Crucial elections are about to take place in the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, one of the most powerful unions in the country. The Victorian-based militant Workers First team is standing for all three positions.

In Victoria, Metals Division Secretary Craig Johnston is standing for the State Secretary post against the unelected Julius Roes, who is identified with the old pro-ALP leadership. Also in Victoria Workers First is standing Terry Bradley against Karin Mathison for an organisers position. Mathison split from Workers First recently and is now aligned with the old pro-ALP leadership.

Most importantly Darren Nelson, a well respected AMWU Metals organiser is standing for the National Secretary's position against the incumbant Doug Cameron. Cameron is the would-be intellectual guru of the soft left in the union movement, and is responsible for union support in the past for enterprise bargaining and multi-skilling. Darren spoke to the Voice:

SP: Why has Workers First decided to expand out of Victoria and stand you for the National Secretary's position?

DN: To build on the successes in Victoria on a national scale in terms of industry-wide agreements, better service for members and so on.

SP: What is your support like outside Victoria?

DN: Mixed and varied. Cameron is a ruthless operator who is wielding great power over officials. Some have been threatened with the sack (not by Cameron himself) if they don't actively campaign for him. We have growing roots in the other states. There is a lot of opposition to Cameron which we hope to turn into support for Workers First.

SP: What would you do in your first 100 days if elected?

DN: Try to bring the union back to its members. Sort out some of the bureaucracy. There is a veil of secrecy in parts of the union. In the first 100 days we'd try to survive and impose the mandate on those who won't accept it.

SP: What is your attitude to affiliation to the ALP?

DN: The union gave generous amounts of money to the ALP while that party Cameron advocated tariff cuts. This cost our members jobs. If money goes in, we want more out of it. We have to play a role in politics as a union, but we would push our policies in the ALP. I don't have political aspirations like many others in the union.

SP: What can be done to rebuild the union interstate?

DN: Push the ideals of Workers First. A new approach will stop the disintegration of the union as we've done in Victoria.

SP: How can you meet the challenge of the crisis in the manufacturing industry?

DN: We want the government to take a more interventionist approach. We want an 'alliance', pushing policy options the same as employers to boost economic growth in manufacturing. We need to get away from 'Worlds Best Practise'.

SP: How is Campaign 2000 shaping up? (This battle is to be launched by manufacturing unions in July, aimed at achieving an industry wide agreement through the tactic of identical EBA's in all plants).

DN: We've already got many companies backing off from the Australian Industry Group (the body uniting manufacturing bosses) and talking to us. Industry agreements form point A of Campaign 2000, point B is site specific agreements. Shorter hours will be part of the claim.

It seems that every other day workers and their families are being urged to buy shares or take part in a new stock market float. Australia has a high level of share ownership by small-scale investors and the implication is that if you don't own shares you may be "missing out" on the apparent riches to be had. The truth is it's just as easy to lose money on the stock market as it is to make profits. The chart shows the recent behaviour of the All Ordinaries Index (a measure of share price values) and highlights the volatile nature of the market. Last month the US Nasdaq Index of technology-based stocks suffered its second worst drop in history and the repercussions are still being felt throughout the world.

In the 1960s when the world economy was stable the big financial institutions effectively had the stock market locked up for themselves because it was seen to be a "safe bet". Now the Cold War has ended and the stock market is no longer a "safe bet" the big players are trying to attract workers and their families to share the risks by buying shares. No thanks!!!

"It must be trueŠit's in the papers!" Building Workers And The Press: 160 Years Of Anti-Union Propaganda By Paul True"Š.it is simply a matter of life or death for our industries." and "Š.and the public is going to pay."

Melbourne 2000 or Sydney 1921? These comments could be referring to the Victorian construction unions' push for a 36-hour week. In fact they were written in 1921 and 1926 about the 44-hour week campaign in NSW. Paul True's booklet is published by the NSW branch of the CFMEU. While building workers don't need to be told that the media is biased, it shows us clearly that nothing has changed over the years. Much of the language is more formal than we use today, but other examples could have been written yesterday.

The pretence of concern for families is a common theme. When the carpenters began organising to form a union in the 1840's, The Sydney Gazette accused the workers of being "mad" and they would "shame" themselves, bringing "suffering" to "an innocent wife and helpless family." The real attitude of the media is revealed with the sort of comment form the Daily Telegraph in 1926 over the introduction of the 44-hour week. After the usual propaganda that "the housewives would have to pay for it", they wrote "Š.it is simply a matter of life and death of our industries."

In Queensland in 1927, when unions ran a 44-hour campaign, the Sydney Daily Telegraph editorial predictable claimed that "the unions seem to run the state." The usual outcry from the conservative papers over the years reveals some pretty consistent attitudes from the ruling class. Concern for themselves is dressed up as concern for "the state", as if all people in the state were equal.

In 1903 the Sydney Morning Herald ran the entire contents of an MBA pamphlet opposing workers supporting other workers on strike, which, while professing to have concern for legitimate class issues, wrote, "But in a country like this, where there are practically no divisions in classes Š.." If there are no divisions, why do the media reveal such an "us and them" mentality? Despite the fact that the working class are the clear majority in Australia, it seems that the media see the interests of industry as "the community", while the rest of us "bail up the community and extort concessions" (Argus 1920).

Depending on your mood, Paul's book could be entertaining or depressing - probably both. I only wish it could be compulsory reading for readers of the Herald Sun.

The election of pro-independence candidate Chen Shui-Bian as Taiwan's new President has heightened tensions between China and the island state. In 1949 after Mao's victory, the defeated capitalists organised in the KMT fled to China and ran a one-party state lording over the indigenous population. The rush to capitalism on the mainland since 1980 has wiped out the tension between different social systems, but the Chinese government's desire to bring Taiwan back into the fold remains especially after regaining Hong Kong and Macau. It is a useful nationalist weapon to divert attention away from mass unemployment and growing capitalist exploitation. But in Taiwan only 1.5% want to be integrated with China. The vote for Chen reflected this plus a hatred of the corrupt KMT leadership. While politicians clash on both sides, business has rapidly increased between the two.

Despite the sabre-rattling China doesn't yet have the naval power to invade Taiwan and, in turn, Chen has eased up on his independence pledge. It is likely for now that the situation will ease up, but it could reignite at any time. The CWI supports the right of Taiwan's population to decide their future for themselves. We would fight for democratic socialism in both China and Taiwan and a voluntary federation of the region.

As we advance into the new millennium conditions for the majority of working class families are changing, but unfortunately they are actually getting worse! For those in work, the bosses, with the support of the Federal Liberal government, are continuing to attack working conditions in an attempt to squeeze more production out of workers without increasing pay. Meanwhile for those families forced to rely upon welfare payments, benefits are being slashed or abolished as the government continues its onward march to drive ordinary workers into the dirt and thereby forcing many to live in increased poverty. So much for Bob Hawke's rash 'no child will live in poverty by the year 2000' promise.

In the same way that we are supposed to believe that the present social and economic system (capitalism) has always existed and always will exist, so too we are supposed to believe tht the nuclear family, composed of husband, dependant wife and two children (as seen on TV) has always existed. In fact the family as we know it is a relatively recent invention. The nuclear family, smaller and less powerful than the old extended family but based on the same hierarchical beliefs and patterns, developed as society moved from predominantly agricultural to industrial production.

Families have changed as the needs and conditions of the various socio-economic systems have changed throughout history. This will undoubtedly continue to be the case as mankind progresses to the next historical stage of development - socialism.

Under a genuinely socialist system, the control and planning of the economy will be in the hands of the majority in society, the working class, not in the hands of an elite, tiny minority as it is now. A democratically planned and run economy would put an end to the waste and duplication that now occurs under the unplanned market system under which, on average, a quarter of all productive capacity lies idle. This is not because goods aren't needed, but because the bosses can't extract a high enough profit margin on them.

All too often we have seen farmers forced to shoot sheep and let fruit crops rot because of low market prices and competition, even though cheaper food would benefit all. Competition between companies means that research teams don't share information about their latest findings as each company seeks to be the first to cash in on any new product. This slows down progress, and in the pharmaceutical industry can literally mean lives lost which could have been saved.

A publicly owned economy, with production planned around the needs of society, rather than competing profit margins, would also mean co-ordinated research and development work. This could lead to huge leaps forward in production. The resultant increased wealth in society would quickly flow through to higher living standards and a shorter working week. This would mean economic freedom for all and the oppressive class system that exists now would fade into history.

Under such a system all of the economic constraints on women to stay with their partner would be removed. Women could stay with their partner through choice and not because they can't afford to leave.

It would also mean funding increases in areas such as public housing, thereby insuring affordable accommodation was accessible to all those women who wanted to live independently.

Along with this, 24 hour child care centres with fully qualified staff, ensuring these places were both fun and educational for the children, would greatly ease the stress and strain of rearing a family. This would allow couples or single mothers the chance to go out and enjoy themselves. For many couples, getting a moment together is very difficult. In this way you could have nights out and spend quality time together rather than always being someone's Mum or Dad. All guilt about leaving children would be gone as children would be safe and having fun whilst also developing social skills themselves.

The impact of a more relaxed home life would undoubtedly benefit the whole family. Things such as affordable holiday camps for children could mean that school holidays wouldn't turn into boredom for the children and added responsibility for women. Children would be regarded as the responsibility of society rather than an individual woman or couple.

In the same vein, the provision of cheap local canteens would mean that, for those who choose to, the pressure of cooking for the whole family would be removed. Good quality and nutritionally balanced food could be available at low cost. Imagine the time saved shopping, cooking and washing up.

Canteens in local neighbourhoods would also mean being able to get out and meet people rather than being stuck at home. Low cost laundrettes would also mean no washing and ironing!

And the list goes on. The impact of all these things on every working class person would obviously be enormous, but for most women, these changes would bring a total transformation in the quality of life. The struggle to improve the conditions of working class women is intrinsically linked to the struggle to transform society as a whole along socialist lines.

During March, the Melbourne branch of the Socialist Party conducted 12 street stalls and atteneded 5 rallies raising $758.70 in fighting fund. Perth branch contributed $250 towards fighting fund pledges. The Sydney branch has continued regular street stalls and raised $25 in March. The National Committee has recently set the following ambitious monthly targets (not including pledges).

Melbourne: $900-Sydney: $75-Perth: $20

All readers and supporters are encouraged to make a special May Day donation to enable us to expand our work. All branches are requested to discuss ways of raising funds for the fighting fund. Some suggestions are raffles or a social event for May Day.