COMMENTARY
HELLO! IT’S THE WAR BUDGET THAT COUNTS-AS THE FIVE BRIGADES DEPLOY
This will be short and sweet. The august House of Representatives of the United States Congress, in its infinite wisdom has gently chided President George W. Bush on his Iraq ‘surge’ strategy with a meaningless non-binding resolution, by a mainly party line vote. Meanwhile the additional five brigades he requested are headed for Iraq unimpeded. In politics timing is important. This vote if it had taken place before the Iraq invasion, even if non-binding, might have sent some kind of message of anti-war parliamentary opposition.
Today it only demonstrates how far the bourgeois politicians are behind the citizenry on this war issue. Well, nobody ever accused these denizens of parliamentary cretinism of being ahead of the curve-on anything. In any case, the real battle will be over the upcoming war budget. That will not be a pretty sight as most of these same pro-non-binding resolution voters will run for cover, and pronto. Enough said.
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR A WORKERS GOVERNMENT!
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!
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
*** A Saga Of The Second Chinese Revolution, 1925-27-Andre Malraux's "Man's Fate"
Click on title to link to Wikipedia's sentry for French writer and politician Andre Malraux.
Markin comment:
Leon Trotsky, early on, praised Malraux's literary talents. He was, and would have been, less enamored of Malraux's later career as Stalin admirer and subsequently in the post World II era a minister of culture under France's strongman Charles DeGaulle. Oh, well, everyone familiar with the biographic sketches of past literary figures knows that that milieu is replete with writers who cannot resist being in the circles of power-no matter the political cost. Still, in his prime Malraux could write thoughtful novels and write circles around most of his contemporaries. Trotsky was not wrong on that score, although he also seemed to be aware of certain moral flabbiness in Malraux. He was not wrong there either.
BOOK REVIEW
MAN'S FATE, ANDRE MALRAUX, VINTAGE BOOKS, NEW YORK, 1990
As a young man many held out high hopes that the French writer Andre Malraux would become an accomplished revolutionary writer, or at least an extraordinary writer of revolutionary sagas. No less a communist literary critic than Leon Trotsky, the consummate man of action and letters, praised his early work. "Man’s Fate" is a prime example of the reason that leftist critics praised his work. Although later events would destroy his reputation as a writer and as a man of action on the left this novel takes its place in the pantheon of well-written expressions of the dilemma of modern humankind confronted as it is with one half of itself mired in the mundane bourgeois,and as is the case in this book also the feudal,world and the other half striving toward a more just and equitable society.
The action of the novel takes place in the throes of the Second Chinese revolution at a point where the alliance between Chiang Kai-Shek’s Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party had broken down and Chiang was ready to butcher the Communists in order to take undisputed control of the Chinese state. Like Russia before it, everyone had known that a second Chinese Revolution was coming. The only question at that point was whether it was to be a bourgeois revolution in the classic Western sense or a socialist revolution that would go a long way to helping the Soviet Union of the 1920’s break out of its isolation after various unsuccessful revolutionary attempts in the West had failed. As it turned out neither event occurred at that time. This tension, and especially the tension of the Communists who were under orders from the Communist International, and hence Moscow, to subordinate themselves to Chiang unconditionally, is what drives the action.
The novel is also a snapshot of what the Communist International's ‘high policy’ of collaboration with Chiang looked like as it was implemented on the ground among the secondary cadre and rank and filers of the Chinese Communist Party, their allies, semi-allies, adversaries and the merely indifferent. In that context, it is additionally an early literary expose of the relationship between those who carry out, even if in small ways, Western imperialist policy in their separate and exclusive colonial enclaves and those ‘natives’ who do the ‘coolie’ work. That tension exists today, as can readily be seen in places like Iraq, so one should pay particular attention to that dynamic. Read on.
Markin comment:
Leon Trotsky, early on, praised Malraux's literary talents. He was, and would have been, less enamored of Malraux's later career as Stalin admirer and subsequently in the post World II era a minister of culture under France's strongman Charles DeGaulle. Oh, well, everyone familiar with the biographic sketches of past literary figures knows that that milieu is replete with writers who cannot resist being in the circles of power-no matter the political cost. Still, in his prime Malraux could write thoughtful novels and write circles around most of his contemporaries. Trotsky was not wrong on that score, although he also seemed to be aware of certain moral flabbiness in Malraux. He was not wrong there either.
BOOK REVIEW
MAN'S FATE, ANDRE MALRAUX, VINTAGE BOOKS, NEW YORK, 1990
As a young man many held out high hopes that the French writer Andre Malraux would become an accomplished revolutionary writer, or at least an extraordinary writer of revolutionary sagas. No less a communist literary critic than Leon Trotsky, the consummate man of action and letters, praised his early work. "Man’s Fate" is a prime example of the reason that leftist critics praised his work. Although later events would destroy his reputation as a writer and as a man of action on the left this novel takes its place in the pantheon of well-written expressions of the dilemma of modern humankind confronted as it is with one half of itself mired in the mundane bourgeois,and as is the case in this book also the feudal,world and the other half striving toward a more just and equitable society.
The action of the novel takes place in the throes of the Second Chinese revolution at a point where the alliance between Chiang Kai-Shek’s Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party had broken down and Chiang was ready to butcher the Communists in order to take undisputed control of the Chinese state. Like Russia before it, everyone had known that a second Chinese Revolution was coming. The only question at that point was whether it was to be a bourgeois revolution in the classic Western sense or a socialist revolution that would go a long way to helping the Soviet Union of the 1920’s break out of its isolation after various unsuccessful revolutionary attempts in the West had failed. As it turned out neither event occurred at that time. This tension, and especially the tension of the Communists who were under orders from the Communist International, and hence Moscow, to subordinate themselves to Chiang unconditionally, is what drives the action.
The novel is also a snapshot of what the Communist International's ‘high policy’ of collaboration with Chiang looked like as it was implemented on the ground among the secondary cadre and rank and filers of the Chinese Communist Party, their allies, semi-allies, adversaries and the merely indifferent. In that context, it is additionally an early literary expose of the relationship between those who carry out, even if in small ways, Western imperialist policy in their separate and exclusive colonial enclaves and those ‘natives’ who do the ‘coolie’ work. That tension exists today, as can readily be seen in places like Iraq, so one should pay particular attention to that dynamic. Read on.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
ONCE AGAIN-HANDS OFF IRAN!!
COMMENTARY
WHEN BUSH DENIES AN INTENTION TO ATTACK IRAN GET SCARED, VERY SCARED.
Over the past couple of weeks, amid the din of these meaningless non-binding resolutions on the Iraq ‘surge’ before both branches of Congress, the Bush Administration has created a ‘surge’ of its own on Iran. The most interesting, if most ominous, aspect of this propaganda campaign for war against Iran is a recent news conference in which Administration officials laid out yet another variant of the ‘smoking gun’ connection between Iran and the insurgency in Iraq.
Since that time they have been backtracking on how high up in the Iranian government this material support for the Iraqi insurgency went. That admission should put even the must obtuse bourgeois politician on notice that this is another one of those flimsy, half-baked ‘cooked’ intelligence schemes made to order for the dictates of American foreign policy. As the pre- Iraq War‘cooked’ intelligence reports confirm a 30 plus billion dollar budget does not buy much in the way of intelligence these days. I am waiting, breathlessly, to have it revealed that the source of this information is the late Shah’s grandson or some other CIA hanger-on looking to get back into power. Then the Iraq comparison would be complete.
Know this, however, when Secretary of War Gates denies any intention of attacking Iran; when Bush denies any intention of invading Iran; when. Laura Bush says ‘no way’; and, Condi Rice says “Are you crazy? we have a full plate already." , you know the final attack plans are being put in order. More ominous, I have not heard a peep out of Dick Cheney on this subject. Someone in the White House has obviously forgotten to read the Iraq Study Group Report (you remember that little chestnut that was suppose to allow a 'graceful'exit from Iraq and recommended that the Administration make 'nice' with Iran).
Know this also-this writer does no support the women-hating, anti-modernist fundamentalist mullahs in Iran and their crazy theocratic ambitions. However, the fight to replace them is the task of the Iranian people, it cannot be outsourced to American imperialism. If, and when, the deal goes down and American imperialism pulls the hammer I say-U.S. HANDS OFF IRAN!! Get the posters and placards ready.
WHEN BUSH DENIES AN INTENTION TO ATTACK IRAN GET SCARED, VERY SCARED.
Over the past couple of weeks, amid the din of these meaningless non-binding resolutions on the Iraq ‘surge’ before both branches of Congress, the Bush Administration has created a ‘surge’ of its own on Iran. The most interesting, if most ominous, aspect of this propaganda campaign for war against Iran is a recent news conference in which Administration officials laid out yet another variant of the ‘smoking gun’ connection between Iran and the insurgency in Iraq.
Since that time they have been backtracking on how high up in the Iranian government this material support for the Iraqi insurgency went. That admission should put even the must obtuse bourgeois politician on notice that this is another one of those flimsy, half-baked ‘cooked’ intelligence schemes made to order for the dictates of American foreign policy. As the pre- Iraq War‘cooked’ intelligence reports confirm a 30 plus billion dollar budget does not buy much in the way of intelligence these days. I am waiting, breathlessly, to have it revealed that the source of this information is the late Shah’s grandson or some other CIA hanger-on looking to get back into power. Then the Iraq comparison would be complete.
Know this, however, when Secretary of War Gates denies any intention of attacking Iran; when Bush denies any intention of invading Iran; when. Laura Bush says ‘no way’; and, Condi Rice says “Are you crazy? we have a full plate already." , you know the final attack plans are being put in order. More ominous, I have not heard a peep out of Dick Cheney on this subject. Someone in the White House has obviously forgotten to read the Iraq Study Group Report (you remember that little chestnut that was suppose to allow a 'graceful'exit from Iraq and recommended that the Administration make 'nice' with Iran).
Know this also-this writer does no support the women-hating, anti-modernist fundamentalist mullahs in Iran and their crazy theocratic ambitions. However, the fight to replace them is the task of the Iranian people, it cannot be outsourced to American imperialism. If, and when, the deal goes down and American imperialism pulls the hammer I say-U.S. HANDS OFF IRAN!! Get the posters and placards ready.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
ROSA LUXEMBURG-THE ROSE OF THE REVOLUTION
BOOK REVIEW
ROSA LUXEMBURG, E. ETTINGER, VINTAGE PRESS, 1989
MARCH IS WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
If you need to know, and you should, what Rosa Luxemburg's contributions to Marxist theory were and about her struggles within various European left-wing socialist parties to fight for her revolutionary perspective then this is not the book for you. You need to read Rosa Luxemburg Speaks or read one of her eminent political biographers like P. Froelich or M. Nettl. If, however, you know Rosa's theories and political struggles then this book can provide some insights about what it was like to be a leading revolutionary socialist woman in early 20th century Europe.
Ms. Ettinger has based her work on various correspondences between Rosa and her political associates, women friends and her lovers, particularly the tempestuous and long time relationship with Leo Jogliches. In that sense this is a more scholarly work than what currently passes for the personal biography of political celebrities, and its shows by keeping speculation about personal motives within some kind of bounds. In short, it is a labor of love, not of political love because the author makes no bones that she is not in sympathy with Rosa's overall political strategy but of deep admiration for someone who listened to her own drummer. And did it in a very much male-dominated political world.
I read political biographies mainly to get a background look at what makes the subject of the biography tick. After reading this book it struck me once again that even revolutionaries, and particularly revolutionary women, cannot fully transcend the facts of their personal upbringing and their times. Clearly, Rosa was a liberated woman by any measure. However, I got the overwhelming feeling that she could never fully transcend the outsider-ness of being Jewish or of the terrible strain of breaking free of the mores of Victorian Europe. It may be a truism of Marxism but true nevertheless that it would take some generations before the `new' man and women would fully take on the attributes of socialist comradeship but after reading this book it is also clear that even the `vanguard' intellectuals of the movement can only go so far in transcending their capitalist environment. Nevertheless Remember Rosa Luxemburg-the Rose of the Revolution.
ROSA LUXEMBURG, E. ETTINGER, VINTAGE PRESS, 1989
MARCH IS WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
If you need to know, and you should, what Rosa Luxemburg's contributions to Marxist theory were and about her struggles within various European left-wing socialist parties to fight for her revolutionary perspective then this is not the book for you. You need to read Rosa Luxemburg Speaks or read one of her eminent political biographers like P. Froelich or M. Nettl. If, however, you know Rosa's theories and political struggles then this book can provide some insights about what it was like to be a leading revolutionary socialist woman in early 20th century Europe.
Ms. Ettinger has based her work on various correspondences between Rosa and her political associates, women friends and her lovers, particularly the tempestuous and long time relationship with Leo Jogliches. In that sense this is a more scholarly work than what currently passes for the personal biography of political celebrities, and its shows by keeping speculation about personal motives within some kind of bounds. In short, it is a labor of love, not of political love because the author makes no bones that she is not in sympathy with Rosa's overall political strategy but of deep admiration for someone who listened to her own drummer. And did it in a very much male-dominated political world.
I read political biographies mainly to get a background look at what makes the subject of the biography tick. After reading this book it struck me once again that even revolutionaries, and particularly revolutionary women, cannot fully transcend the facts of their personal upbringing and their times. Clearly, Rosa was a liberated woman by any measure. However, I got the overwhelming feeling that she could never fully transcend the outsider-ness of being Jewish or of the terrible strain of breaking free of the mores of Victorian Europe. It may be a truism of Marxism but true nevertheless that it would take some generations before the `new' man and women would fully take on the attributes of socialist comradeship but after reading this book it is also clear that even the `vanguard' intellectuals of the movement can only go so far in transcending their capitalist environment. Nevertheless Remember Rosa Luxemburg-the Rose of the Revolution.
IN DEFENSE OF RALPH NADER'S RIGHT TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT-IN 2000
COMMENTARY
FORGET ELEPHANTS, DONKEYS AND GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
A documentary concerning the trials and tribulation of seemingly perennial presidential candidate and bourgeois gadfly Ralph Nader has just come out, oddly titled an “Unreasonable Man”. Ordinarily I would not give a tinker’s damn about reviewing such a film event but a couple of things brought out in the film have gotten me in lather. Those who have been reading this space over the last year should be well aware that I hold not truck with the Green Party or for that matter Ralph Nader’s run as an independent candidate. An alienated leftist (maybe?) candidacy, in either form, acting as a pressure on the Democratic Party to be ‘good’ is not the strategy necessary for the times. That strategy might have at least made a little political sense in about 1912 but, dear readers, that is a very long political time ago (although my candidate then, in any case, would have been the Socialist Party's Eugene V. Debs). But, as for the defense of Nader, fair is fair and besides I have an ulterior motive here-listen up.
One of the themes that come out of the film is a free-for- all retroactive thrashing of Nader, mainly by liberal Democratic gurus, for allegedly getting George Bush elected in 2000. Apparently, Mr. Nader is thus responsible for everything that has happened since then from the invasion of Iraq to global warming to the failure of the Chicago Cubs to win a World Series. Grow up! And get over it! Part of the charm of bourgeois politics is the necessity for political amnesia. The Bush-Gore contest was a yawner. People literally could not tell them apart, at the time. If there are quantitative differences today that does not undermine the central premise of their existence, or Nader’s either for that matter. None of them challenge the central capitalist production system and its profit motive. Of course not, that would be the beginning of wisdom.
Moreover, while we are at it why blame Nader for the debacle in 2000? And here is my real point. Why not blame Bill Clinton for his scandal-ridden second term? Why not blame the flimsy anti-democratic Supreme Court ruling that stopped the count? Why not blame the Constitutional Conventioneers of 1787 who created that albatross anti- plebian Electoral College system? Lastly, why not blame Al Gore himself whose insipid campaign against a ‘light-weight’ Bush candidacy drove even supporters to distraction? The point, although this thought is wasted on the liberal gurus, is that someone outside the two-party system should have the democratic right to run for any elective office he or she chooses. And that is what workers party advocates should take from this trashing of Nader. The two parties and their agents make it tough enough for third parties to have access to the electoral political process. Letting them get away with this cheapjack retro-bashing of Nader’s right to stand for the presidency should not go unopposed. Enough said.
FORGET ELEPHANTS, DONKEYS AND GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
A documentary concerning the trials and tribulation of seemingly perennial presidential candidate and bourgeois gadfly Ralph Nader has just come out, oddly titled an “Unreasonable Man”. Ordinarily I would not give a tinker’s damn about reviewing such a film event but a couple of things brought out in the film have gotten me in lather. Those who have been reading this space over the last year should be well aware that I hold not truck with the Green Party or for that matter Ralph Nader’s run as an independent candidate. An alienated leftist (maybe?) candidacy, in either form, acting as a pressure on the Democratic Party to be ‘good’ is not the strategy necessary for the times. That strategy might have at least made a little political sense in about 1912 but, dear readers, that is a very long political time ago (although my candidate then, in any case, would have been the Socialist Party's Eugene V. Debs). But, as for the defense of Nader, fair is fair and besides I have an ulterior motive here-listen up.
One of the themes that come out of the film is a free-for- all retroactive thrashing of Nader, mainly by liberal Democratic gurus, for allegedly getting George Bush elected in 2000. Apparently, Mr. Nader is thus responsible for everything that has happened since then from the invasion of Iraq to global warming to the failure of the Chicago Cubs to win a World Series. Grow up! And get over it! Part of the charm of bourgeois politics is the necessity for political amnesia. The Bush-Gore contest was a yawner. People literally could not tell them apart, at the time. If there are quantitative differences today that does not undermine the central premise of their existence, or Nader’s either for that matter. None of them challenge the central capitalist production system and its profit motive. Of course not, that would be the beginning of wisdom.
Moreover, while we are at it why blame Nader for the debacle in 2000? And here is my real point. Why not blame Bill Clinton for his scandal-ridden second term? Why not blame the flimsy anti-democratic Supreme Court ruling that stopped the count? Why not blame the Constitutional Conventioneers of 1787 who created that albatross anti- plebian Electoral College system? Lastly, why not blame Al Gore himself whose insipid campaign against a ‘light-weight’ Bush candidacy drove even supporters to distraction? The point, although this thought is wasted on the liberal gurus, is that someone outside the two-party system should have the democratic right to run for any elective office he or she chooses. And that is what workers party advocates should take from this trashing of Nader. The two parties and their agents make it tough enough for third parties to have access to the electoral political process. Letting them get away with this cheapjack retro-bashing of Nader’s right to stand for the presidency should not go unopposed. Enough said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)