Click on the headline to link to updates from the Occupy Boston website. Occupy Boston started at 6:00 PM, September 30, 2011. I will post important updates as they appear on that site.
****
An Injury To One Is An Injury To All!-Defend All The Occupation Sites And All The Occupiers! Drop All Charges Against All Protesters Everywhere!
********
Fight-Don’t Starve-We Created The Wealth, Let's Take It Back! Labor And The Oppressed Must Rule!
********
A Five-Point Program As Talking Points
*Jobs For All Now!-“30 For 40”- A historic demand of the labor movement. Thirty hours work for forty hours pay to spread the available work around. Organize the unorganized- Organize the South- Organize Wal-mart- Defend the right for public and private workers to unionize.
* Defend the working classes! No union dues for Democratic (or the stray Republican) candidates. Spent the dough on organizing the unorganized and other labor-specific causes (example, the November, 2011 anti-union recall referendum in Ohio).
*End the endless wars!- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops (And Mercenaries) From Afghanistan! Hands Off Pakistan! Hands Off Iran! Hands Off The World!
*Fight for a social agenda for working people!. Quality Healthcare For All! Nationalize the colleges and universities under student-teacher-campus worker control! Forgive student debt! Stop housing foreclosures!
*We created the wealth, let’s take it back. Take the struggle for our daily bread off the historic agenda. Build a workers party that fights for a workers government to unite all the oppressed. Labor and the oppressed must rule!
**************
Markin comment October 1, 2011:
There is a lot of naiveté expressed about the nature of capitalism, capitalists, and the way to win in the class struggle by various participants in this occupation. Many also have attempted to make a virtue out of that naiveté, particularly around the issues of effective democratic organization and relationships with the police (they are not our friends, no way, when the deal goes down). However, their spirit is refreshing, they are acting out of good subjective anti-capitalist motives and, most importantly, even those of us who call themselves "reds" (communists), including this writer, started out from liberal premises as naive, if not more so, than those encountered at the occupation site. We can all learn something but in the meantime we must defend the "occupation" and the occupiers. More later as the occupation continues.
**********
Markin comment October 22, 2011
As part of my comment, dated October 20, 2011, I noted the following:
“… The idea of the General Assembly with each individual attendee acting as a “tribune of the people” is interesting and important. And, of course, it represents, for today anyway, the embryo of what the “new world” we need to create might look like at the governmental level.”
A couple of the people that I have talked to were not quite sure what to make of that idea. The idea that what is going on in Occupy Boston at the governmental level could, should, would be a possible form of governing this society in the “new world aborning” with the rise of the Occupy movement. Part of the problem is that there was some confusion on the part of the listeners that one of the possible aims of this movement is to create an alternative government, or at least provide a model for such a government. I will argue here now, and in the future, that it should be one the goals. In short, we need to take power away from the Democrats and Republicans and their tired old congressional/executive/judicial form of governing and place it at the grassroots level and work upward from there rather than, as now, have power devolve from the top. (And stop well short of the bottom.)
I will leave aside the question (the problem really) of what it would take to create such a possibility. Of course a revolutionary solution would, of necessity, have be on the table since there is no way that the current powerful interests, Democratic, Republican or those having no politics, is going to give up power without a fight. What I want to pose now is the use of the General Assembly as a deliberative executive, legislative, and judicial body all rolled into one. In that sense previous historical models come to mind; the short-lived but heroic Paris Commune of 1871 that Karl Marx tirelessly defended against the reactionaries of Europe as the prototype of a workers government; the early heroic days of the Russian October Revolution of 1917 when the workers councils (soviets in Russian parlance) acted as a true workers' government; and the period in the Spanish Revolution of 1936-39 where the Central Committee of the Anti-Fascist Militias acted, de facto, as a workers government. All the just mentioned examples had their problems and flaws, no question. However, merely mentioning the General Assembly concept in the same paragraph as these great historic examples should signal that thoughtful leftists and other militants need to investigate and study these examples.
And as always-everybody, young or old, needs to stand by this slogan - An Injury To One Is An Injury To All!-Defend All The Occupation Sites And All The Occupiers Everywhere! Hands Off Occupy Boston !
**********
Markin comment October 26, 2011:
Recently (see October 22, 2011 comment above) I noted the following while arguing for the General Assembly concept as a form of alternate government using historic examples like the Paris Commune (1871), the early Soviets in Russia (1905 and 1917), and early antifascist militias in the Spanish Civil War (1936-37:
“However, merely mentioning the General Assembly concept in the same paragraph as these great historic examples should signal that thoughtful leftists and other militants need to investigate and study these examples.”
In order to facilitate the investigation and study of those examples I will, occasionally, post works in this space that deal with these forbears from several leftist perspectives (rightist perspectives were clear- crush all the above examples ruthlessly, and with no mercy- so we need not look at them now). I started with Karl Marx’s classic defense and critique of the Paris Commune, The Civil War In France. Today I am posting a review of a movie about the slave general, Spartacus.
*********
From the American Left History blog, dated January 20, 2009.
Google to link to Wikipedia's entry for the writer Howard Fast.
Book Review
Spartacus, Howard Fast, North Castle Books, New York, 1951
In one of the ironies of political life I found a copy of this book under review, Spartacus by Howard Fast, in the Young Adult section of the local library. The irony in 2008 is that the author had been among those who early on were blacklisted as Communists, communist sympathizers or dupes during the “night of the long knives” of the McCarthy era in the 1950’s. At that time this book would not only have been proscribed from the library shelves but would have been burned in the public square of this particular town. Why? Well, aside from the author’s then communist sympathies the serious novelistic presentation of the class struggle between free citizens and chattel slaves in ancient Rome was not a fit subject for young minds, or old. Throw in some sexual candid (for the time) descriptions of Roman mores and more than a hint of the bi-sexual or homosexual natures of some of the Roman characters and the book is clearly beyond the pale. So there you have a snapshot of the politics behind the history of the book. But there is more.
The impetus for getting this book out of the library was, as is usually the case when possible, to compare it to the film version that I have previously reviewed in this space. The purpose, mainly, was to compare how true the story line of the film was to the novel. As mentioned in the film review, a fellow blacklistee of Fast's(one who could not write, as least publicly, under his or her own name during the 1950’s due to the political atmosphere) Dalton Trumbo wrote the screenplay. He did not do a bad job of getting the main point out- that eternal need for freedom from the oppressive boot heel of the ruling class- for a commercial film in the more restrictive 1950’s and early 1960’s but the book really is a much better bet if you are looking for a non-academic treatment of the class struggle in ancient Rome (or with appropriate updating now, for that matter).
I have long noted, as others who have studied the question have as well, that oppression oppresses both the oppressed and the oppressor. (Ouch!, for the awkwardness of this sentence.). The dramatic and psychological tension here between the Roman General Crassus (played by Laurence Olivier in the film) who finally defeats the slave General Spartacus is central to that premise. Along the way we get a serious look at the class structure of pre-Christian Rome, it entertainments and its follies, the dagger-like tensions between slave and master and everyone in between, a close look at the military structure of the Roman legions that made it the most feared army in the then known world and the “guerrilla” tactics of the slave armies and more than our fair share about the fate of rebellious slaves who do not win-capital punishment by crucifixion.
As to comparisons between the film and novel in the film Spartacus (in the person of Kirk Douglas) is front and center in person from the first few minutes and the story unfolds from his transfer from a desert mine to the gladiator school at Capua (the owner played by Peter Ustinov) through the gladiator uprising and the various attempts to break the Roman legions and leave Italy. In the book the story is told in reverse, after the defeat and death of Spartacus, the whole Servile War period is summed up by reflections back on those events by the other characters. Of course the love story between Spartacus and Varania (played by Jean Simmons) is more muted. All in all, if you take the three hours to view the film then you really should read Fast’s novel. Then you will know why we proudly honor the name and exploits of Spartacus in left-wing politics even today.
No comments:
Post a Comment