struggle resistance against job cuts, casualisation of labour and low wages.

2 May 2014, Brisbane: Extreme racists (encircled in white) cower in the face of trade union power. A large contingent of unionised construction workers join with other anti-fascists to sweep away an attempted mobilisation by a violent racist group. Since trade union strength depends on unity above all else, the workers movement has an interest in unleashing its power to spearhead the struggle against violent racist outfits.

THE STRUGGLE FOR GENUINE INTERNATIONALISM
WITHIN THE WORKING CLASS MOVEMENT

The fight to drive out racist and economic nationalist influences from the workers movement and the Left will be a difficult struggle requiring hard work and persistence. For what needs to be opposed are not only the most overt forms of White Australia racism but it’s slightly more disguised, yet all the more pernicious, forms. To understand this better we should look back at the event that remains iconic to the current Australian union movement: the 1854 Eureka Rebellion by gold miners in Ballarat. The rebellion is seen as a powerful example of the oppressed standing up for their rights and thus as a struggle that the union movement bases itself on. Today, many unions carry the flag used in the Eureka Stockade. The Eureka Rebellion was, indeed, overall progressive as the miners were subjected to an unfair tax and heavy repression. Taking part in the struggle alongside Irish, Scottish, Welsh and English immigrants were people from various parts of continental Europe and North America. There were also a small number of non-white people involved and two of the thirteen people who faced sedition charges after the uprising included a black Jamaican man, James McFie Campbell, and a black American man, John Joseph. The latter was deservedly given a hero’s reception – even being carried around the streets of Melbourne in a chair – by those who supported the struggle. Yet, it is telling to reflect upon the two particular ethnic groups who were not part of the Eureka Rebellion. Firstly, Aboriginal people were not part of the rebellion as they were largely prevented from being gold miners in the first place. Aboriginal people were, instead, being subjected to murderous terror at the hands of the colonial authorities. Secondly, miners from China, by far the largest group of non-white people present on the goldfields, were not brought into the struggle. At the time, there was much racist/economic nationalist hostility to the Chinese miners from many of the white miners. Thus, the rebel mine prospectors made no effort to reach out to the Chinese miners. Instead, the Ballarat Reform League that organised the Eureka Rebellion was “open to men of all nations” except Chinese [19]. In the wake of the Eureka movement, a courageous Black American rebel was rightly féted as a hero, yet the rebellion excluded the largest non-white ethnic group present on the goldfields. Here was a striking example of the more hypocritical form of white supremacy: where all races are welcome except any group large enough to present a serious threat to what is seen as the “rightful”, dominant position of white people. This very serious flaw, in the overall still supportable Eureka Stockade struggle, is why the Eureka Rebellion is celebrated not only by many unions and left-wing groups but is also, so troublingly, claimed – albeit quite dishonestly – by most extreme white-supremacist outfits.

In the Eureka Rebellion and the mid-1800s goldfields more broadly, we see how racism is heavily inter-twined with economic nationalism. Minority communities that were not large enough to be seen as a danger to the interests of the white gold prospectors were tolerated by those who were not extreme racists but the largest non-white group – and one that had, what is more, developed efficient, co-operative mining techniques – was bitterly opposed by many as a threat to their livelihoods. Fast forward now to today. Today, there are some left-wing small-l liberals and social democrats who will proudly oppose racist persecution of most oppressed racial minority groups but they will do little to oppose attacks on the largest non-white racial groups present in Australia, Asians and in particular Chinese background people. At worst these people, while proudly wearing the badge of “anti-racism,” will even buy into economic nationalist opposition to supposedly “excessive Chinese investment in Australia” and “cheap” Asian labour entering as guest workers. Yet, at the same time, these left-wing small-l liberals and social democrats will, very correctly, state opposition to the terrible racist attacks being unleashed against the African and Muslim communities. They will also be most determined to show their opposition to the horrific ongoing persecution of Aboriginal people (although how much these soft-lefts actually contribute to the struggle for Aboriginal rights is a very different story). It is kind of a form of the “anyone but the Chinese” prejudice that afflicted many gold miners in 1850s Victoria being played out today – albeit in softer form. Today’s left-wing small-l liberals and social democrats do not feel “threatened” by small minority communities like Muslims and Africans and, thus, they do sincerely defend these persecuted communities – as they certainly should – just as supporters of the Eureka Rebellion at the time embraced the black American rebel hero, John Joseph. Similarly, some left-wing small-l liberals and social democrats are happy to join with staunch Aboriginal activists and committed socialists in proclaiming slogans supporting Aboriginal sovereignty and Aboriginal leadership. These radical proclamations are, however, made in the, for these small-l liberals and social democrats, comfortable knowledge that such laudable demands are not about to be realized in the short term because genocide and severe persecution have greatly diminished both the size and the current political-economic clout of this country’s First Peoples (for this reason even opposition leader Bill Shorten feels comfortable to regularly state that Australia “is, was and always will be Aboriginal land” even while fully backing the continued theft of this Aboriginal land by mining and pastoral capitalists). Would these same elements truly support the complete smashing of the racist White Australia status quo that will finally liberate Aboriginal people from the brutal oppression that they face when, in the future, united revolutionary struggle by the multi-racial working class and Aboriginal militants makes that actually immediately achievable? A good indication of the answer to this question can be seen by examining the extent to which these progressive small-l liberals and social democrats today oppose racist attacks on that group of racial minorities – Asians (and Chinese in particular) – large enough (and linked to hundreds-of-millions-strong populations in Australia’s Asia-Pacific neighbourhood and also to a powerful home country in the case of migrants from the PRC) to right now plausibly be seen as able to disturb the supreme position of the White Australia establishment in all economic, cultural and political matters. And here we find many left-wing small-l liberals and social democrats wanting. To be sure the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of their stances on issues of racism often reflect subconscious feelings rather than a fixed, thought-through perspective. Yet it is clear that they still have a way to go to truly break from a white supremacist mentality.

However, what makes it possible to win the best layers of the working class to a truly internationalist standpoint is the fact that such an outlook is what the workers movement actually needs to advance its very own interests. The working class needs genuine unity, based on equality across race and national lines, in order to ensure it is as strong a force as possible to fight for its jobs, working conditions and social services. It is this basic truth that is the lever that an internationalist workers party uses to lift the level of fighting inter-racial and cross-border unity of the workers movement.

We need to also stress that fighting to unify the working class in today’s Australia across racial lines should be far easier than it would have been to unify the miners during the mid-nineteenth century gold rush. Why? Because although the miners of the Eureka Stockade – and the gold rush more broadly – were oppressed by heavy taxes and police bullying, they were not actual wage workers toiling together for wages from common exploiting bosses. Rather, they were self-employed producers who kept for their own selves what they produced – after paying out taxes and expenses. In effect, they were each little small businessmen. And although they united with each other – but excluded Chinese miners – during the Eureka rebellion against cruel government policies, they often also had the individualistic, self-centred outlook of small businessmen. Indeed, their economic position as individual self-employed producers also formed the material basis for the anti-Chinese racism within their numbers. To the extent that the miners did not embrace collective gold prospecting, theoretically every other gold miner working in the area that a particular miner was searching for gold in was a rival. The more other gold prospectors there were, the less gold would be left over for the miner to collect himself. This meant that any large group of miners seen as outsiders would be felt as a threat to their livelihoods. This large group of “outsiders” were, of course, the Chinese. Moreover, the fact that the co-operative mining techniques of Chinese miners made them more efficient at finding gold than their white-skinned counterparts only enraged prejudiced, white miners even more. The despicable xenophobia of the many gold prospectors who were racist was rooted in the hard economic reality that the more gold found by outsiders – and specifically the Chinese miners – the less there was left for them. However, such an equation does not exist for wage workers. Indeed for wage workers, it is the very inverse equation that holds true. Workers’ income comes from selling their physical and/or mental labour power to the business-owning capitalists for wages. Thus, very unlike the relationship between individual small businessmen participating in the same industry, wage workers are not engaged in dog-eat-dog competition with their fellow workers. If less workers are to be employed in a particular sector this will not, in the least, lead automatically to increases in the standard of living of the remaining workers. What is needed to improve the income of workers is class struggle against their bosses to force the latter to hand over a greater share of the fruit of workers’ labour back to the workers themselves rather than being plundered as profits by the business owners. To wage this class struggle, workers’ unity is the most important factor. Racial prejudice and economic nationalism – whether it is directed against Aboriginal people, against smaller racial minorities or against larger minority groups – is simply poison to the struggle for working class peoples’ rights. Put simply, whereas for the gold prospectors in 19th century Australia racially excluding any particular group of miners – which turned out to be specifically the Chinese miners – could theoretically have led to higher income for miners from the majority racial group, for wage workers in today’s Australia it is building unity across races that is needed to win higher incomes and a more secure livelihood. To be sure, there is still much racism within the workers movement in today’s Australia. However, this is not primarily an internally generated racism like it was, to a large degree, with the mid-19th century gold prospectors. Rather, it is a racism largely impregnated by ruling class politicians and the big business-owned media who are eager to divide and divert the exploited masses.

The fact that combating racial divisions is in the very material interests of workers is the reason why it is possible, through the determined and conscious effort of the most far-sighted workers and leftist intellectuals, to eventually drive out racial prejudice from the workers movement; and thus make wage workers (who make up some 65% to 70% of Australia’s workforce) into a bulwark in the struggle against racism throughout broader society. It is this material interests that workers have in inter-racial unity which is also why, even during the middle of Australia’s official White Australia Policy period, proud members of the Seamen’s Union of Australia made laudable efforts to help Chinese workers on ships frequenting Australia to establish unions and fight for their rights. These communist-inspired Australian trade unionists did this wonderful work even while the Australian union movement, as a whole, was upholding the White Australia Policy and nominally Marxist, more left-wing union leaders were less than 100% in following through on their avowed opposition to the policy.

THE CRUCIAL ROLE THAT MIGRANTS FROM THE PRC
ARE DESTINED TO PLAY WITHIN THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS MOVEMENT

The early-mid 20th century bonds of friendship built in struggle between Chinese seamen working on ships docking in Australian ports and the best of the Australian trade unionists who supported their brave efforts at union organising helped develop crucial links between sections of the white working class and the broader Chinese community. In the same way today, Australian trade unionists from Chinese, Indian, Filipino, Nepalese, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Korean and Indonesian backgrounds can play an important role in bringing together white workers with Asian-based, migrant working class communities. These workers have much to contribute to the Australian workers movement in many other ways too. This is especially the case for workers in Australia originating from the Peoples Republic of China. Most working class immigrants from the PRC living in Australia tend to be, to a greater or lesser degree, sympathetic to Red China. Therefore, workers from a PRC background living in Australia can form an important link between the overall fight of the working class against the capitalist bosses and the badly needed struggles not only against anti-Chinese racism but against attacks on the socialistic PRC. A small example of this was seen in August 2016. It was then that ethnic Chinese workers who are members of the CFMEU construction workers union pushed for their union to take a stand against Channel 7’s blatantly anti-China bias in its coverage of the 2016 Olympics. This resulted in the CFMEU holding a small protest against Channel 7 in Sydney in which not only ethnic Chinese construction workers took part but also CFMEU officials and other construction workers. The rally did not openly state the class character of China as a socialistic workers state and identify this as the reason for the anti-China bias of Australia’s capitalist media. Nevertheless, by slamming the “ignorant and discriminatory” media coverage of China, the CFMEU’s action objectively took a stand with Red China. It was also welcome solidarity with discriminated against, Chinese-Australian workers who are being harassed by the anti-Chinese bigotry that is, in part, driven by the Australian capitalists’ hostility to the Peoples Republic of China. This was a rare example of our unions today taking an active stand against not only anti-Chinese racism but against anti-communist hostility to the PRC.

Although the August 2016 protest against Channel 7 over the Olympics was small, it showed the potential of PRC-origin workers in Australia to push the trade union movement here in the much needed, internationalist direction. Moreover, there is a particular characteristic of those who have previously been workers in the PRC, that is probably as yet unknown by most of their coworkers, which gives them the potential to influence the Australian workers movement in a really positive way. This is related to the reality that the Peoples Republic of China is a workers’ state – albeit one distorted by bureaucratic deformations and weakened by a level of capitalist intrusion. Since the toiling masses took over China in her 1949 anti-capitalist revolution, in China workers – and indeed everyone else – are taught that workers are the rulers of the country. As a result, workers in the PRC have a sense of entitlement – a justified feeling that political, economic and social affairs ought to be managed for their benefit. To be sure, wages are lower in China than they are in Australia. Yet that is only because China – due to its cruel neo-colonial subjugation by imperialist powers in its pre-1949 days – is still, per person, a much poorer country than Australia. For a country of its per capita income, wages in China are actually rather high, especially when the social wage that bosses are required to pay into Chinese workers’ accounts are taken into account (these include not only for China’s form of superannuation but funds for medical bills and housing expenses). Moreover, the PRC has had the fastest growing wages in the world over the last decade [20]. Now, as a huge and disparate country, there have been cases of bad sweatshop exploitation of workers in China’s private sector – especially in foreign-owned factories and in smaller workplaces. However, following the introduction in 2008 of a new pro-worker labour law, a further increase in an already very high rate of trade union membership, the wider penetration of Communist Party of China (CPC) cells into private businesses and spirited government “repression” against capitalist bosses who fail to follow labour laws or flout safety regulations, the workplace rights of private sector workers in China have considerably improved. Meanwhile, in socialistic state-owned enterprises, which dominate all the key sectors of the Chinese economy, working conditions, are in general, rather good. Workers in these enterprises have a high level of job security with retrenchments relatively rare. Certainly, the way bosses in Australia can often bully workers is unheard of in many of the PRC’s state-owned enterprises. Indeed, if Aussie capitalist bosses saw how relaxed at work many employees in China’s socialistic state-owned enterprises are, they would probably have a fit! To some degree the conditions that exist in China’s state-owned enterprises are replicated in China’s bigger private firms where CPC cells and the overall character of the state force the capitalist owners to maintain a decent work environment and dissuade them from carrying out mass layoffs. All this, combined with Chinese workers’ “sense of entitlement,” means that when workers in China are not happy with how their bosses are treating them they tend to not only go on strike but do so in a way quite different to most strikes in Australia. In Australia, strikes are disproportionately less likely in the private sector where the rate of trade union membership is much lower than amongst public sector workers. In contrast in the PRC, where the state-owned enterprises essentially belong to the people and hence have much better workplace conditions than in the private sector, a disproportionately high percentage of strikes occur in the private sector or in any public enterprises that are facing privatisation (although such attempted privatisations have been very rare in the last few years). However, the main difference in industrial action that occurs in China with the increasingly little that occurs here is in the types of action taken by striking workers. In Australia, a typical strike is associated with a stop-work meeting and in some cases a peaceful rally. In only a percentage of cases will a strike see a picket line established – usually if it is a longer running strike – which only in a portion of these instances will see the pickets actually physically stopping anyone trying to cross. In the PRC however, strike actions, from day one, typically involve workers asserting their domination over all the space surrounding the struck workplace. Here is where the sense of entitlement comes in. China’s striking workers not only picket work-site entrances but also block nearby roads and often occupy the workplace buildings. In some cases they even take their bosses hostage. In Australia, in the all too rare cases that workers engage in such China-style industrial action, rebelling workers always face denunciations by politicians, hysterical condemnation by the mainstream media and physical attack from police. Yet in China it is rare for the media and politicians to denounce striking workers. The PRC’s state-owned media are actually more likely to blame the bosses in any industrial dispute. As for the attitude of PRC courts to industrial action by workers, here is how a Western law firm advising bosses in China summarised it:

“There is a trend of an increasing number and scale of industrial actions, which is being used by the employees more and more often as a tool to assert its legal rights or negotiate better term of employment. Where the employees start a strike because of incompliance on the part of the company in relation to employee benefits and rights, PRC judicial bodies are usually protective of the employees and often uphold claims of termination without legal cause if the employer terminates the employees for organising or participating in the strike [21].”

In other words, completely opposite to the situation in Australia, PRC industrial courts are much more likely to favour striking workers than the bosses. Meanwhile, while on some occasions Chinese police and bureaucrats may attack militant action by workers during an industrial dispute, in other cases they may either turn a blind eye to such action or even support it! In some famous cases, Chinese police and government officials have even sided with private sector workers who have taken their bosses hostage and even tacitly joined in with workers in trying to pressure the seized capitalist to capitulate to the workers’ demands. This type of scenario was played out spectacularly in China’s most stormy dispute in the last decade, the July 2009 Tonghua steelworkers strike in northeastern China that opposed the privatisation of the enterprise. There, after thousands of workers not only occupied the plant but took the new private boss hostage and beat him to death, the government not only immediately reversed the privatisation but PRC state media mocked the greed of the killed capitalist boss while police chiefs involved made statements sympathetic to the rebelling workers! Needlessly to say, such responses by the state and their media to workers’ struggles has further amplified the sense of entitlement that workers in the PRC enjoy.

So what happens when some of these “entitled” workers from Red China go abroad. Well that was seen dramatically in Singapore in 2012. On 26 November of that year, nearly 180 bus drivers from China working for Singapore Mass Rapid Transit Corp (SMRT) went on strike over poor pay and living conditions. Many stayed out on strike the following day as well. The strike was especially daring given that these workers are constrained by the same conditions as guest workers in Australia – they can be sent home at any time if their bosses rip-up their employment contract. Moreover, the Chinese workers’ wild-cat action not only flouted Singapore’s harsh anti-strike laws but was done in defiance of Singapore’s National Trades Union Congress which pathetically condemned the strike. Five strike leaders ended up being jailed by the Singapore capitalist regime and 29 other strikers were sacked and deported [22]. The struggle did, however, force the bosses to make a few improvements to the housing conditions of the bus drivers. In a country with an extremely repressive capitalist regime, the daring strike by the Chinese workers had the political effect of an earthquake. This was the first strike in Singapore in nearly 27 years! Moreover, it seems to be the only major strike (there had been a “work to rule” industrial action by Singapore Airlines pilots in 1980) against a local Singapore-based company in the country’s entire 54-year post-independence history!

November 2012: Striking Chinese bus drivers outside their dormitories in Singapore. These Chinese guest workers waged Singapore’s first strike in 27 years! Imbued with the sense of entitlement that comes from having lived in a workers state, Chinese workers who migrate to Australia – especially those who have worked in China’s socialistic, state-owned enterprises – could also inject a badly needed shot of militancy to the working class movement in this country.

Potentially, the defiance shown by PRC bus drivers in Singapore can be brought to Australia too when people from the PRC migrate to Australia. This obviously applies mainly to those migrants who were workers when they lived in the PRC -rather than self-employed businesspeople or high-ranking professionals. The Chinese migrants who will be most imbued with a sense of entitlement as workers will be those who had worked in the PRC’s state-owned enterprises; and to a slighter lesser extent those who had worked in those larger private enterprises where the influence of Communist Party of China committees are greatest. In these state-owned enterprises and other enterprises where CPC influence is strong, the intervention of the PRC workers’ state to protect working conditions is greatest and China’s 2008 labour law, that gives workers a virtual veto over changes to workplace conditions, is most strictly enforced. These “entitled” workers, when they start working in Australia and are suddenly hit with a workplace environment where bosses often bully workers and where the courts, media, politicians and police are uniformly against them could well be prone to fighting back in outrage. Now that would inject a badly needed shot of militancy to the working class in this country! Here, anti-strike laws, increasing legal persecution of unions and a pro-ALP union leadership that for the most part is unwilling to defy the anti-union laws have all combined to cause the level of industrial action to fall to record low levels. This in turn has led to stagnant – and in many cases even falling – real wages, increasing heavy handedness by bosses and deteriorating working conditions.

One thing holding back many working-class PRC migrants from spearheading class struggle resistance in Australia are the restrictions on their rights that come from not holding citizenship. This make many of these migrants especially fearful of the consequences of being sacked or arrested by police (mind you none of this was enough to hold back the PRC bus drivers in Singapore!). Many recent migrants from the PRC are still permanent residents rather than citizens – held back from gaining citizenship by not only the four-year waiting period but by tough English language requirements – while a smaller number are guest workers. The other factor constraining working-class migrants from the PRC is the racist environment that they endure in this country. When coloured migrants cop racist abuse and hostility they feel intimidated, insecure and isolated. Such workers naturally then feel less confident to stand up for their rights at work. On the contrary, if migrants from the PRC see the Australian workers movement actively defending their rights and opposing racist attacks on them then they will feel emboldened to be at the forefront of militant struggles for workers’ rights. Our workers movement here desperately needs a big dose of the audacity and belligerence shown by PRC migrant workers in Singapore in 2012! So let’s help unleash that militancy by mobilising to defend Chinese communities against racist attacks.

Notes:

[1] Gavin Fernando, Anti-Asian racist signs have been discovered in Sydney’s northwest, published on news.com. au website, 13 May 2018, https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/antiasian-racist-signs-have-beendiscovered-in-sydneys-northwest/news-story/11ace169f1f14416936e3008a72b5eb1

[2] Ryan General, Chinese Consulate in Australia Warns Chinese Students of Danger After Recent Racist Attacks, published in Nextshark website, 20 December 2017, https://nextshark.com/chinese-consulate-australia-warns-chinese-students-danger-recent-racist-attacks/

[3] Josh Dye, Man allegedly targeted Asian people in Randwick rampage, published in The Sydney Morning Herald website, 18 May 2018, https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/man-allegedly-targeted-asian-people-in-randomrandwick-rampage-20180518-p4zg0m.html

[4] Heather MacDonald, A white face can be a big help in a discriminatory housing market, published in The Conversation website, 1 February 2016, http://theconversation.com/a-white-face-can-be-a-big-help-in-a-discriminatory-housing-market-52962

[5] Natarsha Kallios and Charlotte Lam, ‘We never expected this to happen in Australia’: Vandals torch Hindu temple, published in SBS News website, 18 October 2018, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/we-never-expected-this-to-happen-in-australia-vandals-torch-hindu-temple?fbclid=IwAR3fzbDDxEIRA2XMmlnK89KOeJhxqZ4Ge65o 6uu06hcaXlrpTYZuK2U60Uo

[6] Simon Thomsen, Australia’s 200 wealthiest people just got richer at 10 times current wage growth, published in Business Insider website, 24 May 2018, https://www.businessinsider.com.au/rich-list-australia-2018-2018-5

[7] Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Statistics on who invests in Australia, retrieved from DFAT website on 20 December 2018, https://dfat.gov.au/trade/resources/investment-statistics/Pages/statistics-on-who-invests-in-australia.aspx

[8] Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, China information sheet, retrieved from DFAT website on 20 December 2018, https://dfat.gov.au/trade/resources/Documents/chin.pdf

[9] Kristian Silva, One Nation’s Shan Ju Lin defends Pauline Hanson, says she fears Chinese Government will ‘take over’, published in ABC News website, 21 December 2016, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-21/one-nationcandidate-shan-ju-lin-defends-pauline-hanson/8135684

[10] Film night on Chinese government harvesting organs, published in Party for Freedom website, 6 May 2014, https://www.partyforfreedom.org.au/2014/05/06/film-night-on-chinese-government-harvesting-organs/

[11] Stefan Winterbauer, Kopp, Sputnik, Epoch Times & Co: Nachrichten aus einem rechten Paralleluniversum, published in MEEDIA website, 18 March 2016, https://meedia.de/2016/03/18/kopp-sputnik-epoch-times-conachrichten-aus-einem-rechten-paralleluniversum/

[12] Von Gastautorin and Vera Lengsfeld, AfD-Wahlkampf in Sportkleidung – Ein kleiner Sieg über den Demokratieabbau, published in Epoch Times (Germany) website, 22 September 2017, https://www.epochtimes. de/politik/deutschland/afd-wahlkampf-in-sportkleidung-ein-kleiner-sieg-ueber-den-demokratieabbau-a2223340. html?meistgelesen=1

[13] Berlin: 13-Jährige 30 Stunden lang entführt und vergewaltigt, published in Epoch Times (Germany) website, 17 January 2016, updated 8 July 2016, https://www.epochtimes.de/politik/deutschland/berlin-13-jaehriges-maedchen30-stunden-lang-von-migranten-entfuehrt-und-vergewaltigt-a1299783.html

[14] Max Walden, Fears of growing far right in Australia amid ‘Deplorables’ tour, published in Aljazeera website, 13 December 2018, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/fears-growing-australia-deplorables-tour-181212191213690.html

[15] Christine Piper, Japanese internment a dark chapter of Australian history, published in The Sydney Morning Herald website, 14 August 2014, https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/japanese-internment-a-dark-chapter-ofaustralian-history-20140813-103ldy.html

[16] Trotskyist Platform, Massively Increase Public Housing! Socialistic China is Doing That So Let’s Fight for the Same Here, 5 June 2012, published in Trotskyist Platform website, https://www.trotskyistplatform.com/massively-increase-public-housing-socialistic-china-is-doing-that-so-lets-fight-for-the-same-here/

[17] Trotskyist Platform, China Is Cracking Down on Corporate Greed & Corruption – When Will That Start to Happen Here?, 15 April 2010, published in Trotskyist Platform website, https://trotskyistplatform.com/Cracking. pdf

[18] Trotskyist Platform, Billionaire James Packer’s High Flying Executives Jailed by China for Corruption, 10 July 2017, published in Trotskyist Platform website, https://www.trotskyistplatform.com/billionaire-james-packers-high-flying-executives-jailed-by-china-for-corruption/

[19] Keir Reeves, Hargreaves discovers gold at Ophir: Australia’s ‘golden age’, from Turning points in Australian history (edited by Martin Crotty and David Andrew Roberts), University of New South Wales Press Ltd., 2009.

[20] International Labour Organization, Global Wage Report 2018/19, 2018, http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/ public/—dgreports/—dcomm/—publ/documents/publication/wcms_650553.pdf

[21] Global Legal Insights, Employment and Labour Law- China, Worker consultation, trade union and industrial action, 2019,
https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/employment-and-labour-laws-and-regulations/china

[22] Kirsten Tatlow, Back in China, Bus Driver Doesn’t Regret Singapore Strike, published in New York Times (China edition) website, 2 April 2013, https://cn.nytimes.com/china/20130402/c02bus/en-us

Media Coverage of the Sydney Stabbing Attack and the New Cold War Against Red China

MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE SYDNEY STABBING ATTACK AND THE NEW COLD WAR AGAINST RED CHINA

22 August 2019 – A day cannot go by without the Australian ruling class ratcheting up its Cold War against socialistic China. Today, the right-wing NSW government expelled the China-connected Chinese language institute, the Confucius Institutes program, from teaching at NSW schools. The decision was welcomed by ruling class politicians of all stripes. Rabid anti-China Greens MP, David Shoebridge, hailed the decision saying: “I am glad to see the department is cancelling this arrangement, it is unfortunate they can’t cancel it immediately.”

But perhaps the biggest indication of how rabid the Cold War witch-hunt of supporters of Red China is becoming can be seen in the media coverage of a seemingly unrelated event: last week’s stabbing rampage in the centre of Sydney. We know that a 24 year-old woman was stabbed to death by the attacker and a 41 year-old woman was injured after being stabbed in the back. The name of the young woman who was killed is Michaela Dunn. A former student at the University of Notre Dame, Michaela loved to travel the world. We express our deepest sympathies to her friends and family. Her mother described her as a “beautiful, loving woman.” She was much loved by her friends too who described her as “incredible”, a “true delight” and a “bright young woman.” Outrageously, much of the media only focused on Michaela’s occupation as a sex worker rather than as a whole person – thus adding to the widespread stigmatisation and dehumanising of women who work as sex workers.

But what of the woman who was stabbed but not killed? Media footage showed the woman as she was about to be taken away in an ambulance. It was apparent that she was a woman of East Asian background. However, the media revealed almost nothing about her. Later they said that her name was Linda Bo. What the mainstream Australian media hid from the public is that Linda Bo is a Chinese national – that is, a person not only of Chinese ethnicity but a citizen of the PRC (Peoples Republic of China).

Everyone deserves an ideal and a fantastic sex life and on line cialis http://djpaulkom.tv/photos-shockfest-tour-comes-to-an-end-fans-caught-it-all-on-camera/ (Tadalafil) can help you achieve or maintain erection during intercourse. Because of the wonder Goji fruit is known to order cialis have speculative effects on health. Candles have probably best tadalafil been around for as long. These are the following: Headaches Muscle pain Giddiness A rigid or runny nasal area Puffiness across the face region.Above mentioned negative effects are short lived however it persists for a commander viagra http://djpaulkom.tv/hilarious-mixes/ long time then, it requires serious medical attention.

This was definitely not just an oversight by the media. In dealing with other crimes they invariably report if either the suspects or the victims are nationals of another country. Moreover, Chinese state media within hours published that the Consulate General of China in Sydney confirmed that the woman who was injured in the attack was a Chinese national (see for example: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-08/13/c_138306442.htm). And we know that the Australian mainstream media assiduously follow official Chinese media if only to disparage it.

So why did Australia’s capitalist media hide from the public that one of the stabbing victims was a Chinese national? Because to do so would have humanised people from the PRC! As part of whipping up hostility against socialistic China, the Australian government and big business media portray citizens of the PRC as brainwashed, interfering, undemocratic stooges of the Communist Party of China. To then report that a PRC citizen has been the victim of a prominent crime undermines that narrative as crime reporting so often emphasizes the common human interest aspect in stories about victims of crime (unless they happen to be sex workers!) and to portray a citizen of the PRC as a human being with family, friends, feelings and dreams just like everyone else doesn’t fit the picture of China that the mainstream media is now so focussed on drawing. The only PRC citizens who are treated like humans by the media are anti-communist activists who are, of course, lionised by the capitalist media as “brave fighters for democracy.”

It is not that there was any conspiracy involved here. The media did not all get together to secretly decide that they would not report that one of the stabbing victims was a PRC citizen. In fact, it was something even worse. All these mainstream media outlets, acting in the class interests of their capitalist owners, each independently decided to hide this fact from the Australian public. That’s how full on the Cold War campaign is against Red China and against anyone who supports – or does not oppose – it. In the face of this massive media propaganda campaign and the wide array of forces lined up behind the Cold War anti-PRC drive, those truly committed to the struggle for socialism must not flinch one bit. We must stand firm and not only take the correct position on paper in defence of the Chinese workers state (as weakened and deformed as it is by a degree of capitalist intrusion) but we need to actively fight for this line on the streets.

Migrant Workers and Other Leftists March in Sydney for Socialistic China

7 October 2019, Sydney: The “Stand With Red China” demonstration held on the NSW Labour Day public holiday hailed the 70th Anniversary of the 1949 Chinese Revolution and condemned the pro-colonial, anti-communist protests in Hong Kong.

Migrant Workers and Other Leftists
March in Sydney for Socialistic China

7 October 2019: Left-wing supporters of socialistic China marched through the centre of Sydney today to “Stand With Red China.” The demonstration held on the Labour Day holiday hailed the 70th anniversary of the founding of the socialistic Peoples Republic of China (PRC). Noting that, “A Strong Socialistic China is Good for Working Class People in Australia and the World” the call-out for the action urged to “Condemn Hong Kong’s Pro-Colonial Rich Kid Rioters.”    

Today’s rally pushed back in the face of an intense Cold War anti-communist, China-bashing drive by the Australian ruling class and their media. Australia’s entire ruling class media – from that owned by the right-wing Murdoch family tycoons to that owned by billionaire Channel 7 owner, Kerry Stokes, to the ABC and SBS – owned and controlled as they are by the Australian rich people’s regime – have been running daily news articles attacking Red China whether it be via insinuations about computer hacking, lying claims of human rights abuses or even blaming the Belt and Road Initiative promoted by China for declining tiger populations! Australia’s big business and government-owned media have, of course, also strongly backed the anti-communist, anti-PRC riots in Hong Kong. So has right wing prime minister Scott Morrison along with the rest of his government, with the ALP and the Greens taking the same stance. Today, Australia’s foreign affairs minister, Marise Payne, again spoke out fervently on the side of the right wing opposition in Hong Kong, saying that she is “very concerned” by the methods used by the Hong Kong authorities to protect the city from the most violent anti-PRC forces and demanding that the Hong Kong government approved by Beijing “address the genuine concerns” of the rioters. Yesterday, hard right Liberal MP, Tim Wilson, even marched with the anti-PRC forces in Hong Kong itself. Previously a director of the extreme conservative, Institute of Public Affairs, which later spoke out for the “rights” of vile racist media commentator, Andrew Bolt, Wilson had during the Occupy Melbourne protests called for water cannon to be used against protesters:

“Walked past Occupy Melbourne protest, all people who think freedom of speech = freedom 2 b heard, time wasters … send in the water cannons.”

New Matilda, 26 April 2015, https://newmatilda.com/2015/04/26/12-times-conservative-commentators-were-more-outrageous-scott-mcintyre-and-kept-their/

But of course, pro-colonial, anti-communist protests are the type of “freedom of speech” that people like Tim Wilson and the Australian government really love!

Members of the Hong Kong, anti-China opposition carry American flags and call for Donald Trump’s re-election at a protest rally in Hong Kong. The anti-PRC opposition are a right-wing, procolonial, movement.
With the traffic within the street, it’d be terribly onerous for you to be a cheapest levitra safe and effective driver. The MGF reacts in skeletal muscles but icks.org levitra uk doesn’t pass through the blood stream. If erections troubles are sign of poor lifestyle habits, then make changes canada viagra sales in your routine, accordingly. It is mostly used for premature ejaculation problems and had to viagra the pill go through trauma.

Yet in the face of this anti-Red China tide, around 60 people participated in today’s pro-PRC march and others joined in on the spot at the final rallying point. The majority of demonstrators were mobilised to the action by the Australian Chinese Workers Association and by Trotskyist Platform. However, there were many leftists participating today from a range of backgrounds, including several people who are not part of any particular left-wing group.

The “Stand With Red China” demonstration in Sydney held today on the Labour Day public holiday.

The Australian Chinese Workers Association contingent – mostly working class women – carried the red, five star flag of the PRC and had placards in Chinese reading: “Australian Chinese Workers Association Congratulates the Peoples Republic of China on the Celebrations of the 70th Anniversary of its Founding.” Trotskyist Platform supporters carried many placards including ones that stated: “Defend Socialistic China Against Intimidation by Capitalist Powers. Down with the Capitalist Australian State’s Military Build Up That Targets Red China!  U.S., Australian Militaries: Stay Out of the South China Sea!” and “Defend Socialistic China Against Imperialism! Resist Meddling in Hong Kong By Colonial Powers!” Our banner, which headed the march, read: “WORKING CLASS PEOPLE IN AUSTRALIA & THE WORLD: STAND WITH SOCIALISTIC CHINA!”, while calling to, “DEFEAT HONG KONG’S PRO-COLONIAL, ANTI-COMMUNIST MOVEMENT!

At a couple of points during the demonstration, a few anti-communists, riding in an expensive looking black van decked in “Hong Kong independence” slogans, made a pre-planned attempt to use a sound system to suppress the voice of the pro-Red China demonstrators. However, prompt action by alert, pro-PRC socialist activists forced them to retreat.

Throughout the march, demonstrators enthusiastically chanted, “P-R-C, Is Fighting Poverty!” (see: https://youtu.be/7RxhU2ZhPDQ), “Public Housing for You and Me, Just Like in the PRC” and “One RED China” (see: https://youtu.be/erNt9jIjZd8). We also chanted and sung, “One, Two, Three, Four, Socialism is What We’re For; Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Defend the Chinese Workers State.”

Pro-PRC activists listen intently as Trotskyist Platform chairwoman Sarah Fitzenmeyer delivers her speech at today’s action commemorating the 70th anniversary of the founding of socialistic China.

One of the main speakers at the event was Trotskyist Platform chairwoman, Sarah Fitzenmeyer. Here are some of the points that she made in her speech:

“Seventy years ago a massive revolution by the toiling masses of China won them a momentous victory. The 1949 Revolution created a workers state, the Peoples Republic of China, a workers state that has achieved a miracle in the alleviation of poverty, a feat unmatched in size and speed in all of known human history….

Yet this inspirational socialistic rule in China is under grave threat. Ever since the 1949 Revolution, some of the overthrown landlords and capitalists and all the imperialist powers have worked together to try and destroy this workers state. Under this pressure, in the late 1970s, the Chinese government began market reforms that allowed a degree of capitalist intrusion. Although this was in some cases beneficial, the reforms have led to an increase in inequality. Dangerously, there are now capitalists in China who demand more and more rights to exploit. However, the Chinese working class masses are resisting them.

The masses worked so hard to achieve liberation in 1949 and to build a socialistic society and they certainly are not about to give any of this up now. Through the peoples’ efforts, China remains a socialistic state where public ownership continues to be the backbone of her economy. Today all of China’s major banks, her major infrastructure developers, her oil and gas sectors, the bulk of her steel and cement industry, her aircraft, ship and train manufacturers, her ports, shipping lines and airlines, most of her mines and even key consumer manufacturing sectors are publicly owned.   

But the capitalist powers’ Cold War against socialistic China is getting more intense every day. The U.S. and Australian militaries are sending warships thousands of kilometres from their shores to the South China Sea in a desperate attempt to provoke China. Then there is Trump’s trade war. And let’s not forget the propaganda war. Every day brings a new hyped up anti-China story in Australia’s mainstream media. This is not simply a case of Australia’s rulers following their U.S. counterparts as the capitalist ruling classes in both countries share precisely the same goal of undermining, in every way they can, socialistic rule. Let’s not forget that the Australian regime banned Huawei even before the U.S. did. Recently, a high-level Chinese embassy delegation correctly identified Australia’s rulers as pioneers of the global anti-China campaign.

It was through combined military, economic and political pressure that the imperialist powers destroyed the former Soviet workers states. Let us make sure they are never able to do this to the inspirational workers state of socialistic China. If capitalist restoration were to take place in China it would reverse most of the huge strides made in poverty alleviation. Over the last 15 years, China has had by far the world’s fastest growing wages. They have been rising by on average some 10 to 15% per year. But if capitalist counterrevolution were to occur, China would be turned into one giant sweatshop for the mass exploitation of workers. That would allow greedy bosses to then drive down the conditions of workers here too. In contrast, if socialistic rule in China is able to grow stronger and stronger that will be good for the working class and leftists here. We can point to China’s drive to build public housing to motivate the struggle for a massive increase in public housing here. We can point to the public ownership of banks in China to strengthen our own campaign for the nationalisation of the banks where profits would be used for all rather than for the filthy coffers of the very few. We will be able to point to the successes of socialistic rule in China to motivate the struggle for socialist revolution here. That is why Trotskyist Platform calls for the working class and oppressed of Australia and the world to mobilise now so we can defend the Chinese workers state.

We say: U.S. and Australian militaries get out of the South China Sea! Stop the Australian regime’s military build-up against China! We also stand by those Chinese international students who are being so vilified by the Australian media and government alike for bravely speaking out in support of the PRC. We say the “right to free speech” must include the right to support socialistic countries like the Peoples Republic of China. 

The imperialists’ latest favourite anti-Red China force is the anti-communist movement in China’s Hong Kong. The whole Australian mainstream media is backing this violent movement. So is Donald Trump and Scott Morrison. So you know this is not a progressive movement! The pro-colonial rioters in Hong Kong carry the old colonial flag of Britain. They say they are for democracy. Yet in 1967, the British colonial regime that they hail massacred and killed around 30 Hong Kong trade unionists and leftists when they rebelled against the horrors of colonial rule. And then today’s pro-colonial rioters have the hide to complain about supposed police brutality in today’s Hong Kong….

So who are these rioters in Hong Kong? They represent the interests of the upper class and upper middle class who fear that if socialistic influence from China is brought into Hong Kong they will be forced to share their wealth with the working class. Hong Kong is one of the world’s most unequal societies. And these rich kid rioters want to keep it that way! They are being backed and funded by billionaire tycoons like Jimmy Lai, a right-wing media mogul who is very much like Rupert Murdoch and his media company is helping fuel the riots….

Unfortunately, however, some people from the not so rich sections of the middle class also back the opposition movement. That’s because China and the Hong Kong government have agreed to keep Hong Kong capitalist and that capitalism is only leading to unaffordable housing and high prices for everything. That’s why Beijing must move to confiscate the wealth of the Jimmy Lais and other greedy tycoons and bring the means of production in Hong Kong into public ownership. That would take away the key source of backing for the rioters. Moreover, when the economy is in public hands and property speculators are brought to heel, housing can finally be made affordable, decent public housing can finally be provided for the hundreds of thousands of people living in the terrible so-called coffin homes and the long working hours of Hong Kong workers can be reduced with no loss in pay. If socialism is brought into Hong Kong it would be very popular with the masses. And even some of the middle class youth now in opposition will start to change their minds. For one China, under one socialist system!

Knowing all of this let’s now focus on what we need to do here. And what we can do here, matters a lot. The right-wing, pro-colonial rioters in Hong Kong draw a lot of their strength from the West, including lots of funding from governments, backing from the media and support on the streets from anti-communists. We need to counteract this! We must mobilise on the streets to demand: U.S., Australia and Britain stop your support and funding for anti-China groups in Hong Kong! Stop your anti-communist interference! By mobilising on the streets to oppose the anti-communist movement in Hong Kong we will give encouragement to the pro-Peoples Republic of China masses there.

Sisters and brothers, every day the anti-communist Cold War against China is getting more and more intense. The last Cold War against the Soviet Union was won by the imperialists. Let us make sure that they do not win this war as well!

… So, my comrades, my sisters and brothers, let’s work hard to defend the Chinese workers state as part of our fight for a socialist Australia and, one fine day, a beautiful kind communist world.”

STAND WITH SOCIALISTIC CHINA!

DEFEAT HONG KONG’S PRO-COLONIAL,
ANTI-COMMUNIST MOVEMENT!

WORKING CLASS PEOPLE IN AUSTRALIA & THE WORLD:
STAND WITH
SOCIALISTIC CHINA!

30 September 2019: Tomorrow marks the seventieth anniversary of the biggest revolution in human history. In 1949, hundreds of millions of exploited rural workers, poor peasants and urban workers rose up under the leadership of Mao Zedong’s Communist Party of China (CPC) to free themselves from the tyranny of China’s capitalists and landlords and from the imperialist overlords that were crushing China’s people. The revolution not only liberated the country from Western imperialist subjugation but brought the agricultural land, banks, mines and key industries under public ownership. The resulting socialistic system of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) greatly improved the lives of China’s long suffering masses. Before the founding of the PRC, China had been one of the most backward countries in the world. Tens upon tens of millions of people perished in the famines and floods that struck the country some seven to ten times in the fifty years prior to 1949. Average life expectancy was under 35 years. In a true miracle in social progress, by the time that China began its market reforms in 1978 – marking the end of the Mao era – the life expectancy of the most populous country in the world had been practically doubled to over 67 years (despite a blip during the disastrous though well intentioned plan to rapidly industrialize China during the late 1950s’ Great Leap Forward). Today, under continued socialistic rule, China’s life expectancy is just a few years from catching up to the richest countries – having reached 77 years. By another measure of people’s health, Healthy Life Expectancy – the years that a person can expect to live in good health – the UN’s World Health Organization Monitoring Health for the SDGs report (see Annex 2, Part 1 https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/324835/9789241565707-eng.pdf ) shows that China’s level has now even overtaken that of the United States.

Those who have gained most from the 1949 Anti-Capitalist Revolution have been Chinese women. Prior to the Revolution, a large proportion of Chinese women had their feet bound and were subjected to forced marriage, while married women were secluded in their homes and fields by bullying husbands and mothers-in-law. Through 70 years of socialistic rule, the position of Chinese women has not only advanced far past comparable countries that remained under capitalist rule – like India and Indonesia – but has arguably overtaken that of the most developed countries. In 2017, women made up 52.4 % of all public servants newly-recruited by China’s central government. Women also make up 52.5% of students in China’s higher education.

To be sure, while the masses in China now have social and economic power, the political administration of the country is monopolised by a somewhat privileged, bureaucratic layer. The guerilla war nature of the 1949 Revolution meant that it is a narrow layer of CPC leaders who are in political control of the country. Nevertheless, these leaders, whatever their individual intentions, still have to administer the country on behalf of the masses. Moreover, the pressure working class people in China can exert upon government policy is far greater than the influence that the toiling classes have in so-called “democratic” capitalist countries like Australia, India, the Philippines and the U.S. However, the ruling bureaucracy in China, while developing the socialistic economy within the country, does little to support the working class struggle for socialism within the currently capitalist countries. Instead, CPC leaders try – in vain – to soften the clash between the capitalist powers and socialistic China in the futile hope of achieving “amicable co-existence with imperialism.” In the late 1970s, under the incessant pressure of the capitalist world and the reality of capitalist control of the most developed economies, the then Deng Xiaoping-led CPC brought in market reforms that allowed a degree of capitalist intrusion. Although the resulting collaboration with capitalist firms from developed countries was in some cases beneficial in that it helped China to learn new technologies, the reforms also led to an increase in inequality and the dangerous growth of capitalist forces. Today China has a private capitalist sector and even some  billionaires (although the proportion of such billionaires to China’s huge overall population is quite small relative to the U.S. and Australia). However, unlike in the capitalist countries, it is not the tycoons that run China and China is not run for their sake. Put another way, while Australian governments kowtow to and are scared to cross the likes of billionaires Andrew Forrest, Anthony Pratt, Kerry Stokes, the Murdoch family and Gina Rinehart, in Red China it is completely the other way around. Noted capitalists in China, like China’s richest man Jack Ma, are scared of the PRC state and many say that he only retired from his company at a very young age earlier this month because of the pressure of the PRC’s push to increase control over private firms (https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/have-retired-jack-ma-alibaba- steered-away-china-communist-partys-clutches). Indeed, many a greedy capitalist tycoon has been jailed or even executed in China and many more have had their ill-gotten assets confiscated. The PRC remains a workers state – albeit an endangered one where the small capitalist class there is constantly lobbying for greater “freedoms” and “rights” which, once the mystifying idealism of these terms is decoded, means the unrestricted right to exploit workers that business owners enjoy in capitalist countries and that they currently also have the “right” to in the Hong Kong region of China. The continuing socialistic nature of the PRC is shown by the fact that all of her biggest ten companies remain under public ownership as well as some 85% of her top hundred firms.

That the PRC remains a workers state is apparent when one contrasts her attitude to the poor to that of the capitalist Australian regime. Here, the government of Scott Morrison cannot think of more ways to attack the rights of people on low incomes. After previous governments, with bipartisan support, rolled out schemes to subject, firstly people in NT Aboriginal communities, and then people in three other heavily Aboriginal areas to “compulsory income management” where unemployed people lose control of how they can spend large proportions of their meagre welfare payments, the conservative government now wants to put 80% of the payments of all welfare recipients under such a regime. To further stigmatise the poor, the same government is also trying to introduce mandatory drug testing for all welfare recipients. For their part, Liberal and Labor state governments alike continue to sell off public housing making renting for low income people still more unaffordable. Meanwhile, the mainstream media regularly run documentaries that insult and blame for their plight unemployed workers as well as tenants in public housing. By contrast, it would be completely unheard of for PRC state media to run documentaries mocking the poor or blaming them for their own position. Instead, PRC mainstream media very frequently run highly sympathetic stories about the poor that explain how their plight is caused by factors beyond their control. Meanwhile, PRC leaders, like president Xi Jinping, go out of their way to meet and often visit the homes of low income people on just about every regional trip that they make as well as during key public holiday periods like Chinese New Year. A cynic could call that simply good politicking. Perhaps, yet it shows the direction that the political winds blow in the PRC that Xi and Co. feel the necessity to even do this. Here, Morrison and Co. don’t think that they even need to pretend to respect, let alone listen to the concerns of those most in need. Just who Australian politicians do want and feel they need to listen to was seen in Morrison’s recent trip to the U.S. During his extravagant state dinner with U.S. president Trump, there rubbing shoulders with Morrison were most of Australia’s most prominent and richest tycoons including Anthony Pratt (Australia’s richest person), Gina Rinehart (Australia’s second richest billionaire), Kerry Stokes (owner of Channel 7), Andrew Forrest and Lachlan Murdoch (son of Rupert). We can tell you that if a Chinese leader were to fraternise with tycoons like that over a lavish dinner there would certainly be a national outcry and they would likely be purged from office! More important than the optics is that the PRC government continues to massively increase the amount of public housing for her low income people. From 2008 to 2017 alone, the PRC provided 64 million additional public housing dwellings in urban areas! As a result, while the proportion of people with access to public housing in Australia’s urban areas has fallen to just one in every thirty households, in the PRC’s urban areas around one in four people now are living in one of its various forms of public housing. Therefore, even though China’s per capita income is still six times less than resource rich Australia’s, walk through any Chinese city and you will see a far lower proportion of homeless people than you see sleeping the streets of Sydney. Most importantly, while Morrison searches for more ways to cut people off welfare payments, the main focus of the PRC over the last several years – one that has dominated her political life – has been a drive to lift every person in the country out of extreme poverty by the end of 2020. And she is well on track to achieve this! Over just the last six years, the PRC has lifted over 82 million people out of extreme poverty.

THE GRAVE THREATS FACING RED CHINA

Despite the terrific social progress made over the last 70 years of socialistic rule, the PRC workers state is under great danger. Ever since China’s 1949 Revolution, some of the overthrown landlords and capitalists – many of whom fled to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Western countries to plot their comeback – and all  the imperialist powers have worked together to try and destroy the PRC workers state. Within a year after the formation of the PRC, the U.S., British and Australian imperialists and their South Korean allies invaded Red China’s neighbour and socialistic ally, North Korea, to try and crush the workers state there and threaten the PRC. The following year, the U.S. came within a whisker of unleashing nuclear weapons against the north-eastern parts of China after PRC troops heroically entered the Korean War in defence of their socialistic ally. Then, for more than two decades after the 1949 Revolution, China was subjected to sanctions and diplomatic isolation by most of the most powerful countries in the world.

The PRC’s diplomatic isolation only ended – and trade and investment exchanges with the richer countries started – after revolutionary leader Mao sold part of his communist soul in the early 1970s and agreed to join with the U.S. in its drive against the then socialistic USSR. The capitalist powers were willing to go easy on the PRC for a period while they worked on destroying the most powerful workers state at the time, the USSR. By lining up with imperialism against the USSR and her socialistic Cuban and Vietnamese allies in key hot spots of the Cold War – including in Angola, Afghanistan, Cambodia and China’s own border with Vietnam – the PRC leaders made some contribution to the counterrevolutionary destruction of the USSR. Apart from being downright treacherous to the cause of socialism, this policy pursued by Mao and Deng alike was in the end a failure even in terms of its stated intention: to reduce imperialist hostility to China. With the USSR out of the way, China quickly became the main strategic target of imperialism. And with the capitalist powers no longer having to worry about having to simultaneously squeeze both the PRC and the giant USSR at the same time, the pressure that they have been able to exert on the PRC is all the greater.

Today, the U.S. is building up its forces in the Western Pacific against Red China. It is sending its navy thousands upon thousands of kilometres from its own shores to provocatively sail through China-claimed waters in the South China Sea – not far from China’s mainland. The British and Australian ruling classes are assisting in all this. Australia is undergoing a rapid military buildup aimed against the PRC and her North Korean ally. To the same end, Australia also hosts 2,500 U.S. troops in Darwin. One should understand that the Australian rulers are joining the war drive against China not simply because they are “following the U.S.” Australia’s capitalist ruling class share the same reasons for wanting to destroy socialistic rule in China as their American counterparts. For one, these capitalist rulers understand that they can grab even more profits from turning China into a huge sweatshop of exploited labour than they can by selling exports to her. Secondly, by providing infrastructure to other developing countries on generous terms and by engaging in mutually beneficial relationships with them, the PRC is undermining the ability of both U.S. and Australian imperialism to super-exploit their former colonies and current neo-colonies – like in Australia’s case PNG, East Timor, Fiji, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands. Perhaps most importantly, capitalist powers the world over know that the continued successes of socialistic rule in the world’s most populous country can encourage the masses in other developing countries to strive for socialism; and in the long term could inspire the exploited working classes in their own countries to topple them from power.

It is not only through exerting military pressure that the capitalist powers seek to undermine socialistic rule in China. They constantly badger China to privatize her socialistic state-owned enterprises and favour her capitalist private sector. One of the features of Trump’s trade war against China is that he has demanded that the PRC stop supporting her state-owned enterprises. Apart from being an implicit recognition that these socialistic enterprises are the key to China’s economic success, this push by the Washington regime is also in some part a conscious attempt to weaken socialistic rule in China. Meanwhile, all the capitalist powers and their media are waging an intensifying propaganda war against the PRC. Over the last few months, not a day can go by without the Australian mainstream media having a “new” story attacking Red China. This can range from hyped up accusations of Chinese “interference” in Australian politics  to claims of Chinese cyber-hacking to completely bogus reports of China detaining large numbers of Uyghur people in Xinjiang to totally distorted claims about the PRC “taking way the sovereignty” of other developing countries.

Perhaps the most dangerous of the methods that the capitalist powers use against socialistic China is their backing of various anti-communist forces within – or in exile from – China. Their latest favourite anti-Red China force is the anti-PRC movement in China’s Hong Kong region. The last several months has seen large protests in Hong Kong against PRC influence in the region. The movement is very violent and a hard core of masked “protesters” have brutally assaulted pro-PRC Hong Kong residents, vandalised subway stations and shops and attacked police officers with firebombs, sticks and other weapons. Hong Kong’s economy has nosedived.

The Hong Kong anti-PRC forces are openly pro-colonial. They carry not only British and American flags but the old Union Jack flag of the British colonial administration of Hong Kong . They are even holding U.S.- flag waving rallies appealing to the hard right, racist U.S. president Donald Trump to openly intervene even more into Hong Kong. Indeed, the U.S. and other capitalist powers are already fervently backing and supporting the pro-colonial movement. The U.S. government’s notorious National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the body that helps to organise U.S. interference operations abroad – for example, backing anti-communist Cuban groups and components of the right-wing Venezuelan opposition – openly funds Hong Kong anti-PRC groups. The NED’s own website shows that in just 2018 alone, the body – which was set up to carry out partially in the open some of the functions that the CIA used to do completely covertly – gave $90,000 to the Hong Kong Justice Center and $155,000 and $200,000 to the U.S.-based groups Solidarity Center and the National Democratic Institute for their work in Hong Kong. Yet this is only the out in the open funding! Evidence has emerged that the NED is also funding six of the key groups in the Civil Human Rights Front – the outfit that organised the first mass protests.

The U.S. also maintains a massive consulate in Hong Kong with a staff of 1,000 people – many of whom are devoted to advising and directing the protests and riots. On August 6, there was a huge scandal in Hong Kong after some media there showed photographs of Julie Eadeh, chief of the US consulate’s political unit, meeting Hong Kong anti-PRC leaders Martin Lee and Anson Chan and then later in the day meeting the best known figure in the anti-communist movement, Joshua Wong. Yet it is not only through such covert actions and funding that the Western powers have buttressed the anti-PRC movement. Just six days ago, Trump used a high profile speech at the UN to attack China over Hong Kong, effectively throwing his weight behind the anti-PRC rioters. This racist bigot who locks up Central American refugee children in horrific conditions at the U.S. border, who authorized even more fearsome bombs to be used in U.S. operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East and who ordered the U.S. military to desist from calling off bombing raids in these theatres of war even when the chances of “accidentally” killing civilians is very high, demanded that the PRC honor its commitment to “Hong Kong’s freedom, legal system, and democratic ways of life.” The next day, the US House of Representatives’ committee on foreign affairs and its Senate equivalent approved a bipartisan bill that will pave the way for U.S. sanctions on Hong Kong if the U.S. determines that Hong Kong is not autonomous enough – in other words, sanctions will be imposed if the PRC moves to bring socialist influence into Hong Kong or if the pro-Beijing Hong Kong government stands up to the pro-colonial rioters. Tellingly, the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act” stipulates – in a clear reference to some of the Hong Kong media’s  exposure of the chief of the  US consulate’s political unit meeting with Hong Kong anti-PRC leaders – that the US State Department should knock back visa applications of Hong Kong journalists working in the territory’s [rather few] pro- Beijing media organisations should they too harshly criticise in a targeted way U.S. diplomatic personnel and Hong Kong “democracy activists.” This is a clear attempt by these supposed believers in “democracy” and “free speech” to silence the voices of pro-PRC journalists.

Six weeks earlier, right-wing Australian prime minister Morrison made a, thinly veiled, statement in support of the right-wing, pro-colonial forces in Hong Kong, provoking a strong rebuke from China’s ambassador to Australia, Cheng Jingye. In comments similar in content to the ones Trump would make at the UN later, Morrison ostentatiously lectured Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam to “listen carefully” to the anti-PRC opposition, by which he means, back down to their demands! Labor’s foreign affairs spokeswoman, Penny Wong,  echoed this stance. It is striking how Western capitalist governments  and politicians are quick to attack the pro-Beijing Hong Kong authorities for allegedly “heavy-handed” repression when they have been happy to accept far harsher repression elsewhere. While the Hong Kong government has thus far not imposed a curfew or even stopped people from holding anti-government protests despite the extreme violence of the anti-PRC rioters, the capitalist Indian government is in the midst of a two month-long crackdown against its oppressed Kashmiri population which has not only involved hundreds of thousands of Indian troops occupying Kashmir and detaining thousands of opposition activists for no particular actions but has seen the Indian regime impose a harsh curfew and the cutting off of all telephone, mobile phone and internet communications. Yet, of course, there has been no condemnation of the pro-Western, Indian government by any U.S. or Australian leader.

Also throwing their weight behind the anti-China movement in Hong Kong has been the entire mainstream media in Australia and other Western countries. Junking even the pretense of being objective and neutral in their reporting, these media outlets have given blanket coverage to the anti-PRC mobilisations while giving very little or absolutely no reports of the, sometimes hundreds of thousands strong, pro-PRC rallies in Hong Kong. Anti-PRC politicians and activists are given large amounts of air time while the voices of those who support the PRC are rarely heard. Meanwhile, alongside showing Hong Kong police actions out of context to make them appear brutal, the Australian media edit out footage of the cruelest acts of violence by the Hong Kong rioters whom they lionise as “pro-democracy” activists. By contrast when trade unionists from the CFMEU or other unions defend their picket lines here or merely swear at greedy bosses, the Australian media don’t hesitate to call them “thugs.” And when anti-fascists activists defend themselves and multi-racial communities from extreme far-right activists, the Australian media label them as “violent” or “aggressive.” Can you imagine the hysterical denunciations that Australia’s big business and government-owned media would unleash if trade unionists or anti-racists here started doing what the Hong Kong rioters are doing today: like kidnapping and torturing journalists, bashing people with opposing views and beating police officers with sticks?

CAPITALISM VERSUS SOCIALISM,
THE CAPITALIST CLASS VERSUS THE WORKING CLASS

So what is this anti-China movement in Hong Kong that is so energetically supported by all the capitalist powers and their media. To understand what is driving this movement we first need to step back and look at what Hong Kong is. Britain stole Hong Kong during its brutal colonial, Opium Wars against China in the mid-nineteenth century. Hong Kong prospered as a base from where British drug dealers organized their pushing of large quantities of opium into China. Furthermore, because of its great natural harbour, its advantageous location that makes it ideal to serve as a conduit connecting sea lanes from Europe, America and Australia to China and its small population, Hong Kong grew wealthy as a trade and financial centre – much like Singpaore. This was especially in the first couple of decades after China began to open up to trade and investment exchanges with the outside world in the late 1970s. As in Singapore, the wealth of this enclave is thus somewhat artificially derived in the sense that it is based on the city playing an intermediary role leaching a part of the wealth produced in the much more populous neighboring region.

As a place of laissez faire capitalism on steroids, where the big end of town faces little regulation, low taxes and almost unlimited rights to exploit and speculate, Hong Kong is also one of the most unequal societies in the world. Its average income is much higher than on the mainland but it has a greater proportion of people living in extreme poverty and cruelly inadequate housing conditions. Hong Kong workers are subjected to very long working hours and are often bullied by their bosses. On the other hand, Hong Kong has a very high proportion of billionaires – much higher than in the mainland PRC. Moreover, it also has a very large upper-middle class consisting of professionals and analysts working in the finance industry, investment, trade and real estate. As a result, one of out every seven people in Hong Kong is a millionaire. Therefore when the British finally handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, Hong Kong’s large number of rich people were fearful that the socialistic PRC would eventually curb their wealth and power.

As part of the deal returning Hong Kong to China, Beijing, wrongly, agreed to maintain Hong Kong as a capitalist enclave for fifty years. This reassured many Hong Kong capitalists but not all. Many took their wealth and left – including to Australia. However, when earlier this year, the Hong Kong government under prodding from Beijing put forward a bill that would make it easier to extradite people suspected of serious crimes – including economic crimes – from Hong Kong to the mainland this triggered the worst fears of Hong Kong’s rich that Beijing would eventually move to curb Hong Kong’s laissez faire capitalism and compel them to hand over part of their wealth and power to Hong Kong’s working class and poor. So they erupted in rage at the proposed new law and at the threat of “interference” from Beijing.

Not surprisingly then it has been sections of Hong Kong’s capitalist class that have organised the movement. A key figure in the anti-PRC riots is Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, the billionaire tycoon who owns one of Hong Kong’s biggest media outlets, Next Media Group. The group runs the tabloid Apple Daily as well as several online news sites. Over the last few years, Jimmy Lai has donated huge amounts of money to anti-PRC political parties and NGOs. Today, his right-wing Apple Daily and his other outlets have been actively fomenting and even organising the anti-PRC riots. Even those other Hong Kong tycoons that have called for “calm” have tacitly been pressing the anti-PRC movement’s demands. Thus, Hong Kong’s richest man Li Ka-Shing, in an ambiguous statement, said that “both sides should try to put their feet in another’s shoes.” Yet while calling for harmony, Li pointedly called for Hong Kong’s Beijing-backed government to “show humanity” and show a “way out” for the protesters. Read between the lines and it is apparent that this shipping tycoon wants the Hong Kong government to accede to the rioters demands while urging the latter not to stage any actions that would provoke Beijing into sending in its forces and thus threatening Hong Kong’s capitalist system.

Even more fervent in joining the anti-PRC movement than Hong Kong tycoons have been Hong Kong’s upper-middle class. Since they have less means to pick up and move their capital than the ultra-rich and are less secure in their privileged financial position, the fanaticism of their fear of socialism is even greater than the tycoons’. And as we said, there are a lot of these upper-middle class people in the somewhat artificial region that is Hong Kong. There are over one million millionaires in the small region – which notably is about the maximum size of the protest movement.

The anti-PRC movement has been able to draw in less affluent sections of the middle class too – especially the youth. Although these latter types are much better off than Hong Kong’s working class and poor, the city is so expensive and housing is so unaffordable that young professionals and middle class university students feel squeezed. These people, unlike the tycoons and richer layers of the middle class whose agenda dominates the movement, have legitimate concerns. However, they wrongly blame Beijing for their problems. This is partly because they are swayed by Hong Kong’s largely anti-Beijing media and partly because they see the pro-Beijing government doing little to alleviate their plight. Yet the latter occurs precisely because the Hong Kong regional government and Beijing maintain Hong Kong’s capitalist system. Should Beijing actually move to bring the socialistic system into Hong Kong many of the middle class youth now opposing the PRC would benefit, including through more affordable housing and through more secure and less stressful employment. Another factor in pushing middle class youth into opposing the PRC is that in recent years Hong Kong’s economy has slowed – in good part because the rapid development of mainland Chinese ports and cities has seen Hong Kong eclipsed as a trading centre and port city. Since they know that Hong Kong’s economy has been performing worse since the handover back to Beijing, these youth look back favourably to the colonial days. Yet while Hong Kong’s ultra-rich and upper-middle class families tend to be united against Beijing, recent events in Hong Kong have split less rich middle class families along generational lines. Middle class parents who have experienced all the repression, humiliation and racism of British colonial rule are angry that their children could go to rallies carrying the British colonial flag.

Undoubtedly a small number of Hong Kong’s poor and working class have also joined the protests. With from a quarter to half a million Hong Kong residents living in horrific “coffin homes” – many so small that they are not able to even extend their legs – Hong Kong’s poor have a lot to be angry about. Yet even the Western media have had to admit that this is largely a middle class movement. When the smaller of the territory’s two union federations, the Western-backed Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions tried to call protest “general strikes” in recent months they have been notable flops, with few workers taking part other than for some relatively higher-paid workers like teachers. Moreover, it is important to understand that all pro-capitalist movements have always been able to draw in some layers of the less affluent middle class and some sections of even the working class masses. But their reactionary, pro-capitalist character is defined by their agenda and by which class is driving the protests. And it is definitely sections of the capitalist class and large parts of the upper-middle class who are driving the anti-PRC movement. Thus, when the extradition bill was first put forward it was Hong Kong’s capitalist business owners that led the charge against it. They understood that the law would allow for extradition of people for economic crimes to the mainland. Beijing wants to be able to do this to catch corrupt capitalists fleeing to Hong Kong. Yet Hong Kong capitalists know that in the mainland the right of capitalists to exploit is constrained and many end up facing repression and having their assets confiscated – often after popular pressure from China’s masses (which is often expressed through social media chat sites). A particular incident that scared them was the seizure by PRC authorities two years ago of greedy Chinese billionaire Xiao Jianhua from a Hong Kong hotel. Xiao is now in detention in the mainland facing trial. The bank that he owned, Baoshang Bank – one of the rare privately-owned banks in China – has been confiscated and brought into public ownership. All this is wonderful news for the working class masses. But it is terrifying for the capitalist exploiters. Hong Kong business bosses and their overseas counterparts conducting operations in the territory fear this could happen to them. Adding to their fears, the proposed extradition bill included an ordinance that would allow the freezing or confiscation of the suspects’ assets. Thus, virtually the entire Hong Kong capitalist class initially opposed the bill. This included even the two pro-business parties that are considered accepting of Hong Kong’s integration into China – the Business and Professionals Alliance and the Liberal Party. The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce warned against any update to the city’s existing extradition laws. Meanwhile, the proposed new laws were openly denounced by the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong which stated that the new law would damage the city’s reputation as a “secure haven for international business.” Under this pressure, the Hong Kong government harmfully backed down a little and removed some of the economic crimes that people could be extradited for. As a result, some capitalists moderated their opposition to the laws. But others, including the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong continued to oppose the bill. Meanwhile, the fears of socialist influence that the extradition bill triggered amongst the upper-middle class has continued to loom large even after Carrie Lam capitulated to the rioters and withdrew the bill.

However, the most fervent sections of the protesters – and especially their imperialist backers – don’t simply want to prevent the PRC’s socialistic system coming to Hong Kong. They want to eject this system from the mainland as well. These people must be opposed. Any threat to the socialistic system in the PRC is a threat to her working class masses. Capitalist counterrevolution in China would endanger all the wonderful achievements that the PRC has made in poverty alleviation. The PRC would be returned to a place of severe exploitation, like an Indonesia, Mexico or Philippines, where bosses retrench workers at will, children live in poverty, women are downtrodden and foreign capitalist powers subjugate the people under a system of semi-colonialism. The resulting increasing in the rate of exploitation would encourage capitalist bosses everywhere, including in Australia, to further attack the wages and rights of the working class and poor. Moreover, a defeat for socialism in the world’s most populous country would embolden capitalist exploiters and demoralise the struggle for socialism around the globe. Just like the destruction of socialistic rule in the USSR and East European countries in 1989-1991, it would throw back by decades the struggle for socialism and for the cause of the working class and downtrodden. That is why the working class and oppressed of Australia and the world must mobilise to defend the PRC workers state. We must say: Down with the pro-colonial, anti-communist movement in Hong Kong! U.S., Britain, Australia get out of the South China Sea! U.S. troops out of Darwin! Stop the Australian regime’s military build-up against the PRC! No to imperialist funding for anti-PRC “NGOs”! Down with the Cold War propaganda drive against the PRC!

LET’S NOT BE NAIVE :
ANY STRUGGLE FOR A SOCIALIST TRANSFORMATION

WILL FACE MASSIVE RESISTANCE

It is unsurprising that it is the youth of the upper class and upper-middle class that have been most fervent in opposing the “threat” of socialist “interference” in Hong Kong. And this is not just because young people have more energy. Those young people who dream of a well-paying career or making it big in the capitalist world see “Communist China” as a threat to their aspirations. Their parents have already made their own wealth and if push comes to shove can more easily move it abroad. But the youth want to make their own mark on the capitalist world and socialism threatens their upwardly mobile dreams. Thus, during the socialist revolution in Russia, it was the younger members of the propertied classes that fought most energetically – and, indeed, from their standpoint bravely – to stop the workers’ revolution. This included young military officers – called Junkers – and college students. In the initial February 1917 Revolution that toppled the Tsar, college students participated in the Revolution. However once the revolution moved more clearly to the goal of establishing working class power, Russia’s privileged college students were on the side of the capitalist enemy. Similarly, today, the upper and middle class university students in Hong Kong are on the side of capitalism – this time not against an immediate impending socialist overturn but against the threat (as they see it) of one in the future. The ferocity of their rioting – including several horrific mob beatings of pro-PRC people (including a videotaped bashing of a man holding his children who was “guilty” only of singing the PRC national anthem) – reflects the desperate anger of propertied classes fearful of losing their dominant position.

One should understand that if the working class struggle grows in Australia and the possibility for socialist revolution becomes imminent, there will also be mass opposition to it – especially from capitalist and upper-middle class youth. Unfortunately, the resistance to an impending socialist overturn will not just come from the mythical 1%. The capitalist class is not just 1% of the population. To be sure the biggest of the capitalists do make up about 1% of the population. But then there are those capitalist business owners exploiting smaller numbers of workers, the managerial class enforcing the exploitation of workers at larger workplaces and the cops, prison guards, judiciary and upper bureaucrats who administer the state that keeps the capitalists in power. There are the upper middle class layers including successful self-employed businessmen, rich farmers and the higher paid of the professionals. Unlike the direct capitalist exploiters of labour and their enforcers, these privileged sections of the middle class do not have a direct interest in maintaining the capitalist system. In the long run they would actually benefit from the more rational and humane socialist system. However, it’s a tough job convincing most of them of this when they live a comfortable life under capitalism with negatively-geared, multiple investment properties! Meanwhile, just like the anti-communist movement in Hong Kong, the pro-capitalist resistance movement will be able to con a section of the less affluent portion of the middle class – people who would actually gain a great deal from socialism – and even some less politically conscious workers to their side. The exact balance of forces in a revolution, of course, cannot be predicted ahead of time – it depends on how the struggle plays out. However one can envisage a scenario where in a struggle for socialist revolution in Australia 15 million of its 25 million people support a socialist overturn, 5 to 7 million people are neutral and some 3 to 5 million people are against it. Of course, the victory of a socialist transformation or otherwise depends on not only how many people are on the opposing sides but how determined people on either side are to fight. Yet let’s not be naive: an imminent push towards socialist rule in Australia would face resistance from millions of people. And because an impending revolution would pose the question of which class rules in a far more immediate manner than the possibility of the PRC bringing socialism to Hong Kong, the opposition will likely be even more fanatical – and from their point of view even braver –than the resistance to the socialistic PRC of the Hong Kong anti-communist movement. Let’s not forget that following the Russian Revolution, the young workers state was not only opposed by the actual capitalists and landlords but also by rich peasant farmers and the technical-managerial layers working in factories and utilities.

Part of the opposition – especially from the middle class – that an impending socialist transformation would face in Australia will be largely due to racism. A strong movement for socialism can only develop by uniting the working class masses through positively standing against racial oppression. A movement with such an anti-racist agenda will, thus, necessarily face resistance from unreconstructed racist rednecks. In the current Hong Kong events a kind of racism has also played a factor in the resistance to socialistic China. Although Hong Kongers and mainlanders are both ethnically Chinese there is a strong nativist racism within Hong Kong that sees Hong Kong people as superior and more sophisticated than Mainlanders. In part, this comes from the impact of British colonialism that taught people that Westerners were superior to Asians. Associated with this, Hong Kongers as a people who lived longer under direct colonial rule were taught that they are more Western and more immersed in “Western values” than the “oriental” mainlanders. Helping to accentuate these myths is the greater wealth – at least for the middle and upper classes – of Hong Kong Chinese relative to their mainland counterparts. Right-wing media outlets like the ones run by Jimmy Lai – who is in so many ways an Hong Kong version of Rupert Murdoch – have excelled in portraying mainlanders entering Hong Kong as “locusts.” This is partly done for the usual capitalist divide and rule schemes which seek to channel the masses’ frustrations onto targets other than the capitalist exploiters themselves. However, Jimmy Lai also whips up such sentiments in order to use an Hong Kong nativist xenophobia to help drive the anti-PRC movement.

A few days ago, Jiayang Fan, a Chinese-American staff writer at The New Yorker reported that she has been subjected to vicious threats and mob racism by anti-PRC activists while covering the Hong Kong protests (Business Insider Australia website, 22 September 2019). They referred to her as a “f-ing yellow thug.” Some of these activists would indeed love to be called white supremacists … but alas they have yellow skin. Little surprise then that white supremacists from the West have been flocking to join in the Hong Kong protests. Some of the notable extreme right-wingers who have joined the protests from abroad include the leader of the violent U.S. far right group Patriot Prayer and the despicable Islamophobic and anti-African, Australian bigot, Avi Yemini.

Little wonder then that most people in the migrant and minority communities in Hong Kong are against the anti-China movement. The nativist xenophobia of the Hong Kong anti-PRC movement is also part of the reason why the overwhelming majority of people from the Chinese mainland – including international students currently residing in Australia – oppose the anti-PRC movement. However, there is another more significant reason. The Chinese masses simply like socialistic rule. Although they have plenty of gripes about corruption, petty restrictions (like on Internet access), inequality and the like – they are happy that their wages are rapidly rising, health care is increasingly covered by public insurance, infrastructure is being improved, public transport is being expanded, cities are having more green spaces and tourist facilities – and even toilets – are being improved. They are proud of the achievements of their socialistic country in poverty alleviation and in things like the roll out of the world’s best and most extensive high speed rail network

ANTI-RED CHINA AGITATION OVER HONG KONG PLAYS INTO
ANTI-COMMUNIST AND RACIST COLD WAR HYSTERIA IN AUSTRALIA

The battle between opponents and supporters of the PRC in Hong Kong has also been played out in Australia. Anti-communist international students and migrants from Hong Kong have been joined by other Asian origin anti-communists, Australian far-right activists, mainstream conservatives, Laborites and nominally “Marxist” social democrats in demonstrations in support of Hong Kong’s anti-PRC movement. These rallies have been greatly supported and built up by the Australian capitalist media and other ruling class institutions. Thus, while police here often threaten with arrest and denounce local anti-fascists when they wear face masks to hide their identity from violent Neo-Nazis, they have had no objections to Hong Kong anti-China supporters wearing intimidating-looking masks and helmets at rallies.

Bravely, many Chinese international students have responded to such anti-PRC rallies on campuses with their own pro-PRC counter-rallies. On August 17, over 3,000 people marched through the streets of Sydney in opposition to the pro-colonial rioters in Hong Kong. Despite the entire weight of the Australian media and state being on the anti-PRC side, this August 17 pro-China march was several times larger than any of the anti-PRC demonstrations held in Australia. There were some flaws in the politics of that rally that we were still in an overall way proud to enthusiastically support. The action’s main slogans were in the direction of patriotism to the Peoples Republic of China but made no appeal to the interests that the Australian working class has in defending the PRC and in standing against the opposition movement in Hong Kong. By not taking this class line, the rally could not effectively attract Australian working class people which it potentially could have if it had highlighted the socialistic character of the PRC. It is the working class and downtrodden of Australia (including Aboriginal people, lower income people from other communities subjected to racism and unemployed workers) – the people who from their own experience have most reason to distrust the line given by Australia’s capitalist politicians and big business owned media – who can and must be won to supporting Red China and its sovereignty over Hong Kong.

International students from China who have taken a pro-PRC stand have sometimes later faced threats and attacks. Despite this, the mainstream media, while fully praising those supporting the anti-communist movement in Hong Kong for “expressing their right to free speech”, have portrayed the pro-PRC students as being “undemocratic” and even accused them of “trying to suppress free speech.” More sinisterly,  in response to the brave stance taken by these students, late last month the Australian government announced the creation of a new Federal Government taskforce to look into “foreign interference” on Australian campuses – a move clearly aimed at intimidating pro-PRC Chinese students studying in Australia. The intimidation and vilification of pro-PRC students by the Australian state and media has had its desired effect. For the last month, pro-PRC Chinese students in Australia have mostly stayed away from participating in public demonstrations. We say: Stop the intimidation of pro-Red China international students! The “right to free speech” must include the right to support socialistic countries like the PRC. In the name of “defending free speech”, the Australian regime and its media are attempting to suppress the voice of those who support socialistic China.

Days after pro-PRC demonstrators outnumbered anti-China demonstrators in a heated stand-off at the University of Queensland in late July, hard right Liberal MP Andrew Hastie made a high profile rant in The Sydney Morning Herald claiming that China was threatening Australia’s “sovereignty” and “freedoms” including “in our universities.” This noted Islamophobe who has been happy to rub shoulders with extreme white supremacists at rallies supporting the provocative far-right push for special refugee status for rich, white South African farmers, had the hide to compare Red China’s rise to that of Nazi Germany.

Hastie’s tirade shows how the campaign to support the anti-PRC forces in Hong Kong and to suppress the voices of those who oppose that movement is feeding into broader anti-China hysteria. Earlier this year we wrote an article that described an emerging Cold War anti-communist witch-hunt in Australia that was mixing with White Australia, anti-Chinese racism. In a way that article has become somewhat out dated. For there is nothing “emerging” about this witch-hunt now. It is roaring away at full throttle. Earlier this month, it emerged that Monash Caulfield’s student union had effectively barred international students from nominating for student elections in a bid to suppress the voice of PRC students.

How deep the Cold War, anti-China witch-hunt has become has been seen in the recent campaign by the mainstream media and Labour Party against Hong Kong born, federal Liberal MP Gladys Liu over her alleged links to “Chinese government interference organisations.” Now there is nothing we like about the politics of Gladys Liu who is a supporter of the anti-PRC movement in Hong Kong, a homophobe and a member of the anti-working class Liberal Party. Yet she is being attacked for the wrong reasons and we defend her from this Cold War persecution. It is outrageous that a person should be threatened with removal from office just because she once was a member of associations with loose links to the PRC. These associations are, like the organisations of many other ethnic communities in Australia, just social organisations including people with a diverse range of political views. True, the leaders of these organisations are fêted by Beijing and in this way China seeks to win some favour with the local Chinese community. But so what? This is really just the public relations activities that all countries engage in. Certainly all the members of these organisations do not have any commitment to promoting the views of the PRC government.

We have little concern for Gladys Liu herself. But if a right-wing politician can be targeted for being “linked” to Red China what is going to happen to working This is mandatory because generico levitra on line here the medicine needs some time to think about the type of card that would sum up your baby shower party. Prozac – Prozac is an antidepressant in a group of drugs called cialis price online selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). The ceasarian section method is believed to make infants more susceptible to health problems in viagra pill price the future. Key ingredients in Mast Mood oil include http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/happy-thanksgiving-2/ buy viagra without prescription Ashwagandha, Jaiphal, Buleylu oil, Samudra Phal etc. class socialists who really do defend socialistic China? If the current witch-hunt continues, people are soon going to be targeted too for advocating “Communist China-like policies” – if they advocate things like increased public housing, nationalisation of the banks and targeted poverty alleviation schemes. Moreover, our key point is that people should have the right to support socialistic China and people of Chinese background should have the right to build and join organizations sympathetic to the PRC. After all, the Communist Party of China (CPC) is currently the most popular political organisation in that country with over 90 million members. It is natural that many immigrants from China and international students from there would also be supporters of the CPC. They should have as much right to voice their opinions as anyone else. Moreover, supporting socialistic China is what is in the interests of the overwhelming majority of Australia’s population – that is, of the working class and most middle class people.

The fact is that the PRC leadership makes no effort to “interfere” in the direction of Australian politics. Even the specific claims of “interference” labelled against China have little to do with Australia’s internal policy direction. When one examines the claims closely, it is apparent that the alleged Chinese “interference” is confined to efforts to mitigate Australia’s hostility to China or to prevent Australia being used as a base for anti-communist Chinese exile groups to launch political attacks on the PRC.

Having said the above, socialistic China actually has a duty to try to “influence” politics in Australia and other capitalist countries. Not in the covert way that the U.S., Australia and other imperialist countries are working to, for example, interfere in Hong Kong and Venezuela. Instead, the PRC should seek to advance the struggle for socialism worldwide by openly proclaiming the advantages of the socialist system and by solidarising with working class and oppressed people’s movements in capitalist countries, including Australia. Let’s not forget that soon after the 1917 Russian Revolution, Lenin, Trotsky and the other leaders of the young Soviet workers state established the Communist International for this very purpose.

The truth is that, in the end, China will only be free to carry on its socialistic course unhindered if the masses in the capitalist world mobilise to, firstly, hold back their own rulers from squeezing China; and eventually to overthrow their own capitalist exploiters. Beijing’s current policy of mutual non-interference in the affairs of other countries has been a failure. The CPC government genuinely tries not to interfere in the internal affairs of the capitalist powers. However, as we see today in the massive interference in Hong Kong by the imperialist powers, the capitalist rulers in the West do everything possible to undermine the PRC.

TO PROTECT “ONE CHINA”
SOCIALISM MUST BE BROUGHT TO HONG KONG

As a result of the continued capitalist domination there, Hong Kong really does have a lot of socio-economic problems. There are the awful coffin homes, unaffordable housing, a slowing economy, massive inequality, cruelly long working hours and terrible conditions for the over 300,000 largely Indonesian and Filipino domestic maids residing there. Yet the Hong Kong opposition movement make no socio-economic demands whatsoever. This highlights their anti-working class character – they are not interested in solving the plight of Hong Kong’s poor and exploited. Their five demands meanwhile are fashioned to appear “fair” but actually would serve to increase the grip on society of Hong Kong’s wealthy. Part of their demands are against supposed police “brutality.” However, compared to police in capitalist countries like Australia, the Hong Kong police have thus far been downright timid. Imagine how many people Australian cops – who are notorious for having murdered or otherwise caused the death of dozens of Aboriginal people over the last four decades – would have killed if they had been subjected to what the Hong Kong rioters have done to police there for four whole moths: thrown firebombs at them, beat them with sticks, threatened their children and spouses and stabbed off-duty police.

As they complain about “police brutality” in today’s Hong Kong, the anti-PRC movement hold aloft the old British colonial flag of Hong Kong and hark back to the colonial days. Yet it was the British colonial forces in Hong Kong that committed truly murderous repression. In 1967, in response to mass strikes and protests by workers and other anti-colonial leftists in Hong Kong, British colonial police launched commando raids on union offices and other leftist strongholds and on several occasions unleashed sub- machine gun fire against the activists. In the end police shot dead, or beat to death, some 30 workers and other leftists.

One of the main demands of the anti-PRC movement is for universal suffrage and parliamentary “democracy.” Yet, as in Australia, the reality of one person one vote in a society where the wealth and power is so unequally divided results only in the tyranny of the tycoons. It is the rich who disproportionately have the money to fund political parties, pay for political advertising and hire lobbyists. And it is the tycoons who own and control the media. The reality in Australia is that the most influential tycoons like Anthony Pratt or Gina Rinehart – with their direct line to the politicians and their massive political donations – each have far more influence on the direction of the country than, say, all the 400,000 people on the meagre Newstart Allowance put together! In Hong Kong where inequality is even greater, any formal parliamentary “democracy” would only reinforce still further the domination of society by the rich. Certainly the brutally exploited and often abused foreign maids in Hong Kong, many of whom are forced to sleep in corridors near the toilets and in laundries, would have little say in a Western-style “democracy.” As we have pointed out in placards at pro-PRC assemblies over Hong Kong, if the rich kid rioters in Hong Kong really care about democracy they could start by treating their domestic maids a lot better.

In the current political set up where Beijing has agreed to maintain capitalist rule over Hong Kong, domestic maids and other working class people don’t have any say either. However, the possibility of greater socialist influence of the PRC – that the pro-colonials’ call for parliamentary “democracy” is designed to impede – does give a path for greater rights for the long suffering working class masses of Hong Kong.

The democracy that working class people need is not the sham of a parliamentary “democracy” but a workers democracy based on elected workers councils that also draw in other sections of the poor. These councils, or soviets, would not be open to members of the exploiting class in order to stop them using their wealth and connections to dominate the councils. By having the working class masses organised together as a class in such councils they are able to better feel their collective strength and interests and, thereby, resist the political influence of the properties classes. However, there are two pre-conditions to such a soviet democracy exercising real power. Firstly, the state machine that these workers councils administer must be a workers state – i.e. a state built and replenished to serve working class interests. Now, because the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army base in Hong Kong is the ultimate military power in the region this has fashioned a change in the character of the Hong Kong police from the days of British colonialism. Some of the most pro-colonial cops have abandoned the force, not wanting to be subordinate to a Communist power. On the other hand, some people sympathetic to Red China have been enthusiastic to join. Moreover, every time the police are called to act against pro-colonial violence like we are seeing today, pro-colonial forces would drop off the force and be unwilling to join it while pro-PRC elements would be keen to enlist. Yet the transformation of the force is likely incomplete, not least because the property system it is enforcing in Hong Kong is still a capitalist property system. Meanwhile, the other elements of the state machinery in Hong Kong are even more based on the old colonial-capitalist machinery. Hong Kong’s judiciary remains anti-communist as shown by the way judges have been giving the right-wing rioters such lean “punishments” or often none at all. Meanwhile, even the non-repressive components of the state apparatus are still tied to the capitalist class. Hong Kong schools still teach the old pro-colonial, anti-communist curriculum. As for Hong Kong state media, its character is shown by the fact that it has been ostentatiously supporting the anti-PRC movement. That is why pro- PRC activists in Hong Kong have recently protested against the anti-China bias of Hong Kong media and against the incredible leniency that judges have shown to the pro-colonial rioters.

The second pre-condition for a workers democracy that exercises real power is that the power of the exploiting class is broken so that the working class begins to have the real economic power without which any political power can only be a fiction. To be sure, the bureaucratic leadership in Beijing, although based on a socialistic system, is not keen on workers democracy as that could undermine its somewhat privileged, middle class social position. Nevertheless, even if Beijing were to bring the socialistic system to Hong Kong in its bureaucratically deformed form that would still be a massive step forward for Hong Kong’s masses. Today, such a move has become an absolute necessity not only to improve the lives of the masses but to even prevent Hong Kong’s separation or partial distancing from China. For Hong Kong capitalist tycoons and their upper middle class allies are using their enormous economic strength to fund and direct separatist activities. The power of the Jimmy Lais, the Li-Kashings and the other capitalists of Hong Kong must be broken! Their ports, media outlets, real estate property, banks and telecom firms must be stripped from their hands and brought into public ownership. This would finally enable Hong Kong’s overworked wage earners to get shorter working hours with no loss in pay and would provide the resources needed to build the public housing necessary to relieve the housing situation of those currently “living” in coffin homes. In other words, such a move toward socialism in Hong Kong would be enormously popular amongst the Hong Kong masses.

We are not naive and know that if Beijing moves to bring the socialistic system to Hong Kong, the propertied classes will resist with even greater ferocity than they are now. However, currently, we have the worst of both worlds in Hong Kong. The capitalists and their upper middle class allies feel threatened by the prospect of socialism and so they are in revolt, all the while still having the economic clout to make such a revolt powerful. On the other hand, Hong Kong’s working class masses have not seen any benefits from being brought under the umbrella of a socialistic state and so are not mobilising energetically to defend the PRC. Meanwhile, those not so rich sections of the middle class who could be won to the side of socialism if the potential benefits of socialistic rule were made clear are, instead, being harnessed by the anti-communist forces.

However, Beijing is reluctant to move against the capitalist class in Hong Kong because it is obsessed with not antagonising the Western imperialist powers. Moreover, having allowed the emergence of a capitalist class within the mainland, the risk averse CPC leaders don’t want to upset stability by taking actions in Hong Kong that could frighten these capitalists into opposition. Therefore, it must be the most class conscious workers and leftists who must lead the charge for a socialist Hong Kong. In doing so they may finally pull Beijing along to do what it should. For starters, to highlight the benefits of socialistic rule, genuine leftists in Hong Kong should organise demonstrations calling for those policies and laws in the mainland that would be most beneficial to and most popular with the Hong Kong masses to be implemented there. For one, the PRC’s 2008 labour law, which has far greater protections for workers than Hong Kong laws, should be called for. Secondly, the policies that allow better conditions for domestic maids in the mainland – where they are mostly workers with their own homes rather than live in servants – should be advocated. Thirdly, pro-PRC activists should call for the right to abortion on demand, which exists in the mainland, to be brought to Hong Kong where women’s basic democratic right to abortion is greatly curtailed. Fourthly, and perhaps most crucially, leftists must push for the PRC’s “houses are for living in not speculation” policy which restricts the purchases of multiple homes by any individual to be brought into Hong Kong. Such a policy would open up immediate accommodation opportunities for those currently living in “coffin” homes, drive down the price of housing and start to challenge the power of the property tycoons that so dominate the territory

Meanwhile, pro-PRC forces should start mobilising on the streets to defend public property from the anti-communist rioters. The largest trade union federation in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (HKFTU), is pro-PRC. So pro-PRC activist should agitate for unions affiliated to the HKFTU to start building such actions – defensive actions that would be quite popular as many Hong Kong people are getting sick of the random attacks of the rich-kid rioters. From there, contingents should begin to target the business bases of Jimmy Lai and other notable anti-PRC tycoons. The aim would be to eventually occupy Lai’s Apple Daily’s production base and stage an HKFTU union seizure of control of this newspaper. Meanwhile, the real estate owned by Lai and other anti-PRC tycoons should be occupied and handed over to current residents of “coffin” homes. As it becomes clearer to all that the question of PRC influence over Hong Kong versus “independence” is a question of working class interests versus capitalist interests, more working class people will be won over to the pro-PRC cause and the forces can eventually become available to demand the complete confiscation of the means of production of all the big capitalists.

If the socialistic system were to be brought to Hong Kong it would have great significance beyond the territory. It would encourage those forces fighting most consistently to maintain socialistic rule on the mainland; while demoralising the capitalists within the mainland demanding ever greater “rights” and the right-wing of the CPC bureaucracy who are only too happy to hand over to them such concessions. Meanwhile, given that no part of the world has had the socialistic system based on working class state power brought to it in over 40 years, the bringing of a system based on public ownership and proletarian rule to Hong Kong would greatly encourage the international struggle for socialist revolution. So let’s fight for one Red China – that is, for one country under one socialist system!

MOBILISE HERE IN AUSTRALIA TO DEFEND THE PRC WORKERS STATE AND OPPOSE THE ANTI-COMMUNIST FORCES IN HONG KONG

However, the fate of Hong Kong will not only be determined by contending forces there. What happens in Australia and other Western countries also matters a great deal. A primary source of the strength of the anti-PRC forces in Hong Kong is their backing from imperialist governments and NGOs. They are greatly encouraged by demonstrations abroad that support them. So we need to mobilise to oppose support to the Hong Kong anti-communist forces from the Australian government and local NGOs. We need to build actions condemning the Hong Kong pro-colonial movement so as to boost the morale of pro-PRC activists in Hong Kong.

Trotskyist Platform (TP) was proud to have joined the large August 17 pro-PRC march in Sydney. Among the many slogans that we have carried at this and other pro-PRC actions include: “A Strong Socialistic China is Good for Australian Working Class People. Australian Workers: Defend the PRC Workers State!”, “Defend Socialistic China Against Imperialism! Resist Meddling in Hong Kong by Colonial Powers”, “Hong Kong Rioters = Rich Kid Allies or Dupes of Right-Wing Hong Kong Media Billionaire Jimmy Lai – Hong Kong’s Rupert Murdoch” and “Western-Style Democracy = Total Control By the Rich. Increase Socialist Influence of PRC to Improve Lives of Hong Kong Working Class.”

One other significant left group in Australia that has not joined the anti-PRC crusade over Hong Kong is the Communist Party of Australia (CPA). The CPA has rightly criticised the pro-imperialist character of the Hong Kong opposition movement and opposed the U.S.-Australia war drive against China. However, they have often, in their press, ducked the key issue of whether the PRC is a workers state or not – indicating that there are some people in the party who either believe that the PRC has gone capitalist or are unsure on the issue. Probably for the same reasons, the CPA, while rightly involved in actions in solidarity with socialistic Cuba, has thus far not participated on the ground in the various pro-PRC actions that have taken place recently.  Of course, leftists in Australia must stand by Cuba. However, the PRC is the socialistic country that is most targeted by imperialism and in particular by our own imperialist ruling class at home. Thus, it is somewhat easy to be active supporting Cuba while not being active defending the main target of the new anti-communist Cold War – the PRC. Let us never forget that a key reason that the former Soviet workers state ultimately succumbed to incessant imperialist pressure is that leftists in the imperialist countries – including those nominally sympathetic to the USSR – did not mobilise actual actions that squarely solidarised with the Soviet Union. This emboldened capitalist restorationist forces within the Soviet Union, while leaving genuine communists in the USSR feeling isolated and demoralised and thus less willing to fight to defend their workers state. Let us make sure the same thing never ever happens to the PRC!

Other than for TP and the CPA, all other significant left groups in Australia have lined up behind the anti-communist opposition in Hong Kong. The left groups in Australia that have been most active in supporting the anti-communist movement in Hong Kong are Socialist Alliance (SA), Solidarity and Socialist Alternative (SAlt). The latter two joined an August 30 anti-Red China rally at Sydney University where present were not only pro-imperialist Hong Kong students but other anti-communists. One of the featured speakers at the rally was prominent anti-communist, Dana Pham. A rabid opponent of women’s right to abortion, Pham is so anti-communist that she opposes even social democracy because she says that it leads to communism. So this is the sort of politics that Socialist Alternative and Solidarity are in a united front with! Now, Pham openly self-identifies as the child of former capitalists in Vietnam who were dispossessed by the heroic Vietnamese anti-capitalist revolution. Indeed, the demonstrations in Australia in support of the Hong Kong anti-communist movement is a magnet for members – and their unreconstructed descendants – of a number of different exploiting classes who are bitter that communists confiscated (or threaten to confiscate) their ill-gotten wealth and brought it into common social ownership. Many participating are, like Pham, either members of the overthrown former capitalist/ landlord ruling class of Vietnam or their children. Hence, the anti-PRC rallies have been shot through with the flags of the deposed former South Vietnamese regime. Also prominent at the anti-Red China actions have been the flags favoured by supporters of the deposed former feudal ruling class of Tibet. After Chinese and Tibetan communists united to topple that class from power in 1959 and liberate brutally subjugated Tibetan serfs, many of the former feudal elite fled into exile. Due to fervent support from the CIA and the capitalist powers some of the descendants of these former serf owners cling on to a dream of one day driving out socialist rule from Tibet and regaining their families’ former glory. Hence they rally in solidarity with their fellow “victims” of socialism. Then there are the capitalists and property owning upper-middle class types who are angry that they have had to leave Hong Kong when it was returned to China in order to avoid the risk of having their wealth redistributed to the masses. Of course, there are also some unreconstructed descendants of the former capitalist-landlord rulers of China who are furious at being toppled by the 1949 Revolution. Then there are people associated with the still ruling capitalist exploiting class in Taiwan.

All these people have a clear class reason – or at least perceived reason – for opposing socialism and for joining the local actions supporting the Hong Kong anti-communist movement. But what the hell are nominally socialist groups doing there! In joining these demonstrations, these left groups actually undermine some of the better work that they do on other issues where they are at least on the right side of the fence. For example, SA have been active in opposing the pro-imperialist, National Endowment for Democracy (NED)-backed mass protests in Venezuela. Yet if the quite similar, NED-backed pro-imperialist protests in Hong Kong that they are supporting were to achieve victories it can only encourage the pro-imperialist forces in Venezuela. Similarly, SAlt have built actions in solidarity with the oppressed Palestinian people. Yet they back a movement in Hong Kong that flies U.S. flags, presents the Trump regime as a potential saviour and hails the U.S. system, all of which can only undermine opposition to the U.S. imperialist state that is the key backer of Israel’s brutal oppression of Palestinian people.

Something that we can give credit to SAlt over is their spearheading of a protest last month against the hard right CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) meeting in Sydney that was hosted by Andrew Cooper, the leader of the Australian far-right group, Liberty Works. TP joined SAlt in this protest. Yet at the start of this month, this same CPAC held a conference in Hong Kong that was joined by that same Andrew Cooper to support the same anti-Red China movement that SAlt also supports! The CPAC Hong Kong conference drew as its featured speaker, leading Hong Kong “independence” activist Andy Chan, the leader of the staunchly anti-PRC, Hong Kong National Party.

Indeed, the Australian actions in solidarity with the anti-communist movement in Hong Kong have been joined by not only hard conservatives but by some more extreme far-right figures. They have also been shot through with the xenophobic nativist anti-mainland Chinese racism that has typified the movement in Hong Kong itself. At one Sydney rally in Martin Place, anti-PRC activists issued a leaflet dog whistling to anti-Chinese racism by calling for restrictions on migration from China. SAlt itself have implicitly recognised the problem because they pulled out of one anti-PRC rally at the University of Queensland because it so openly pandered to anti-Chinese racism. Yet, despite their efforts to distance themselves from anti-Chinese racism, they and Solidarity and SA – all of whom are involved in legitimate anti-racist causes – nevertheless back a movement that oozes nativist anti-mainland Chinese racism and whose feeding into the anti-China hysteria in this country can only help to incite still more anti-Chinese violence on Australia’s streets. Indeed, the intersection of racism, the anti-PRC movement in Hong Kong and the anti-PRC left was played out at a Melbourne anti-Red China rally earlier this month. Joining the Hong Kong anti-communists were not only the Victorian Socialists – a coalition grouping together SAlt, SA and non-aligned leftists – but also extreme far-right racist, Avi Yemini. Spotting Yemini, a Victorian Socialist activist tries to do the right thing and warns a couple of women participants at the rally that Yemini is talking to that they should not talk to him because he is an extreme racist, a fascist and Nazi. Yet the two pro-Hong Kong anti-communists are not too concerned. Nearby is another participant draped in the Hong Kong colonial flag. When another two Victorian socialists come over to the stand off, the man draped in the colonial flag sides with Yemini and tells him that he will never trust socialists because socialism leads to communism and that he and other Hong Kong people instead like Trump and all Western countries. One could say that those at the demonstration may have been unaware of just how rabidly racist that Yemini is, yet they were quite prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and seemed to be much happier to embrace far right racists than nominal socialists. One can feel sorry for the Victorian Socialists present but their party really set them up! No real socialist should be anywhere near such anti-communist, anti-PRC rallies.

Even if it were hypothetically possible to purge the anti-PRC movement of all far-right influence and all open racism it would merely end up being a cleaned-up counterrevolutionary movement. The fundamental contradiction still exists for the socialist groups supporting it: that supporting a movement that hails the capitalist regimes in the U.S., Britain and Australia, lauds the “democracy” for the rich that exists in these countries and glorifies Western (i.e. capitalist and imperialist) values can only buttress support for the Western capitalist regimes and, thus, undermine the struggle for socialism that these groups nominally stand for.

Those leftists who have supported the Hong Kong anti-PRC opposition must urgently take a step back and consider the following points. Firstly, when does Donald Trump, Scott Morrison, CPAC, the NED, Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Stokes ever support a movement that is actually progressive? What kind of movement appeals to Donald Trump, glorifies “Western values,” carries the U.S. and British flag and harks back to colonialism? We can give some answers to that question: the 2015-2016 Islamophobic and white supremacist Reclaim Australia marches, marches by extreme anti-Palestinian activists in Israel, CPAC conferences and the recent mass anti-abortion protests in NSW. Needlessly to say, all these mobilisations are totally reactionary. Certainly protests by the oppressed Palestinian people and people of Kashmir are not hailing Trump and glorifying Western values, let alone flying the U.S. flag.

RESIST THE POLITICAL PRESSURE AND THE
ANTI-COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA DRIVE

Even some of groups that claim to be more “Marxist Leninist” than the likes of SAlt, SA and Solidarity have jumped onto the anti-PRC bandwagon. Thus, the Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist) even while admitting that “US imperialism has directed and influenced some of the key players in the current disturbances” in Hong Kong then still leans on the side of the anti-communist movement by asserting that, “that does not mean we should support the repression of genuine protestors by the Hong Kong police, or support the Chinese government.” Meanwhile Australia’s newest left group, the Australia Communist Party (ACP), has also climbed onto the anti-PRC train. The ACP recently broke away from the CPA and it had not been clear what the actual political differences were. Now one major divergence is apparent: the ACP has moved a big step to the Right by declaring that China is now “capitalist.” This provides the rationale for the ACP to join with the Cliffite groups – SAlt and Solidarity – and SA in the anti-PRC crusade. Of course the actual capitalists in Hong Kong don’t seem to have noticed that the PRC is “capitalist”, which is why they are terrified of being subjected to PRC laws and are scared of any encroaching PRC influence!

An additional point should be made about those avowed “Marxist-Leninists,” like the ACP, who refuse to defend the PRC but are proudly pro-USSR. That is, it is rather easy to be pro-USSR today, more than 27 years after the USSR was destroyed by capitalist counterrevolution and with the Cold War against it well and truly ended. However, at the time of the 1980s Cold War against the USSR there was massive political pressure to find a reason to junk defence of the USSR – and there were many real shortcomings in the workers state that were used by opportunists to abandon defence of the USSR (the Cliffite groups simply called it “state capitalist”). The real test of where a newer group would have stood during the Cold War against the USSR is where it stands today in the midst of the Cold War taking place against socialistic China right now. Any left group that under pressure manufactures a reason to avoid defending the PRC today would surely have failed to defend the USSR when it actually existed.

With the Cold War against the socialistic PRC intensifying every day and much of the left falling over themselves to avoid defending the PRC, we call on all pro-PRC leftists and all our supporters and friends to stand rock solid in defence of Red China – despite all its deformities and harmful concessions to capitalism. During the Cold War against the USSR too, most of the Left found a way to be on the same side as the counterrevolutionary forces that opposed the USSR. Much earlier, during the Civil War that followed the 1917 Russian Revolution – when the Soviet workers state was still led by 100% genuine communists like Lenin and Trotsky – all of the Left of that time, other than the true communists, also stood opposed to the Soviet workers state at key moments in the struggle for its survival. And that’s the point! Those who, today, cannot defend the PRC workers state would not even defend an embattled workers state when it is under a truly revolutionary, internationalist leadership. But we vow to stand firm. By linking defence of the PRC workers state with the struggle against capitalist exploitation, racism and women’s oppression in this country, genuine communists will be able to show to the most politically advanced workers and youth that having the world’s most populous country remain under at least some sort of socialistic rule enhances the struggle for liberation of the working class and oppressed.

For as Russian Revolutionary leader, Leon Trotsky insisted at the start of World War II when many leftists were abandoning defence of the USSR:

The workers’ state must be taken as it has emerged from the merciless laboratory of history and not as it is imagined by a “socialist” professor,  reflectively exploring his nose with his finger.  It is the duty of revolutionists to defend every conquest of the working class even though it may be distorted by the pressure of hostile forces. Those who cannot defend old positions will never conquer new ones.

Balance Sheet of the Finnish Events, Leon Trotsky, April 1940


Against the Right-Wing, Western-backed Protests in Hong Kong

Against the Right-Wing,
Western-backed Protests
in Hong Kong

Socialistic PRC Should Extradite Even More Tycoons to Face Justice on the Mainland and Have Their Ill-Gotten Assets Nationalised!

10 June 2019 – Australia’s big business and government-owned media have been lionising the recent, often violent, right-wing protests in Hong Kong. They report that driving the protests are businessmen, shopkeepers, lawyers and university students. This is a protest pushed by large sections of Hong Kong’s capitalist class, the upper middle-class and younger wannabe capitalists. They fear that the socialistic state ruling mainland China will gradually undermine their privileged position (see also this letter by a comrade written some five years ago which dissected similar anti-communist protests at the time: https://www.trotskyistplatform.com/greetings-for-the-october-1-anniversary-of-chinas-great-1949-revolution/).

The groups opposed to the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) within Hong Kong are not only being encouraged by the mainstream Western media but are being funded by the U.S. government’s National Endowment for Democracy (here the National Endowment for Democracy’s own website lists some of the anti-PRC programs that they openly fund in Hong Kong – one of which they deviously portray as being for workers rights – https://www.ned.org/region/asia/hong-kong-china-2018/ , however their covert funding is many times larger). They are also being filled with cash by Hong Kong’s own capitalist class and by capitalists in mainland China. A particular reason that capitalists are up in arms over Hong Kong’s proposed new extradition law – the object of yesterday’s protests – is that it will make it easier for the PRC to continue cracking down on mainland capitalists hiding out in Hong Kong. Although, unfortunately, the compromising Beijing leadership has allowed some people to become capitalist tycoons within China, the great thing is that the PRC often comes down hard upon these capitalists. While in Australia, the likes of James Packer, Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forest are above the law, the biggest tycoons in China are often nabbed for corruption. Moreover, if their rate of exploitation has become excessive, especially in a way that puts the broader economy at risk, the PRC authorities sometimes bow to public pressure and crackdown on these hated corporate bigwigs. Sometimes they even laudably confiscate the assets of these billionaires and bring them into public ownership – i.e. carry out the socialist program.

1 July 2019: Violent, pro-colonial protesters smash into Hong Kong’s legislative building and hoist the flag of the former British colonial regime that brutally occupied Hong Kong.
And, if not treated on time, these problems can leave severe side-effects. female generic viagra Conflicts with the 76ers Coach Maurice Cheeks, however, led to Iverson being traded buy levitra canada to the Denver Nuggets. Some vital points of this medication have been mentioned below:Benefits of Kumara* check for more generic cialis for sale A cheap drug to treat erectile dysfunction. Sick people, who suffer from chronic digestive complaints, dyspepsia, liver, gallbladder, pancreas disorders, bile reflux, overweight issues, diabetes, IBS, food sensitivity, and buy tadalafil canada many other chronic disorders, are looking for natural, non-drug solution for their conditions.


The particular incident that is driving Hong Kong’s capitalist elite and upper-middle class yuppies to oppose the planned new extradition law is the kidnapping two years ago of greedy Chinese billionaire Xiao Jianhua from a Hong Kong hotel by PRC authorities. That is why many of those involved in yesterday’s anti-PRC protests were carrying signs like: “no kidnapping to China.” PRC authorities ended up taking Xiao Jianhua to the mainland for questioning and detention. Xiao is now awaiting trial for corrupt activities. The PRC workers state has also taken over a bank that he owned, Baoshang Bank – one of the rare privately-owned banks in China – and given it over to state-owned banks to run. In other words, the bank has been effectively nationalised. This is fantastic! For more details on this nationalisation and the bringing down of Xiao Jianhua and other greedy billionaires in Hong Kong by Red China see the following mainstream media articles:

ttps://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/2067271/hong-kong-luxury-hotel-turned-tycoon-hideout-away-prying

https://www.ft.com/content/a9430b20-7e15-11e9-81d2-f785092ab560

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-24/missing-bosses-add-to-risks-of-investing-in-china-quicktake-q-a

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/financier-xiao-jianhua-shed-holdings-084259428.html


More Chinese capitalists hiding out in Hong Kong should be extradited and have their assets nationalised. Any real socialist would want this!

Moreover the PRC should abandon its deal with the British imperialists who stole Hong Kong in 1842. Britain seized Hong Kong after winning the Opium War against China. In winning that predatory war Britain’s capitalist rulers not only stole Hong Kong but won the “right” to turn half of China into drug addicts for the sake of their profits, the “right” to “concessions” granting them and other imperialist powers control of key parts of China and the right to control and plunder China’s markets. In the 1997 deal between China and Britain that finally returned Hong Kong to China, the PRC (wrongly) agreed to maintain Hong Kong’s capitalist system for at least 50 years. The deal meant “one country – two systems.” The PRC should renege on this deal – imperialist powers should have no right to dictate what system exists in any part of China or any other country for that matter. No more one country – two systems! It should be one country – one socialist system! That means that the assets of the Hong Kong capitalists should be confiscated and brought into public ownership. In particular, Hong Kong’s huge and vital port should be confiscated from notorious billionaire Li Ka-shing and his son, Victor Li. Li Ka-shing and Victor Li control Hutchison Port Holdings, which as well as owning Hong Kong’s ports also controls a port terminal at Sydney’s Port Botany, where they are notorious for union-busting attacks on workers jobs and working conditions (see: http://www.mua.org.au/mua_takes_hutchison_to_court_over_wharfie_sackings_hutch).

If the PRC puts Hong Kong’s capitalist bigwigs out of business, the social base for the right-wing anti-PRC movement will be greatly weakened. More importantly, nationalising the businesses owned by the Hong Kong tycoons will allow the wages and working conditions of workers in Hong Kong’s ports and service sectors to be greatly improved and will provide the resources to finally improve the atrocious living conditions of the hundreds of thousands of working-class Hong Kong residents either living in cage-like “homes” or tiny slum-like apartments. In other words a move to bring the socialistic system to Hong Kong would be popular amongst the working class and poor of Hong Kong. It would also illuminate – for all to see – the clear class question involved in the issue of support or opposition of PRC influence. It would become clearer to the working class masses of Hong Kong that their interests lie in being ever more closely a part of Red China. Moreover, a blow against the capitalists of Hong Kong would give confidence to those within the mainland seeking to preserve socialistic rule there. That struggle is a difficult and fraught struggle as the PRC workers state is facing aggressive pro-capitalist demands from Chinese private business owners, Western-backed “dissidents,” the imperialist rulers of Australia and the U.S. (the latter with its fervent demands during the trade disputes that China stop supporting the socialistic, state-owned enterprises that dominate her economy) and soft-on-capitalist elements within the Chinese leadership and bureaucracy itself.

Therefore anyone who supports working class people’s interests and socialism should support increased PRC influence in Hong Kong, should unequivocally oppose all anti-PRC movements there and should call for the PRC to bring Hong Kong’s economy under socialist, public ownership.

17 August 2019: A spirited, 3000 strong pro-PRC demonstration gathers outside the Sydney Town Hall. The rally opposed the anti-PRC rioters in Hong Kong.

One of the Trotskyist Platform (TP) placards at the 17th August 2019 demonstration where over 3,000 people marched through the streets of Sydney in opposition to the pro-colonial rioters in Hong Kong who have been seeking to undermine the region’s incorporation into the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). The march was several times larger than even the biggest of the rallies held in Sydney supporting the right-wing, pro-colonial opposition in Hong Kong. This is despite those anti-PRC actions in Australia being massively supported and built up by the entire capitalist media.

Nearly all those participating in the 17th August march were international students from China or people from the local Chinese community. However, a multi-racial group of TP supporters also joined the pro-Red China march. As well as standing in solidarity with the action, our contingent opposed the Australian ruling class’ escalating Cold War repression of supporters of socialistic China as well as other socialistic states (such as the brave pro-North Korea political prisoner in Australia, Chan Han Choi) and emphasised that defending the PRC workers state is in the very interests of the working class and oppressed of this country. We also distributed a leaflet at the demonstration that not only opposed the anti-communist opposition in Hong Kong but called for socialistic rule to be brought to Hong Kong so that all of China can be in one country under one socialistic system.

The Connection between Political Donations and the Sell-Off of Public Housing in Inner City Sydney

Stop the Sell-Off of Public Housing – Massively Increase It Instead!

The Connection between Political Donations and the Sell-Off of Public Housing in Inner City Sydney

1 May 2019 – A look at the registry of political donations to the NSW Liberal Party shows that the governing party in NSW accepted donations from real estate companies just when government decisions related to these companies’ participation in the government’s sell-off of public housing in inner city Sydney were being made. In each case the rich businesses making the donations ended up getting favourable government decisions. Those decisions have resulted in their wealthy owners making or standing to make mega bucks. This information provides hard data that helps confirm what people seriously looking at the public housing sell-off already know: that the NSW government’s sell off of public housing in the Millers Point, Rocks and Dawes Point area was not motivated by any concern for the interests of the working class majority of NSW but instead was driven by the wish to satisfy the interests of rich business owners.

It is now over five years since the NSW state government announced that it was selling off nearly 300 public housing dwellings in the Millers Point, Rocks and Dawes Point area. Sadly they have already completed their sell-offs of public housing in Millers Point – except for 24 properties that they reluctantly agreed to maintain as public housing in a minor concession to the demands of the tenants movement. They are yet to sell-off the Sirius Building which formerly had 79 public housing units there. However, the government has already driven off all the former public housing tenants from that building – many of whom were elderly women. The real estate agents that the Coalition government have contracted to sell-off Sirius is Savills (NSW) Pty Ltd. On 7 December 2017, the NSW government and Savills first publicly announced that Savills had been awarded the contract to sell Sirius and opened registrations of interest for the building to developers and investors [1]. A filed Major Political Donor form shows that just over nine months earlier, on 27 February 2017 – that is, right in the period when one would expect the government to have been considering which real estate company should be given the contract to sell Sirius – Savills donated nearly $4,000 to the NSW Division of the Liberal Party [2].  The $3,960 donation was made at an “Alan Jones Luncheon” – yikes!

Savills and the NSW Liberal government would, no doubt, have liked to be able to respond that Savills are a regular donor and the timing of that nearly $4,000 donation is just pure coincidence. Except that Savills are not a regular donor to the NSW Liberal Party! Not at all! A search done on the NSW Electoral Commission registry of political donations [3] shows that in the almost ten year period from August 2008 – when political donations were first recorded in detail – until the end of June 2018 (i.e. the end of the last reporting period before this article was written), Savills never made any other donation to the NSW Liberal Party at all. In other words, over at least a ten year period, Savills never donated a solitary cent to the NSW Liberal Party, except around the time when the Liberal government was considering whether to grant them the lucrative contract to sell Sirius. That makes that nearly $4,000 donation highly questionable!

However, if the above referred donation did indeed facilitate Savills winning the contract to sell Sirius, it was a “good” “investment” from the greedy point of view of capitalist bosses. After all, with average commissions in Sydney at around roughly 2.2% and an expected sale price for the building of around $150 million, Savills would stand to make about $3.3 million from the sale. So, if a $3,960 donation helps to make $3.3 million in revenue … that’s some hefty rate of return! There is, additionally, an interesting side point to this donation concerning a possible attempt to conceal the timing of the donation – see Note [4] at the end of this article for a discussion of this possible issue.

Savills bosses are not the only people that stand to profit from the sell-off of public housing in the Millers Point and Rocks area and who made donations to the NSW Liberal Party. While Savills have the contract to sell the Sirius building, more than 85% of the $608 million worth of public housing in Millers Point was sold off by McGrath Real Estate [5]. And just like Savills, McGrath Real Estate also made big donations to the NSW Liberal Party just around the time when they were awarded lucrative contracts to auction the public housing units that the state government was putting up for sale. In particular, within the space of 10 days between 26 January 2015 and 6 February 2015, McGrath Real Estate entities made two separate donations to the NSW Liberal Party totalling $2,210 [6]. These donations were just around the time when the auction of public housing dwellings in Millers Point was being ramped up and the government was about to determine which estate agents received the bountiful contracts for further auctions (see for example [7]). Telling, too, are the results of a search done on the Electoral Commission registry for any McGrath Real Estate donations to the Liberal Party in the almost ten year period up until the June 2018 end of the latest reported disclosure period. This search revealed that McGrath entities made no other donations whatsoever to the NSW Liberal Party during those ten years. In other words, just as with Savills, the NSW Liberal Party only received donations from McGrath Real Estate around the time when they awarded the latter lucrative government contracts to be agents for the sell-off of inner city public housing. And again, this fact only makes the receipt of those particular donations even more questionable. Of course, from the point of view of the profit-hungry McGrath Real Estate bosses, donating to the governing party would make sense if that would help “facilitate” the winning of contracts to sell off the public housing. Assuming a typical commission rate of 2.2%, the contracts they were awarded to auction off Millers Point public housing would have netted them over $11 million in revenue.

Public Housing Sell-Off: A Boon for Real Estate Bosses, Developers and Speculators,
A Disaster for Working Class People

It is not only real estate agent bosses that have profited handsomely from the sell-off of public housing in the Millers Point and Rocks areas of Sydney. The main direct beneficiaries of this anti-working class privatisation were the wealthy investors and speculators who bought up the sold off properties. One of these is Shane Moran, the owner of ultra-high-end aged care operator, Provectus Care. Shane Moran is one of the heirs to the Moran family fortune and lives in a 60-room mansion in Darling Point called Swifts which is valued at between $50 million to $100 million! In late February 2016, Moran bought one of the largest sold off public properties in Millers Point, Darling House, for $7.7 million. Darling House had been a retirement home for low income elderly people. However, soon after the government announced its intention to sell-off all public housing in Millers Point, it scrapped a 20 year agreement that enabled the community-run facility to have lower rents, forcing the facility to close. After buying the property, Shane Moran made no secret of his intention to turn the building into a high-end aged care facility for the rich [8]. A similar facility he runs at Rose Bay charges an upfront fee of more than $2 million for each resident and then a “service fee” of $104 per day! So what happened to Darling House actually typifies exactly what the sell-off of public housing in Millers Point is all about. Here, a community-run aged care home for low income people was closed and has been replaced by an aged care facility affordable only to the very wealthy and where its filthy rich owner will stand to make huge profits (by the way, there are questions to be asked about donations to the NSW Liberal Party made by an elder brother and possibly other relatives of Shane Moran – and possibly, again, by Shane Moran himself – in the five month period after he first publicly announced in September 2016 that he was applying for planning approval to turn Darling House into a high-end aged care facility – see [9]).

Left: Filthy rich businessman Shane Moran outside the 60-room mansion in Darling Point where he lives, which is valued at between $50 million to $100 million! Moran is set to get even richer after, as part of the public housing sell-off in inner city Sydney, he bought up a community-run aged care facility for low-income elderly people in order to convert it into a boutique facility for the very wealthy. Right: One of the growing number of elderly people forced to sleep rough in the streets of Sydney. Photo credit (photo on Left): Richard Dobson
Erectile brokenness generic viagra australia is one of most extreme significance as it assumes a critical part in matters of the heart. If you want to get maximum pleasure during sex, and they are also capable of increasing http://amerikabulteni.com/2012/08/17/fareed-zakaria-intihalden-aklandi-time-dergisi-ve-cnne-geri-donuyor/ cialis without prescriptions the lovemaking drive among the women so they have better lovemaking experience with their partner. Diabetes, joint pain, electric dysfunction, trouble sleeping or low iron in the blood are some of the biggest benefits of Kamagra Oral Jelly: It involves the medicine in jelly form best prices on sildenafil which helps the user, especially the older men to consume (orally). People who suffer from high blood pressure and high levitra 20mg cholesterol are common factors, which can lead to male impotence.

The sell-off of public housing in inner city Sydney has been bad news for working class people full stop. Firstly, the forced relocation out of the area of the former public housing tenants has dispersed and destroyed a once close-knit and vibrant community.  Many of the former tenants became despondent and some have died prematurely and even committed suicide (for a detailed scientific study of the effects of the sell-off on the former tenants refer to the recently published book by Professor at the UTS Institute for Public Policy and Governance, Alan Morris [10]).

Secondly, contrary to the NSW government’s devious claim that the inner city public housing sell-off was aimed at raising funds for the construction of more public housing elsewhere, the truth is that the sell-off of public housing in Millers Points and the Rocks was actually simply part of a broader government agenda to slash the amount of public housing throughout the state. This is proven by official government figures (see Note [11]). They show that in the three year, 2014-2017 period [12] from when the removal of public housing tenants from Millers Point and the Rocks commenced to when the forced relocation of tenants from the area was basically completed, the number of public housing dwellings in NSW was cut by 584 dwellings! In other words, in addition to the 189 properties that were eventually sold off in Millers Point, a net further 395 public housing dwellings were sold off elsewhere in the state in just that three year period! So much for the government’s claim that for every public housing dwelling sold off in the inner city, it would finance the construction of four to five new public housing dwellings elsewhere! Indeed, as well as in Millers Point and the Rocks, the right-wing NSW state government has been privatising public housing in Parramatta, Hurstville, Greenacre, Panania, Campsie, Fairfield, Wentworthville, Lalor Park and Canley Vale.

The effect of this gouging of public housing is even worse when one takes population increase into account. In that case we see that relative to the population size, the NSW Liberal government has slashed the number of public housing places by an equivalent of 5,164 properties in just three years! This is despite the truth that higher immigration actually makes it easier for the government to not only increase the amount of public housing available but makes it easier for them to actually increase the proportion of public housing. This is because not only do immigrants, by paying taxes, increase the public funds available to finance public housing construction and increase the labour resources available to build public housing but by increasing population numbers they allow economies of scale to kick in and, thereby, make housing construction more efficient. The plummeting in the proportion of people with public housing has absolutely nothing to do with immigration but is, rather, a political decision by a wealthy ruling class that is driven by a desire to further increase its own fortunes at the expense of working class people.

With less and less low-rent housing available, no wonder more and more people are being forced to sleep out on the streets of Sydney. Among those finding it hardest to afford rents are low-income, single parent families with young children. Driven into poverty by the combined measures of the Howard Liberal and the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor governments that threw low-income sole parents off the Parenting Payment and into the much lower paying Newstart Allowance and with childcare unaffordable, many of these parents are forced to seek work in insecure jobs in the gig economy or as casuals in order to have the flexible work hours needed to look after their children. This means that the number of work hours they get fluctuates from week to week and they are often not able to generate enough income to both pay rent and to properly feed and clothe themselves and their children. And the fact that wages are not keeping up with prices makes the housing situation of low income workers even more precarious. Meanwhile, one of the combined effects of the gutting of the sole parenting payment and the slashing of public housing is to increase domestic violence against women. For these measures mean that low-income women relying financially on a male partner who is abusive are confronted with the unbearable choice of either going out on their own and living an impoverished life without a guaranteed roof over their heads and those of their children or staying with their partner and trying to endure the attacks.

The drastic slashing in the proportion of public housing available, in the end, hurts all those renting in the lower and even middle range of the rental market. For with so little low-rent public housing available, landlords are able to jack up rents knowing that lower income people have nowhere else to go. Anglicare Australia’s annual Rental Affordability Snapshot released a few days ago showed that in a survey of 69,485 properties listed for rent across Australia, there was not one single available property that would be affordable to rent for a single person on Newstart or Youth Allowance in any major city or regional centre [13]! The survey also found that only 2 per cent of rentals Australia-wide were affordable for a single person on the minimum wage working full time. Rental accommodation is extremely unaffordable for low wage workers even if they live in working class neighbourhoods half an hour to 45 minutes by train from Sydney city. One such region is the Cumberland local government area which includes suburbs like Auburn, Berala, Guildford and Greystanes and parts of Granville, Merrylands and Fairfield. There, even according to the government’s own figures, the median rent for a one bedroom apartment was $345 per week in the December 2018 quarter [14]. This compares with an, after tax, minimum wage for those lucky enough to have a full-time job of $642 per week. In other words, one of the hundreds of thousands of workers on the minimum wage, but lucky enough to have a full-time job, who rents a one bedroom unit in a relatively cheap suburb some half to three quarters of an hour by train from Sydney city, has to pay much more than half their income on rent! Yet such a worker does not even qualify to get on the NSW social housing waiting list! The maximum income a single person can earn before being deemed too “well off” to qualify for social housing in NSW is currently only $625 per week [15]. The reality is that there is such a dearth of public housing that the government has made the eligibility criteria to even get on the social housing waiting list incredibly tough. Of course, if such a low paid worker does not have a full-time job they could get on the social housing waiting list. Yet they will then be totally stuffed as they end up having to pay around three quarters of their income on rent while they wait the average ten years or so to finally get into social housing! 

Mobilise the Working Class Movement and All the Poor to Fight for Public Housing

Governments of all stripes in Australia have been selling off public housing for several related reasons. For one they want to help their rich developer, speculator and real estate boss mates. Secondly, they want to spend less and less of the public budget on the services that working class people need the most – like public housing, public health care, TAFE and public schools. These ruling class politicians would rather save the money to finance tax cuts for the very rich or spend the money on corporate welfare – like when the NSW Liberal state government granted $60 million to the job-slashing Bluescope Steel owners. Thirdly, the slashing of public housing is part of a push by the capitalist rulers to make life more and more miserable for unemployed and underemployed workers. They do this by not only reducing access to public housing but also by keeping the Newstart Allowance at cruelly low levels, introducing punitive schemes forcing unemployed people to do unpaid work and rolling out “income management” schemes that prevent unemployed people from determining how they will spend the meagre payments that they receive. The aims of all these draconian measures are two-fold. For one, by making life so hard for job seekers, they force the latter to accept jobs that have terrible working conditions and very low – often illegally low – wages. Additionally, by making the prospect of life after losing one’s job so unbearably miserable, the ruling class hope that they can intimidate workers – fearful of being sacked by the boss or being identified as one of the staunch unionists who will always be top of the bosses’ list to be axed in the event of retrenchments – from participating in the union fight for rights at work. That is why government attacks on public housing – like other measures which target the poor and unemployed – are very much assaults on our trade unions. And that is why the union movement must take up the struggle for public housing as a key part of the struggle to defend workers rights.

Current and former Millers Point public housing tenants and the many trade unionists and other supporters of public housing that stood by them did wage a determined struggle against the sell-off of public housing in the area. Their efforts did much to boost the broader on the streets movement in defence of public housing that had begun several years earlier when activists demanding a massive increase in public housing held a November 2009 protest rally outside the Sydney office of the then federal housing minister (in the then Rudd ALP government), Tanya Plibersek. From 2014 onwards, those supporting the Millers Point public housing struggle and those involved in already established campaigns for public housing based in the Illawara, Auburn and elsewhere started attending each other’s protest actions. And although the campaign did not end up being powerful enough to prevent the destruction of public housing in Millers Point it did invigorate budding pro-public housing campaigns elsewhere like the movement to stop the slashing of public housing in Waterloo.

11 October 2014: Public housing tenants from Millers Point join with activists organising campaigns to oppose the privatisation of public housing in the Illawarra and in Western Sydney (including Trotskyist Platform supporters) at a protest against the auction of a public housing home in Bulli near Wollongong. Photo credit: Adam McLean

With the situation increasingly desperate and with submissions to government bodies and other forms of “official” protest being ignored, the campaign turned militant in 2017. First, in May 2017, dozens of trade unionists, public housing tenants and other supporters of public housing blockaded 32 High Street in Millers Point to try and prevent the sheriff from evicting the then public housing tenant living there, staunch public housing activist, Peter Muller. The movement was able to hold the sheriff at bay for the first day but before dawn the next morning the sheriffs and police raided the home to enforce the eviction. Then on 6 August 2017, scores of trade unionists, current and former public housing tenants and other supporters of public housing carried out a powerful occupation of vacant public housing dwellings at 78 to 80 High St, Millers Point. Activists adorned the occupied homes with banners emphasising the struggle against the sell-off of public housing as well as with the flags of the unions supporting the Millers Point tenants’ struggle – the MUA and the CFMEU. Those houses had been slated for sell-off to wealthy speculators, landlords and capitalist developers after the government had driven off the public housing tenants who once lived there. The occupation demanded that the occupied houses and all unoccupied public housing dwellings in the area be given to the homeless or to those on public housing waiting lists. Later in the evening of the August 6 occupation, after numbers had dwindled somewhat five hours into the action, a heavy contingent of riot cops raided the occupation site. They also arrested four activists participating in the struggle.

Although heavy-handed state repression crushed this protest occupation and the earlier anti-eviction struggle at 32 High Street, both these actions – and the 6 August 2017 protest occupation in particular – really did scare the government. And although they are never going to admit it, these struggles almost certainly did compel the government to somewhat slow down their plans to slash public housing throughout the state compared to what they had been previously planning. We need more staunch struggles to stop the sell-off of public housing. We need new and more powerful versions of the May 2017 anti-eviction blockade and the August 2017 protest occupation.  We must locate the fight against the privatisation of public housing as part of the wider struggle against the ruling class’ attacks on all public services and a struggle against their attacks on our trade unions.

6 August 2017, Millers Point, Sydney: Houses in High St occupied by trade unionists, current and former public housing tenants and other supporters of public housing. The powerful action demanded that these vacant public housing dwellings be made available to those on the public housing waiting list or the homeless. We need more and more powerful actions like this to reverse the sell-off of public housing and smash all the attacks on services that working class people need the most.

We need to not only put a stop to the sell-off of public housing but need to fight for a massive increase in the amount of public housing. There is a huge shortfall in the amount of public housing places. In the ten year period from 2007 to 2017, the former NSW ALP government and the current conservative NSW government slashed the amount of public housing in the state by 10% even as the population grew [16].  There are well over fifty thousand households on the official waiting list for public housing in NSW. There are even more who are eligible for public housing but have not gotten on the list because the wait times are so ridiculous. Meanwhile, there are literally hundreds of thousands of other households who need low-rent public housing but can’t even get on the waiting list because the entry criteria to the waiting list is so strict.

What’s Most Harmful about these Political Donations?

We should not let anyone downplay the seriousness of the issue of the governing party in NSW accepting donations from real estate companies just when this government is making decisions related to these companies’ participation in the sell-off of public housing. From the standpoint of the interests of working class people, the most harmful thing about these donations is that they acted to place pressure upon the government to maintain its course to sell off the public housing. Put another way, accepting donations from those who had very direct vested interests in seeing the public housing privatisations go through made the Liberal Party less willing to back down and offer concessions in the face of the determined movement opposing the sell-off.

Secondly, the dodgy donations add to the stench of corruption that has surrounded NSW and its mainstream politicians. Let’s not forget that several ministers in this NSW Liberal government have already been forced to resign because of corruption-related actions, like improper receipt of “gifts” – not the least being former premier, Barry O’Farrell. And we all know about the corrupt activities of several influential members of the former ALP state government. Meanwhile, it is precisely in the property sector where corruption is most rife. The industry at its top is ridden with not only dubious links to politicians but is plagued with violent rivalries and connections to organised crime.

Thirdly, and most obviously, the donations were meant to influence government decisions on which real estate firms would be granted the lucrative contracts to auction/sell off the public housing properties. Notwithstanding that the entire sell-off was terribly harmful to the former tenants and to all working class people, the fact is that any improperly influenced government decision on who should conduct the property sales could mean a big loss to what is supposedly “public funds.” Say, for example that these donations to the Liberal Party enticed the government to accept a bid to conduct the sales from real estate companies that charged, say, a 0.3% higher commission than a rival bid that the government may have gone with. Given that the total sell-off is going to amount to around $750 million then that would mean that over $22 million ends up being lost from public funds; or, rather, transferred from the public budget to the bank accounts (and eventually the glitzy prestige cars and swank holiday mansions) of high-flying real estate bosses. With that $22 million how many badly needed extra public hospital beds could be provided? Or how many extra public housing dwellings could be made available?

This then leads to a still more crucial question? That is, aside from the fact that the entire sell-off was unjust and the donations by the real estate companies arranging the sales highly questionable, why should private businesses have been engaged in the sell-off at all? More fundamentally, why are private business owners allowed to profit from the government provision – and in this case sell-off – of public housing? The answer is that there is such a tiny public sector in this country – and much of the little that once did exist has been privatised by Liberal and ALP governments alike over the last three and a half decades – that there are few publicly owned operations set up to perform the required tasks. That is why from most levels of the construction work, to the provision of maintenance and repair of public housing, to, in this case, the sell-off of public housing, private businesses are getting contracts for work related to public housing. That means that public funds are flowing into the pockets of big corporate shareholders and other wealthy business owners. Herein is a key reason why the provision of public housing is so inadequate in Australia. In addition to anti-working class governments being unwilling to provide sufficient funds for public housing, the funds that are actually dispensed produce an inadequate number of dwellings because so much of the money ends up being skimmed off by private business contractors at every level.

For an Economy Based on Public Ownership
of All Key Industries, Finance and Infrastructure

To highlight the problem here of so much of the funds allocated for public housing being siphoned off to wealthy private businesses, it is worth contrasting this reality in capitalist Australia with a socio-economic system based on public ownership and seeing how the latter delivers public housing. Such a system exists in the world’s most populous country – and Australia’s largest trading partner – the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). Although pro-market reforms over the last 40 years have created a sizable private sector in China as well as a class of capitalist exploiters, the public sector still plays the dominant role in the PRC. Some 90% of the PRC’s biggest 100 companies are stated owned, including all her biggest banks, her main oil/gas companies, biggest construction companies, ports, shipping, power producers, main airlines, biggest steel producers etc (and even many of her biggest real estate firms). As a result, every stage of public housing provision in China – from the banks providing finance if needed, to the construction companies building the housing to the steel, cement and plate glass manufacturers providing building supplies – is dominated by publicly owned enterprises. This means that, unlike in Australia, little of the public funds allocated for public housing ends up in the bank accounts of wealthy private business owners. Even if one of the state-owned banks providing credit for public housing construction were to charge too high an interest rate or a state-owned building materials supplier were to set too high prices, all this ends up as higher profits for state-owned firms and these profits then get recycled back into the public budget … to be available for more public housing construction. This is why the PRC has been so spectacularly able to increase the amount of public housing in the country over the last decade or so. From 2008 to 2017, the PRC provided 64 million additional public housing dwellings in urban areas! As a result, while the proportion of people with access to public housing in Australia’s urban areas has fallen to just one in every thirty households, in the PRC’s urban areas around one in four people now are living in one of its various forms of public housing.

Of course, since a system based on public ownership of key sectors of the economy – that is a socialist system – favours working class people, the capitalist rulers are not going to allow such a system to arise without putting up tenacious resistance. Indeed, such a socio-economic system can only be secured if the working class sweep away the capitalists from power and erect their own workers state. In China, the toiling classes had to make a massive revolution in 1949 to enable her to build a system in which public ownership plays the backbone role. Not only does this socialistic system mean that funds allocated for public housing are actually used for this purpose rather than partially for enriching private capitalists, the fact that working class people – in a tenuous and fragile way to be sure – have control over the PRC state means that there is actually a political will to provide public housing in China. The main slogan of the PRC’s housing policy is: “Houses are for living in and not for speculation.” As a result, while public housing continues to be sold off here in Australia, in the PRC the campaign to provide public housing continues to surge forward. Last year, China’s southern metropolis of Shenzhen decreed that from then onwards at least 60% of all new housing in the city must be public housing [17]. The PRC authorities went further when setting the housing policy for the Xiongan New Area – the new city of 5 million people being built 100 km from Beijing. There the PRC has decreed that every single house in what they have deemed to be a model city for the future must be public housing [18].

Another reason why the PRC’s socialistic state has been able to successfully undertake its drive to increase public housing is because it and the PRC public sector enterprises’ Communist Party of China committees – that have decisive oversight power over such companies – compel the leaders of state-owned enterprises to meet such social goals. In other words, the bonuses and future promotion opportunities of the directors and CEOs of China’s public sector enterprises depend on how well they have met declared socially important targets – like increasing the amount of public housing and like the main goal that has been dominating PRC political life over the last few years, the drive to ensure that no person in that country is living in extreme poverty by 2020. As a result, while the bosses of Australian banks will use any means necessary to satisfy their big shareholders’ demands for ever high profits, in the PRC the banks are falling over themselves to lend to public housing projects. Figures show that in China’s capital city, Beijing, in the first half of last year, two out of every three yuan of bank loans for real estate went into public housing development [19]. The same imperatives are also pushing the PRC’s big state-owned developers. Thus, for example, Beijing Investment Group, the state-owned builder and operator of Beijing’s Olympic village for the 2022 Winter Olympics has declared that the entire village will be turned into public rental housing at the completion of the 2022 Winter Olympics [20]. All this is why the struggle for public housing in Australia is intertwined with the broader fight here for a system based on public ownership under workers’ rule.

The design for the Olympic village for the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing. The village is being built and operated by Beijing Investment Group – one of China’s big publicly-owned developers. The socialistic, stateowned enterprise has announced that after the completion of the Olympics the entire village will become public rental housing.

What the Donations Made to the NSW Liberal Party
Say about “Democracy” in Capitalist Australia

The fact that the NSW Liberal Party only received donations from the two real estate companies around the time when they awarded these companies lucrative government contracts and never received donations from them at any other time over at least the last ten years highlights the reality of who is really running this country: it is not actually the politicians themselves but the rich business owners. When you see who are the biggest political donors to the major political parties you see how much influence these capitalist business owners have. Among the biggest donations to the Australian Liberal Party for 2017-2018 (the last year that donations have been publicised) [22] include $250,000 from the ANZ Bank, $110,000 from oil and gas giant Woodside and $150,000 from the trust account of Australia’s richest family, the Pratt family, owners of Visy cardboard. During the same period, the ANZ Bank and Woodside also made donations of identical size to the ALP and Macquarie Telecom donated over $105,000 to the ALP [23].

It is not only through donations to political parties that rich capitalists control the direction of Australia. They also use direct political advertising to push their agenda when they need to. Most infamously, in 2010 mining billionaires Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forrest as well as other wealthy corporate bosses ran a massive advertising campaign on commercial TV and major newspapers that successfully gutted a proposed tax on mining super-profits and helped bring down the then prime minister who promoted the tax, Kevin Rudd. More subtly but just as insidiously, capitalist tycoons donate a fraction of the massive profits that they exploit out of workers’ labour to various arts, entertainment and sporting causes to ensure that popular culture is in accord with their interests and to curry favour with the public.

Notoriously, corporations also hire expensive lobbyists to influence political decision making. They especially seek out former politicians to ensure that their lobbyists have close contacts with the political administrators of the state. Moreover, because the corporate elite control the economy they are able to ensure that politicians eager for lucrative post-politics jobs in the corporate world dutifully serve the corporate bigwigs whilst they are still in parliament. All these different means of control and manipulation of politics was used, for example, by billionaire James Packer’s Crown Corporation to ensure that laws and regulations that could have curbed its plan to build an exclusive hotel/casino resort at Sydney’s Barangaroo melted away [24]. Amongst the board of directors of Crown at the time was former Minister of Communications in the Howard government, Helen Coonan. Packer also employed former ALP heavies Mark Arbib and Karl Bitar as lobbyists for his casino project. Meanwhile on 12 November 2013, the very eve of the day that the NSW parliament rammed through special amendments to the Casino Control Act specifically to support Crown’s Barangaroo project, Packer ostentatiously announced a $60 million donation to various Sydney arts, theatre, opera and orchestra institutions by both his Crown Group and himself personally. All this has much relevance to the sell-off of public housing in the Millers Point area. As was strongly implied by a statement in October 2012 by the then NSW Finance Minister himself, part of what was driving the government’s (then proposed) sell-off was the need to not have working class people in the area “in the context” of ensuring that the wealthy clientele who will frequent the resort that Packer expects to make billions from do not have a “bad view” [25].

Then there is of course the reality that, from Rupert Murdoch to billionaire Channel Seven owner Kerry Stokes, the media is owned and thus controlled by capitalist moguls. Thus, media reporting is heavily biased towards the interests of the big end of town. Any political party that stands uncompromisingly for the interests of working class people would face massive attacks from the mainstream media not to mention from direct advertising from big business and from the numerous cultural organisations and NGOs directly and indirectly financed by the capitalists. That is why the mythical “one person one vote” that supposedly exists in Australia is in reality more like “one million dollars, one million votes”! And it is not that “democracy in Australia has flaws” or even that “it is broken.” Thus far real “democracy” has never existed in the post-1788 history of this country. Ever since Aboriginal people were murderously dispossessed by the new colonial ruling class, the system the latter established was never meant to give everyone an equal say: the figment of “democracy” was always only ever intended to enable the wealthy rural and urban business owners to hold real power while tricking the masses into believing that they are really in control.

Even if a party that genuinely stood for the interests of working class people were able to overcome all the bias and disadvantage it would face and get elected to office, that in itself would not bring about decisive change. This is because the state machinery and its personnel that such a government would then formally administer are itself tied by a thousand threads to the big end of town capitalists. We have seen this throughout the sell-off of public housing in inner city Sydney itself. Bureaucrats from Family and Community Services showed a high-handed attitude to the tenants that they were putting pressure on to relocate. The judges in the rental tribunals hearing cases of tenants objecting to the particular places they were being pushed to move into were unsympathetic. Meanwhile, when police raided the 6 August 2017 protest occupation in Millers Point they were not only “following orders” but seemed to enjoy repressing the pro-working class, pro-public housing action. The police inspector in charge threatened violence against protesters shortly before the raid:

“… if these police have to go in, it’s a contact sport. They will be looking to protect themselves and if someone is injured as a result of them ensuring their safety – unfortunately it does happen.”

When police then forcibly dragged the evicted public housing tenant, Peter Muller, from the front of the occupied building, they used unnecessary force and caused permanent injury to his left wrist which now hampers his work as an electrician. Furthermore, after seizing another activist that they arrested (who happens to be a Trotskyist Platform supporter) and dragging him around the corner away from the view of other protesters (other than for a previous arrestee who witnessed the events from inside the back of a police paddy wagon), policed proceeded to bend his wrist back painfully for extended periods, on at least two occasions, even though he was offering zero resistance at the time. Indeed this violent police operation had such little legal basis that these two activists after pleading Not Guilty to charges had their charges quashed by a magistrate after she found that the entire police raid was unlawful.

The fact is that the enforcement personnel of Australian state institutions have been recruited, trained, nurtured and shaped to serve the interests of the wealthy big property owning class over those of the working class masses. That is why any elected political party that in any meaningful way intends to serve working class interests would immediately face sabotage and non-compliance from the state organs that it has been elected to nominally head. Such a party would then face two options: to either back down on its agenda (which is what usually happens) or to try and continue in which case it would be overthrown by the state organs in a coup as happened to the elected leftist government of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973. That is why the road to winning improvements in the lives of working class people lies not through changes enacted by Australia’s “democratic institutions” but through mass struggle – union strikes, picket lines, street marches, blockades, protest occupations – the methods that have won us the gains that we have won here in the past. We, of course, do need a political party of the working class. But not one that, like the ALP, seeks to administer the “democratic system” but rather one that seeks to mobilise the masses in grass-roots struggle independently of all the capitalists and their state institutions with the aim of winning concessions from the capitalist enemy today and seizing state power tomorrow.

Working Class People Need a Party That No Capitalist Would Want to Donate to

Although the ALP, just like the Liberals, receives donations from corporations and their capitalist owners, the ALP is not identical to the Coalition parties. The ALP also receives big donations from our trade unions – that is, from working class organisations representing millions of workers. And while the membership of the Liberal Party is dominated by small and big-time capitalist exploiters of labour as well as yuppy wanna-be capitalist business owners, the ALP’s rank and file are largely working class people. The problem, however, is that the ALP’s program to “serve” its working class base is to try and make only small reforms that will not overly upset the capitalists. Although the ALP is prepared to irritate some big end of town high fliers, they still crave the latter’s overall acceptance. Intimidated by and refusing to challenge the capitalist power that thoroughly dominates Australian society, the ALP is determined to ensure that they do not face excessive opposition from the big end of town so that they will be able to administer the capitalist state in an orderly fashion when in government. We see this in the lead up to the upcoming federal elections. The ALP has promised some small worthwhile measures to improve dental care for pensioners financed in part by cracking down somewhat on negative gearing tax concessions for wealthy property speculators. But they refuse to support any increase whatsoever in public housing. Instead, they have an “affordable housing for renters” platform that will only provide a drop in the ocean of the amount of lower rent accommodation that is needed, will only guarantee a rent level that is just 20% below the exorbitant market rents and which is centred on a Liberal Party-like plan to give subsidies to private housing operators [26]. Indeed, this shabby “affordable housing” program is very similar to that of the NSW Liberal Berejiklian government!

Since it has no program to challenge capitalist power, large sections of the corporate elite including the banks, telecommunications firms and resource companies continue to accept the ALP (even as some hard right-wing sections of the ruling class like the Murdoch family are at the moment against Labor) to the point that they even make large donations to the ALP. Such a party should not be supported by working class people in any way. We need, instead, a workers party that will not limit its program to what is tolerated by the capitalists. Such a party not only fights today for a massive increase in public housing and for forcing bosses to, at the expense of their profits, increase their hiring of permanent workers but has a vision for a future socialist society that will guarantee not only secure jobs for all but will ensure that all the basic services that working class people need the most – public housing, aged care, 24 hour child care, public health and dental care, public schools, TAFE and universities and public transport – are available to all for free. Such a party seeks not to win the acceptance of the capitalists but, instead, seeks to mobilise the working class masses in struggle against the exploiting class with a view to preparing a fight to challenge capitalist power. Such a party would not only refuse to accept donations from corporate bigwigs, it would also be a party that no capitalist exploiter in their right mind would want to donate to.

Notes:

[1] Savills website, Start of a New Era for Sydney’s Iconic Sirius Building, 7 December 2017, https://www.savills.com.au/_news/article/109969/157512-0/12/2017/start-of-a-new-era-for-sydney-s-iconic-sirius-building (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[2] Electoral Commission NSW website, Disclosure Details for Donor SAVILLS (NSW) PTY LTD, Disclosure period 1/07/2016 – 30/06/2017, http://searchdecs.elections.nsw.gov.au/Details.aspx?EFID=a0S6F00000mIUUsUAO&ID1=0016F000028XgSbQAK&RPID=2017H1 (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[3] Electoral Commission NSW, DISCLOSURES LODGED, Search for disclosure information, http://searchdecs.elections.nsw.gov.au/search.aspx (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[4] Although the Major Political Donor form filed by Savills lists the donation as being made on 27 February 2018 (see: http://searchdecs.elections.nsw.gov.au/Documents/FD2018-158.pdf), the donation is listed in the earlier 1/07/2016 to 30/06/2017 disclosure period (http://searchdecs.elections.nsw.gov.au/Details.aspx?EFID=a0S6F00000mIUUsUAO&ID1=0016F000028XgSbQAK&RPID=2017H1). That 1/07/2016 to 30/06/2017 disclosure shows that the Savills donation was actually made in February 2017 and not February 2018. This seems correct as the declaration was made on 21 September 2017, i.e. well before the February 2018 date that the Savills major political donor form lists the donation as being made. Moreover, the Receipt Number of the donation tallies with a donation made in February 2017 and not February 2018. So an “error” has been made by either a Savills officer or a Liberal Party official by detailing in the Major Political Donor form the donation as being made a year later than it actually was. In of itself this is not a huge deal. From the aspect of our key point that Savills made a big donation to the NSW Liberal Party around the time period when the latter party in government was awarding it the lucrative contract to sell Sirius, it matters little whether the donation was actually made in late February 2017 or late February 2018 – i.e. either eight and a bit months before the announcement that Savills had been awarded the contract or two and a bit months after the announcement. What does matter is if there has been a conscious attempt to conceal the timing of the donation. In particular, what if either Savills or the Liberal Party deliberately made a “clerical error” and put the date of the donation as February 2018 rather than February 2017 to ensure that the donation appears to have been made after the government announced that Savills had been awarded the Sirius sale contract rather than being made in the period when the government decision about the Sirius contract was being considered. Now we do not have any concrete evidence to say that this is what actually happened. However, given all the corruption that has taken place in NSW, the deviant processes that have surrounded the inner city public housing sell-off and the associated regulatory approvals of James Packer’s luxury casino-hotel resort at Barangaroo and the dodgy context of the Savills donation itself, we would not be surprised if the apparent incorrect dating of the Savills donation is more than just an innocent clerical error. Of course, regardless of whether or not there has been a conscious attempt to conceal the donation’s timing, the key broader overall point stands: that the NSW Liberal Party accepted a nearly $4,000 donation from Savills around the time when it would have been considering whether to grant that real estate business the multi-million dollars’ worth contract to sell the Sirius building.

[5] Eliot Hastie, REB, Final Millers Point tranche sold, 8 November 2018, https://www.realestatebusiness.com.au/breaking-news/17927-final-millers-point-tranche-sold (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[6] Electoral Commission NSW website, Disclosure Details for Party, The Liberal Party of Australia New South Wales Division, Disclosure period 1/07/2014 – 30/06/2015, http://searchdecs.elections.nsw.gov.au/Details.aspx?EFID=a0S6F00000qI37dUAC&ID1=0019000000twe3RAAQ&RPID=2015H1 (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[7] NSW Government Finance, Services & Innovation website, Millers Point Properties Announced For Sale, 13 April 2015, https://www.finance.nsw.gov.au/about-us/media-releases/millers-point-properties-announced-sale (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[8] Lisa Allen, The Australian Business Review website, Provectus Care’s Shane Moran pays $7.7m for Dawes Point mansion, 3 September 2016, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/provectus-cares-shane-moran-pays-77m-for-dawes-point-mansion/news-story/9fa7af25fae87916f368f02c3829690e (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[9] There were donations made by an elder brother and possibly other relatives of Shane Moran – and possibly Shane Moran himself – to the NSW Liberal Party in the five month period after he first publicly announced in September 2016 that he was applying for planning approval to turn the Darling House that he bought as part of the Millers Point privatisations into a high-end aged care facility. Firstly, in two donations made on 5 September 2016 and 25 September 2016, Moran Australia (Residential Aged Care) Pty Ltd run by Shane Moran’s brother, Peter Moran, donated a total of $2,000 to the NSW Liberal Party (http://searchdecs.elections.nsw.gov.au/Documents/FD2017-3968.pdf). Then on 22 November 2016, a further $2,000 was donated by a Shane Moran (http://searchdecs.elections.nsw.gov.au/Details.aspx?EFID=a0S6F00000qI37YUAS&ID1=0019000000twe3RAAQ&RPID=2017H1). However, we are unable to be sure whether this Shane Moran who is listed as “Shane Michael Moran” is the same Shane Moran as the one who bought Darling House given that the address listed with the donation is different to the address of the Swifts mansion that the Shane Moran who bought Darling House is known to live in (although he may well have multiple addresses that he uses). If it is not the same Shane Moran, it could however be a cousin, nephew or uncle. Then on 24 February 2017, one Matthew John Moran donated $5,500 to the NSW Liberal Party in the single biggest donation to the party by an individual that financial year (http://searchdecs.elections.nsw.gov.au/Details.aspx?EFID=a0S6F00000qI37YUAS&ID1=0019000000twe3RAAQ&RPID=2017H1). This may possibly be a donation by a cousin, nephew or uncle of Shane Moran but we can’t be sure. What is striking is that each of these “Moran” entities who made donations to the NSW Liberal Party in late 2016-early 2017 – Moran Australia (Residential Aged Care) Pty Ltd, Shane Michael and Mathew John Moran – made no other donations to the NSW Liberal Party in the last ten years except during this brief period soon after Shane Moran happened to start seeking approval to convert Darling House into a high-end aged care facility. And there were no other donations made by any other person with a Moran surname to the NSW Liberal Party in this ten-year period either. It is, however, possible that the donation made by Shane Moran’s brother’s company, Moran Australia (Residential Aged Care) Pty Ltd, and donations by others who were possibly in the same family/extended family was more about protecting one or more of the several sets of aged care businesses owned by Moran siblings from scrutiny in the light of the emerging scandal in Australia over the quality and price of aged care residences and of elder abuse in aged care homes. Given this uncertainty over the purpose of the donations and uncertainty over the exact identities of all the donors with a Moran surname we chose not to include this material in the main body of the article but detail it here for other activists, researchers and journalists to follow through on in the future.

[10] Morris, Alan (2018). Gentrification and Displacement – The Forced Relocation of Public Housing Tenants in Inner-Sydney, Springer Verlag (Singapore), https://www.booktopia.com.au/gentrification-and-displacement-alan-morris/prod9789811310867.html

[11] Australian Government Productivity Commission (2019). Report on Government Services, Chapter 18 – Housing, Table 18A.3, https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2019/housing-and-homelessness/housing/rogs-2019-partg-chapter18.pdf

[12] The year 2018 was not included in the comparison because in that year the statistical method used by the NSW government was changed and public housing figures from that year onwards included dwellings identified for disposal or leased to community organisations. Note d in Table 18A.3 in the above reference states that: “PH [Public Housing] and SOMIH [State Owned and Managed Indigenous Housing] data from 2017-18 include dwellings identified for disposal and dwellings leased to a community organisation. These dwellings are excluded from data for previous years ….” This change in statistical method artificially inflated 2018 public housing numbers respective to those in previous years.

 [13] Tawar Razaghi, Domain. Annual rental affordability survey finds worst results for low income earners in 10 years, 28 April 2019, https://www.domain.com.au/news/annual-rental-affordability-survey-finds-worst-results-for-low-income-earners-in-10-years-830824/?utm_campaign=strap-masthead&utm_source=smh&utm_medium=link&utm_content=pos5&ref=pos1 (retrieved 29 April 2019)

[14] NSW Government Family and Community Services. Rent and Sales Report – interactive dashboard, https://public.tableau.com/profile/facs.statistics#!/vizhome/Rentandsales/Rent for Cumberland LGA, December 2018 quarter, 1 Bedroom Flat/Unit

[15] NSW Government Family and Community Services. Social Housing Eligibility and Allocations Policy Supplement, Table 1: Household member types and current weekly income allowance, https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/housing/policies/social-housing-eligibility-allocations-policy-supplement/chapters/income (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[16] Shelter NSW, NSW HOUSING FACT SHEET 1, Dwellings, households & tenure profile (see page 8 in particular), April 2018, https://shelternsw.org.au/sites/shelternsw.org.au/files/public/documents/Shelter%20NSW%20Housing%20Fact%20Sheet%20April%202018.pdf (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[17] Stella Qiu and Ryan Woo, Reuters.  China’s Shenzhen to cap new private homes at 40 percent of supply, 5 June 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-property-shenzhen/chinas-shenzhen-to-cap-new-private-homes-at-40-percent-of-supply-idUSKCN1J11E3 (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[18] Elizabeth Winkelman (translated Amber Yang), Australia China Business Circle, China’s Xiongan New Area to Receive 2 trillion yuan ($385 billion) Investment over the next 15 years, http://www.business-circle.com.au/en/?p=3545 (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[19] Xinhua, Beijing reports slowest mortgage growth in 5 yrs, 28 July 2019, http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-07/28/c_137354304.htm (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[20] China Daily, Work begins on Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Village, 29 December 2017, http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201712/29/WS5a4636eca31008cf16da44c2.html (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[21] Uma Patel, ABC News, Sam Dastyari steps down from Labor frontbench after accepting money from Chinese donors, 8 September 2016, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-07/sam-dastyari-steps-down-from-labors-front-bench/7823970 (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[22] Australian Electoral Commission website, Summary of Donations reported by Donors – By Party – 2017-18, Registered Party, Liberal Party of Australia, https://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/SummaryDonor.aspx (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[23] Australian Electoral Commission website, Summary of Donations reported by Donors – By Party – 2017-18, Registered Party, Australian Labor Party (ALP), https://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/SummaryDonor.aspx (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[24] Trotskyist Platform website, JAMES PACKER’S CROWN VERSUS MILLERS POINT PUBLIC HOUSING, 18 November 2016, https://www.trotskyistplatform.com/james-packers-crown-versus-millers-point-public-housing/ (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[25] Josephine Tovey, The Sydney Morning Herald website, Residents stick to their point of community, 26 October 2012, https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/residents-stick-to-their-point-of-community-20121025-288bh.html (retrieved 25 April 2019)

[26] ALP website, AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR RENTERS, https://www.alp.org.au/media/1506/181216_affordable_housing_for_renters_fact_sheet.pdf (retrieved 25 April 2019)