27301: Simidor (FYI): Batay Ouvriye Responds to Recent Attacks (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

[Batay Ouvriye Statement, posted by Daniel Simidor]

Dear Friends: With this message of clarification
(which can be downloaded in PDF  format) concerning
the debate we're presently engaged in with certain
political North-American and diaspora political
currents, we invite you to visit our recently updated
website which contains its various elements, as well
as reports on our participation at two
congresses/meetings held in Guatemala and Cuba:
http://batayouvriye.org. In solidarity, and with our
wishes for the best advancement of working class,
workers' and popular masses' struggles in Haiti and
internationally during the year 2006, BATAY OUVRIYE.

BATAY OUVRIYE


Dec. 16th, 2005
CLARIFICATION

Being attacked by the enemy is an excellent thing. But
only to the extent we are able to transform the
attack, as a negative element, into a positive aspect
in the general interest of the working class.

During the past weeks, enemies of the working class
have been attacking Batay Ouvriye in various forms.
Practically at the same time, we have undergone the
assaults of sectors in the emigration looking for
practices to carry out or continuing the practices of
their ?leaders?, those of reactionary bourgeois
candidates within Haiti itself and those of various
big landowners. These reactionaries? practices seem to
be well orchestrated... And even if this isn?t the
case, we can speak of an organic coordination
reflecting the class struggle, in particular, the
polarization created by the struggles led by our
movement.

What we are undergoing is a moment in the struggle of
the masses, the workers, the working class. We need to
be able to correctly handle these attacks. We need to
carry out practices that allow us to maximize the
realization of the working class? interests facing our
enemies. One of the objectives we should seek is our
own camp?s reinforcement. And, for this, we have to
understand Batay Ouvriye?s position and practices
under various aspects not directly concerned by the
attacks in question, for militants and consistent
progressives to be able to go beyond their present
understanding of Batay Ouvriye.

The question of destabilizing the Aristide government

Being elected doesn?t make a government popular. If
this was the case, we?d believe Bush is popular. For
us, it isn?t the fact of having been elected with high
percentages either that make one popular. If such was
the case, we might as well believe France?s Chirac, in
the last elections, was extremely popular. To be
popular depends on the struggles? position precisely,
nationally and internationally. To decide upon whether
a government is truly popular, we have to analyze the
politics in question in relation with the popular
masses, the real interests of the popular masses,
without demagogy.

It is in this sense that we say the Aristide
government never defended or allowed for the defense
of the popular masses? interest! It was a populist
government leaning on a fraction of the
sub-proletariat, guaranteeing its reproduction, for
the organization of repression and terror under
Aristide?s direction, in the context of an autocracy.
This is what explains that populist-opportunists like
them wish to have the Aristide government pass for a
popular one.

Under the Aristide administration, repression and
terror were organized against the workers, in all
their conflicts, against all their general interests.
This was a reactionary government. Its autocratic form
allowed the bourgeois adversaries to diffuse their
whole demagogy on ?democracy?. These adversaries,
equally reactionary, Aristide defended their
interests. Amongst them were the bourgeois fighting to
assume a central role in the State. In this way,
consequently, Batay Ouvriye was facing 2 reactionary
bourgeois currents. One was directly headed by the
assembly sector industrial bourgeoisie linked with
certain capitalist interests, particularly those
recently emerged from accumulation under the Duvalier
regime. The other was composed of new monopolists
trying to restructure the bureaucratic bourgeoisie,
accumulating at the head of the State led by the
populists, and linked to a large sector of the banking
bourgeoisie.

The responsibility of all consistent organizations
should be: to work towards a true popular alternative.
For Batay Ouvriye, this means constructing a popular
alternative with the workers in central role, in order
to come out of, or go beyond, populism, precisely, and
all of the dangers and confusions it carries with it.
For this, the task at hand should have been to allow
an understanding of the two enemies fighting one
another, while using the least spaces created by such
a struggle. In the context of a genuine popular
alternative, this was the correct position. And it
remains the correct position.

We never participated in the destabilization of any
government, as we already stated in other recent
documents. Besides, the very concept of
?destabilization? is a bourgeois one, in itself. A
correct analysis should go further, questioning the
contradictions amidst the ruling classes themselves
and between the popular masses and their class
enemies.

On working class independence and that of Batay
Ouvriye

For us, the independence of the working class is
crucial. It should be independence in its line. And it
is on the basis of this independence that a constant
struggle should be waged against retrograde, populist,
opportunist and reactionary currents. Our independence
should be a fundamental position in our orientation.
Batay Ouvriye endeavors in this sense since it knows
independence is based before all in the dynamics of
its practices.

But does independence mean total isolation? We don?t
think so. Many situations exist in which, even taking
into account our independence, relations develop,
particularly with other social classes in the peoples?
camp, but also with other organizations. This is true
in the context of various sorts of unity like
alliances, unities of action, solidarity? And it also
holds true whether within a social formation or in
relations amongst social formations. All these forms
of unity / alliance / solidarity find their basis in
the concrete practices and relationships we establish
through our practices.

Up through today, Batay Ouvriye has never affiliated
with any international federation. However, it has
carried out common practices with numerous
organizations, on the battle field itself, nationally
and internationally. For us, the most important thing,
that which is fundamental for the workers and popular
masses in general, is the permanent respect of our
independence. In this context, Batay Ouvriye has
accepted various forms of solidarity. In this, we took
into account the various contradictions amidst the
class struggles, nationally and internationally. In
the fight against Disney, for example, we accepted
solidarity from many currents. Some offered a
politically limited solidarity on a humanitarian
basis. We accepted it. But we always clearly showed
its limits and, in some cases, its reactionary nature.
We hold the same position with respect to financial
solidarity.

We should point out that, in general, solidarity
coming from various organizations or NGOs,
foundations, and such? are never clean. Worse, we?re
aware that the enemy can attempt to slip amidst us in
such contexts. Our principle is to use the real
contradictions, the concrete contradictions in the
field. Here, again, our independence remains
fundamental. Only it can allow us to maintain our line
firmly in the interests of the working class, the
workers, the popular masses in general. Only it can
allow us to maintain our steadfastness facing our
enemies always, even when they try to slip within our
ranks. Thus, secure in our line, we clearly and openly
criticize all those who should be criticized.

Everywhere we are invited to formulate our stands, we
expose them clearly, as long as they take place in
contexts where workers are present and that this
practice is in the interests of the working class. If
an organization offers its ?solidarity? in the
struggle, we are in no position to thrust aside or
refuse its assistance.  The working class? struggle in
Haiti is a very hard one! If the enemy believes it can
use such ?solidarity? to try to deviate or infiltrate
our practices, let them try, they?ll fall flat! The
most important for us is to preserve our independence,
and, for this, to fight all reactionary elements, even
when they say they wish to ?help? in any form.

In this context, some have nevertheless formulated
serious fears for our credibility. These worries being
based on the possibility of class collaboration, we
reassure them by maintaining that advancement in the
field of the struggles will always exist to
consolidate our credibility. Furthermore, with respect
to those insisting that accepting funds automatically
entails an automatic submission to the orientation of
these organizations and the governments heading them,
our political positions concerning those who wish or
seem to wish to support us delimit us formally,
placing us directly and openly in the working class?
camp. We are aware of the historical danger of
possible changes or distortions of this position, but,
faced with such a possibility, we?ve developed and
apply appropriate mechanisms and principles. A
practice with the workers and in their interest, an
open practice confronting the enemy, wherever and
however it is carried out punctually and historically,
will always be credible. There is no other criterion.

On Opportunism

Certain comrades supporting our practices have shared
a legitimate concern with us and which demands our
attention. It is the question of ?opportunism?. For
them, establishing relations with the AFL-CIO, for
example, is opportunistic, particularly with respect
to financing. We say ?particularly? because, in
general, other forms of relations (such as militant
solidarity and support letters) don?t and won?t give
way to such problems. To examine this question
correctly, we need to clearly understand two things:

A)  It is neither possible nor desirable to consider
practices at the democratic level just as practices at
other, more advanced political levels. The fundamental
unity existing at these levels allows a specific
respect of positions and principles. At the democratic
level, however, this fundamental unity doesn?t exist;
a democratic functioning must reign amongst the
working class and the workers whose political
development is average. Certainly, all practices
dragging behind the least advanced workers should be
ruled out. But this is a permanent battle wherein, for
us, the transformation necessary to advance the
working class? real interests will occur: within this
level, with it. We should always correctly resolve
this contradiction. We should also mention that this
in no way means that opportunism can?t exist within
the democratic level. For sure, opportunism may occur
here, but this is mainly in relation with the line and
the principles that should guide this level, within
the limits of the concrete unity existing.

B)  In addressing opportunism, a practice can, of
course, be analyzed independently. But if this
practice is an integral part of a totality, it
shouldn?t be considered in isolation. It should be
examined in its relations with the struggles, with the
practices constituting its totality.

Examining our position on the question of ?solidarity?
and financial support we may receive, we take both
these aspects into account. First, we are carrying out
concrete practices. We?re concretely waging  battles,
which force us to take into account concrete
contradictions (concerning solidarity) that aren?t
exclusively financial. We have to deal with real needs
and to be able to solve them at our present degree of
development. Furthermore, all of this takes on a
specific character when the question of ?solidarity?
is set in a general context where other organizations
are also present in the field. We take into account
the entirety of our practices.

In the case of the AFL-CIO, we had to resolve
contradictions within the field. And in the context of
the workers? general level of political development,
the correct line was to establish organization to
organization relations in order to avoid practices
that could open up on forms of individual corruption,
as well as various related problems (deviations from
the strategic line, infiltration of negative
principles, infiltration of ruling class interests
within the workers? organization?). But we wish to
insist on one point: the lack of exterior support
won?t ever block our practices. Surely, the absence of
outside support may slow it down, but even with this
negative effect, practices in the framework of our
line are the most fundamental for us, on the basis of
our full independence, including financial
independence.

We should also add that, in the case of doubtful
organizations, organizations who think they might be
able to compromise us in order to better absorb us,
they?ll fall flat on their faces. However, we are
extremely aware that we constitute a target for the
enemy who won?t spare us and will employ all possible
forms to attain this goal. When we say they?ll fall
flat on their faces, this isn?t voluntarism, idealism
or boasting, to cover ourselves. All our relations
with these organizations bear a mark: that within
relations of unity and struggle, the real relative
weights are of STRUGGLE-unity/struggle-STRUGGLE. Thus,
struggle is permanent, in all domains, even when we
accept the ?unity? on certain aspects.

This STRUGGLE is in the global interest of the working
class, nationally and internationally. In the case of
the AFL-CIO, this is what we considered and, in our
relations with them, we explicitly had them understand
this. If they invite us to partake in an activity of
theirs, we participate (in ?unity?) but in order to be
able to STRUGGLE in presence of all the workers
against all negative elements this current may choose
to diffuse (which we did recently in Guatemala, for
instance). In light of the concrete relations the
AFL-CIO maintains with a great number of workers
throughout the world, we fight for them to clearly
understand this apparatus? role, all the while
building the workers? real unity on the basis of their
interests.

We denounce the AFL-CIO?s negative practices in
direction of the workers, as well as the manipulative,
collaborationist, bureaucratic line it diffuses in the
worker milieu. We denounce the AFL-CIO?s insertion in
international level struggles and its relation with
the government and the American state. We denounce its
nature (all of these positions are clearly expressed
and diffused on our website so all, and progressives
particularly, may not be deceived). The AFL-CIO is
only an example, for we always function in this way in
our relation with other organizations. As we already
stated in our document on solidarity, we are outright,
frank and outspoken. If some understand and wish to
continue conveying their solidarity, they do so. If
they disagree, however, with the clarity of our
approach and wish to block their support, they are
also free to do so.

All this shows what we understand to be the
preservation of our independence. And in considering
our positions and practices in their totality, we are
sure there is no ?opportunism? here. The debate
remains open!

Batay Ouvriye?s Stand on Certain Forms of Terror and
Repression

We recognize that we?ve had serious limits concerning
the diffusion of our positions concerning certain
forms of terror and repression. This is true for the
period of the Aristide regime, as well as for the
present. The situation?s complexity often makes it
difficult for us to intervene rapidly.

Clearly, this is a limit, but we know that: we are
condemned to confront the repression and the terror
that characterizes the historical moment we are going
through. This is what we meant lately in our various
communiqués stating that we had to ?Confront!? them.
Specifically: just as many militants and/or observers
have pointed out, the Aristide government exerted
repression and terror against workers (small peasants,
merchants, artisans?) and the working class (to
counter the resistance arising from his having
established the neo-liberal orientation, in working
class conflicts with the bourgeois, due, for instance,
to his having set minimum wages much lower than even
those the bourgeois were ready to pay, his
allowing/favoring/organizing the accumulation of
banking capital, particularly? and also his opening
the door to Dominican capital in a providential
backing to the moribund Haitian capital).

At the same time, presently, the police and repressive
forces exert terror by trying to destroy grassroots
lavalas organizations that, in the absence of their
leaders, are more inclined to convey demands closer to
their own interests. And the masses, amidst this blind
terror-repression of the police and MINUSTAH forces,
are terribly subjected. Executions are carried out
throughout the country in very many places, including
several of our head members and not sparing our
meeting places. The invasion of military forces in
popular neighborhoods in view of spreading the terror
is a characteristic of the present situation. Batay
Ouvriye denounces this terror, although this
denunciation may not have the force some observers may
wish. This is due to the fact that we have to
concretely take into account the existing relation of
forces in the context of the construction occurring so
as to really be able to confront it and find a
solution to this situation.

Indeed, we do confront this terror concretely in
various places, although we choose not to make much
noise around this. We should recall the confrontations
with the ?assailants? in the North-East, or in the
North-West; in the latter, head organization members
were killed. More recently, we mobilized against the
arrest of various Batay Ouvriye head members because
of their positions on the elections and their concrete
practices against the candidates? demagogy in the
rural areas where they were present. In some
Cap-Haitian neighborhoods, we?ve confronted ex-army
members regrouped to steal the workers? lands,
particularly those of fishermen; we confronted them
too when they allied with former lavalas gang members
who had undertaken to steal the small peasants? land
plots under the orders of latifundists. These are a
few examples from the field, there are numerous
others.

So, today, we formally denounce, once again, the
violence and anti-popular terror the reactionary
forces heading the country are spreading, with their
puppet Latortue government and in on-going
coordination with the MINUSTAH and the president
Alexandre. In denouncing the repression and the
terror, in concretely fighting it, we?re always aware
that, independently of the pretexts invoked, its true
objective is, as always, to destroy the masses?
resistance. In particular, they use the contradictions
within the popular masses to spread this repression.
In the last year, we?ve lived this concretely and have
always exposed it in our publications.

We should add that an element rendering this situation
even more difficult is the misled nature of the
lavalas gang terror, its widespread character, without
clear orientation, in which this violence is often
exerted against the very popular masses. The lavalas
heads, as a reactionary political sector, are using a
part of the sub-proletariat to carry out this
directionless violence. This violence also contributes
to the terror. It is very negative for the masses on
all levels. It cannot be referred to as a
?resistance?. There furthermore exists the violence of
the reactionary anti-lavalas sector, within the
popular masses too: gangs at the service of the
bourgeoisie, in the factories and popular
neighborhoods. And there are also the occupation
troops, with the police, heading their own
anti-popular violence.

In this context, the task of allowing a clear and
precise understanding isn?t easy. It becomes all the
more complicated when populist, opportunist,
reactionary sectors attempt to pass the directionless
violence as ?resistance? (a violence often exerted
against the very popular masses and helping to spread
the terror even more, thus highly hindering real
mobilization)! Our task of helping the masses to
clearly resume their own practices and methods of
struggle in their own interest isn?t easy at all. But
it is the way to follow.

On the Occupation

For Batay Ouvriye, just as in 1994, when the
putschists and lavalas both worked together to
encourage and accompany a 20,000 foreign soldiers?
occupation, today again, we are undergoing a
plastering occupation. In this case again, both
lavalas and the opposition worked together for this
disguised occupation of UN troops. Batay Ouvriye
stated and will continue to state, concretely, that it
is against the occupation. Here again, it is a
difficult practice because of the forms of
contradiction amidst the ruling classes. These forms
allow many sorts of demagogy. And we have to handle
them correctly. But every day more, the situation is
becoming clearer. Without rhetoric, the construction
of forces capable of waging a real fight against the
occupation is advancing as an aspect of the general
struggle. It is a key aspect. And this is exactly why
it has to happen with all the depth necessary. We
repeat : Down with the Occupation! The Struggle has
just begun!

On the Elections

In the context of the occupation and contradictions
amidst the ruling classes, the reactionaries are doing
their best to attempt to escape from the crisis
through the unique course of the elections. Our
position is clear: just as during the previous
elections, they constituted a means for the ruling
classes to try to break out of the deep structural
crisis they were going through, now again, the
elections are attempting to reestablish hegemony
amongst the ruling classes. Whether in the previous or
present elections, they are settling their own
business. Here again, the workers? independence must
be clear. That is what we are fighting for. But we
need to precisely analyze the political arena in a
situation in which, this time, the stakes concern all
the classes with much force. On the other hand, we
have to take into account the real level of the masses
whose conscience of the situation remains limited to
the simple democratic level. We have to take into
account the level they can presently attain, in the
context of their independence. Because of this, the
contradictions amidst the ruling classes can be useful
in allowing the creation of better conditions for the
advancement of the masses? struggles, in defending
their interests as well as to eliminate the confusions
and illusions-mystifications the lavalas current had
conveyed. For this, we need to develop our tactics
very precisely.

We are against all bourgeois elections but determined
to use all contradictions amidst the bourgeois and
those they carry with them, in the most appropriate
forms. ?Against bourgeois elections? means even when
they are happening, they should allow the workers to
clearly see that this path will never open the way
towards seizing power or even the possibility of
attaining the qualitative leap necessary to convey
their demands. We have to support the masses in
clearly understanding that what is going on is the
ruling classes using them for their own interests. At
the same time, the masses should clearly understand
the contradictions amongst the ruling classes and
between the ruling classes and us. We should clearly
know how to use these precisions to attain our
objectives. As much as possible, we should heighten
these contradictions. Presently, alongside our
fundamental position and the work we are carrying out
on its basis, we have to correctly take into account
the masses? practices and thus create better
conditions for the struggles? development, while
countering the fascist reactionary currents
developing.

On the Question of Levels

Batay Ouvriye is a movement fighting on the democratic
level. All should be clear on this. The feeble-minded
talk of individuals having no nuances or precision
shouldn?t confuse anyone. It?s by creating all sorts
of confusions that they?re trying to carry out their
assigned tasks, but that concerns them. Batay Ouvriye
isn?t a Marxist-Leninist organization or a
revolutionary one. It doesn?t attempt to pass as such
either. But, at the same time, the working class? real
interests, even on the democratic level, force it to
open up towards increasingly advanced positions, since
the general orientation remains within the general
context of the working class? theory. It is in the
framework of the general struggle, of the practices in
the field themselves that the constant surpassing that
needs to happen occurs. The practices? advancement
therefore is the framework for their surpassing.

But, each time, at each moment, positions will remain
limited to the democratic struggles, even when they
contain / have to contain the seeds to go further.
Batay Ouvriye must be a part of the general movement
to attain the working class? interests totally, but
there should be no confusion on levels. In this sense,
Batay Ouvriye?s practices won?t open up towards
seizing power, although it may support this necessary
alternative and the need for the class to work towards
this end. But reaching power isn?t Batay Ouvriye?s
responsibility. So, we have nothing to do with
anarcho-syndicalism.

Within Batay Ouvriye, the May First Batay Ouvriye
Union Federation exists with its own unions and
committees in various factories. Their presence in
Batay Ouvriye should be respected, at the same time as
they impose respect on the democratic level, without
liberalism. Concretely, this conveys the effects it
should on Batay Ouvriye?s practices.

With the permanent anti-union repression, the
movement?s construction, within the struggles
themselves, has to face numerous difficulties. The
unions? direction is constituted by workers. Their
coordination too. Other militants support them, in all
practices. All this level?s functioning is based on
internal democracy. And in the context of the
construction of the spokesperson?s responsibility, the
same logic exists, that is, progressively, taking in
hand / taking from the hands of. Militants support
this transformation. The workers, in their renewal,
are permanent. There is no other way.

On Denunciations

Despite its secondary aspect, this point has its
importance. In general, we don?t have the practice of
denouncing individuals who, in one way or another, are
leading struggles against a clearly identified, common
enemy (in this case, imperialism). Even when we
disagree with their line, with their tactical
orientation or some of their practices in the field,
in confronting the enemy, we always try to protect
militants or activists carrying out such practices,
even if we can denounce (and have to denounce)
practices we feel erroneous, incorrect, or
reactionary. Contrary to the political current
attacking us (which, itself, takes care to indicate
our names, headquarters and personal addresses, and
even pictures -! to the enemy?), we, in the context of
our criticisms, always try to insist rather on current
practices we feel incorrect and exterior to the
interests of the working class, the workers? or the
popular masses. That is how we criticized the CATH
union federation when we felt their line was directly
opposite the interests of the workers struggling.
We?ve never fallen into practices of denunciation.

If we?ve presently chosen to name Ben Dupuy, this is
an exception - but not a useless one. It is because,
in truth, we have here an extreme case. Even if, once
again, we generally insist on practices and, more
specifically, occurring practices, despite this, we?ve
chosen to name him. This is because all those we?ve
met and discussed with on the indicators? role he has
played amongst progressives, still today answered us:
?But all know Ben Dupuy perfectly well, the tasks he
has pursued, the tasks he continues to pursue! That?s
how he has always acted! It?s his assignments he?s
carrying out for his chiefs! We all know this
perfectly!?. However, no one ever formally set it down
in writing, put it on the record. So, this is what we
have done, presently: we set the record for something
people know perfectly well but only discuss amongst
themselves, in meetings and sometimes in mobilizations
or assemblies.

[Next post: Addendum: An end to useless loitering ?
Final words on the ?left-? and ?anarcho-?slinging
red-baiters?]



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com