27304: Simidor (FYI): Addendum to Batay Ouvriye Clarification (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: daniel simidor <danielsimidor@yahoo.com>

[Part 2 of Batay Ouvriye Statement

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

It?s dismaying but not surprising to us that the
student, Jeb Sprague, with such a low political
consciousness, has chosen to continue a debate to
which we felt we had unequivocally responded. The
ongoing defamation, at this point, doubtlessly
indicates at once both Sprague?s nature as an
unscrupulous university student, concerned with
maintaining the impossible thesis he has concocted;
and the provocateur nature of his backers, the IAC ?
Haiti Progres consortium, intent on proving (to their
financers?) the righteousness of their one and only
militant action, that in favor of the return of their
messiah, Aristide. In direction, then, of the
progressive communities of various honest forums
(Znet, Indymedia, amongst others) deliberately misled
by the nauseating distortions of a truth touching upon
such a difficult reality as that of working class
struggles in Haiti, we are forced, once again ? and
for us, finally, this time ? to counter the fallacious
allegations of this deceitful team. We do so this
time, however, quickly, with the objective of not
being lured into the provocateurs? snare. But just
before going further, we will once again comment:

1.  On the fact of still never having been contacted
by the ?researcher?, despite our very public website
and email addresses? while he chose (according to the
internet), rather, to contact the Solidarity Center,
demonstrating in this way, quite the colonialist
mentality?

2.  On the grossly despicable red-baiting they?ve
chosen to prolong in the rabid primary anti-communist
setting they perfectly know exists in Haiti ? and the
US as well, for that matter. By falsely accusing Batay
Ouvriye of ?anarcho-syndicalism?, ?advocating for the
control of industry and government? through the use of
direct action, such as sabotage??, of being
?ideologically opposed to working with or under any
form of government??, and so on and so forth, whereas
never has our organization put out any such
declaration publicly or privately, Sprague and
consorts directly put us in the target of the
reactionary ruling classes and governments they
supposedly are against, thereby playing a role of
which all may gather the conclusions.

3.  Consistent with such a practice is Sprague?s
revealing of identities often necessarily covered by
aliases in working class organizing practices and
frequently key for the basic security reasons. Who,
but utterly reactionary working class enemies, would
indulge in such grossly low-level informer
designations?

By stating that Batay Ouvriye was ?initiated as an
office space? and that the ?Batay Ouvriye Federation
(sic) was founded in May 2002?, the author reveals his
complete ignorance of our movement. First of all,
we?ve never been constrained to ?an office space?,
which would be quite contrary to any consistent line
of organizing directly amidst the workers, in the
industries. Batay Ouvriye was born out of the ?Batay
Ouvriye Classic Apparel? (?Workers? Fight in Classic
Apparel?, the ?Batay Ouvriye nan Brokosa? (?Brokosa
Workers? Fight?); ?Batay Ouvriye Nòton? (Norton
Industries Workers? Fight?), the Batay Ouvriye at
Gilanex, Megatex, Villard, Abraham?s, Frank Vincent,
etc. etc. When all these workers? groups decided to
gather together on the basis of their common demands
for the labor law?s application (Batay Ouvriye
bulletin No. 2, April 1993), the name of Batay Ouvriye
rightly corresponded to their common element of unity.
 All of these emerged as a sign of the renewed
militancy of past ?Kòdinasyon Sendikal Premye Me?
(KSPM) members who had been forced into hiding by the
1990 military coup and who, necessarily reintegrating
the work market, had the common demand of receiving
their severance pay from industries who had chosen to
close their doors at that time. All of this is
documented, for example, in an ILO 1998 report on work
conditions in Haiti
(http://www.oit.or.cr/mdtsanjo/actrav/travail/travail.htm).


Secondly, there is no ?Batay Ouvriye federation?, but
rather a May First Batay Ouvriye Union Federation
(ESPM-Batay Ouvriye) that was legally registered in
May 2001, not 2002? (But: has Sprague ever set foot in
Haiti, in the worker setting? Perhaps he only visited
the American embassy? Did he even consult our
website?). This Union Federation, part of the Batay
Ouvriye movement, regroups the labor unions and
functions conjointly with neighborhood and peasant
federations.

To return to Sprague?s supposed bone of contention,
the relation between Batay Ouvriye and the AFL-CIO?s
Solidarity Center in the context of Aristide?s forced
departure, the answer is simple: there never existed
any before the Center?s support of the SOKOWA workers?
struggle in 2004. Zero, zilch. We are in the greatest
ignorance of all the IRI meetings Sprague insists were
held in the Dominican Republic or other, and that
contributed to Aristide?s ?destabilization? early that
year. It?s that simple. And to state that, because of
their donation of the very small $3,500 in June 2004,
we were ?on the US bank roll? is a real joke.

On the other hand, Sprague?s deliberate amalgamation
of financial and political questions  is a much more
serious point that should be corrected. It seems
Sprague has never heard of, or conceived of an
independent workers? movements; doubtless, he read our
recent reply to his attacks in a sloppy manner,
skipping over the annexes, particularly that ?On
Solidarity?. Though this short statement should be
read in full
(http://www.batayouvriye.org/English/Positions1/solidarity.html),
we will nevertheless quote it here, even at some
length, with perhaps a more precise translation and
emphasis added:

(?) The struggles of the working class, our struggles,
occur in dominated social formation in which the
ferocious exploitation they are undergoing confers
tremendous difficulties to survive. Naturally, this
gives rise to important struggles? one of the key
elements to carry them out is material capacity.  So,
we have no illusions: clearly, all support can be very
useful in this sense. However, in the context of the
construction of the workers? movement?s material
independence, we always endeavor to count on our own
forces; particularly, material solidarity must not
have any negative incidence on our line or our
practices. At the same time, imperialist domination
causes a value transfer from dominated countries
towards imperialist ones. Thus, a return of
transferred valued is legitimate without ever, once
again, putting our independence in question.

On these bases, in a recent past, we?ve even developed
relations with organizations stating they simply ?wish
to help?. Sometimes we?ve note that, quickly, this
?help? was cut off. We consider this normal; being
aware of the political limits of such an approach, we
always anticipate such developments. But, in other
cases, these existing relations have reproduced
themselves: in such cases, this is because solidarity,
as a basis, was more real and more solid. Despite all
this, practice reveals that organizations conveying
solidarity generally also have limits. Here again, we
consider this normal.

One of the contradictions we face is the origin of the
funds of some of these organizations wishing to help
us. We respect their independence: our relations are
of a bilateral nature, the most important aspect is
the respect of our independence and, in this sense,
our capacity to take all politically necessary stands,
our capacity to develop all struggles going leading
towards the exploited workers? interests, nationally
and internationally. We realize this has sometimes
caused the support?s canceling; but this again remains
secondary for us: the struggle for the advancement of
the workers? struggles must remain before all
independent, even when rendered very difficult because
of this. It even happens these organizations?
financers may convey these ?support? funds in the
logic of worldwide imperialist development. We see
through this clearly. Nevertheless, within these
relationships, our stands remain the same, on the
principle of complete political independence, while we
accept all support, solidarity or even ?help? as long
as it is accompanied by the workers? full
independence.

This holds consequences. At times, the organizations?
?support? towards us puts them in contradiction with
their own sources of financing. In this case, it?s
important they realize that we are in no way
implicated in this contradiction. Even if we accept to
discuss the point, it is their own responsibility.
And, from this moment on, if their solidarity was
genuine and sincer, then they will decide on the basis
of this fundamental stand.?

Following such a position, where the Solidarity
Center?s support comes from concerns that
organization. The answer given to Sprague by the Batay
Ouvriye Solidarity Network member (inappropriately but
characteristically labeled ?low-level? in Sprague?s
reactionary hierarchical conception) that Batay
Ouvriye doesn?t receive any funding from the US
government, was exactly right.
Equally correct was his second answer concerning the
absence of a supposed Batay Ouvriye leadership. That
which characterizes Batay Ouvriye is the full
participation of workers at all levels of
organization, their direction of the movement and this
is largely known and readily observable to all and any
person who even remotely approaches our practices. So
we find extremely laughable his assertion concerning a
lack of democratic functioning within Batay Ouvriye,
that the workers present at a meeting ?were not
permitted to speak? independently of Batay?s
supervision?. Similarly, Sprague?s allegations of a
Solidarity Center member?s ?overseeing? a March 2004
meeting is preposterous, since that day, when we
accepted to hold a large encounter with some twenty
Quixote/Haiti Reborn visitors, we explicitly explained
that this meeting coincided with the first meeting we
were having with the Solidarity Center and other
organizations in the context of the difficult
unfolding free trade zone struggle and that their
representatives might also have the occasion of
hearing the exposé of our activities, as well as our
views on the Haitian situation. Following Sprague?s
reasoning, the Quixote/Haiti Reborn visitors were
?overseeing? our joint meeting with the Solidarity
Center and other organizations?!

Really, that?s enough! How can we respond to such
trash being put out against us by an individual openly
revealing his ignorance and such profound ill-faith
that it is impossible to even begin putting things
right? The collusion of his interests with those of
the political sector he is defending, which bears the
marks of the worse elements of the development of the
?left? in the United States as well as in Haiti,
forces us to insist on the central point of, once
again, debating: whether ?Lavalas Family? was a
government defending the people?s interests,
particularly the workers (and whether Sprague,
benevolent advocate of the Haitian people, is the
appropriate judge for such a question!), if it wasn?t
just another trick to facilitate the penetration of
imperialism, that of a crony capitalism, an upstart
bourgeoisie cluster of swindlers and professional
hoaxers taking advantage of a situation to accumulate
by all means ? thus carving out the path towards our
present-day new ruling classes? (See our December 2004
position:
http://www.batayouvriye.org/English/Positions1/decsituation.html)
And: why, then, ?defend? such a bunch facing an
equally bourgeois ?opposition? ? by defending the
?big-eaters? who, long before, had already been
designated as such by the people? This main issue, the
red-baiting team refuses to question or even to
consider. And, even explicitly invited to do so by us
in our last message, they refused. The only argument
they pursue is that Aristide was democratically
elected. As we?ve said: what elections?!! --- but,
even admitting: Bush too, and Chirac overwhelmingly!
So they?re ?popular? governments?! Here?s the debate !
That we accept to engage in. Whether it be in our
final Dec. 20th Statement, whether it be in the field
of our battles.  And our position is clear on this
question.

In ending, we?ll simply say: we think it?s really too
bad that what might have been a serious and valid
questioning of the roles played by the various
agencies of US imperialism at work in Haiti since the
past decade has been so oddly travestied into such a
dishonest, slanted and reactionary attack. We
sincerely wish Sprague, as a university student,
return to his academics (more intelligently, seriously
and, above all, honestly). Certainly, he will not get
much further on this track. As for us, we continue our
participation amongst the Haitian working class with
the firm determination of advancing in our practices
confronting much more important class enemies.



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