THE LATEST PENTAGON IRAQ "CANNON FODDER" DEPLOYMENT PLANS

On November 17, 2006 the Pentagon announced that it will send up to 57,000 troops in five brigades to Iraq to replace units already there beginning in the first part of 2007. Presumably those troops will serve for a normal year rotation. The import of this news is that troops levels will remain the same as at present, about 140,000. Which makes me wonder-What the hell is all this noise about withdrawal and drawdown by politicans, particularly Democratic Party politicans, about? The stark reality is there will be no withdrawal soon. I am reposting a commentary I wrote on September 24, 2006 concerning this very issue. In the fast-changing political world some points made there may no longer be relevant. However I stand by the general thrust of the commentary.

UPDATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2006. Will this madness never stop. Over the weekend the Pentagon has leaked information that there are three potential strategies under discussion in a "commission" they have created to assess the situation in Iraq independently of the of the ill-starred Iraq Study Group. The three potential strategies are, predictably, a heavy increase in troops levels to gain victory, immediate withdrawal and a gradual reduction of American troops and replacement by Iraqi forces. While the Pentagon (and Senator McCain) may have appetites for troops increases in order to obtain "victory" that seems out of the question now. Immediate withdrawal is also dismissed out of hand. After all that might lead to a full-blown civil war. Hello, what the hell is occurring now? Generals, what do you need-the Battle of Bull Run- before you recognize a state of civil war?

The most probable course is a slow drawdown as the Iraqi replacement forces become better trained. In short, this is the case for withdrawal when the situation in Iraq stabilizes itself. Over the last year I have had fun poking holes in that one when anyone advances the argument. My rejoinder has been that the grandchildren of the troops already over in Iraq will be joining 'granddad and grandma' in the fighting before that event occurs. All this "commission" news boils down to is one hard fact- the troops will not be coming home this Christmas or any Christmas soon. Read on.


THE TROOPS ARE NOT COMING HOME FOR THIS CHRISTMAS OR ANY CHRISTMAS SOON!

COMMENTARY

IRAQ LOOKS MORE AND MORE LIKE VIETNAM EVERY DAY-IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL UNITED STATES/ALLIED TROOPS!


FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY
ORIGINALLY POSTED: SEPTEMBER 24, 2006
This writer for a long time has resisted the facile task route of comparing the situation in Iraq today to the Vietnam of some forty years ago. But it is getting harder and harder to do so. On the face of it the differences are obvious. In Vietnam revolutionary leftist forces were attempting to unify into one state that which by international diplomacy and previous bouts of international Stalinist treachery had been artificial split. Furthermore, the defining concept behind the revolutionary forces there was to resolve the agrarian question and the fight for what those forces conceived to be the road to socialism. Today in Iraq there are nationalist/sectarian forces which want to take revenge on the results of the European- derived Treaty of Versailles after World War I and divide this artificially created state-gun in hands. The fact that in Kurdish-controlled areas only the Kurdish flag can fly really says it all. Additionally, as far as this writer can tell, from the little known about murky underworld of radical Islamic politics there are no forces fighting for anything like a secular- democratic much less socialist solution to the problems there. Rather something like an Islamic Republic under repressive and anti-women Sharia law appears to be the favored political solution.

However, those differences between the domestic forces in Iraq and Vietnam aside the real way Iraq today looks like Vietnam is the similarities in the role of American imperialism on the ground. The latest news this week, the week of September 18, 2006, coming from the central military command is there will be no draw down of troops any time soon. LET ME REPEAT- THERE WILL NOT BE ANY DRAW DOWN ANY TIME SOON. All those who foolishly believed that draw down would occur and did not take the Bush Administration at its word when it declared empathically that troops would not be withdrawn as long as it drew breathe should ponder this. More on this below.

There are starting to be voices heard, dormant for a while, spearheaded by the editors of National Review and other neo-con sources that the lesson to be learned from Iraq is that to really win in Iraq the Americans must sent in more troops. How much such sentiments are worth from these previous supporters of a quick and cheap airpower strategy in Iraq is beside the point. What is noteworthy is that this premise is not an isolated sentiment even among alleged opponents of the war. And that, in a nutshell, is where the comparison to Vietnam comes into play. The hubris which led the United States into the quagmire of Iraq is still very much in play. The notion that in order rectify the original mistake of invasion more mistakes, such as increased troop levels, can solve the problem and bring victory where none is possible is the same mentality that led to all the escalations of the Vietnam era. Against all reason the Bushies of America and the world cannot believe that the situation is lost. Well, hell that is their problem. Militant leftists have other problems like organizing the opposition to worry over.

Additionally, President Bush himself is getting a little testy at the Prime Minister of Iraq. He cannot believe that at this late stage wholly owned American puppet government in Iraq hasn’t stepped up to its tasks of creating domestic tranquility. One should remember the names Diem and Thieu from Vietnamese history who got the same kinds of dressing-downs from previous American administrations. With that thought in mind let me ask this question. Is there anyone today on the planet outside the immediate Bush family that believes that the writ of the Iraqi government runs outside the Green Zone (and even that premise might be shaky)? These guys (and they are overwhelmingly men) never led anything, went into exile under Saddam rather than go underground and build a resistance movement and represent no one but themselves.

But, enough of that. The real question is what are we anti-war, anti-imperialist activists going to do about the situation. President Bush has been rightly accused of upping the security alerts during election time to highlight the security question that he has (successfully) used as a trump card to swing the electoral balance in his favor. The least well-known fact is that during the fall of election years, including this year, the leaderships of the reformist anti-war movements close down the nationally- centered demonstrations campaign which are the lynchpins of their politics. It is no secret that this is done to help so-called anti-war Democratic politicians or at least not be a source of embarrassment to their weak parliamentary opposition to the war. In a blog written this summer I wrote an open letter to the troops in Iraq. The thrust of the letter was that the conventional politicians, their own military leadership and the anti-war movement had left the troops in Iraq hanging in the wind. As we enter the fall electoral campaign this is truer than ever. I will repeat here what I stated there- if the troops are to withdraw from Iraq it will have to be on their own hook. Start forming the soldiers and sailors committees now. Militant leftists here must support those efforts. Unfortunately today there is no other way to end the war. FORWARD.

THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!

FORGET GENERAL ABIZAID-FORGET IRAQ STUDY GROUPS-FRATERNIZE WITH THE RANK AND FILE TROOPS TO GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!

COMMENTARY

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SEATS ON THAT HELL-BOUND TRAIN OUT OF IRAQ-CHRIST, EVEN "HAWK" SENATOR JOHN McCAIN IS GETTING UPPITY WITH THE GENERALS


THE TIME FOR IRAQ COMMISSIONS, THE TIME FOR CONGRESSIONAL OR ELECTORAL VOTES, THE TIME FOR STREET PROTESTS IS OVER- IT IS DESPERATELY NECESSARY TO FIGHT UNDER THE SLOGAN -GET THE TROOPS THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ TODAY- FORM SOLDIER AND SAILOR SOLIDARITY FRATERNIZATION COMMITTEES NOW!

Just a little over a week after the dust has settled on the 2006-midterm elections that have been correctly interpreted as a referendum on the Iraq War the political posturing by both Democrats and Republicans in Washington and elsewhere has become hot and heavy-without moving us one inch closer to withdrawal, immediate or otherwise, from the Iraq quagmire. The latest panacea apparently is an Iraq Study Group centrally made up of refugees from the first President Bush’s regime. Aren't they the architects of the first Iraq War? Isn't that like letting the fox into the chicken house?

There have also been any number of proposals from every source under the sun -the most notable being from johnny-come-lately anti-war Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha who wants the troops redeployed-to Kuwait. Apparently everyone has a timetable proposal for withdrawal triggered to start anywhere from a few months from now onward. However, most make that timetable contingent on xyz factors about the stability of the situation in Iraq. As I have mentioned several times before in previous posts- The granddchildren of the troops currently serving in Iraq will be starting their tours of duty before that occurs.

To show just how bad the political fallout is over Iraq since the midterm electoral upheaval I note that on November 15, 2006 the Senate Armed Services Committee solicited the views of Iraq War commander General Abizaid. And they did not like what they heard. General Abizaid argued a variation of the Bush doctrine- “stay the course". No withdrawals, no timetables, no drawdowns. Nobody wanted to hear this madness. Even punitive Republican presidential candidate Arizona Senator John McCain, a feisty former Vietnam War prisoner of war, got uppity with the esteemed General on that one. Things have certainly changed rapidly since late summer. At that time this same committee had General Pace up for a grilling but they let him off the hook when he sheepishly promised to do better.

Those days are long gone now. Gone is the circumspection, gone is the deference, gone is the “wink and nod” of one good old boy (or girl) to another that had characterized previous outings. There is not enough room on that train out of Iraq from anyone with the slightest presidential or other political ambitions. Now that the unlamented Rumsfeld is gone General Abizaid apparently is the next logical target with a bullseye on his chest. Many a general in the Pentagon must be checking his or her retirement pension status these days.

After re-reading my posting on the August Senate meeting I have decided to re-post it here. I was then , and am now , trying like hell to propagandize a proposal that it is necessary to organize and fraternize with the troops in order to for them to start an orderly and timely withdrawal from Iraq- and pretty damn quick. The points made there still hold true. Read on.

THE GENERALS SIGNAL THE RETREAT-THERE IS NO LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL IN IRAQ!

FORGET TIMETABLES FOR WITHDRAWAL- CUT AND RUN NOW (JOG, TROT, CRAWL, SWIM, IF NECESSARY)

THE GENERALS AND POLITICANS HAVE ABANDONED THE RANK AND FILE SOLDIERS IN IRAQ TO THEIR FATE. BROTHER AND SISTER SOLDIERS- THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT- GET THE TROOP TRANSPORTS READY

ORIGINALLY POSTED: August 2006

I’ll keep this short and sweet. The time for discussion on Iraq is long over. Forget the Bush Administration’s lies! Forget the weapons of mass destruction! Forget staying the course, the ‘war on terrorism’, Saddam’s ugly face, the so-called ‘fight for democracy’ in the Middle East, supporting the troops or the thousand and one reasons which have surfaced over the years (yes, years) for supporting the imperialist adventure in Iraq. That is so much background noise now. Here is what counts. That is the appearance on August 3, 2006 of the senior commanding generals, the guys who run the day to day operations of the American military, with the Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld in tow, before the Senate Armed Services Committee. And you better etch the pictures from that proceeding in your minds. Hereafter anytime someone tries to raise his or her head in defense of the Iraq war (or staying there one more minute) refer them to this scene.

What the generals did not say to the committee is as important as what they said. THE WAR IS LOST. These generals are privy to much more information than they would ever publicly acknowledge so when they go, willingly or not, before a Senate Committee and announce that chaos has descended on Iraq one does not need to be Karl Marx to know how really bad the situation is there. These guys are not retired generals sniping at the boss from their consulting firms, think tanks, or vacation retreats. THESE GUYS RUN THE SHOW. These generals did not earn that fruit salad on their chests by being Pollyannas. They would rather fall on their swords than use words like 'defeat' and 'retreat'. It just does not register that the delights of ‘shock and awe’ has turned in quagmire. So be it.

They have, however, learned something over the years. For one thing, do not repeat General Westmoreland’s ‘follies’ in Vietnam by painting a rosy picture of success as the U.S. Embassy is being overrun by a bunch of seemingly crazed foreigners. That is most definitely bad for credibility. For another, these guys started their careers fighting on the ground in the boondocks of Vietnam so they KNOW what a civil war is. Vietnam was a class civil war and Iraq is a sectarian civil war but in either case they want no part of it. No way. Nevertheless, the generals are still more than willing to transfer rank and file soldiers to the hellhole of Baghdad to be used as ‘cannon fodder’ in that same civil war. Some things they do not learn.

This writer makes no bones about his long time opposition to the Iraq war in particular and American imperialism in general. Over the years I have taken my political beatings and been abused by the ‘sunshine patriots’ over this or that policy. Hey, this is politics so it comes with the territory. Besides I have enjoyed beating up on Bush & Co. when they were riding high and now that they are riding low I still enjoy beating these bums down. In fact, let me give them an extra rabbit punch for good measure. Just to make sure they stay down.

No, I will not cry over the defeat of an imperialist adventure but I feel no sense of righteousness over this. Why? While I never supported the social patriotic slogan-Support the Troops- THEY ARE NOT AND NEVER WERE OUR TROOPS. THEY OPERATE UNDER ORDERS FROM THE RULING CLASSES. THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING - there is still the unfinished business. Those troops still need to get the hell out of Iraq. Bush and the Generals have stabbed them in the back. The Democratic and Republican politicians have stabbed them in the back. We of the anti-war movement have failed them. It is up to the rank and file soldiers in Iraq now-the ball in their court. At this point the only way out is through their own efforts. What we civilians can do is form committees of soldier and sailor solidarity in order to fraternize with their efforts. More on this latter. I am preparing AN OPEN LETTER TO THE RANK AND FILE SOLDIERS IN IRAQ (see August 2006 archives) to offer some ideas on organizing themselves out of the chaos. Look for it in this space soon.

A SPECIAL NOTE ON HILLARY "HAWK" CLINTON, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK AND PUNITIVE (not putative) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN 2008. ‘Hawk” finally gets it on Iraq- a very, very, very little. Her solution. Have Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld offer his resignation. This, I assume, represents Ms. Clinton’s attempt to win this year’s Profiles in Courage Award. Christ, the Congressional pages were calling for that bastard’s resignation about a year ago. I do not care about the personal fate of Ms. Clinton or her ambitions. However, her case brings to mind the ghost of Hubert Horatio Humphrey in 1968. Enough said.


THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!

LENIN ON THE DAWN OF MODERN IMPERIALISM

BOOK REVIEW
IMPERIALISM: THE HIGHEST STAGE OF CAPITALISM, V.I. LENIN, PLUTO PRESS, UNITED KINGDOM, 1996

Over the last generation much has been made of the positive effects of the latter day ‘globalization’ of the international capitalist markets. By this, I assume, commentators mean that kids in Kansas and kids in Katmandu have access to those same pairs of Nike sneakers. Although the outlines of the development of globalization have been known for at least a century, called by less kindly souls like myself- imperialism- apparently the latest devotees of the trend just got the news.

Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin analyzed this tendency of international capitalism in 1916 in a little book called Imperialism-the Highest Stage of Capitalism reviewed here. His major premises were that the 'globalization' of the capitalist markets of his day had made the nation-state an impediment to economic growth and that the concentration of capital into fewer cartels created intolerable tensions internationally ultimately culminating in wars for the redistribution of markets. While Lenin’s analysis could benefit from a little updating, particularly on the effects of the shift of the industrial labor market away from the high cost metropolitan areas to the former colonial areas in the search for lower wage bills and higher profit margins, the increased role of state intervention in markets and the effects of technological innovations, the basis premises are still sound.

While much of the positive ‘globalization’ rhetoric mentioned above has been overblown- especially concerning its effects on the demise of the nation-state and its alledged replacement by multi-national corporations and a multicultural ethic- the chickens are now starting to come home to roost on the down side of the world political situation. Everyone and their brother and sister, multi-national corporation or local “mom and pop” shoestring operation, is scurrying back to the 'safe' confines of the nation-state. With their guns drawn. What gives?

What gives is this. The international capitalist system, which after the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the early 1990’s, lived in a self-imposed fool’s paradise believing that the contradictions of the system would flatten out on their own and that everyone had reached the best of all possible worlds. There was even some sentiment for one-world government, of course a United States-dominated one, from quarters not normally known for such flights of fancy. The events of the last several years have graphically disabused the more cutthroat capitalists, their ideologues and mouthpieces of this notion.

This retrogression to the defenses of individual nation-states reminiscent of the so-called “Dark Ages” apparently is only the vanguard of what promises to be a much more restrictive world. The ruling classes, however, seem unable to put serious efforts in other types of endeavors. Which takes us back to Lenin. He not only wrote this little book on the tendencies of international capitalism as a piece of analysis but he did it for a reason. And that reason was to demonstrate to the militant leftists of his day, during the carnage of World War I, that the hitherto for progressive nature of capitalist development had run out of steam and the socialist revolution was on the historic agenda. And then proceeded to put theory into practice by leading the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917. Today, the critics of globalization are much stronger on the effects of the process of international capitalist organization and its effects but weak, very weak, on the way to organize out of the impasse. Lenin knew what to do. Do we?

*STRIKE THE BLOW-THE LEGEND OF CAPTAIN JOHN BROWN

Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for the heroic revolutionary abolitionist, John Brown.

Reclaiming John Brown for the Left

BOOK REVIEW

JOHN BROWN, ABOLITIONIST, DAVID S. REYNOLDS, ALFRED A. KNOPF, NEW YORK, 2005
From fairly early in my youth I knew the name John Brown and was swept up by the romance surrounding his exploits at Harpers Ferry. For example, I knew that the great anthem of the Civil War -The Battle Hymn of the Republic- had a prior existence as a tribute to John Brown and that Union soldiers marched to that song as they headed south. I was then, however, neither familiar with the import of his exploits for the black liberation struggle nor knew much about the specifics of the politics of the various tendencies in the struggle against slavery. I certainly knew nothing then of Brown’s (and his sons) prior military exploits in the Kansas ‘proxy’ wars against the expansion of slavery. Later study filled in some of those gaps and has only strengthened my strong bond with his memory. Know this, as I reach the age at which John Brown was executed I still retain my youthful admiration for him. In the context of the turmoil of the times he was the most courageous and audacious revolutionary in the struggle for the abolition of slavery in America. Almost 150 years after his death this writer is proud to stand in defense of the exploits of John Brown.

That said, it is with a great deal of satisfaction that I can recommend Mr. Reynolds’s book detailing the life, times and exploits of John Brown, warts and all. Originally published in hardcover in 2005, this is an important source (including helpful end notes) for updating various controversies surrounding the John Brown saga. While I may disagree with some of Mr. Reynolds’s conclusions concerning the impact of John Brown’s exploits on later black liberation struggles and to a lesser extent his position on Brown’s impact on his contemporaries, particularly the Transcendentalists, on the key point of the central place of John Brown in American leftist revolutionary history there is no dispute.

Mr. Reynolds has moreover taken pains to provide substantial detail about the ups and downs of John Brown’s posthumous reputation. Most importantly, he defends the memory of John Brown against all-comers-that is partisan history on behalf of the ‘losers’ of history at its best. He has reclaimed John Brown to his proper position as an icon for the left against the erroneous and outrageous efforts of modern day right wing religious and secular terrorists to lay any claim to his memory or his work. Below I make a few comments on some of controversies surrounding John Brown developed in Mr. Reynolds’s work.

If one understands the ongoing nature, from his early youth, of John Brown’s commitment to the active struggle against slavery, the scourge of the American Republic in the first half of the 19th century, one can only conclude that he was indeed a man on a mission. As Mr. Reynolds’s points out Brown took every opportunity to fight against slavery including early service as an agent of the Underground Railroad spiriting escaped slaves northward, participation as an extreme radical in all the key anti-slavery propaganda battles of the time as well as challenging other anti-slavery elements to be more militant and in the 1850’s, arms in hand, fighting in the ‘proxy’ wars in Kansas and, of course, the culmination of his life- the raid on Harpers Ferry. Those exploits alone render absurd a very convenient myth by those who supported slavery or turned a blind eye to it, and their latter-day apologists, about his so-called ‘madness’. This is a political man and to these eyes a very worthy one.

For those who like their political heroes ‘pure’, frankly, it is better to look elsewhere than the life of John Brown. His personal and family life as a failed rural capitalist would hardly lead one to think that this man was to become a key historical figure in any struggle, much less the great struggle against slavery. Some of his actions in Kansas (concerning the murder of some pro-slavery elements under his direction) also cloud his image. However, when the deal went down in the late 1850’s and it was apparent for all to see that there was no other way to end slavery than a fight to the death-John Brown rose to the occasion. And did not cry about it. And did not expect others to cry about it. Call him a ‘monomaniac’ if you like, but even a slight acquaintance with great historical figures shows they all have this ‘disease’- that is why they make the history books. No, the ‘madness’ argument will not do.

Whether or not John Brown knew that his military strategy for the Harpers Ferry raid would, in the short term, be defeated is a matter of dispute. Reams of paper have been spent proving the military foolhardiness of his scheme at Harper’s Ferry. Brown’s plan, however, was essentially a combination of slave revolt modeled after the maroon experiences in Haiti, Nat Turner’s earlier Virginia slave rebellion combined with rural guerrilla warfare of the ‘third world’ type that we have become more familiar with since his time. 150 years later this strategy does not look so foolhardy in an America of the 1850’s that had no real standing army, fairly weak lines of communications, virtually uninhabited mountains to flee to and the North at their backs. The execution of the plan is another matter. Brown seemingly made about every mistake in the book in that regard. However, this is missing the essential political point that militant action not continuing parliamentary maneuvering advocated by other abolitionists had become necessary. A few more fighting abolitionists, including Frederick Douglass, and better propaganda work among freedman with connections to the plantations would have greatly enhanced the chances for success at Harpers Ferry.

A point not in dispute is that Brown considered himself a true Calvinist avenging angel in the struggle against slavery and more importantly acted on that belief. In short, he was committed to bring justice to the black masses. This is why his exploits and memory stay alive after over 150 years. It is possible that if Brown did not have this, by 19th century standards as well as our own, old-fashioned Calvinist determination that he would not been capable of militant action. Certainly other anti-slavery elements never came close to his militancy, including the key Transcendentalist movement led by Emerson,Thoreau and the Concord ‘crowd’ who supported him and kept his memory alive in hard times. In their eyes he had the heroic manner of the Old Testament prophet, but they did not emulate him. Now Brown's animating spirit is not one that animates modern leftist revolutionaries and so it is hard to understand the depths of his religious convictions on his actions. It is better today to look at Brown more politically through his hero (and one of mine, as well) Oliver Cromwell-a combination of Calvinist avenger and militant warrior. Yes, I can get behind that picture of John Brown.

By all accounts Brown and his small integrated band of brothers fought bravely and coolly against great odds. Ten of Brown's men were killed including two of his sons. Five were captured, tried and executed, including Brown. These results are almost inevitable when one takes up a revolutionary struggle against the old order and one is not victorious. One need only think of, for example, the fate of the defenders of the Paris Commune in 1871. One can fault Brown on this or that tactical maneuver. Nevertheless he and the others bore themselves bravely in defeat. As we are all too painfully familiar there are defeats of the oppressed that lead nowhere. One thinks of the defeat of the German Revolution in the 1920’s. There other defeats that galvanize others into action. This is how Brown’s actions should be measured by history.

Militarily defeated at Harpers Ferry, Brown's political mission to destroy slavery by force of arms nevertheless continued to galvanize important elements in the North at the expense of the pacifistic non-resistant Garrisonian political program for struggle against slavery. Many writers on Brown who reduce his actions to that of a ‘madman’ to this day cannot believe that his road proved more appropriate to end slavery than either non-resistance or gradualism. That alone makes short shrift of such 'madman' theories. Historians and others have also willfully misinterpreted later events such as the Bolshevik strategy which led to Russian Revolution in October 1917. More recently, we saw this same incomprehension concerning the victory of the Vietnamese against overwhelming American military superiority. Needless to say, all these events continue to be revised by some historians in order to take the sting out of their proper political implications.

From a modern prospective Brown’s strategy for black liberation, even if the abolitionist goal he aspired to had been immediately successful, reached the outer limits within the confines of capitalism. Brown’s actions were meant to make black people free. Beyond that goal he had no program except the Chatham Charter which seems to have replicated the existing American constitution but with racial and gender equality as a cornerstone. Unfortunately the Civil War did not provide fundamental economic and political freedom that would have insured a running start toward that equality. That is still our fight. Moreover, the Civil War, the defeat of Radical Reconstruction, the reign of ‘Jim Crow’ and the subsequent waves of black migration to the cities have changed the character of black oppression in the U.S. from Brown’s time. Black people are now a part of "free labor," and the key to their liberation is in the integrated fight of labor in the current one-sided class war in order to establish a government of workers and their allies. Nevertheless, we can stand proudly in the revolutionary tradition of John Brown (and of his friend Frederick Douglass). We need to complete the unfinished democratic tasks of the Civil War, not by emulating Brown’s exemplary actions but to moving the multi-racial American working class to power. Finish the Civil War.