Click on the headline to link to the "Marx-Engels Internet Archives" for an online copy of Friedrich Engels' "On The Housing Question."
COMMENTARY
NEW HOMEOWNERS NEED SOME RELIEF NOW!
There has bee a recent spike in home foreclosures, particularly in New England, due to several factors including predatory borrowing practices by banks and other lending institutions and housing price declines as a result of oversupply. A call for a foreclosure moratorium as featured in the headline would, however, seem unlikely as a cause for action and comment by a left-wing propagandist. Traditionally the left-wing position on home ownership has been, as spelled out by Frederich Engels, Karl Marx’s close collaborator, don’t do it. The rationale behind that position, not an unreasonable political one, was that the struggle to make house payments in an uncertain capitalist economic environment sapped the political energies of the working class and therefore tended to make workers and their families more conservative.
A later practical example of this was cited by American Socialist Workers Party leader James P. Cannon in the early 1950’s during a faction fight involving a significant section of that party's trade union cadre when he noted that their revolutionary edge had been blunted by concerns over keeping their homes. From another political perspective, also from the 1950’s, Bill Levitt, the capitalist developer and builder of the hugely successful suburban tract houses of the period known as Levittowns, noted that no one who owned his own home was likely to become a communist. Those points are all well and good but, as the Russian Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin pointed out, the task of socialists is to act as ‘tribunes of the people’. And damn, on this one it is the ‘people’ who are being squeezed out.
One of the great enduring myths of American capitalist society is that with a little bit of effort every person can own their own home. Moreover, that condition is one of the prerequisites for having ‘made it’ in America. The long and short of it is that many layers of society have in the past, are now, and will probably in the future desire to have their own homes. Using this notion as a wedge banking institutions has created a huge number of ways to ‘own’ a home as long a one was willing, knowingly or not, to pay extra for this privilege. Gone are the days when a family saved for a certain time to make a reasonable down payment and bought a house based on reasonable expectations of being able to pay off the mortgage, or upgrade, etc. So be it.
Although I have not been privy to all the data concerning who is being foreclosed on, I have observed where the foreclosure auctions are taking place and it is not in the wealthy neighborhoods and towns in my area. The net seems to be dragging those first-time minority and working class buyers who with just the slightest downward shift in economic conditions are pushed to the wall. That, dear reader, is why this is an issue for socialists. While we definitely have our own ideas about how housing will be distributed under socialism-and it will not look like today’s absurdly inequitable distribution- these people need relief now. Is this a revolutionary demand? Hell, no. Is it a just demand? Hell, yes. STOP THE FORECLOSURES.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
*In The Time Of The Great Fear- David Halberstam's "The Fifties"
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for the American writer, David Halberatam, most famous for his revealing look at the underside of American foreign policy in Vietnam, "The Best and the Brightest.
BOOK REVIEW
THE FIFTIES, DAVID HALBERSTAM
Although I am a member of the Generation of ’68, a political characterization, I am also by accident of birth a child of the Fifties. In some recollections of that period, including the present book, those times appear almost as a ‘golden age’. For those who were either too young to remember fully some of the early events of the Fifties or those who were not born at that time this book is a nice overview of the various political, social, economic, technological and cultural events of the period.
In a sense Mr. Halberstam has tried to accomplish too much under one cover, despite the book's several hundred page length. He has taken a panoramic view of the whole event- filled decade and with few exceptions given only a surface skimming of events, personalities and the impact that they had on the times. Notwithstanding that limitation, which can be addressed by reading other material on particular topics suggested by each chapter this is a solid journalistic piece of work. For an analysis of the meaning of the times or their place in the overall scheme of American history one can look elsewhere.
One thing is clear from Mr. Halberstam’s sweep of the decade and that is that many of the trends just coming to the surface then are still recognizable today. He tackles the vast changes in mass consumption brought on by the end of World War II that include the rise of the automobile, the suburbanization of America and the revolution in communications headlined by the use of television. This in turn triggered new mass service industries like airlines, hotels and fast food joints. These were also times of changes in cultural appreciations from an earlier more Victorian (at least on the surface) time and so on. Remarkably what has not changed despite massive changes in the forms of political packaging is the shallowness of political discourse. The banalities of the Eisenhower-Nixon years can easily compete with the banalities of today’s Bush era. The maturation of the age of the information super-highway since then has not brought a concurrent rise in political maturity.
Those of us who were alive during the period have our own take on the Fifties. I would make two points here that underscore what the Fifties mean to me. First, a lot of hoopla has been made over that generation that survived the Great Depression and fought World War II, my parents’ generation. In some cases they have been called the ‘greatest generation’. That is pure bunk. They sold their birthright to a more just society for a mess of pottage. However the Fifties was their time, the time that they came to maturity, and one cannot understand why they did or did not do better without and understanding of the period. Secondly, for my family, the saga that Mr. Halberstam presents was not our 1950’s. The promised abundance never reached down to my family, a family of the marginally working poor. In some ways the picture he presents is of a different society from the one I grew up in. There is no reason now to cry over it but those are the facts and that helps explain why my political trajectory took the course that it ultimately did.
BOOK REVIEW
THE FIFTIES, DAVID HALBERSTAM
Although I am a member of the Generation of ’68, a political characterization, I am also by accident of birth a child of the Fifties. In some recollections of that period, including the present book, those times appear almost as a ‘golden age’. For those who were either too young to remember fully some of the early events of the Fifties or those who were not born at that time this book is a nice overview of the various political, social, economic, technological and cultural events of the period.
In a sense Mr. Halberstam has tried to accomplish too much under one cover, despite the book's several hundred page length. He has taken a panoramic view of the whole event- filled decade and with few exceptions given only a surface skimming of events, personalities and the impact that they had on the times. Notwithstanding that limitation, which can be addressed by reading other material on particular topics suggested by each chapter this is a solid journalistic piece of work. For an analysis of the meaning of the times or their place in the overall scheme of American history one can look elsewhere.
One thing is clear from Mr. Halberstam’s sweep of the decade and that is that many of the trends just coming to the surface then are still recognizable today. He tackles the vast changes in mass consumption brought on by the end of World War II that include the rise of the automobile, the suburbanization of America and the revolution in communications headlined by the use of television. This in turn triggered new mass service industries like airlines, hotels and fast food joints. These were also times of changes in cultural appreciations from an earlier more Victorian (at least on the surface) time and so on. Remarkably what has not changed despite massive changes in the forms of political packaging is the shallowness of political discourse. The banalities of the Eisenhower-Nixon years can easily compete with the banalities of today’s Bush era. The maturation of the age of the information super-highway since then has not brought a concurrent rise in political maturity.
Those of us who were alive during the period have our own take on the Fifties. I would make two points here that underscore what the Fifties mean to me. First, a lot of hoopla has been made over that generation that survived the Great Depression and fought World War II, my parents’ generation. In some cases they have been called the ‘greatest generation’. That is pure bunk. They sold their birthright to a more just society for a mess of pottage. However the Fifties was their time, the time that they came to maturity, and one cannot understand why they did or did not do better without and understanding of the period. Secondly, for my family, the saga that Mr. Halberstam presents was not our 1950’s. The promised abundance never reached down to my family, a family of the marginally working poor. In some ways the picture he presents is of a different society from the one I grew up in. There is no reason now to cry over it but those are the facts and that helps explain why my political trajectory took the course that it ultimately did.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
HO HUM-THE DEMOCRATS FOLD ON IRAQ
COMMENTARY
DON’T MOURN-BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS!
ORGANIZE ANTI-WAR RANK AND FILE TROOP SOLIDARITY COMMITTEES
Well, as I have predicted since the first parliamentary moves were made in January, not without some bitterness, the Democrats in Congress have folded on the Iraq War budget by withdrawing their timetable conditions on the approval of appropriations. Now there are only some vague benchmarks which have to be hurdled. Of course the person who has to certify those benchmarks is none other than President Bush. One does not have to be a wizard to know that approval of those benchmarks will a no-brainer. Nor does it take a Marxist view of the world, although that certainly helps, to have seen the Congressional collapse coming.
The whole logic of the strategy was misguided, to say the least. Hiding behind a social patriotic 'support the troops' rationale there was never ever any question that the Iraq war budget was not going to be funded. Except for a few isolated left Democrats the question of not funding was not on the table. The net effect of all of this manuevering is that it is definitely no longer possible to separate out President Bush and his coterie as solely responsible for this war. This is now also a Democratic-sponored war, as it really always has been. Only now it is signed, sealed and delivered. If this war is ever to be ended it is necessary to break with the Democrats now. No more anti-war platforms for Democrats! No more political strategies based on popular fronts with Democrats.
Once again, for those who have been depending politically on the Democrats to save their hides on Iraq , it is necessary to bring the bitter truth home. That truth has been self-evident for at least a year now. This damn war is not going to be ended by parliamentary means. The fight to end the war now has to be brought to the factories, the schools, the offices and from there to the streets. Above all there is a desperate need to get to the military bases and get to the rank and file troops. That today, dear readers, is merely the beginning of wisdom.
DON’T MOURN-BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS!
ORGANIZE ANTI-WAR RANK AND FILE TROOP SOLIDARITY COMMITTEES
Well, as I have predicted since the first parliamentary moves were made in January, not without some bitterness, the Democrats in Congress have folded on the Iraq War budget by withdrawing their timetable conditions on the approval of appropriations. Now there are only some vague benchmarks which have to be hurdled. Of course the person who has to certify those benchmarks is none other than President Bush. One does not have to be a wizard to know that approval of those benchmarks will a no-brainer. Nor does it take a Marxist view of the world, although that certainly helps, to have seen the Congressional collapse coming.
The whole logic of the strategy was misguided, to say the least. Hiding behind a social patriotic 'support the troops' rationale there was never ever any question that the Iraq war budget was not going to be funded. Except for a few isolated left Democrats the question of not funding was not on the table. The net effect of all of this manuevering is that it is definitely no longer possible to separate out President Bush and his coterie as solely responsible for this war. This is now also a Democratic-sponored war, as it really always has been. Only now it is signed, sealed and delivered. If this war is ever to be ended it is necessary to break with the Democrats now. No more anti-war platforms for Democrats! No more political strategies based on popular fronts with Democrats.
Once again, for those who have been depending politically on the Democrats to save their hides on Iraq , it is necessary to bring the bitter truth home. That truth has been self-evident for at least a year now. This damn war is not going to be ended by parliamentary means. The fight to end the war now has to be brought to the factories, the schools, the offices and from there to the streets. Above all there is a desperate need to get to the military bases and get to the rank and file troops. That today, dear readers, is merely the beginning of wisdom.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
IN DEFENSE OF MITT ROMNEY'S GREAT-GRANDFATHER-AND GREAT GRANDMOTHERS
COMMENTARY
FIVE WIVES AT THE SAME TIME SHOW REAL EXECUTIVE ABILITY-RIGHT?
In a recent interview on CBS's Sixty Minutes Republican presidential hopeful ex- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a professed Mormon, declared that he thought that the fact that his great-grandfather took (or was ordered to take) five wives was ‘terrible’. As the fiercely persecuted Mormons settled in Utah apparently the numerical balance between men and women was off and polygamy was therefore encouraged. Naturally, being a male-dominated religious variant of Christianity that necessary was couched in theological terms, as well. The practice was officially banned by that denomination in 1890. However, the practice, as witnessed by some recent court cases in the West, still flourishes in some areas amount Old Style Mormons.
One can see that for someone who is running on a ‘family values’ platform highlighted by support for the proposition that marriage is between one man-one woman and is touting personal fidelity to one wife and one set of children in order to grab the brass ring of the presidency that such a family history may in fact be 'terrible'. But step back a minute Mitt, aside from being very disrespectful to your family line, what is the harm of having five, or for that matter, ten wives? Or a woman having ten husbands? As long a there is effective consent among and between the parties whose business is it anyway? And why be ashamed of that ‘skeleton’ in the family closet?
We socialists are not as squeamish as brother Romney appears to be about either the details of his family history or about how people arrange their personal lives. There has been a great hue and cry lately in the West over some Old Style Mormon instances of polygamy, including the usual allegations of coercion. Coercion or forcing “shot gun” weddings, singly or in multiples, is not what we mean by effective consent. However, absent coercion it is not the state’s business to interfere. We may have a different take than Mormons on what we think personal relationships will look like under socialism once the nuclear family (or what today stands for that proposition) recedes into the background as the basis unit of society but for now the variety of human experiences in interpersonal relationships is way beyond the scope of what the state needs to interfere in.
I, personally, want to learn more about old Great-Grandpa Romney and Joseph Smith-the founder of Mormonism and a Free Soiler candidate for office before he was murdered in the 1840’s. On the face of it those individuals seem, unlike Mitt, interesting personalities. Certainly everyone must concede that old Great-Grandfather Romney seems more interesting than his progeny. And had to have more real executive ability than latter monogamous Romneys. Hell, I had my hands full when, back in the days, I had two girlfriends at one time. Hands Off the Old Style Mormons! Government Out of the Bedrooms!
COMMENTARY
FIVE WIVES AT THE SAME TIME SHOW REAL EXECUTIVE ABILITY-RIGHT?
In a recent interview on CBS's Sixty Minutes Republican presidential hopeful ex- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a professed Mormon, declared that he thought that the fact that his great-grandfather took (or was ordered to take) five wives was ‘terrible’. As the fiercely persecuted Mormons settled in Utah apparently the numerical balance between men and women was off and polygamy was therefore encouraged. Naturally, being a male-dominated religious variant of Christianity that necessary was couched in theological terms, as well. The practice was officially banned by that denomination in 1890. However, the practice, as witnessed by some recent court cases in the West, still flourishes in some areas amount Old Style Mormons.
One can see that for someone who is running on a ‘family values’ platform highlighted by support for the proposition that marraige is between one man-one woman and is touting personal fidelity to one wife and children in order to grab the brass ring of the presidency that such a family history may in fact be 'terrible'. But step back a minute Mitt, aside from being very disrespectful to your family line, what is the harm of having five, or for that matter, ten wives? Or a woman having ten husbands? As long a there is effective consent among and between the parties whose business is it anyway? And why be ashamed of that ‘skeleton’ in the family closet?
We socialists are not as squeamish as brother Romney appears to be about either the details of his family history or about how people arrange their personal lives. There has been a great hue and cry lately in the West over some Old Style Mormon instances of polygamy, including the usual allegations of coercion. Coercion or forcing “shot gun” weddings, singly or in multiples, is not what we mean by effective consent. However, absent coercion it is not the state’s business to interfere. We may have a different take than Mormons on what we think personal relationships will look like under socialism once the nuclear family (or what today stands for that proposition) recedes into the background as the basis unit of society but for now the variety of human experiences in interpersonal relationships is way beyond the scope of what the state needs to interfere in.
I, personally, want to learn more about old Great-Grandpa Romney and Joseph Smith-the founder of Mormonism and a Free Soiler candidate for office before he was murdered in the 1840’s. On the face of it those individuals seem, unlike Mitt, interesting personalities. Certainly everyone must concede that old Great-Grandfather Romney seems more interesting than his progeny. And had to have more real executive ability than latter monogamous Romneys. Hell, I had my hands full when, back in the days, I had two girlfriends at one time. Hands Off the Old Style Mormons! Government Out of the Bedrooms!
FIVE WIVES AT THE SAME TIME SHOW REAL EXECUTIVE ABILITY-RIGHT?
In a recent interview on CBS's Sixty Minutes Republican presidential hopeful ex- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a professed Mormon, declared that he thought that the fact that his great-grandfather took (or was ordered to take) five wives was ‘terrible’. As the fiercely persecuted Mormons settled in Utah apparently the numerical balance between men and women was off and polygamy was therefore encouraged. Naturally, being a male-dominated religious variant of Christianity that necessary was couched in theological terms, as well. The practice was officially banned by that denomination in 1890. However, the practice, as witnessed by some recent court cases in the West, still flourishes in some areas amount Old Style Mormons.
One can see that for someone who is running on a ‘family values’ platform highlighted by support for the proposition that marriage is between one man-one woman and is touting personal fidelity to one wife and one set of children in order to grab the brass ring of the presidency that such a family history may in fact be 'terrible'. But step back a minute Mitt, aside from being very disrespectful to your family line, what is the harm of having five, or for that matter, ten wives? Or a woman having ten husbands? As long a there is effective consent among and between the parties whose business is it anyway? And why be ashamed of that ‘skeleton’ in the family closet?
We socialists are not as squeamish as brother Romney appears to be about either the details of his family history or about how people arrange their personal lives. There has been a great hue and cry lately in the West over some Old Style Mormon instances of polygamy, including the usual allegations of coercion. Coercion or forcing “shot gun” weddings, singly or in multiples, is not what we mean by effective consent. However, absent coercion it is not the state’s business to interfere. We may have a different take than Mormons on what we think personal relationships will look like under socialism once the nuclear family (or what today stands for that proposition) recedes into the background as the basis unit of society but for now the variety of human experiences in interpersonal relationships is way beyond the scope of what the state needs to interfere in.
I, personally, want to learn more about old Great-Grandpa Romney and Joseph Smith-the founder of Mormonism and a Free Soiler candidate for office before he was murdered in the 1840’s. On the face of it those individuals seem, unlike Mitt, interesting personalities. Certainly everyone must concede that old Great-Grandfather Romney seems more interesting than his progeny. And had to have more real executive ability than latter monogamous Romneys. Hell, I had my hands full when, back in the days, I had two girlfriends at one time. Hands Off the Old Style Mormons! Government Out of the Bedrooms!
COMMENTARY
FIVE WIVES AT THE SAME TIME SHOW REAL EXECUTIVE ABILITY-RIGHT?
In a recent interview on CBS's Sixty Minutes Republican presidential hopeful ex- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a professed Mormon, declared that he thought that the fact that his great-grandfather took (or was ordered to take) five wives was ‘terrible’. As the fiercely persecuted Mormons settled in Utah apparently the numerical balance between men and women was off and polygamy was therefore encouraged. Naturally, being a male-dominated religious variant of Christianity that necessary was couched in theological terms, as well. The practice was officially banned by that denomination in 1890. However, the practice, as witnessed by some recent court cases in the West, still flourishes in some areas amount Old Style Mormons.
One can see that for someone who is running on a ‘family values’ platform highlighted by support for the proposition that marraige is between one man-one woman and is touting personal fidelity to one wife and children in order to grab the brass ring of the presidency that such a family history may in fact be 'terrible'. But step back a minute Mitt, aside from being very disrespectful to your family line, what is the harm of having five, or for that matter, ten wives? Or a woman having ten husbands? As long a there is effective consent among and between the parties whose business is it anyway? And why be ashamed of that ‘skeleton’ in the family closet?
We socialists are not as squeamish as brother Romney appears to be about either the details of his family history or about how people arrange their personal lives. There has been a great hue and cry lately in the West over some Old Style Mormon instances of polygamy, including the usual allegations of coercion. Coercion or forcing “shot gun” weddings, singly or in multiples, is not what we mean by effective consent. However, absent coercion it is not the state’s business to interfere. We may have a different take than Mormons on what we think personal relationships will look like under socialism once the nuclear family (or what today stands for that proposition) recedes into the background as the basis unit of society but for now the variety of human experiences in interpersonal relationships is way beyond the scope of what the state needs to interfere in.
I, personally, want to learn more about old Great-Grandpa Romney and Joseph Smith-the founder of Mormonism and a Free Soiler candidate for office before he was murdered in the 1840’s. On the face of it those individuals seem, unlike Mitt, interesting personalities. Certainly everyone must concede that old Great-Grandfather Romney seems more interesting than his progeny. And had to have more real executive ability than latter monogamous Romneys. Hell, I had my hands full when, back in the days, I had two girlfriends at one time. Hands Off the Old Style Mormons! Government Out of the Bedrooms!
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
The Age Of Andrew Jackson-A Plebeian VIew
BOOK REVIEW
LIBERTY AND POWER, HARRY L. WATSON, THE NOON DIAL PRESS, NEW YORK, 1990
The central story line of the Jacksonian period economically, socially and politically was the fight over the establishment, continuation and rechartering of the Bank of the United States which despite its name was a privately owned corporation headed by the notorious Nicholas Biddle. In short the story was, as almost always under capitalism, about the money. Hard money, paper money, metallic money, federal money, state money, no money. It is all there. As confusing and, frankly, somewhat trivial as the issues may seem to the 21st century mind the various fights determined the path of capitalist formation for the rest of the 19th century. One does not have to be a partisan of any particular monetary policy to know that if the Biddle-led forces had won then capital formation in the United States would have taken a very different turn. Thus, the essential Jacksonian victory on the bank question is one that militants today can give a retroactive endorsement. This is the story the author tries to bring to life. I believe that Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s Age of Jackson is still the definitive general work on the period but if you need a shorter overview this book will suffice.
Although control of the money was the underlying premise for the political fights of the day they also represented some very different appreciations of what American society should look like. Watson goes to great pains to highlight the various factions within each of the coalescing parties that would come to form the Democratic and Republican two-party system that we are familiar with today. Watson does a better job on the formation of the party system than Schlesinger. The fights outlined had different implications for differing sections of the country. In that regard the names Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay and their various congressional devotees can generally stand to represent the various sectional interests. One might also note that names that became familiar in the immediate pre-Civil War period, like Abraham Lincoln, James Buchanan, John Bell, Gideon Welles, William Seward, etc. started to receive political notice as secondary figures during this period.
One should also note that this was a period of political realignment and that the political situation was fluid enough that with changing political winds the various leading personalities were as likely to change sides as not. Readers should pick up the trail that is only alluded to here on the importance on the third party Liberty and Free Soil Parties. Despite that lapse dealing with the various political manifestations of the period is the strongest part of Mr. Watson's book.
LIBERTY AND POWER, HARRY L. WATSON, THE NOON DIAL PRESS, NEW YORK, 1990
The central story line of the Jacksonian period economically, socially and politically was the fight over the establishment, continuation and rechartering of the Bank of the United States which despite its name was a privately owned corporation headed by the notorious Nicholas Biddle. In short the story was, as almost always under capitalism, about the money. Hard money, paper money, metallic money, federal money, state money, no money. It is all there. As confusing and, frankly, somewhat trivial as the issues may seem to the 21st century mind the various fights determined the path of capitalist formation for the rest of the 19th century. One does not have to be a partisan of any particular monetary policy to know that if the Biddle-led forces had won then capital formation in the United States would have taken a very different turn. Thus, the essential Jacksonian victory on the bank question is one that militants today can give a retroactive endorsement. This is the story the author tries to bring to life. I believe that Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s Age of Jackson is still the definitive general work on the period but if you need a shorter overview this book will suffice.
Although control of the money was the underlying premise for the political fights of the day they also represented some very different appreciations of what American society should look like. Watson goes to great pains to highlight the various factions within each of the coalescing parties that would come to form the Democratic and Republican two-party system that we are familiar with today. Watson does a better job on the formation of the party system than Schlesinger. The fights outlined had different implications for differing sections of the country. In that regard the names Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay and their various congressional devotees can generally stand to represent the various sectional interests. One might also note that names that became familiar in the immediate pre-Civil War period, like Abraham Lincoln, James Buchanan, John Bell, Gideon Welles, William Seward, etc. started to receive political notice as secondary figures during this period.
One should also note that this was a period of political realignment and that the political situation was fluid enough that with changing political winds the various leading personalities were as likely to change sides as not. Readers should pick up the trail that is only alluded to here on the importance on the third party Liberty and Free Soil Parties. Despite that lapse dealing with the various political manifestations of the period is the strongest part of Mr. Watson's book.
Monday, May 21, 2007
BUT WHO WILL BRING IN THE CROPS?
COMMENTARY
FULL CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS FOR ALL WHO MAKE IT HERE!
FORGET REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND GREENS! BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!
Apparently Congress is getting ready to pass an immigration reform bill that contains many provisions in it that are, frankly, bizarre from a militant leftist point of view. Let us be clear at the start. We do not support this bill. We are not in the business of advising capitalist society about how to better rationalize its immigration policies. Over the last year or so I have argued that we call for and support a general amnesty but that is far removed from the nuts and bolts of this legislation. To the extent that this bill triggers a general amnesty we support that, and that alone. The rest of it is an immigrant’s nightmare. Hell, I think the ‘choice’ of my forbears to come on the ‘famine’ ships from Ireland and sneak ashore made more sense. Today, if I were an immigrant from Mexico I would rather take my chances of coming over through the desert than get caught up in the bureaucratic red tape and cost of becoming a ‘second class’ citizen under the provisions of this program.
One comment about the pending legislation sticks in my mind as it really epitomizes the thinking behind these ‘reforms’. One unnamed immigrant, on hearing that the legislation would favor those who had skills or education, noted that there was no lack of ‘native’ Americans with such qualifications. What he and his like do is bring in the crops and other dirty and dangerous tasks that ‘native’ Americans no longer will do. Thus, he is in need of legal protection far more the those middle class types the legislation is tilted toward. Simply put, those types are not coming here. And that unnamed immigrant's statement makes sense. Virtually no one who has anything going for themselves in their own country voluntarily leaves home and hearth to go elsewhere except under extreme conditions. Those twelve million ‘illegal’ immigrants speak to the desperate plight of many in Mexico and other places in Latin America in the wake the impact of NAFTA- type treaties. Thus, at the end of the day our call is still the same. Full Citizenship Rights for All Who Make It Here.
FULL CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS FOR ALL WHO MAKE IT HERE!
FORGET REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND GREENS! BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!
Apparently Congress is getting ready to pass an immigration reform bill that contains many provisions in it that are, frankly, bizarre from a militant leftist point of view. Let us be clear at the start. We do not support this bill. We are not in the business of advising capitalist society about how to better rationalize its immigration policies. Over the last year or so I have argued that we call for and support a general amnesty but that is far removed from the nuts and bolts of this legislation. To the extent that this bill triggers a general amnesty we support that, and that alone. The rest of it is an immigrant’s nightmare. Hell, I think the ‘choice’ of my forbears to come on the ‘famine’ ships from Ireland and sneak ashore made more sense. Today, if I were an immigrant from Mexico I would rather take my chances of coming over through the desert than get caught up in the bureaucratic red tape and cost of becoming a ‘second class’ citizen under the provisions of this program.
One comment about the pending legislation sticks in my mind as it really epitomizes the thinking behind these ‘reforms’. One unnamed immigrant, on hearing that the legislation would favor those who had skills or education, noted that there was no lack of ‘native’ Americans with such qualifications. What he and his like do is bring in the crops and other dirty and dangerous tasks that ‘native’ Americans no longer will do. Thus, he is in need of legal protection far more the those middle class types the legislation is tilted toward. Simply put, those types are not coming here. And that unnamed immigrant's statement makes sense. Virtually no one who has anything going for themselves in their own country voluntarily leaves home and hearth to go elsewhere except under extreme conditions. Those twelve million ‘illegal’ immigrants speak to the desperate plight of many in Mexico and other places in Latin America in the wake the impact of NAFTA- type treaties. Thus, at the end of the day our call is still the same. Full Citizenship Rights for All Who Make It Here.
THE GOOD OL' BOYS OF THE GOP-OUCH!
COMMENTARY
WHERE ARE THE WHIGS WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
FORGET REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND GREENS! BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!
Forgive me, dear reader, for not stopping everything to immediately comment on the recent Republican presidential ‘debate’ in South Carolina. Frankly this cattle call production of Republican hopefuls was even more dismal than that of their Democratic counterparts earlier, if that is possible. Fortunately I have been spending my time not commenting on the debate reading a book on the Age of Jackson. Interestingly, all the essentials of the party (two party, that is) system were established during this period. Although the historic interest of this period for militants today centers on the Liberty and Free Soil parties the Whigs, the forerunners of today’s Republican Party, look positively revolutionary in comparison with their pale progeny down south last week. When the deal went down in the 1850’s over the question of the expansion of slavery into the territories and other questions the Whigs went ‘belly up’ but for a while they expressed a rational political program in a period of progressive capitalist expansion in America. Today’s Republicans apparently live in a bubble. And here is why.
On the central question of the day-Iraq, Iraq and again Iraq- with the exception of libertarian Congressman Paul from Texas all the Republicans are going down the line, one way or the other, with the Bush Administration strategy for ‘victory’ and the indefinite American occupation in Iraq. If the 2008 presidential campaign and election hinges on this question, as I believe it will, these guys are doomed. And no tears will be shed in these quarters over it. Even a cursory glance at the daily newspaper confronts one with the reality that things continue to deteriorate in that benighted country. And, Republican hopefuls please note, they ain’t getting better.
Particularly interesting is Senator McCain’s slow death rattle attempt to ‘revive’ his campaign by being more Bush than Bush on this question. Know this- whichever bourgeois candidate ‘wins’ the presidency he or she will have the albatross on Iraq hanging around their necks. McCain’s plight may be explained by his “Manchurian Candidate” term as a POW in Vietnam. But what excuse do the draft-dodgers like Guiliani and Romney have for their toadyism.
More generally on the question of the ‘war on terrorism’ former Massachusetts Governor Mitt “Flip-Flop” Romney has really outdone himself with his support for ‘doubling’ the torture chambers at Guantanamo. They say that every real presidential candidate has to have ‘fire in the belly’ in order to debase him or herself enough to win this ‘prize’. Apparently Mr. Romney is in such ‘heat’ to get the nomination that he is willing to say anything, anywhere, anytime in order to appease the hard-core conservative base of the Republican Party that takes such pronouncements as red meat.
Old Mitt makes his weak-kneed father George seem like the height of rationality in contrast. While even moderate conservatives are cringing over the treatment at “Gitmo”, if for no other reason than to protect America’s image in the world, he is blithely calling for more torture. I would not want to be a member of his political staff if this sadistic fool ever gets within a few hundred delegates of the nomination. Presumably then the Mittster will come out in defense of drawing and quartering.
As if to add insult to injury, with the somewhat honorable exception of Rudy Guiliani, the Republican field fell all over itself on the ‘family values’ issues that in reality comes down to the question of abortion. The deal is already in the process of being done in the Supreme Court against a women’s right to choose (to speak nothing of our historic demand for free abortion on demand) but the candidates just wanted to let the base know that a return to the days of back alley abortions (for those who are unconnected or poor, that is) is just fine with them.
Overall the tenor of the ‘debate’ was what one expected from men who genuinely do not have a clue about what is going on for the average American worker or the average international one either. That is par for the course. As most commentators have mentioned the 2008 Presidential election is the Democrats’ to lose. This Republican field does nothing to negate that prediction. One would almost (a very long almost) wish the Democrats fair weather except that when the deal really goes down there is no essential difference between the parties. They almost all vote early and often, if they are a position to, for the Iraq war budgets. What else is new? Damn, those long forgotten Whigs look pretty good today.
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!
WHERE ARE THE WHIGS WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
FORGET REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND GREENS! BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!
Forgive me, dear reader, for not stopping everything to immediately comment on the recent Republican presidential ‘debate’ in South Carolina. Frankly this cattle call production of Republican hopefuls was even more dismal than that of their Democratic counterparts earlier, if that is possible. Fortunately I have been spending my time not commenting on the debate reading a book on the Age of Jackson. Interestingly, all the essentials of the party (two party, that is) system were established during this period. Although the historic interest of this period for militants today centers on the Liberty and Free Soil parties the Whigs, the forerunners of today’s Republican Party, look positively revolutionary in comparison with their pale progeny down south last week. When the deal went down in the 1850’s over the question of the expansion of slavery into the territories and other questions the Whigs went ‘belly up’ but for a while they expressed a rational political program in a period of progressive capitalist expansion in America. Today’s Republicans apparently live in a bubble. And here is why.
On the central question of the day-Iraq, Iraq and again Iraq- with the exception of libertarian Congressman Paul from Texas all the Republicans are going down the line, one way or the other, with the Bush Administration strategy for ‘victory’ and the indefinite American occupation in Iraq. If the 2008 presidential campaign and election hinges on this question, as I believe it will, these guys are doomed. And no tears will be shed in these quarters over it. Even a cursory glance at the daily newspaper confronts one with the reality that things continue to deteriorate in that benighted country. And, Republican hopefuls please note, they ain’t getting better.
Particularly interesting is Senator McCain’s slow death rattle attempt to ‘revive’ his campaign by being more Bush than Bush on this question. Know this- whichever bourgeois candidate ‘wins’ the presidency he or she will have the albatross on Iraq hanging around their necks. McCain’s plight may be explained by his “Manchurian Candidate” term as a POW in Vietnam. But what excuse do the draft-dodgers like Guiliani and Romney have for their toadyism.
More generally on the question of the ‘war on terrorism’ former Massachusetts Governor Mitt “Flip-Flop” Romney has really outdone himself with his support for ‘doubling’ the torture chambers at Guantanamo. They say that every real presidential candidate has to have ‘fire in the belly’ in order to debase him or herself enough to win this ‘prize’. Apparently Mr. Romney is in such ‘heat’ to get the nomination that he is willing to say anything, anywhere, anytime in order to appease the hard-core conservative base of the Republican Party that takes such pronouncements as red meat.
Old Mitt makes his weak-kneed father George seem like the height of rationality in contrast. While even moderate conservatives are cringing over the treatment at “Gitmo”, if for no other reason than to protect America’s image in the world, he is blithely calling for more torture. I would not want to be a member of his political staff if this sadistic fool ever gets within a few hundred delegates of the nomination. Presumably then the Mittster will come out in defense of drawing and quartering.
As if to add insult to injury, with the somewhat honorable exception of Rudy Guiliani, the Republican field fell all over itself on the ‘family values’ issues that in reality comes down to the question of abortion. The deal is already in the process of being done in the Supreme Court against a women’s right to choose (to speak nothing of our historic demand for free abortion on demand) but the candidates just wanted to let the base know that a return to the days of back alley abortions (for those who are unconnected or poor, that is) is just fine with them.
Overall the tenor of the ‘debate’ was what one expected from men who genuinely do not have a clue about what is going on for the average American worker or the average international one either. That is par for the course. As most commentators have mentioned the 2008 Presidential election is the Democrats’ to lose. This Republican field does nothing to negate that prediction. One would almost (a very long almost) wish the Democrats fair weather except that when the deal really goes down there is no essential difference between the parties. They almost all vote early and often, if they are a position to, for the Iraq war budgets. What else is new? Damn, those long forgotten Whigs look pretty good today.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)