Russian left and KPRF
Tom Freeman (Write On, GLW #566) provides a curious gloss on the article in GLW #565 in which Boris Kagarlitsky discusses the Future of the Left conference held by Russian oppositionists last November in the town of Golitsyno, near Moscow. Specifically, Freeman implies that Kagarlitsky and GLW hold out hopes of "transforming" the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF) and of involving it in some new left coalition.
This is an odd charge, since Kagarlitsky in his article makes clear his belief in the absolute political bankruptcy of the KPRF, also making explicit his scorn for attempts by "renovators" within the party to clean up its image.
Freeman appears to object to the fact that the participants in the conference included a group of KPRF "renovators", and representatives of the party's youth.
Sensibly, the conference participants appear to have passed up the chance to spend the first half of their meeting debating whether people associated with the KPRF should be excluded. It also appears, though Kagarlitsky does not explicitly state this, that the KPRF members present endorsed the progressive motions put up. In any event, the "renovators" and party youth allowed themselves to be generally identified with the "Golitsyno consensus".
My own thoughts are that if KPRF members want to make a spectacle of their inconsistency (and in many cases, hypocrisy), while highlighting the noxious positions of their party leaders, that is not something the Russian left should be afraid of. Meanwhile, it's just possible that the debate at the conference might have moved members of the KPRF youth, in particular, to consider whether they should find a better setting for their political energies.
Kagarlitsky concluded years ago that there was no prospect of important groupings within the KPRF moving decisively to the left, and that attempts to identify and cultivate such trends would be a waste of time. I think he's absolutely right.
None of this means, of course, that individuals in the KPRF will not grow disgusted with the party leadership, to the point of becoming potential recruits for left organisations. Nor does it mean that the left should pass up chances for debate with KPRF "renovators", if only to expose the manoeuvres of these people, and to point up the differences the left has with them.
Renfrey Clarke
Adelaide [Abridged]
Public hospital crisis
It is true that the worsening federal and state under-funding of public hospitals and community health centres is largely to blame for the patient care deficiencies exposed recently in the media, most spectacularly in south-western Sydney Area Health Service's Camden and Campbelltown hospitals. However, responsibility for what are often seriously adverse, yet avoidable outcomes for people, including patients and health staff, should also be borne by the top and middle management within the public health system.
What has been highlighted by the various investigations and media exposure of the situation at Camden and Campbelltown hospitals, not referred to in this week's GLW article ("Who's to blame for the hospital crisis"), is the longstanding and endemic culture within public health of lack of transparency and accountability, cover-up, denial, obstructionism, aggression and bullying by management (both clinical and administrative) of lower level frontline staff who attempt to draw attention to major patient care or staff relations problems and deficiencies.
The case of the nurse whistleblowers at Camden and Campbelltown hospitals has been extensively covered in the national media and is one of the more interesting, revealing and important aspects of the current focus on work place culture and service delivery in public health.
The reigning culture of "no-blame" within the health system (in all states) is a curious one and seems to flow historically from the very hierarchical and fractured nature of the industry and the extraordinarily high status and self-regard of doctors, many of whom are also managers or heads of medical units. Doctors and medical specialists, by training, are usually not well equipped for good management, yet they often end up in management positions largely because of their clinical expertise and professional status.
The situation is compounded by the fact that any negative performance, action or ongoing practice or behaviour of high-level clinical and managerial staff is generally either defended or ignored by the non-clinical health administrators.
Jenny O'Donnell
Sydney [Abridged]
Iraq
The US led invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. They attacked a sovereign nation under false pretences. Their own chief weapons inspector, David Kay, has had to admit that the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) never existed. Now Bush, Blair and Howard want us all to believe that their alleged discovery of "programs" for the development of WMDs was sufficient to justify the invasion.
You can just imagine how absurd US Secretary of State Powell would have looked before the UN Security Council in February 2003, if he tried to argue for the invasion based on possible programs whose fruition might take decades. If you dig deep enough you would find that every country has potential programs for the development of WMDs of some kind.
If the US and its allies had no legitimate reason for invading Iraq, and their own inspectors have not been able to come up with a justification, then their continued presence in Iraq is illegal. They are therefore a legitimate target for the Iraqi resistance. Instead of rotating their occupation forces, they should be withdrawing them. If they don't, the resistance has every right to attack them.
Adam Bonner
Meroo Meadow NSW [Abridged]
Iraq II
I read your recent article (GLW #567) on the IMF warning Washington with interest. Willem Duisenberg, European Central Bank president, just before he left office in an interview with a Spanish newspaper said "he prayed that the fall of the dollar would be slow". I suppose you know about south-east Asian articles arguing that the USA's occupation of Iraq was motivated mainly by Saddam's 2000 decision to be paid in euros, instead of dollars. These articles also calculated that the USA could not afford financially the cost of the guerilla war to be expected in Iraq.
Until now it all seems to happen according to plan — the al Qaeda September 11, 2001, plan. Boeings were the 21st century Trojan horses.
What I do not comprehend is why Australia supports USA imperialism, unless the Australian, British and USA currencies are seen as one bloc. Even then Australia should have known that markets cannot be forced.
Cees Peperzak
Netherlands
Australian values
Neither John Howard nor Senator McGauran would know traditional Australian values if a busload of them jumped out and bit the Coalition mugs on their pampered soft lilywhite arses.
But will they please keep talking venomous rot about state schools until the election — to guarantee that Mark Latham and the Labor mob win and start shovelling the Howard's elitist filth out of Australian national life?
Peter Woodforde From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, February 4, 2004.
Melba ACT
Visit the