*RANDOM THOUGHTS ON REGROUPMENT AND ENTRY INTO LARGER RADICAL ORGANIZATIONS

Click in title to link to Wikipedia's entry for Entryism (regroupment, etc.). This source is presented as the starting point for looking at this question, especially as it directs to further links to the famous "French turn" policies of the Trotskyist movement in the 1930s. From there go to the Leon Trotsky Internet Archives for the articles mentioned in the Wikipedia entry. This is important material in thinking through the implications of creating a workers party in America in the first decades of the 21st century.

COMMENTARY

BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM

Recently there has been some discussion here in America about the need to create an umbrella 'left of the Democratic Party' organization, presumably that would encompass the Greens and other smaller left-wing propaganda groups. I have written elsewhere and my byline makes clear where I stand on the issue of the third party bourgeois Green Party. So my comments will be premised on the idea of the advisability or reasonableness of creating such an organization to the exclusion of that party.

To be honest, dear reader, I am not at all clear as to why a discussion of a left, apparently electoral, united front is in the cards today. If one means by left, at least some vaguely socialist program, then I would argue against such an alliance. One of the most notable features of the political landscape of the last couple of decades is that the mass of working people have forsaken for the most part, at least for now, the goal of socialism as a part of their daily existence. If that observation carries any truth internationally it holds doubly true for conditions in the United States.

And that is the nub of the matter. Despite the upsurge in protest activity in the wake of the American-led Iraqi invasion that activity has not generated any kind of mass movement away from the Democratic Party (the place here in America that a knowledgeable leftist would necessarily have to look to observe a break in the norms of bourgeois politics). Thus the creation of some conglomeration of already existing groups, basically propaganda groups with counterposed programs, assuming that the sectoral nature of most groups could be overcome has no objective basis for existence and in the nature of such things would be stillborn.Moreover, a strong argument can be made that such an organization would constitute an impediment to the formation of a mass workers party.

This discussion has made me think, however, that it would not be a bad idea to clear the air about this whole question of left-wing regroupment and entry tactics. For those not familiar with the concept a brief primer. Over the course of working class history various seismic shifts in the political landscape caused mainly by war, revolution or extreme economic dislocation, have created political realignments within the working class movement. Thus, the revolutionary movement is not stranger to this phenomenon.

Over the last 150 years or so there have been numerous realignment of the revolutionary forces beginning with Marx himself before, during and in the aftermath of the 1848 Revolutions. A very famous, influential and decisive regroupment occurred during the Russian Revolution when Trotsky’s Inter-District Organization fused with the Bolsheviks. Lesser examples would include the realignment of the socialist forces between reformism and revolution in the aftermath of that revolution, which formed the basis for the creation of most communist parties and the Communist International. More recent examples in America were the creation of the Socialist Workers Party as the dominant anti-Stalinist leftist organization in American in the aftermath of the labor upsurges of the 1930’s and later the realignment of the student revolutionary movement, based on Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), in the late 1960’s.

I have emphasized these particular examples for a reason. The most notable point is that these realignments came when there was some kind of societal upheaval. More important, from our perspective, is that there was a visible political motion to the left and revolutionary forces were there to take advantage of it. Observing today’s political landscape indicates to me that to merely pose the question of regroupment is to answer it. No, today the real tactics for leftist militants are centered on the united front –March separately (under one’s own banner and program) and Strike together (use collective effort to create political clout on the issue at hand).

If the question of revolutionary regroupment is obscure today then a related question, that of entry into larger leftist political formations, is downright peculiar. But since the question of regroupment was posed I might as well make a comment on this tactic as well. I would argue, as above, that the conditions for entry into larger left labor organizations would not be appropriate at this time, assuming that such organizations existed here in America, of course. The whole point of entry into a larger reformist labor organization is to split it into its reformist and revolutionary components leaving the old organization as a shell, taking the best elements out and making a speedier, faster, more effective revolutionary organization.

But, friends, this requires some kind of organization that is moving leftward. And here the example of the British Labor Party can serve as the consummate example. Despite rather lukewarm threats in the direction of radical positions over the past 100 years the British Labor Party has been, on the whole, an extremely stable reformist electoral organization. While there are good tactical reasons for revolutionaries individually to belong to that party that is a long way from committing one's organization to a full scale entry in order to oust the leadership of that party. History shows that every attempt to do so by British revolutionaries has done nothing but create frustrated, burned out militants. Why? What passes for momentary radical blips on the Labor Party radar soon pass. A long term entry, and that is what leftist organizations have tended to do, thus is the equivalent to political suicide.

To close the subject I will give an example of an entry that made sense in contrast to the sorry Labor Party entry history, although I am still not sure it was worth the price that the organization, the Socialist Workers Party (U.S.), ultimately paid for doing so. I have written on this entry elsewhere in discussing the work of the pioneer American Trotskyist James P, Cannon (see archives under History of American Trotskyism). In the mid-1930’s during the mass labor upsurges in America, which formed the basis for mass trade union organization, in response to the rising menace of international fascism and genuine revulsion at the Stalinist do-nothing policy against it there was both a massive recruitment to and a real left-ward bulge in the previously moribund American Socialist Party.

Leon Trotsky advised and Cannon agreed to, not without internal opposition, an entry into that party. Although the conditions imposed by the Socialist Party leadership in order for the Workers Party of the United States (successor to the Communist League)to gain entry were onerous the almost two years in that organization as an organized tendency before they were booted out gave the Socialist Workers Party something of a small mass base in the organized trade union movement. But in case the reader has wandered off the conditions then were of upsurge and leftward movement. I will take out my magnifying glass to find 1/100th of that condition today. Enough said for now.

*From The Marxist Archives-Open Up The Corporate Books!!! Expropriate The Banks!!!

Click on title to link to the Leon Trotsky Internet Archive's version of "The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International", also known as "The Transitional Program" for the full scope of the what is necessary to replace this international capitalist system that is thwarting human progress and development, among many other sins.

Commentary

Here are some very pertinent sections of the Transitional Program developed in 1938 by Leon Trotsky and The Fourth International as a means of bridging the then current concerns of the day and the ultimate need for socialist solutions to solve the crisis of humankind. Sounds about right for today. For a look at all of the Transitional Program use the Trotsky Archive link and click to the year 1938. It is in that list about half way down.


“Business Secrets” and

Workers’ Control of Industry

Liberal capitalism, based upon competition and free trade, has completely receded into the past. Its successor, monopolistic capitalism not only does not mitigate the anarchy of the market, but on the contrary imparts to it a particularly convulsive character. The necessity of “controlling” economy, of placing state “guidance” over industry and of “planning” is today recognized – at least in words – by almost all current bourgeois and petty bourgeois tendencies, from fascist to Social Democratic. With the fascists, it is manly a question of “planned” plundering of the people for military purposes. The Social Democrats prepare to drain the ocean of anarchy with spoonfuls of bureaucratic “planning.” Engineers and professors write articles about “technocracy.” In their cowardly experiments in “regulation,” democratic governments run head-on into the invincible sabotage of big capital.

The actual relationship existing between the exploiters and the democratic “controllers” is best characterized by the fact that the gentlemen “reformers” stop short in pious trepidation before the threshold of the trusts and their business “secrets.” Here the principle of “non-interference” with business dominates. The accounts kept between the individual capitalist and society remain the secret of the capitalist: they are not the concern of society. The motivation offered for the principle of business “secrets” is ostensibly, as in the epoch of liberal capitalism, that of free competition.” In reality, the trusts keep no secrets from one another. The business secrets of the present epoch are part of a persistent plot of monopoly capitalism against the interests of society. Projects for limiting the autocracy of “economic royalists” will continue to be pathetic farces as long as private owners of the social means of production can hide from producers and consumers the machinations of exploitation, robbery and fraud. The abolition of “business secrets” is the first step toward actual control of industry.

Workers no less than capitalists have the right to know the “secrets” of the factory, of the trust, of the whole branch of industry, of the national economy as a whole. First and foremost, banks, heavy industry and centralized transport should be placed under an observation glass.

The immediate tasks of workers’ control should be to explain the debits and credits of society, beginning with individual business undertakings; to determine the actual share of the national income appropriated by individual capitalists and by the exploiters as a whole; to expose the behind-the-scenes deals and swindles of banks and trusts; finally, to reveal to all members of society that unconscionable squandering of human labor which is the result of capitalist anarchy and the naked pursuit of profits.

No office holder of the bourgeois state is in a position to carry out this work, no matter with how great authority one would wish to endow him. All the world was witness to the impotence of President Roosevelt and Premier Blum against the plottings of the “60” or “200 Families” of their respective nations. To break the resistance of the exploiters, the mass pressure of the proletariat is necessary. Only factory committees can bring about real control of production, calling in – as consultants but not as “technocrats” – specialists sincerely devoted to the people: accountants, statisticians, engineers, scientists, etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The struggle against unemployment is not to be considered without the calling for a broad and bold organization of public works. But public works can have a continuous and progressive significance for society, as for the unemployed themselves, only when they are made part of a general plan worked out to cover a considerable number of years. Within the framework of this plan, the workers would demand resumption, as public utilities, of work in private businesses closed as a result of the crisis. Workers’ control in such case: would be replaced by direct workers’ management.

The working out of even the most elementary economic plan – from the point of view of the exploited, not the exploiters – is impossible without workers’ control, that is, without the penetration of the workers’ eye into all open and concealed springs of capitalist economy. Committees representing individual business enterprises should meet at conference to choose corresponding committees of trusts, whole branches of industry, economic regions and finally, of national industry as a whole. Thus, workers’ control becomes a school for planned economy. On the basis of the experience of control, the proletariat will prepare itself for direct management of nationalized industry when the hour for that eventuality strikes.

To those capitalists, mainly of the lower and middle strata, who of their own accord sometimes offer to throw open their books to the workers – usually to demonstrate the necessity of lowering wages – the workers answer that they are not interested in the bookkeeping of individual bankrupts or semi-bankrupts but in the account ledgers of all exploiters as a whole. The workers cannot and do not wish to accommodate the level of their living conditions to the exigencies of individual capitalists, themselves victims of their own regime. The task is one of reorganizing the whole system of production and distribution on a more dignified and workable basis if the abolition of business secrets be a necessary condition to workers’ control, then control is the first step along the road to the socialist guidance of economy.

Expropriation of Separate Groups of Capitalists

The socialist program of expropriation, i.e., of political overthrow of the bourgeoisie and liquidation of its economic domination, should in no case during the present transitional period hinder us from advancing, when the occasion warrants, the demand for the expropriation of several key branches of industry vital for national existence or of the most parasitic group of the bourgeoisie.

Thus, in answer to the pathetic jeremiads of the gentlemen democrats anent the dictatorship of the “60 Families” of the United States or the “200 Families” of France, we counterpose the demand for the expropriation of those 60 or 200 feudalistic capitalist overlords.

In precisely the same way, we demand the expropriation of the corporations holding monopolies on war industries, railroads, the most important sources of raw materials, etc.

The difference between these demands and the muddleheaded reformist slogan of “nationalization” lies in the following: (1) we reject indemnification; (2) we warn the masses against demagogues of the People’s Front who, giving lip service to nationalization, remain in reality agents of capital; (3) we call upon the masses to rely only upon their own revolutionary strength; (4) we link up the question of expropriation with that of seizure of power by the workers and farmers.

The necessity of advancing the slogan of expropriation in the course of daily agitation in partial form, and not only in our propaganda in its more comprehensive aspects, is dictated by the fact that different branches of industry are on different levels of development, occupy a different place in the life of society, and pass through different stages of the class struggle. Only a general revolutionary upsurge of the proletariat can place the complete expropriation of the bourgeoisie on the order of the day. The task of transitional demands is to prepare the proletariat to solve this problem.

Expropriation of the Private Banks and
State-ization of the Credit System

Imperialism means the domination of finance capital. Side by side with the trusts and syndicates, and very frequently rising above them, the banks concentrate in their hands the actual command over the economy. In their structure the banks express in a concentrated form the entire structure of modern capital: they combine tendencies of monopoly with tendencies of anarchy. They organize the miracles of technology, giant enterprises, mighty trusts; and they also organize high prices, crises and unemployment. It is impossible to take a single serious step in the struggle against monopolistic despotism and capitalistic anarchy – which supplement one another in their work of destruction – if the commanding posts of banks are left in the hands of predatory capitalists. In order to create a unified system of investments and credits, along a rational plan corresponding to the interests of the entire people, it is necessary to merge all the banks into a single national institution. Only the expropriation of the private banks and the concentration of the entire credit system in the hands of the state will provide the latter with the necessary actual, i.e., material resources – and not merely paper and bureaucratic resources – for economic planning.

The expropriation of the banks in no case implies the expropriation of bank deposits. On the contrary, the single state bank will be able to create much more favorable conditions for the small depositors than could the private banks. In the same way, only the state bank can establish for farmers, tradesmen and small merchants conditions of favorable, that is, cheap credit. Even more important, however, is the circumstance that the entire economy – first and foremost large-scale industry and transport directed by a single financial staff, will serve the vital interests of the workers and all other toilers.

However, the state-ization of the banks will produce these favorable results only if the state power itself passes completely from the hands of the exploiters into the hands of the toilers.

In Honor Of The King Of The Folk-Singing Hard-Living Hobos The Late Utah Phillips -From The Archives- "Bread and Roses"-Class Struggle in Lawrence, Circa 1912

Click on the headline to link to the "Bread And Roses" Centennial Website- A Brief History Of The Great Lawrence (Ma) Textile Strike Of 1912

BOOK REVIEW

Bread and Roses: Mills, Migrants and the Struggle for the American Dream, Bruce Watson, Penguin Books, New York, 2005

Every leftist political movement has its ‘high holy days’ of remembrance, or it should. The international labor movement has May Day and in the America labor movement today, Labor Day. There are, however, other days worthy of celebration by militants here in America (and internationally) like the anniversaries of Sacco and Vanzetti, the great general strikes of 1934 in Toledo, Minneapolis and San Francisco and the subject of this review the great ‘Bread and Roses’ strike in the textile mills of Lawrence, Massachusetts in 1912. That, until recently, this heroic (and victorious) strike was not remembered officially under any conditions by that very representative working class city and that its continues to remain shrouded in ignorance tells as much about contemporary American labor as any other indicator. That ignorance is something that Professor Bruce Watson has with this effort attempted to remedy. As an important work of labor history Watson has done more than a commendable job. Moreover, because he has done such a scholarly, well-written and easily readable work today’s militants can draw many lessons from that seemingly long ago labor struggle.

On completion of this book I was struck by the parallels between the conditions that fostered that 1912 strike, the social composition of that work force and the attitudes of those bosses and today’s ‘globalized’ capitalist working conditions. The ethnic and racial groupings today that make up the core of the American working class, for example, are somewhat different from those that fought the 1912 where South and East Europeans predominated. However, the much overused sociological term ‘melting pot’ still applies to the extend that the working class is not heterogeneous in its racial and ethnic makeup, a factor that not only aids the breakdown of class unity but is, a more or less, conscious stratagem of the bosses to divide the working class at the base. Moreover, although we are not talking about fighting for nickel and dime raises like those asked for then today the wage system has created a wider gap between rich and poor that would not be unfamiliar to those strikers long ago. And certainly the bosses have not changed, although they are certainly slicker than in those days of William Woods and the other textile magnates. And they put their money where their mouths are, spending over a billion dollars a years to defeat unionization drives and strike action.

One question, on which there is no comparison, or none worthy of mention, is the difference in labor leadership as the 1912 strike evolved and today’s labor leadership. This refers not only to the differences in political perspective of the Bill Haywood and Joseph Ettor-led Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and today’s Democratic Party-embedded labor leadership which are striking enough but about the nature of society and politics. Fundamentally the old preamble to the IWW constitution drawn up in 1905 is correct in its assertion that there are two distinct and different class interests in the world and at the end of the day they are irreconcilble. Today’s labor leadership acts as if there wasn’t a capitalist that it did not like. An interesting sidelight to the IWW-led 1912 struggle was the attempt by the conservative traditional craft unions associated with the AFof L during the strike to break away from the bulk of the unskilled laborers who formed the core of the textile industry. That has happened in later struggles as well.

One thing that was clear then and has been muddied by today’s labor bureaucracy (with no little help from social democratic and other leftists) is the role of the state. If any mass struggle in the last one hundred years points out the capitalist class nature of the American state it is Lawrence. At every critical point from the first day of the strike and from the lowest level of government the police and military power of the state was used against the working class and in defense of the interests of the capitalist class. This is the class struggle in the raw, up close and personal, that usually only gets exposed in pre-revolutionary or revolutionary situations.

If nothing else, whatever Professor Watson’s personal political sympathies may be, he has performed a great service by placing the Lawrence strike in the context of the development of American capitalism, especially in its post-robber baron period; the development of the multi-ethnic working class; the role of the development of light industry and the Merrimack Valley in the development of American capitalism; the creation and furtherance of a radical response to the primitive capitalist production conditions; and, the role of the state in capitalist society. One may fault Professor Watson with a bit of a ‘kitchen sink’ approach to this work when he brings in every possible event and personality that can reasonably or logically be connected with the Lawrence strike in any way. Even Marxists recognize limits to the interrelatedness of events in any particular situation. However, that is a small price to pay for this important addition to labor history. Kudos.

From The Archives On The 50th Anniversary-Honor The 40th Anniversary Of Stonewall- For Equal Democratic Rights For Gays And Lesbians- The Film "Milk"- A Guest Review

Click On Title To Link To An Article On Harvey Milk, "Revolutionary Road", By Hilton Als In "The New York Review Of Books". Needless to say it takes a very different view from the one presented by the article posted below.
*******

This year marks the 40th Anniversary of the famous Stonewall uprising by gays and lesbians in New York City against their being harassed and victimized by the police, by the political establishment and by anyone who wanted to single out a seemingly easy target. Well, those days are over, at least the more egregious parts, although this struggle is far from over. This year, with the real advances on the gay and lesbian right to marriage front (despite that very important lose in California at the ballot box and in the courts) and the positive hoopla over Sean Penn’s well-deserved Oscar for his portrayal of bourgeois gay politician Harvey Milk of San Francisco, seems a fitting time to review some aspects of the gay liberation struggle as it has unfolded over the past forty years of American political and cultural history.

Originally I intended to review “Milk” (the Penn version) and a much less well-known 1980’s documentary on Harvey Milk. However, I was unable to find that earlier film to make the comparisons. In the meantime I came across a review by Amy Rath, editor of the “Women And Revolution” pages of “Workers Vanguard”, that hits many of the point that I wanted to make. I still intend to do that comparative review at a later date.

Guest Commentary

Workers Vanguard No. 932
13 March 2009

The Communist Program and the Fight Against Homosexual Oppression

Milk

A Review

By Amy Rath

(Women and Revolution pages)

Correction Appended

The San Francisco Democratic Party establishment learned decades ago how to manipulate the rhetoric of “gay power” to bolster its rule, and the story of Harvey Milk is front and center in that spin. At the time of the murders of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Milk in 1978, the Democratic Party machine seized on the issue for political capital and it hasn’t stopped since. Spouting “gay rights” rhetoric to round up votes, the city government flaunts “progressive” pretensions while it does the work of capitalism in oppressing the poor and exploited and attempting to tame the powerful Bay Area labor movement. It’s by no means a fluke of history that San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom rode the movement for gay marriage as part of his bid for national prominence as a Democratic Party politician.

Thus, when Milk, Gus Van Sant’s biopic about the first openly gay member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, had its world premiere last October in a special showing at the Castro Theatre (just down the block from Milk’s old camera store), Newsom joined the movie moguls and film stars strutting on the red carpet. Patrons paid $50 to see the film and as much as $15,000 to attend the post-premiere dinner and party at City Hall. With characteristic smugness, Newsom congratulated the city “progressives” on the changes of the last 30 years: “This story couldn’t have happened anywhere else” (San Francisco Chronicle, 29 October 2008). No doubt he hopes that this “for the people” veneer will prove useful as California sinks more deeply into economic crisis and layoffs engulf the working class. After all, Newsom got elected mayor based on his reactionary “Care Not Cash” initiative that sought to drive the homeless from the city. His championship of gay marriage helped bring his left-liberal opponents solidly into his camp.

Has any film been as good for the city’s political and business establishment as Milk? Newsom opened City Hall to on-site filming of Moscone’s murder, while various worthies of the San Francisco establishment appeared in person in the movie, including the openly gay politician Tom Ammiano (formerly president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and currently a member of the California State Assembly). The on-site filming poured money into the coffers of the city and its merchants. Now tourists are flocking to the Castro district to see the home base of Harvey Milk’s gay constituency.

Milk tells the story of how “gay power” became institutionalized in City Hall, and it’s fairly accurate within the limited scope of the movie’s storyline, which focuses on Milk as a gay politician to the exclusion of the larger political and social forces of the time. The movie is well-made, enjoyable entertainment. Hailed by fans and reviewers everywhere as brilliant in his portrayal of Harvey Milk, Sean Penn won an Oscar for best actor. He certainly deserves it. Not least of Milk’s gifts to the capitalist Democratic Party was his puckish charm and outspoken courage, and Penn shows it all.

Adding not a little to the interest sparked by the movie itself was the passage of California’s reactionary Proposition 8—which overturned the legalization of same-sex marriage—last November 4, only days before the film opened nationwide. Headlines read “Milk Recaptures Californian Intolerance at Exactly the Right Time” (Village Voice, 26 November 2008) and “Activists Seek to Tie ‘Milk’ to a Campaign for Gay Rights” (New York Times, 21 November 2008). But it’s not just some of the reviewers in the capitalist press that relish the connection: our reformist opponents on the left are salivating over the movie.

The International Socialist Organization (ISO) hails the movie’s opening “at a crucial teaching moment in the struggle” and comments that the “latest explosion of gay militancy” is “magnificent” (“Teamsters and Trannies, Unite!” International Socialist Review, January-February 2009). Certainly tens of thousands have protested in the streets against Prop 8, and we Spartacists have joined them, opposing all discrimination against gays with our own revolutionary program—while also pointing out that the demands of the “movement” are limited to lobbying the Democrats for a few token reforms. The main strategy of Prop 8’s opponents is to sue to overturn the law.

For the supposedly “socialist” ISO, over the moon over the ascension of mainstream bourgeois politician Barack Obama (who opposes gay marriage) to the imperial presidency, a “movement” which can more effectively pressure capitalist politicians for such reforms is the ultimate goal. Thus the ISO article enthused over “genuine rainbow power”—i.e., Teamsters, transvestites, former Republic Windows workers, Latinos and gays united—but united for what? Their “ultimate” demand is to overturn Bill Clinton’s reactionary “Defense of Marriage Act” and to “tell President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress to end this federally sanctioned discrimination once and for all.” Who are they kidding? We support full democratic rights for gays, but as Marxists we understand that anti-gay bigotry will not be rooted out short of a socialist revolution which overturns capitalism.

For its part, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), creator of the “World Can’t Wait” outfit, says the film “resonates in what is at times an almost eerie way” with the current political assault on gay marriage and “the powerful resistance from the people, particularly the gay and lesbian community” (Revolution, 14 December 2008). At the time of the events depicted in the film, however, the RCP spouted the grotesque Stalinist/Maoist line that homosexuality was a “sickness” and barred gays from membership in their organization. Thus their enthusing over Milk today rings grossly hollow—though their tailing of petty-bourgeois reformist “movements” is consistent.

For such reformists, politicians like Harvey Milk are the stuff of their illusions in “fight the right” Democrats. George Moscone, the supposed “friend of labor” mayor, and Harvey Milk, the uncloseted gay supervisor, are cast as progressive martyrs cut down by hoary reaction in the person of the bigoted ex-cop Dan White (who was also a Democrat, although no one likes to admit it). This is just a means of tailing the Democratic Party establishment in San Francisco, where the votes of homosexuals are corralled to fuel a vicious anti-labor drive. Moscone came into office in 1976 with a tough-on-labor line, signaled by a series of anti-union propositions on the city ballot attacking the pay scales and benefits of city workers. In 1976—during the period covered by the movie, which restricts labor struggle to the Coors beer boycott that Milk assisted—Moscone’s anti-labor offensive led to a bitter, hard-fought strike by city craft workers backed up by Muni mass transit drivers.

Keeping social protest safely within the bounds of the capitalist courts and the ballot box is fully in keeping with the politics of Milk, which represents quite accurately the fulsome confidence in capitalist democracy that Harvey Milk pushed. With the election of the first black president, Barack Obama, the American ruling class is hoping for an extended honeymoon of race, class and social peace, while refurbishing illusions in American imperialist democracy. Milk is “the first openly Obama-iste movie,” quipped the Village Voice. Slate agreed: “Few reviewers will miss the opportunity to point out—the parallels are hard to ignore—that Harvey Milk was the Barack Obama of his day, a minority candidate who represented change, opposed the party machine, and preached the gospel of hope.” Not to be outdone, the New York Times reviewer wrote: “This is how change happens. This is what it looks like.”

Sure, that’s what they want the exploited and oppressed to believe. Milk himself said, “If a gay can win, it means there is hope that the system can work for all minorities if we fight. We’ve given them hope.” With such words Harvey Milk funneled the votes of the large homosexual community in San Francisco to the Democratic Party, which is no less a capitalist party of racism, war and “family values” than the Republicans.

Gay Oppression and “Coming Out”

With scenes of handsome, bare-chested men and exuberant parties and parades, Milk makes constituency politicking look like a lot of fun. It also represents Milk’s personal take on “gay liberation”: all the closeted gays should “come out” so that the bigots will see that homosexuals are “just folks” like them. But while this may seem to be true in the small bubbles that are San Francisco’s Castro district and New York’s Christopher Street, seeing politicized lifestylism and constituency politics as the answer to the oppression of gay people is a most dangerous illusion.

The oppression of homosexuals is not merely or even primarily the result of narrow-mindedness. Homosexuals continue to be repressed by capitalist law. Widespread bigotry on this issue is fundamentally conditioned by the institution of the monogamous family unit, the main social source of the oppression of women, youth and homosexuals in class society, and by the considerable power of organized religion. Such oppression does not make homosexuality in itself political. Sexuality is a complex and essentially personal and private matter; thus the Spartacist League most vehemently opposes any government intrusion into consensual sexual activity and private life—we say, “Government out of the bedrooms!”

A corollary is the SL’s political opposition to the program of “coming out” pushed by “lifestyle liberationists” such as Milk, which may defy but cannot eradicate class-rooted repressive institutions. We defend those who choose to “come out” against victimization by reactionaries. But living as an open homosexual or transvestite or whatever one’s individual choice—courageous as it is—can be deadly in this violent, backward, anti-sex society. Recall the brutal killing of Matthew Shepard in 1998—beaten and left hanging on a barbed-wire fence to die—and of Gwen Araujo, a transgender youth, in 2002. A 2006 survey by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network reported that violent attacks are a daily part of life for gay, lesbian and transgender youth: nearly two-thirds reported feeling unsafe at school, over a third experienced physical harassment, and nearly a fifth were assaulted because of their sexual orientation.

Young gays in the Castro today might note that the cross on Mt. Davidson still dominates the city’s southern skyline and bear in mind that the first big concentration of gays in the Bay Area was not the footloose youth of the late 1960s-’70s “sexual liberation” era. During World War II, with San Francisco as its West Coast embarkation point, U.S. imperialism threw tens of thousands of young men out of the military as homosexuals, giving them blue discharge papers marked with a capital H. The Department of Defense still refuses to say how many thousands were discharged. Not relishing the prospect of returning to their hometowns, many of these young men stayed in San Francisco. An excellent book by Allan Bérubé, Coming Out Under Fire, details the history of these gay men and women, many of whom first met others like themselves in the military in World War II. Today, gays still aren’t allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military. According to a 2004 report by the gay rights group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, in the ten years after Democratic president Bill Clinton adopted the infamous “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, around 10,000 service members were discharged for being gay or bisexual.

Who Was Harvey Milk?

As Randy Shilts recounts in his 1982 biography The Mayor of Castro Street, Harvey Milk was a latecomer to the politics of “gay power.” After his 1951 college graduation, Milk, a fervent anti-Communist who wanted to stop the Reds from taking over Asia, enlisted in the Navy during the Korean War, where he rose rapidly through the ranks to become an officer. After leaving the Navy, Milk worked as an insurance broker and a researcher at a Wall Street investment firm. A staunch conservative, he was a supporter of Republican Barry Goldwater, opposing any kind of government intervention in the capitalist economy. Milk was at this time entirely uninterested in his homosexuality as a political question. But as ’60s New Left radicalism swung into full sway, Harvey Milk got into hippie lifestylism, growing his hair long as he hung with the cast of the flower-power hit Hair. By the early ’70s, he and his lover Scott Smith had moved to San Francisco.

Harvey Milk’s transformation from New York stockbroker to San Francisco Democrat moved him from the conservative to the liberal wing of capitalist politics. He built his power base in the Castro as a small businessman, defender of his community and president of the gay-dominated Castro Village Association. The movie portrays Milk’s politics quite accurately. Sean Penn gives us pretty much word-for-word Milk’s speech at the San Francisco Gay Freedom Day Parade in June 1978. Milk quoted patriotic passages from the verses engraved on the Statue of Liberty, phrases from the Declaration of Independence and the national anthem, and continued:

“No matter how hard you try, you cannot erase those words from the Declaration of Independence. No matter how hard you try, you cannot chip those words from off the base of the Statue of Liberty. And no matter how hard you try, you cannot sing the ‘Star-Spangled Banner’ without those words. That’s what America is. Love it or leave it.”

Milk said in his inauguration speech as San Francisco supervisor: “I fully understand the debt and responsibility that major corporations owe the shareholders.... American business must realize that while the shareholders always come first, the care and feeding of their customer is a close second.” And gays, Milk insisted, were among their best customers—if not fellow players.

The Democratic Party Machine in San Francisco

Played by actor Josh Brolin, reactionary bigot Dan White is first shown in the movie spouting a sentence from his election campaign: “I’m not going to be forced out of San Francisco by splinter groups of radicals, social deviates and incorrigibles.” Ex-cop Dan White didn’t fit in with the clique of slick professional politicians who made up the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. For most of these well-off businessmen, realtors and lawyers, open contempt for the oppressed is considered bad taste. But there was no fundamental difference in the class loyalties of the three players, despite how White’s vengeance drama played out against Moscone and Milk. As we pointed out following the murders in “Reformists Weep for Strikebreaker Moscone” (WV No. 222, 5 January 1979): “Just who are these ‘elected officials’ anyway? Isn’t Moscone the same capitalist politician who crushed the 1976 San Francisco municipal craft workers strike? Isn’t Milk responsible for funneling votes of the large homosexual ‘community’ to the party of Anita Bryant, the Dixiecrats and the Vietnam War?”

In the ’60s and ’70s the Democratic Party machine in San Francisco was undergoing certain tactical shifts spurred by social and economic changes in the area. As the industrial base shrank and gentrification took over many old working-class neighborhoods like the Castro, San Francisco looked to tourism and to building up the downtown financial district as a corporate center. Old-time party bosses, with ties to the Catholic church and the white ethnic neighborhoods, were giving way to the new liberal-chic politicians who remain in power today. It is really these changes that are responsible for this huge falling out in the Democratic Party power structure, which exploded in Dan White’s murder of Moscone and Milk.

The movie ends with a candlelight march of tens of thousands in mourning for Harvey Milk. But the important aftermath is reduced to a couple of sentences on the screen: Dan White, who committed two coldblooded killings—of elected government officials, no less—that couldn’t have looked more like deliberate, premeditated murder in the first degree, was slapped on the wrist with two counts of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to less than seven years in prison (he served five). If some gay person had murdered ex-cop White and Moscone, you can bet that nothing less than the death penalty, on the spot, would have sufficed.

So naturally the “gay ghetto” exploded in rage. Well into the night, thousands battled with the cops. Nearly every window in City Hall was broken and the doors were smashed, while Mayor Dianne Feinstein (now a U.S. Senator) and other bigwigs were trapped inside. Cop cars and paddy wagons went up in flames. We wrote in “Behind S.F. Night of Gay Rage” (WV No. 234, 22 June 1979):

“Revolutionaries solidarize with the legitimate outrage of San Francisco’s homosexuals over the light sentence given to this bigoted, reactionary, killer ex-cop. And we fully support their defending themselves against the rampaging goons of the capitalist state. But the identification of many San Francisco gay people with Harvey Milk generally translates into political support for the liberal-chic wing of the Democratic Party, a ruling-class group whose policies toward workers and the poor are often harsher than their more traditional old-line ‘machine’ opponents.”

How did Dan White get off so easily? The infamous “Twinkie defense” claimed that sugary junk food contributed to a mood disturbance that resulted in “diminished capacity.” At the time, there were cries of collusion between the cops and the D.A. as well as charges of homophobia against the judge and jury. But the real point is that the jury wanted to believe Dan White’s defense. The jury, largely working-class and middle-class, was drawn from those areas of San Francisco that were seen as the last bastion of family life. WV commented:

“What the jury shared with White was not simply ‘homophobia’ but a fear, exploited by the reactionary White, that San Francisco has become unlivable for ‘just plain folks.’

“But this ex-cop turned Supervisor was not ‘just plain folks’; he was not some working-class guy driven into a crazy frenzy by some posh liberal snobs. Dan White was a dangerous reactionary politician. He exploited the fears, grievances and economic distress of San Francisco’s ethnic Catholic lower classes for the politics of racist, anti-gay bigotry, just as Harvey Milk exploited homosexual oppression for the liberal-sophisticate face of capitalist rule.”

After Dianne Feinstein was elected mayor in her own right in 1979, one of her first acts as she sought the support of gay voters was to mandate the recruitment of gay cops into the San Francisco police force. By 1980, one in seven new police recruits was either a lesbian or a gay man. Such “diversity” does not alter the cops’ role as agents of repression for the ruling class, which includes persecuting immigrants, black youth and striking workers.

Jimmy Carter, “Human Rights” and the Anti-Sex Witchhunt

Milk shows a 30-second cameo of then-president Jimmy Carter calling on Californians to vote against Prop 6, the John Briggs initiative on the 1978 state ballot that sought the firing of homosexual teachers and their supporters. Aside from this issue and the “Save Our Children” campaign promoted by homophobic “sunshine girl” and spokeswoman for Florida orange juice Anita Bryant, the crucial context of national and international politics is absent from the movie. But Anita Bryant and Briggs were not isolated nutcases out to wreck things for the progressive gays. They were the voices of larger political forces at work, directed from the White House. While Prop 6 was defeated, Carter’s formal opposition signified no commitment to gay rights (even supreme bigot Ronald Reagan opposed Prop 6 at the time).

Coming to office in 1977, the Democratic Carter administration kicked off an onslaught of domestic social reaction and the renewal of U.S. imperialism’s Cold War drive aimed at the destruction of the Soviet Union, garbed in the call for “human rights.” These policies reflected the attempt of the American ruling class to overcome widespread fear and loathing of the government following the explosive years of the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, the rise of the New Left, the women’s liberation movement and black radicalization, and finally the Watergate break-in that forced the resignation of Republican president Richard (“I am not a crook”) Nixon in 1974. For the American bourgeoisie, this all-sided social turmoil and defiance of authority was deeply disturbing, and the potential for an alliance of black militants and radicalized students with an increasingly restive labor movement was a threat that had to be stopped. Thus a major bourgeois ideological assault was launched to overcome the “Vietnam syndrome” and to instill an unquestioning acceptance of capitalism, God and family, including the desirability of dying for one’s country.

The Carter administration brought “born again” religious fundamentalism front and center into the White House. This was the national backdrop for Bryant’s “Save Our Children” campaign of hate and Briggs’s witchhunting of gay teachers. While the movie makes good fun of these bigots, showing Milk’s sharp wit in debate with Briggs, Milk is also shown promoting the deadly illusion that the bigots had actually done gays a favor by publicizing their oppression, forcing them to “unite” against it. In fact, the Bryant campaign, which rallied the forces of the aggressive hard core of virulent reaction, was a grave threat not only to homosexuals, but to all concerned with democratic rights. Indeed, paired with Briggs’s Prop 6 on the California ballot was a tougher death penalty initiative, Prop 7. Briggs insisted that the two issues were inexorably tied together. A fund-raising letter issued by his campaign raved against California’s “ineffective” death penalty law and listed homosexual teachers as an equally horrendous threat.

The Spartacist League intervened heavily into the nationwide demonstrations against anti-gay bigotry. The oppression of homosexuals, like the oppression of women, serves as an index of more general social and political attitudes. The SL has always recognized that democratic rights are indivisible—and indeed has stood out in opposing reactionary state repression of the most oppressed or marginalized, including Mormon polygamists and NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), a group shunned by more “respectable” gays for simply advocating the decriminalization of consensual sex between men and boys. As we wrote in “Rightist Reaction Pushes Anti-Homosexual Hysteria: Stop Anita Bryant!” (WV No. 165, 8 July 1977):

“To struggle effectively against the persecution of homosexuals, ‘gay rights’ activists must begin by understanding that bourgeois democracy is partial, fragile and reversible…. The struggle fundamentally is not about sex but about all-sided democratic rights. The ‘Save Our Children’ mobilization is presently the most visible component of a much broader rightist offensive aimed at rolling back real and token gains of the last decade of liberalism. Recent targets include legal and safe abortions, especially for poor women; the Equal Rights Amendment; busing to combat school segregation; preferential minority-group college admissions. The ‘right-to-lifers’ screaming for the death penalty grasp the logic of the Bryant crusade far better than do some of its opponents.”

Today, over 30 years later, the bitter truth of that warning is all too apparent. In the 1980s, reactionaries seized on the deadly AIDS epidemic to demonize gays. Who even remembers the Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed amendment to the Constitution simply affirming formal equality for women? Busing and affirmative action are dead, the racist death penalty has claimed over a thousand lives since its reinstitution in 1976, legal and safe abortion is ever more out of reach for poor women. And the Soviet Union has been destroyed by counterrevolution, a world-historic defeat for the working class. In Milk you see the occasional picket sign demanding “human rights” for gays. This was a major demand of the anti-Bryant demonstrations, an implicit endorsement of Carter’s anti-Soviet “human rights” crusade to rearm U.S. imperialism, extending its buzzwords to homosexuals in the U.S.

We Marxists opposed the imperialist campaign against the USSR. We called for unconditional military defense of this bureaucratically degenerated workers state against imperialist assault and internal counterrevolution. We also called for political revolution by the working class to oust the Stalinist bureaucracy and restore soviet democracy and the proletarian internationalism of Lenin’s Bolsheviks.

Full Democratic Rights for Gays!

The alliance of lifestyle radicals, reformists and Democrats can promise only token reforms that enrage American backwardness and touch off new waves of backlash. Today, over 40 states have enacted laws banning same-sex marriage. In California, an unholy alliance of the Mormons, the Catholic church and evangelical Protestants went on a rampage to get Prop 8 passed. Recognizing that with Obama’s candidacy black voters would turn out at the polls in record numbers, a big push was made to find allies among conservative black Baptist preachers. A full-page ad in the Los Angeles Sentinel, the city’s major black newspaper, urged a yes vote on Prop 8 to restore “the sanctity of marriage.”

Perhaps the most effective campaign tool to boost Proposition 8 was the “robocalls” to people’s cell phones with recordings of Obama addressing a crowd with the declaration: “I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union.” While proclaiming that he did not support Proposition 8 because it was “unnecessary,” Obama’s opposition to gay marriage is a direct echo of Bush and other fundamentalist yahoos of both capitalist parties. After all, Bill Clinton signed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that pronounced, “The word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” In the same year, he signed the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act,” part of his ending “welfare as we know it,” consigning millions of impoverished mothers and children to misery and hunger.

The Spartacist League and Spartacus Youth Clubs joined protests against Prop 8 with placards demanding: “Down With Prop 8! For the Right of Gay Marriage...and Divorce!”, “State, Church and Family: Holy Trinity of Women’s Oppression!” and “Don’t Crawl for the Democrats—Build a Workers Party!” As fighters for the socialist liberation of humanity, we are committed to full democratic rights for gays, lesbians and transgenders, and we support any legal advances that can be wrested from this cruelly bigoted society, including the right to marry. But we do not advocate or prettify the institution of marriage. We fight for a society in which no one needs to be forced into a legal straitjacket in order to get medical benefits, visitation rights, custody of children, immigration rights, or any of the many privileges this capitalist society grants to those, and only those, who are embedded in the traditional “one man on one woman for life” marital mold.

In the ’70s, politicians like Harvey Milk represented the wing of the gay rights movement at peace with capitalism. But there were others, disaffected with capitalism, who broke from sectoralism—the “left” version of plain old capitalist “constituency politics”—and found their way to communism. A dozen cadre of the Los Angeles-based “gay liberation/communist” Red Flag Union (RFU), formerly the Lavender & Red Union, fused with the Spartacist League in 1977.

In the course of their political journey, the RFU rejected the false programs of a number of our reformist opponents. Against both crude Maoists like the RCP and anti-Communist “state capitalists” like the Shachtmanite Revolutionary Socialist League (since deceased), they came to the Trotskyist position of defense of the degenerated and deformed workers states while calling for workers political revolution. Opportunist groups like the feminist Freedom Socialist Party sought to cater to the supposed “lifestylism” of the RFU by slandering the SL’s so-called “closet rule,” which simply states that in public our members seek to be known by their politics, not by their lifestyles. The RFU agreed with the SL’s position and sharply refuted the opportunists’ slanders.

The RFU wrote in Red Flag No. 3, a special fusion supplement to Workers Vanguard (WV No. 172, 9 September 1977): “There is no special revolutionary program for homosexuals. The communist program includes demands which address the special oppression of homosexuals. But unlike sectoralists, revolutionaries understand that the fate of homosexuals—like that of any other oppressed group—is determined by the course of the class struggle.” The RFU comrades came to understand that only the road of the Bolshevik October Revolution can open up a future of a socialist world where all forms of oppression and exploitation will be eradicated.

Only a socialist revolution can lay the basis for the replacement of the institution of the family with socialized childcare and housework. In the first five years of the Russian Revolution under Lenin and Trotsky, the Bolsheviks, insofar as they could in conditions of extreme poverty and international isolation, sought to liberate women through collectivized kitchens, childcare, dwellings and schools. As well, laws against all forms of consensual sex were abolished, establishing the noninterference of the state in all matters of private life. While a revolutionary government will always act to promote all measures to bring about freedom for all, bigotry cannot simply be abolished by decree. But the Bolsheviks understood that liberation is a material act, requiring resources far beyond those available to a backward peasant society like Russia. Nonetheless, the forces of proletarian state repression put the bigots and former oppressors on the run.

To finally arrive at classless communism requires the destruction of capitalist imperialism as a world system and the establishment of a world socialist division of labor, leading to a tremendous leap in the productive forces that can provide material plenty for all. The withering away of the family as the basic institution defining sexual relations will result in the eventual disappearance of patriarchal relations and of generalized anti-homosexual oppression. Our task is to build a revolutionary workers party like the Bolshevik Party that will act as a tribune of the people, a defender of all the oppressed, to lead the fight for world socialist revolution.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correction

The article “Milk: A Review” (WV No. 932, 13 March) stated that Dan White, who killed Harvey Milk and San Francisco mayor George Moscone, was “sentenced to less than seven years in prison.” White was in fact sentenced to seven years and eight months. (From WV No. 933, 27 March 2009.)

In Honor Of Frida Kahlo At The Museum Of Fine Arts In Boston- February 27 to June 16, 2019-*INSIDE EDITION- On Leon Trotsky's Love Life

In Honor Of Frida Kahlo At The Museum Of Fine Arts In Boston-

February 27 to June 16, 2019-

You are here

Frida Kahlo and Arte Popular

February 27, 2019 – June 16, 2019
Saundra B. and William H. Lane Galleries (Gallery 332) and Saundra B. and William H. Lane Galleries (Gallery 334)

BUY TICKETSMEMBERS SEE IT FREE

• 

  View Credit

The influence of Mexican folk art on Kahlo’s work and life

Like many artists in Mexico City’s vibrant intellectual circles, Frida Kahlo (1907–1954) avidly collected traditional Mexican folk art—arte popular—as a celebration of Mexican national culture. She drew inspiration from these objects, seizing on their political significance after the Mexican Revolution and incorporating their visual and material qualities into her now iconic paintings.

Following the recent acquisition of Dos Mujeres (Salvadora y Herminia) (1928), this is the MFA’s first exhibition on Frida Kahlo. It tightly focuses on Kahlo’s lasting engagements with arte popular, exploring how her passion for objects such as decorated ceramics, embroidered textiles, children’s toys, and devotional retablo paintings shaped her own artistic practice. A selection of Kahlo’s paintings—including important loans from the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), and the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin—is brought together with representative examples of arte popular. Bringing fresh attention to Kahlo as an ambitious, ever-evolving painter, this exhibition also opens broader discussions about the influences of anonymous folk artists on famed modern painters.

The MFA’s mission is to be a meeting place of world cultures. Acknowledging the cultural heritage of the artist, gallery labels for this exhibition are provided in both English and Spanish.

La misión del Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (MFA) es ser un lugar de encuentro de las culturas del mundo. En reconocimiento a la herencia cultural del artista, los textos de la galería para esta exposición se ofrecen en inglés y español.

• 
  
  

  

By Laura Perkins

Honestly although I have known the name Frida Kahlo since back in the 1970s when we down to Mexico and along the way went to the famous Blue House Frida and Diego Rivera shared I was not familiar with her work as I was with Rivera and the other male muralists for which Mexico was then famous. I got more familiar with her work indirectly through the film Frida although I would not say I was well versed even then. What I connected Frida to more than art, or rather who I connected Frida to, was the Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky who persecuted by Stalin and his agents was on the planet without a place to stay. Frida and Diego through their connections got Trotsky into the country.  Although I had a Trotskyist boyfriend at the time I went to Mexico I was unaware, as I believe he was since he never mentioned it then, of the short love affair between Frida and Trotsky (which would culminate in a Frida painting dedicated to Trotsky now in the Women’s Art Museum down in Washington).       

My real introduction to Frida, live and in person, was several years ago when the MFA displayed (as in this exhibit) her famous Two Peasant Women painting which in many ways shows her artistic skills to advantage and has the addition advantage of showing how close she was to her deeply held Mexican roots. That alone is reason enough to see this exhibition at the MFA if you are in or near Boston between now and June.      

Click on title to link to YouTube's film clip of Frida Kahlo, the object of the "tempest in a teapot"controversy commented on below.

Commentary

What kind of madness have I unleashed? What kinds of monsters have I let loose? Recently (May 14, 2008) I wrote a little review of the film Frida, a bio-pic about the life of the Mexican artist Frida Kahlo starring Salma Hayek, where I speculated about a scene where the old Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky hopped into bed with her during his exile in Mexico in the late 1930’s. My inquiry was based on whether that scene was an act of cinematic license or something more, whether the "Old Man" (an affectionate nickname that his followers used to describe him) was really a dirty old man. Simple, right? Not, my friends, in this confessional age. Now my e-mail message center is clogged with ‘inside information’ from every lonely heart with access to cyberspace.

And what is the nature of this 'information'? Is it some new discovery that Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution does not apply to third world countries today? No, unfortunately that theory is still very much in play, if not acted upon. Is it that chestnut that the old Stalinists liked to throw out that Trotsky really was an agent of Hitler or the Mikado? No, that stuff went out when they finally opened up the KGB files after the demise of the Soviet Union. No, what has filled the deepest recesses of cyberspace is news of Trotsky’s personal life and if one believes only a small part of it then comrade Trotsky was indeed an old dog. Let me give a few examples.

One e-mailer claimed that she was the illegitimate daughter born out of the affair between Trotsky and Frida Kahlo. That perked my interest until I asked for her date of birth. April 23, 1947. Hello! Trotsky was assassinated in 1940. Next came an old fisherman who claims that he sold Trotsky all his “Turkish” cigarettes (wink, wink). Trotsky did not smoke, Turkish cigarettes or any other, during the period of his exile in Turkey (wink, wink). Another, again from Turkey, talked about the old days when he and Trotsky shared the odd pipe of hashish together. Well, what of it? And it goes down hill from there.

Okay, so this is what we have now for a new Trotsky profile. He is not to be regarded as one of the great revolutionaries of the 20th century but rather some debauched rum-soaked, drug-addled, sex-crazy old man who led whole generations astray by his obviously perverted dreams that somehow humankind could organize itself better than was the current practice. No, that will not do. I think that he would have preferred to be called that above-mentioned agent of the Mikado than listen to this cyber-babble. I have said it more than once, although Trotsky still has not been vindicated by history (only a world socialist society could do that) he is not in need of any certificate of revolutionary good conduct by the reader, those bizarre e-mailers, or this writer.

From The Archives -*MAY DAY ROUNDUP 2007

Click on title to link to the Leon Trotsky Internet Archive's copy of his 1938 article on "The Mexican Oil Expropriations" that is germane to the last comment in this entry.

COMMENTARY

FORGET REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND GREENS! BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!

A SMALL GLIMMER OF LIGHT IN TURKEY

On Sunday April 29, 2007 hundreds of thousands of mainly Moslem Turks, importantly many of them women, demonstrated against the selection of a well-known Islamist as a candidate for the presidency of Turkey. Even hardened communists must recognize this development as one of the few glimmers of light in the fight against international religious obscurantism. At least since the 1979 upheaval in Iran the religious fundamentalists in the Middle East (and elsewhere) have been in the ascendancy in places as diverse as Afghanistan, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine etc. and it is heartening, even momentarily, to realize that people will fight in the streets of behalf of their democratic secular traditions, as they see them. This development requires support by leftist militants internationally. Let us be clear, against right-wing religious or secular reaction we support such efforts while noting the necessary for the completion of the still unfinished democratic tasks in Turkey by the creation of a workers state. We call for the military defense of democratic secular states against efforts to topple such structures, including, in the case of Turkey, the not infrequent case of military coups. More on this as the situation develops.

BUT….

As if to mock the above political development in Turkey on May Day the ‘democratic secular’ state of Turkey showed its fangs as those who demonstrated for workers rights and other issues on this international workers holiday faced brutal repression of their actions by the police. These two news items are an almost chemically pure example of what Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky meant by his famous Theory of Permanent Revolution. In former colonial and neo-capitalist states like Turkey the classic tasks of the democratic revolutions in the West, of desperate necessity, must be carried out and completed in the process of creating a workers state. The bruised and battered Turkish May Day demonstrators bear mute testimony to the failure to have learned that necessity by now.


KEEP YOUR EYES ON IRAQ BUT DO NOT FORGET
AFGHANISTAN

Between the Bush/Congress ‘fight’ over how much to fund the United States Iraq war budget and the increasingly apparent failure of the ‘surge’ strategy militarily to derail the civil war there the war in Afghanistan has been below the newspaper fold. However, this week brought news for the nth time that the true role of the United States there is as the sole owner of the Karzai government. Once again Afghanis are raising a furor against the latest United States killing of innocent people in their ‘crusade’ to wipe out the Taliban. When increasing numbers of Afghanis are calling “Death to Bush”, their supposed ‘liberator’ then one knows for sure that the situation there is getting very, very dicey. YES, UNITED STATES OUT OF IRAQ NOW BUT ALSO GET THE HELL OUT OF AFGHANISTAN AS WELL


NO TEARS IN MOSCOW

When the history of our times gets truly written the name of one Boris Yeltsin, high Stalinist official in the former Soviet Union and latter first President of capitalist- restorationist Russia will get the place he truly deserves. And that will not be in the revolutionary pantheon. Indeed, this man almost single-handedly delivered up the former Soviet Union to Western imperialism and for virtually no cost, except the little problem of the immiseration of the vast Russian population and looting of the state treasury. In one of the most classically crony capitalist exercises of all time, one that would have warmed the hearts of the American ‘robber barons’ of the 19th century , he delivered up the Soviet industrial, technological and natural resources apparatuses to a few of his buddies. And now, as if to cap off his career as a counter-revolutionary, he has been buried with full Russian Orthodox Christian rites. Not even the denizens of the old Western Sovietology think tanks, grateful as they were for his aid to Western imperialism, saw him as anything but a very slippery and treacherous agent. History will not be kind to Mister Yeltsin, especially if victorious leftist militants get a chance to write that history.


DEATH WATCH IN HAVANA

No, they are not dancing in the streets of Miami today. But, that does not mean that they are not closely watching the health of old Fidel Castro. He was a no show for the May Day celebration in Havana. On that basis everyone and their brother or sister has begun to speculate again on whether he will return to power. On more than one occasion in this space I have noted my political differences with the Castro regime and its Stalinist practices. However, know this, no militant leftist will be dancing in the streets anywhere if capitalist counter-revolution is successful in Cuba. And one need look no further that the above paragraph about Mr. Yeltsin to see the fate in store for the Cuban people if the counter-revolutionaries in Miami and Washington are successful. As has been our internationalist obligation for over forty years- Imperialists Hands off Cuba- Defend the Cuban Revolution- End the Embargoes.


FULL CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS FOR ALL THAT HAVE MAKE IT HERE

This year’s pro-immigration May Day demonstrations apparently were less spectacular
than those of last year. Immigrants have cited many reasons for this mainly around their personal security. When they are rounding up your campaneros by the hundred in places like New Bedford, Massachusetts the beginning of wisdom is to keep your head down. Especially when the so–called “friends” of immigrants, particularly Democratic Party politicians, have proposed legislation that, at best, creates second-class indentured servants. With “friends” like that you do not need much imagination to think what the enemy’s plans are like. Moreover, one only has to look at the Congressional action of those “friends” around the Iraqi war budget funding to realize that whatever they propose will be very, very ugly indeed. But, let us cut to the chase. The proper fight today is the call for full amnesty for all that have made it here. To give that amnesty meaning full citizenship rights for all who make it here is the beginning of wisdom. For an nation made up almost totally of immigrants who got here one way or another, not all of them legal, that is simple. Right?


ON OIL NATIONALIZATIONS IN VENEZUELA

Word comes this week that Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has ordered the nationalization of the oil industry, or at least a dramatic increase in the state’s percentage of the oil revenues. The situation is a little murky because the international oil cartel that runs the Venezuelan oil industry still retains a shares of revenue. There have been no lack of nationalizations by capitalist states over the last century usually done to either placate a restless working class or, more frequently, to bail out a bankrupt industry such as the coal industry in Britain after World War II. Nationalizations, per se, however, are not the road to socialism. Nevertheless militant leftists defend such actions, particularly by colonial and semi-colonial nations trying to assert their rights over their own natural resources. Thus any attempt by the imperialist powers, particularly in this case, the United States or its agents must be opposed. One should also note that in the case of Venezuela such a defense may become operative more quickly than one might expect as many indigenous capitalists have either fled, taken there money out of the country or are hoarding in order to create some kind of crisis situation. The imperialists have stopped investing, as well. More, probably much more, on this later. Meanwhile HANDS OFF VENEZUELA. DEFEND THE OIL NATIONALIZATIONS

*Honor International Women's Day-A Workers' Holiday

Click on title to link to "A History In Words and Images Of International Women's Day".

This is a repost of a commentary for International Women's Day 2007

COMMENTARY

MARCH IS WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH-MARCH 8TH IS INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

MARCH 2007 (WESTERN DATES) MARKS THE 90TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FEBRUARY 1917 REVOLUTION IN RUSSIA STARTED ON INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY BY WOMEN TEXTILE WORKERS AND OTHER WOMEN DEMANDING BREAD AND PEACE, AMONG OTHER ISSUES DURING THE HEIGHT OF WORLD WAR I.

This is an edited version of an article that appeared in the journal Women and Revolution in 1975

"Under the lead of the Third International, the day of the working women shall become a real fighting day; it shall take the form of practical measures which either solidify the conquests of Communism ...or prepare the way for the dictatorship of the working class."
-
Alexandra Kollontai (early Bolshevik leader)

Bourgeois feminists may celebrate it, but March 8 —International Women's Day—is a workers' holiday. Originating in 1908 among the female needle trades workers in Manhattan's Lower East Side, who marched under the slogans "for an eight hour day," "for the end of child labor" and "equal suffrage for women," it was officially adopted by the Second International in 1911.

International Women's Day was first celebrated in Russia in 1913 where it was widely publicized in the pages of the Bolshevik newspaper, Pravda, and popularized by speeches in numerous clubs and societies controlled by Bolshevik organizations which presented a Marxist analysis of women's oppression and the program for emancipation.

The following year the Bolsheviks not only agitated for International Women's Day in the pages of Pravda (then publishing under the name Put' Pravdy), but also made preparations to publish a special journal dealing with questions of women's liberation in Russia and internationally. It was called Rabotnitsa (The Working Woman), and its first issue was scheduled to appear on International Women's Day, 1914.

Preparations for the holiday were made under the most hazardous conditions. Shortly before the long-awaited day the entire editorial board of Rabotnitsa— with one exception—as well as other Bolsheviks who had agitated for International Women's Day in St. Petersburg factories, were arrested by the Tsarist police. Despite these arrests, however, the Bolsheviks pushed ahead with their preparations. Anna Elizarova —Lenin's sister and the one member of the editorial board to escape arrest—single-handedly brought out the first issue of Rabotnitsa on March 8 (or, according to the old Russian calendar, February 23) as scheduled. Clara Zetkin, a leading figure in the German Social Democratic Party and in the international working women's movement, wrote:

"Greetings to you on your courageous decision to organize Women's Day, congratulations to you for not losing courage and not wanting to sit by with your hands folded. We are with you, heart and soul. You and your movement will be remembered at numerous meetings organized for Women's Day in Germany, Austria, Hungary and America."

—Quoted in A. Artiukhina, "Proidennyi Put',"
Zhenshehina v revoliutsii

By far the most important celebration ever of International Women's Day took place in Petrograd on 8 March 1917 when the women textile workers of that city led a strike of over 90,000 workers—a strike which signaled the end of the 300-year-old Romanov dynasty and the beginning of the Russian Revolution. One week afterward, Pravda commented:

"The first day of the revolution—that is the Women's Day, the day of the Women Workers' International. All honor to the International! The women were the first to tread the streets of Petrograd on their day."


As the position of Soviet women degenerated under Stalin and his successors, as part of the degeneration of the entire Soviet workers state, International Women's Day was transformed from a day of international proletarian solidarity into an empty ritual which, like Mother's Day in the United States, glorifies the traditional role of women within the family.

But International Women's Day is a celebration neither of motherhood nor sisterhood; to ignore this fact is to ignore the most significant aspects of its history and purpose, which was to strengthen the ranks of the revolutionary proletariat. Unlike the pre-war Mensheviks who wanted to conciliate the feminists of their day by limiting the celebration of International Women's Day to women only, the Bolsheviks insisted that it be a holiday of working women and working men in struggle together. As Nadezhda Krupskaya (Lenin’s wife and life-long political companion) wrote in the lead article of the first issue of Rabotnitsa:

"That which unites working women with working men is stronger than that which divides them. They are united by their common lack of rights, their common needs, their common condition, which is struggle and their common goal.... Solidarity between working men and working women, common activity, a common goal, a common path to this goal—such is the solution of the 'woman' question among workers."

We look forward to celebrating future International Women's Days not only through the dissemination of propaganda, but also through the initiation of the full range of activities traditionally associated with this proletarian holiday—general strikes, insurrections, revolution!

On The 100th Anniversary Of Newly-Fledged German Communist Leader Rosa Luxemburg And Karl Liebknecht-Oh, What Might Have Been-*HONOR THE THREE L'S-LENIN, LIEBKNECHT, LUXEMBOURG: Leon Trotsky's Lenin Biography-"The Young Lenin"

Click on title to link to the Leon Trotsky Internet Archive's statement by Leon Trotsky at the time of V.I. Lenin's death.

COMMENTARY

HONOR THE THREE L’S-LENIN, LUXEMBURG, LIEBKNECHT

Every January leftists honor three revolutionaries who died in that month, V.I. Lenin of Russia in 1924, Karl Liebknecht of Germany and Rosa Luxemburg of Poland in 1919 murdered after leading the defeated Spartacist uprising in Berlin. I made my political points about the heroic Karl Liebknecht and his parliamentary fight against the German war budget in World War I in this space earlier (see review in April 2006 archives). I also made some special points here last year about the life of Rosa Luxemburg (see review in January 2006 archives). This year it is appropriate, at a time when the young need to find a few good heroes, to highlight the early struggles of Vladimir Lenin, the third L, to define himself politically. Probably the best way to do that is to look at Lenin’s experiences through the prism of his fellow revolutionary, early political opponent and eventual co-leader of the Bolshevik Revolution Leon Trotsky.


A Look At The Young Lenin By A Fellow Revolutionary

The Young Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Doubleday and Co., New York, 1972

The now slightly receding figure of the 20th century Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin founder and leader of the Bolshevik Party and guiding light of the October 1917 Russian Revolution and the first attempt at creating a socialist society has been the subject to many biographies. Some of those efforts undertaken during the time of the former Soviet government dismantled in 1991-92, especially under the Stalin regime, bordered on or were merely the hagiographic. Others, reflecting the ups and downs of the post World War II Cold War, painted an obscene diabolical picture, excluding Lenin’s horns, and in some cases not even attempting to exclude those. In virtually all cases these effort centered on Lenin’s life from the period of the rise of the Bolshevik Social Democratic faction in 1903 until his early death in 1924. In short, the early formative period of his life in the backwaters of provincial Russia rate a gloss over. Fellow Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, although some ten years younger than Lenin, tries to trace that early stage of his life in order to draw certain lessons. It is in that context that Trotsky’s work contains some important insights about the development of revolutionary figures and their struggles for political clarity.

Although Trotsky’s little work, originally intended to be part of a full biography of Lenin, never served its purpose of educating the youth during his lifetime and the story of it post World War II rediscovery is rather interesting one should note that this is neither a scholarly work in the traditional sense nor is it completely free from a certain fawning over Lenin by Trotsky. Part of this was determined by the vicissitudes of the furious Trotsky-Stalin fights for the soul of the Russian Revolution as Trotsky tried to uncover the layers of misinformation about Lenin’s early life. Part of it resulted from Trotsky’s status of junior partner to Lenin and also to his late coming over to Bolshevism. And part of it is, frankly, to indirectly contrast Lenin’s and his own road to Marxism. That said, this partial biography stands up very well as an analysis of the times that the young Lenin lived in, the events that affected his development and the idiosyncrasies of his own personality that drove him toward revolutionary conclusions. In short, Trotsky’s work is a case study in the proposition that revolutionaries are made not born.


To a greater extent than would be true today in a celebrity-conscious world many parts of Lenin’s early life are just not verifiable. Partially that is due to the nature of record keeping in the Russia of the 19th century. Partially it is because of the necessity to rely on not always reliable police records. Another part is that the average youth, and here Lenin is in some ways was no exception, really have a limited noteworthy record to present for public inspection. That despite the best efforts of Soviet hagiography to make it otherwise. Notwithstanding these problems Trotsky does an admirable job of detailing the high and low lights of agrarian Russian society and the vagaries of the land question in the second half of the 19th century. One should note that Trotsky grew up on a Ukrainian farm and therefore was no stranger to many of the same kind of problems that Lenin had to work through concerning the solution to the agrarian crisis, the peasant question. Most notably they both agreed that the fight for the Russian revolution that every one knew was coming could only be worked out through the fight for influence over the small industrial working class and socialism.

I would note that for the modern young reader that two things Trotsky analyzes are relevant. The first is the relationship between Lenin and his older brother Alexander who, when he became politicized, joined a remnant of the populist People’s Will terrorist organization and attempted to assassinate the Tsar. For his efforts he and his co-conspirators were hanged. I have always been intrigued by the effect that this event had on Lenin’s development. On the one hand, as a budding young intellectual, would Lenin have attempted to avenge his brother’s fate with his same revolutionary intellectual political program? Or would Lenin go another way to intersect the coming revolutionary either through its agrarian component or the rising Marxist Social Democratic element? We know the answer but Trotsky provides a nicely reasoned analysis of the various influences that were at work in the young Lenin. That alone is worth the price of admission here.

The other point I have already alluded to above. Revolutionaries are made not born, although particular life circumstances may create certain more favorable conditions for some. Soviet historians in their voluntarist hay day tried to make of Lenin a superhuman phenomenon- a fully formed Marxist intellectual from his early youth. Trotsky once again distills the essence of Lenin’s struggle to make sense of the world, the Russian world in the first instance, as he tries to find a way out the Russian political impasse. Trotsky’s work only goes up to 1892-93, the Samara period, the period before Lenin took off for Petersburg and greener pastures. Lenin left Samara a fully committed Marxist but it would be many years, with many polemics and by using many political techniques before he himself became a Bolshevik, as we know it. And that, young friends, is a cautionary tale that can be taken into the 21st century. Read on.