Click on the headline to link to the article described above
Markin comment:
The above-linked article is from an archival issue of Women and Revolution that may have some historical interest for old "new leftists", perhaps, and well as for younger militants interested in various cultural and social questions that intersect the class struggle. Or for those just interested in a Marxist position on a series of social questions that are thrust upon us by the vagaries of bourgeois society. I will be posting more such articles from the back issues of Women and Revolution during Women's History Month and periodically throughout the year.
Showing posts with label anti-communism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-communism. Show all posts
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Once Again, On The U.S. Social Forum- A “Teachable” Moment
Click on headline to link to the United For Peace And Justice (UJP) website, for an example of the kinds of activities that this umbrella organization (a part of the bigger umbrella organization, U.S. Social Forum) promotes.
Markin comment:
Yesterday in a post headlined I Will Love This Country Until The Day I Die-I Will Fight This Government Until We Achieve Our Communist Future- A Short Note, dated July 11, 2010, I noted that sometimes it is fun for me to be a communist propagandist trying to mesh the news of the day, the political atmospherics, and the struggle for our communist future together. And, at times, learning a little something in the process. In that commentary I also noted that sometimes it is not. The subject of that post was a commentary on those who challenge my “American-ness”. However today I am back on ground that I much prefer to fight on even though I am being taken to task- again.
This time though the criticism stems from a reader who took umbrage (her word, but I like it) over my characterization of the recently completed U.S. Social Forum held in Detroit in late June as a talkfest at a time when we need to get back, desperately get back, into the streets. (See The Streets Are Not For Dreaming - We Need An All Out Anti-War Push To Get Out Of Afghanistan- And We Need To Start Now, posted July 3, 2010, on the American Left History blog.)
The central thrust of her criticism concerned my note to that entry where I expanded, somewhat, on my take on a previous Social Forum in 2004 held at the same time and in the same city as the Democratic National Convention in Boston where I noted that those attendees were safely ensconced far away from any street action on the day before the opening of that convention. I also noted that, based on both anecdotal and written information by those involved, that the leadership of that Social Forum (and/or organizations that make up that umbrella organization) ordered or discouraged their memberships from attendance at the pre-convention anti-war event. This whole thing, in the end, amounted to some nasty “behind the scenes” organizational wrangling, as usual.
What makes all of this the “teachable” moment promised in the headline is the reader’s argument that Social Forum workshops are important to “gather in the clan” (my expression) and “take stock of where we are, and where we are going” (her expression) in order to move forward. Obviously, workshops, fora and the like ARE worthwhile. What the reader missed, and what I fear that she will always miss is that such activities (such “talk shops”) are a substitute for real actions beyond the walls of the classroom.
In the specific cases that I was addressing (2004, and the G-20 in 2010, but I could go back a longer way that than, a lot farther back to the 1960s with the Socialist Workers Party-led National Peace Action Coalition and the Communist Party-led People’s Coalition For Peace and Justice ) there had been a conscious political decision on the part of the participating organizations to work one way, to try to gain organizational control of the “movement” (such as it is) and, no question, not create a big stir in this pre-election period (a subject of open and constant dispute by the more militant elements) in order not to hurt the chances of the national Democratic Party. This at a time, and that was part of my argument as well, when the situation has cried out, and cried out to high heaven, for opposition in the streets to Democratic Party President Obama’s bloody, vicious war in Afghanistan (and residue war in Iraq).
Rather than go over the same material from that previous blog entry note I have expanded somewhat on that note to try to give a little more historical and organizational background to the dispute. This, by the way is a dispute, in its general outlines, that has been going on in the American left movement at least since the fight over slavery in pre-Civil War days, if not earlier:
Expanded Note: For those who wince at my characterization of the recently held U.S. Social Forum (late June 2010 in Detroit) as a talk fest (actually talk/slugfest, for there are always elements of both especially when the organization question comes up) I will give a very compelling reason for that usage. And I will not even mention the various “anti-imperialist”, “anti- capitalist” sources, like the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, and who knows who else, that funded this confab. I will make strictly leftist political points here.
2004, was a presidential election year and a year when the Democratic Party National Convention was held in Boston. That was the year, if you recall, that one Massachusetts U.S. Senator John Forbes Kerry was proclaimed the Democratic nominee. Senator Kerry, if you will also recall, voted with both hands and feet (or was it one hand and one foot) for President George W. Bush’s 2002 Iraq War resolution, among his other sins. Clearly a situation, in any case, for anti-war militants and others to stage a protest, a vocal one to boot, against the Democratic Party and its nominee at the convention site.
2004 was also a year that, not by chance, the U.S. Social Forum (made up of many anti-war and progressive organizations and individuals, as least that is what they alleged in their written propaganda) was held in Boston at the nearby University of Massachusetts/Boston campus at the same time as the convention. A perfect lash-up for a very strong and well-attended protest, right? (That was set, moreover, for the day before the convention started, a Sunday, and would not have interfered with a whole array of other “cause” events during the week.)
No such luck. The vast bulk of the more than 5000 attendees at the Forum ( I do not know the actual number who attended but that was the number that was bandied about then) could not find the time to tear themselves away, for a couple of hours, from some pressing anti-war or anti-imperialist workshop in order to hit the streets. Or, and here is the real crux of the matter, were ordered not to so or discouraged from attending that protest by the Forum leadership or by their organizations. During that Sunday march to the Convention Center in Boston we ran into, few, too few, protesters who “broke ranks” with their leaderships and decided to attend a demonstration that had, in the end, about 1500 to 2000 attendees. That is one of the anecdotal sources for our argument; others included oral statements made to us (our local ad hoc anti-imperialist, anti-war committee) by leading members of organizations that held this “don’t go” position. I will address the written organizational wrangling below.
My group of local anti-war militants and I had our own political differences with the organizers of the Sunday protest (the ANSWER coalition). For example, we could not officially endorse the event because some of our people did not agree with Hands Off North Korea ( not the exact formulation, but that is the sense of it) slogan (some did, including myself) but when the deal when down and a simple anti-war statement had to be made the place for all militants was in front of the Democratic Party Convention Hall chanting our opposition to the Bush/Kerry (now Obama) Iraq and Afghan Wars. And that, in the nature of these things, is where all hell, all organizational hell, breaks out.
For those unfamiliar with the ANSWER coalition it too is an umbrella organization (more or less, although there is a great deal of overlap of organizations and personnel, at least locally in Boston) whose driving force is (or was then, as there has been a split) was the old Stalinoid Workers World Party. This coalition has been characterized by a bit more vocal militancy than the United For Peace And Justice (UJP)-types that form a core of the Social Forum (you know, Quakers, Shakers and assorted pacifists, good government-types, and top heavy with left academics) and a more confrontational aspect to its politics. Moreover it keeps bringing up those oddball things like uncritical defense of North Korea ( I believe they have been aiming for the American franchise, such as it is) that drives the UJP-types to distraction as they attempt to “convince” by rational argument the Democratic Party, the party of war and oppression, to do “the right thing.”
This kind of wrangling is hardly new, especially when there has been historically, as in America, no mass-based Labor or Communist party to fill the vacuum outside, and to the left , of bourgeois politics that would leave such organizations configurations far behind. So that is what we are up against. Still, united front possibilities or not, the place to be then, and now, was in the streets. At least once in a while. As I mentioned in my original note, fortunately, this year’s Social Forum was not interrupted by the need to deal with presidential elections; although I would have made a very strong case that the not very distant (from Detroit) Toronto meeting of the G-20, held at approximately the same time, could have used a few thousand more protestors, if the attendees could have torn themselves away from those lovely workshops in Detroit. Some things never change.
Markin comment:
Yesterday in a post headlined I Will Love This Country Until The Day I Die-I Will Fight This Government Until We Achieve Our Communist Future- A Short Note, dated July 11, 2010, I noted that sometimes it is fun for me to be a communist propagandist trying to mesh the news of the day, the political atmospherics, and the struggle for our communist future together. And, at times, learning a little something in the process. In that commentary I also noted that sometimes it is not. The subject of that post was a commentary on those who challenge my “American-ness”. However today I am back on ground that I much prefer to fight on even though I am being taken to task- again.
This time though the criticism stems from a reader who took umbrage (her word, but I like it) over my characterization of the recently completed U.S. Social Forum held in Detroit in late June as a talkfest at a time when we need to get back, desperately get back, into the streets. (See The Streets Are Not For Dreaming - We Need An All Out Anti-War Push To Get Out Of Afghanistan- And We Need To Start Now, posted July 3, 2010, on the American Left History blog.)
The central thrust of her criticism concerned my note to that entry where I expanded, somewhat, on my take on a previous Social Forum in 2004 held at the same time and in the same city as the Democratic National Convention in Boston where I noted that those attendees were safely ensconced far away from any street action on the day before the opening of that convention. I also noted that, based on both anecdotal and written information by those involved, that the leadership of that Social Forum (and/or organizations that make up that umbrella organization) ordered or discouraged their memberships from attendance at the pre-convention anti-war event. This whole thing, in the end, amounted to some nasty “behind the scenes” organizational wrangling, as usual.
What makes all of this the “teachable” moment promised in the headline is the reader’s argument that Social Forum workshops are important to “gather in the clan” (my expression) and “take stock of where we are, and where we are going” (her expression) in order to move forward. Obviously, workshops, fora and the like ARE worthwhile. What the reader missed, and what I fear that she will always miss is that such activities (such “talk shops”) are a substitute for real actions beyond the walls of the classroom.
In the specific cases that I was addressing (2004, and the G-20 in 2010, but I could go back a longer way that than, a lot farther back to the 1960s with the Socialist Workers Party-led National Peace Action Coalition and the Communist Party-led People’s Coalition For Peace and Justice ) there had been a conscious political decision on the part of the participating organizations to work one way, to try to gain organizational control of the “movement” (such as it is) and, no question, not create a big stir in this pre-election period (a subject of open and constant dispute by the more militant elements) in order not to hurt the chances of the national Democratic Party. This at a time, and that was part of my argument as well, when the situation has cried out, and cried out to high heaven, for opposition in the streets to Democratic Party President Obama’s bloody, vicious war in Afghanistan (and residue war in Iraq).
Rather than go over the same material from that previous blog entry note I have expanded somewhat on that note to try to give a little more historical and organizational background to the dispute. This, by the way is a dispute, in its general outlines, that has been going on in the American left movement at least since the fight over slavery in pre-Civil War days, if not earlier:
Expanded Note: For those who wince at my characterization of the recently held U.S. Social Forum (late June 2010 in Detroit) as a talk fest (actually talk/slugfest, for there are always elements of both especially when the organization question comes up) I will give a very compelling reason for that usage. And I will not even mention the various “anti-imperialist”, “anti- capitalist” sources, like the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, and who knows who else, that funded this confab. I will make strictly leftist political points here.
2004, was a presidential election year and a year when the Democratic Party National Convention was held in Boston. That was the year, if you recall, that one Massachusetts U.S. Senator John Forbes Kerry was proclaimed the Democratic nominee. Senator Kerry, if you will also recall, voted with both hands and feet (or was it one hand and one foot) for President George W. Bush’s 2002 Iraq War resolution, among his other sins. Clearly a situation, in any case, for anti-war militants and others to stage a protest, a vocal one to boot, against the Democratic Party and its nominee at the convention site.
2004 was also a year that, not by chance, the U.S. Social Forum (made up of many anti-war and progressive organizations and individuals, as least that is what they alleged in their written propaganda) was held in Boston at the nearby University of Massachusetts/Boston campus at the same time as the convention. A perfect lash-up for a very strong and well-attended protest, right? (That was set, moreover, for the day before the convention started, a Sunday, and would not have interfered with a whole array of other “cause” events during the week.)
No such luck. The vast bulk of the more than 5000 attendees at the Forum ( I do not know the actual number who attended but that was the number that was bandied about then) could not find the time to tear themselves away, for a couple of hours, from some pressing anti-war or anti-imperialist workshop in order to hit the streets. Or, and here is the real crux of the matter, were ordered not to so or discouraged from attending that protest by the Forum leadership or by their organizations. During that Sunday march to the Convention Center in Boston we ran into, few, too few, protesters who “broke ranks” with their leaderships and decided to attend a demonstration that had, in the end, about 1500 to 2000 attendees. That is one of the anecdotal sources for our argument; others included oral statements made to us (our local ad hoc anti-imperialist, anti-war committee) by leading members of organizations that held this “don’t go” position. I will address the written organizational wrangling below.
My group of local anti-war militants and I had our own political differences with the organizers of the Sunday protest (the ANSWER coalition). For example, we could not officially endorse the event because some of our people did not agree with Hands Off North Korea ( not the exact formulation, but that is the sense of it) slogan (some did, including myself) but when the deal when down and a simple anti-war statement had to be made the place for all militants was in front of the Democratic Party Convention Hall chanting our opposition to the Bush/Kerry (now Obama) Iraq and Afghan Wars. And that, in the nature of these things, is where all hell, all organizational hell, breaks out.
For those unfamiliar with the ANSWER coalition it too is an umbrella organization (more or less, although there is a great deal of overlap of organizations and personnel, at least locally in Boston) whose driving force is (or was then, as there has been a split) was the old Stalinoid Workers World Party. This coalition has been characterized by a bit more vocal militancy than the United For Peace And Justice (UJP)-types that form a core of the Social Forum (you know, Quakers, Shakers and assorted pacifists, good government-types, and top heavy with left academics) and a more confrontational aspect to its politics. Moreover it keeps bringing up those oddball things like uncritical defense of North Korea ( I believe they have been aiming for the American franchise, such as it is) that drives the UJP-types to distraction as they attempt to “convince” by rational argument the Democratic Party, the party of war and oppression, to do “the right thing.”
This kind of wrangling is hardly new, especially when there has been historically, as in America, no mass-based Labor or Communist party to fill the vacuum outside, and to the left , of bourgeois politics that would leave such organizations configurations far behind. So that is what we are up against. Still, united front possibilities or not, the place to be then, and now, was in the streets. At least once in a while. As I mentioned in my original note, fortunately, this year’s Social Forum was not interrupted by the need to deal with presidential elections; although I would have made a very strong case that the not very distant (from Detroit) Toronto meeting of the G-20, held at approximately the same time, could have used a few thousand more protestors, if the attendees could have torn themselves away from those lovely workshops in Detroit. Some things never change.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
*I Will Love This Country Until The Day I Die-I Will Fight This Government Until We Achieve Our Communist Future- A Short Note
Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of Merle Haggard performing his classic anti-countercultural song, Okie From Muskogee.
Markin comment:
Sometimes it is fun for me to be a communist propagandist trying to mesh the news of the day, the poltical atmospherics, and the struggle for our communist future together. And, at times, learning a little something in the process. Not today though, or at least not anything I think is worth learning. Hear me out.
In a recent post on this and other sites that I contribute to (Not Ready For Prime Time Class Struggle- Merle Haggard’s Song Okie From Muskogee, dated July 8, 2010, and reposted below) I noted that there is sometimes no accounting for personal taste. Against every political instinct that I possess and all the politics that I hold dear-which includes a savage indictment of the governmental apparatus of this American society that we live in- I like, and like very much, Merle Haggard’s old time patriotic song, Okie From Muskogee. Not in the same way I like The Internationale, of course, but I like the song.
Of course, as well, use of the blogosphere opens one’s postings and opinions to random viewing, not all looking for a way out of the morass that American society finds itself in. Or, at least, not the fight for our communist future that is the hallmark of this space. As fate would have it I received a very negative (oh, mercy me) comment on this post. Not about the craziness or utopianism of the communist program. Nor the usual “one way ticket” to Russia (hello, the Cold War is over, or a little abated anyway) "America-love it or leave" song and dance. None of that at all, but get this, about my gall in even placing the lyrics of Merle Haggard’s Okie From Muskogee on such an un-American site. The messenger made it clear that I was not worthy of kissing old Merle’s a-- and other such sentiments not worthy of further public exposure.
Now I have my dander up. I will, as the nature of politics in America dictates, including and maybe especially left-wing politics, roll with the punches on most anti- communist commentary and move on. But on the question of being un-American (whatever that means, we Americans seem to have a moving standard on that one, somewhat expectedly in a country populated by about 99 % immigrants) I take umbrage, serous umbrage, at the remark.
However, rather than write another in an endless series of screeds for each individual “okie”, oops, “airhead” who feels they have to defend this country, keyboard at hand, on the Internet, if no where else I have already essentially taken up this matter in an earlier blog entry in this space. I have reposted it (edited a little) below. That should satisfy my “honor” on this one:
AMERICA-LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT?, posted June 6, 2007, on the American Left History blog.
COMMENTARY
Recently I reviewed Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic by Chalmers Johnson, a book on the very topical issue of the rise of the American Empire. As readers know this space is dedicated to the spreading of socialist ideas. I hold Marx, Lenin and Trotsky in very high regard. I have made no secret of that. I nevertheless have gotten a comment from some irate reader stating that I could use some “reality” therapy by taking a trip to North Korea for a grass diet. I have been in politics for a long time and have had my share of barbs thrown at me. And have done the same in return. That comes with the territory. What has got my Irish up is the utter sameness of the response when one tweaks the American “belly of the beast” and the sunshine patriots come out form under their well-kept rocks . Below is my response to that irate reader.
“I am tired of every Tom, Dick and Harry that wants to defend the American Empire, consciously or unconsciously and I suspect here consciously, volunteering to act as my personal travel agent. In the bad old days of the Cold War when I mentioned that nuclear disarmament might be a rationale idea I was advised to go thresh wheat on some Soviet collective farm. When I argued that mainland China (then Red China) was the legitimate government there I was kindly told to cull rice in some people’s commune. After protesting the American-sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion and asking for fair play for Cuba it was suggested that cutting sugar cane might be my life’s work. When I protested that America was raining all hell down on Vietnam some unkindly souls pointed out that I might prefer an air raid shelter in Hanoi. Now I am advised to go eat grass in North Korea. No, I will not have it. My forbears on my father’s side were run out of England in the early 1800’s and my mother’s forbears came here on the ‘famine ships’ from Ireland. That may not give me the pedigree of the Mayflower crowd but it is damn good enough. My fight is here. I will make my own travel plans, thank you.”
****
The offending post-Exhibit A
*Not Ready For Prime Time Class Struggle- Merle Haggard's Song- "Okie From Muskogee"
Markin comment:
Okay, blame it on Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters (including “beatnik” holdover/bus driver Neal Cassady). Or blame it on the recently re-read Tom Wolfe's classic The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test that pays “homage” to Kesey and his Pranksters. Or, better blame it on Jack Kerouac and that self-same Cassady for his On The Road. Or just blame it on a residue of the Fourth of July (which as a recent entry indicated, we don’t celebrate these days). But do not, please do not, blame it on me and my sometimes perverse sense of humor for placing the lyrics to Okie From Muskogee on this site. I like the song and that is that. Although I prefer Jim Kweskin's (of Jim Kweskin and the Jug Band fame in the 1960s) 1970 version better than old Merle’s.
*******
Merle Haggard, Okie from Muskogee Lyrics
We don't smoke marijuana in Muskogee;
We don't take our trips on LSD
We don't burn our draft cards down on Main Street;
We like livin' right, and bein' free.
I'm proud to be an Okie from Muskogee,
A place where even squares can have a ball
We still wave Old Glory down at the courthouse,
And white lightnin's still the biggest thrill of all
We don't make a party out of lovin';
We like holdin' hands and pitchin' woo;
We don't let our hair grow long and shaggy,
Like the hippies out in San Francisco do.
And I'm proud to be an Okie from Muskogee,
A place where even squares can have a ball.
We still wave Old Glory down at the courthouse,
And white lightnin's still the biggest thrill of all.
Leather boots are still in style for manly footwear;
Beads and Roman sandals won't be seen.
Football's still the roughest thing on campus,
And the kids here still respect the college dean.
We still wave Old Glory down at the courthouse,
In Muskogee, Oklahoma, USA.
Markin comment:
Sometimes it is fun for me to be a communist propagandist trying to mesh the news of the day, the poltical atmospherics, and the struggle for our communist future together. And, at times, learning a little something in the process. Not today though, or at least not anything I think is worth learning. Hear me out.
In a recent post on this and other sites that I contribute to (Not Ready For Prime Time Class Struggle- Merle Haggard’s Song Okie From Muskogee, dated July 8, 2010, and reposted below) I noted that there is sometimes no accounting for personal taste. Against every political instinct that I possess and all the politics that I hold dear-which includes a savage indictment of the governmental apparatus of this American society that we live in- I like, and like very much, Merle Haggard’s old time patriotic song, Okie From Muskogee. Not in the same way I like The Internationale, of course, but I like the song.
Of course, as well, use of the blogosphere opens one’s postings and opinions to random viewing, not all looking for a way out of the morass that American society finds itself in. Or, at least, not the fight for our communist future that is the hallmark of this space. As fate would have it I received a very negative (oh, mercy me) comment on this post. Not about the craziness or utopianism of the communist program. Nor the usual “one way ticket” to Russia (hello, the Cold War is over, or a little abated anyway) "America-love it or leave" song and dance. None of that at all, but get this, about my gall in even placing the lyrics of Merle Haggard’s Okie From Muskogee on such an un-American site. The messenger made it clear that I was not worthy of kissing old Merle’s a-- and other such sentiments not worthy of further public exposure.
Now I have my dander up. I will, as the nature of politics in America dictates, including and maybe especially left-wing politics, roll with the punches on most anti- communist commentary and move on. But on the question of being un-American (whatever that means, we Americans seem to have a moving standard on that one, somewhat expectedly in a country populated by about 99 % immigrants) I take umbrage, serous umbrage, at the remark.
However, rather than write another in an endless series of screeds for each individual “okie”, oops, “airhead” who feels they have to defend this country, keyboard at hand, on the Internet, if no where else I have already essentially taken up this matter in an earlier blog entry in this space. I have reposted it (edited a little) below. That should satisfy my “honor” on this one:
AMERICA-LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT?, posted June 6, 2007, on the American Left History blog.
COMMENTARY
Recently I reviewed Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic by Chalmers Johnson, a book on the very topical issue of the rise of the American Empire. As readers know this space is dedicated to the spreading of socialist ideas. I hold Marx, Lenin and Trotsky in very high regard. I have made no secret of that. I nevertheless have gotten a comment from some irate reader stating that I could use some “reality” therapy by taking a trip to North Korea for a grass diet. I have been in politics for a long time and have had my share of barbs thrown at me. And have done the same in return. That comes with the territory. What has got my Irish up is the utter sameness of the response when one tweaks the American “belly of the beast” and the sunshine patriots come out form under their well-kept rocks . Below is my response to that irate reader.
“I am tired of every Tom, Dick and Harry that wants to defend the American Empire, consciously or unconsciously and I suspect here consciously, volunteering to act as my personal travel agent. In the bad old days of the Cold War when I mentioned that nuclear disarmament might be a rationale idea I was advised to go thresh wheat on some Soviet collective farm. When I argued that mainland China (then Red China) was the legitimate government there I was kindly told to cull rice in some people’s commune. After protesting the American-sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion and asking for fair play for Cuba it was suggested that cutting sugar cane might be my life’s work. When I protested that America was raining all hell down on Vietnam some unkindly souls pointed out that I might prefer an air raid shelter in Hanoi. Now I am advised to go eat grass in North Korea. No, I will not have it. My forbears on my father’s side were run out of England in the early 1800’s and my mother’s forbears came here on the ‘famine ships’ from Ireland. That may not give me the pedigree of the Mayflower crowd but it is damn good enough. My fight is here. I will make my own travel plans, thank you.”
****
The offending post-Exhibit A
*Not Ready For Prime Time Class Struggle- Merle Haggard's Song- "Okie From Muskogee"
Markin comment:
Okay, blame it on Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters (including “beatnik” holdover/bus driver Neal Cassady). Or blame it on the recently re-read Tom Wolfe's classic The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test that pays “homage” to Kesey and his Pranksters. Or, better blame it on Jack Kerouac and that self-same Cassady for his On The Road. Or just blame it on a residue of the Fourth of July (which as a recent entry indicated, we don’t celebrate these days). But do not, please do not, blame it on me and my sometimes perverse sense of humor for placing the lyrics to Okie From Muskogee on this site. I like the song and that is that. Although I prefer Jim Kweskin's (of Jim Kweskin and the Jug Band fame in the 1960s) 1970 version better than old Merle’s.
*******
Merle Haggard, Okie from Muskogee Lyrics
We don't smoke marijuana in Muskogee;
We don't take our trips on LSD
We don't burn our draft cards down on Main Street;
We like livin' right, and bein' free.
I'm proud to be an Okie from Muskogee,
A place where even squares can have a ball
We still wave Old Glory down at the courthouse,
And white lightnin's still the biggest thrill of all
We don't make a party out of lovin';
We like holdin' hands and pitchin' woo;
We don't let our hair grow long and shaggy,
Like the hippies out in San Francisco do.
And I'm proud to be an Okie from Muskogee,
A place where even squares can have a ball.
We still wave Old Glory down at the courthouse,
And white lightnin's still the biggest thrill of all.
Leather boots are still in style for manly footwear;
Beads and Roman sandals won't be seen.
Football's still the roughest thing on campus,
And the kids here still respect the college dean.
We still wave Old Glory down at the courthouse,
In Muskogee, Oklahoma, USA.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
*From “The Rag Blog”- “Bob Feldman 68” Blog- A People’s History Of Afghanistan, Part NIne
Click on the headline to link to a “The Rag Blog” entry from the “Bob Feldman 68” blog on the history of Afghanistan
Markin comment:
This is a great series for those who are not familiar with the critical role of Afghanistan in world politics, if not directly then as part of the history of world imperialism. Thanks, Bob Feldman.
And, speaking of world imperialism, let us keep our eyes on the prize- Obama- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./ Allied Troops And Mercenaries From Afghanistan!
**********
Additional comment:
The photo that leads in part nine tells it all. Does anyone, at least anyone who claims an anti-imperialist and Trotskyist stance, want to reconsider their attitude toward the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan in 1979?
Markin comment:
This is a great series for those who are not familiar with the critical role of Afghanistan in world politics, if not directly then as part of the history of world imperialism. Thanks, Bob Feldman.
And, speaking of world imperialism, let us keep our eyes on the prize- Obama- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./ Allied Troops And Mercenaries From Afghanistan!
**********
Additional comment:
The photo that leads in part nine tells it all. Does anyone, at least anyone who claims an anti-imperialist and Trotskyist stance, want to reconsider their attitude toward the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan in 1979?
Thursday, April 08, 2010
***Books To While Away The Class Struggle By-From The Pages Of "Dissent"- An Irving Howe Literary Criticism Primer
Click on the headline to link to a 'Wikipedia" entry for "Dissent" magazine, a journal that Irving Howe, the social-democratic literary critic was instrumental in producing from the 1950s on until his death.
Recently I have begun to post entries under the headline- “Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By” and "Films To While Away The Class Struggle By"-that will include progressive and labor-oriented songs and films that might be of general interest to the radical public. I have decided to do the same for some books that may perk that same interest under the title in this entry’s headline. Markin
Book Review
Irving Howe: Selected Writings 1950-1990, Irving Howe, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1990
A couple of years ago, as part of a series of some youthful recollections triggered by a fellow high school classmate who was looking for a far different type response, more banal and routine family stuff mainly, I dragged out memories of my first associations with the name Irving Howe and his New York-based journal, “Dissent”, that I frequently read at the local branch of the library. The points there can rightly serve as background of Howe’s selected writings, mainly from “Dissent”, under review here:
“In two recent commentaries I have done my fair share of kicking Professor Irving Howe, the late social democratic editor of the intellectual quarterly magazine "Dissent", around. And I am not finished by any means. (See "The Retreat of the “Greatest Generation” Intellectuals" and "Who ‘Lost’ the Sixties?" in the May 2008 archives) But today, as this is as is oft-quoted a confessional age, I have a confession, or rather two confessions, to make about my connections to Irving Howe. So for the time that it takes to write this commentary up I will call an armed truce with the shades of the professor.
Confession #1- in the mist of time of my youth I actually used to like to read "Dissent". The articles were interesting, and as we were too poor for the family to afford a subscription, I spent many an hour reading through back issues at the local public library. I make no pretense that I understood all that was in each article and some that I re-read latter left me cold but there you have it.
Probably the most impressive article I read was Norman Mailer’s "White Negro". I could relate to the violence and sense of 'hipness' that was hidden just under the surface of the article, especially the violence as it was not that far removed from that in my own poor white working class neighborhood, although I probably would not have articulated it that way at the time. Interestingly, Professor Sorin in his Howe biography notes that Howe thought the article was a mistake for "Dissent" to publish for that very homage to violence implicit in the article. That now says it all.
The funny thing about reading "Dissent", at the time, thinking about it now, was that I was personally nothing more than a Kennedy liberal and thought that the magazine reflected that New Frontier liberalism. I was somewhat shocked when I found out later that it was suppose to be an independent 'socialist' magazine. Most of my political positions at the time were far to the left of what was being presented there editorially, especially on international issues. I might add that I also had an odd political dichotomy in those days toward those to the left of my own liberalism. I was very indulgent toward communists but really hated socialists, really social democrats. Go figure. Must have been something in the water.
Confession#2- Irving Howe actually acted, unintentionally, as my recruiting sergeant to the works of Leon Trotsky that eventually led to my embrace of a Trotskyist world view. As I noted last year I have been a Marxist since 1972. But after some 150 years of Marxism claiming to be a Marxist is only the beginning of wisdom. One has to find the modern thread that continues in the spirit of the founders. This year marks my 35th year as a follower of Leon Trotsky. Back in 1972, as part of trying to find a political path to modern Marxism I picked up a collection of socialist works edited by Professor Howe. In that compilation was an excerpt from Trotsky’s "History of the Russian Revolution", a section called "On Dual Power". I read it, and then re-read it. Next day I went out to scrounge up a copy of the whole work. And the rest is history. So, thanks, Professor Howe- now back to the polemical wars- the truce is over.”
That said, it is again time to call a truce, or at least a momentary “ceasefire” as I briefly mention how good Professor Howe can be when he is away from the class struggle and deep in reflection on his specialty, American literary traditions, important Western canon authors and even, occasionally, a gem about the trials and tribulations of past history of the generic socialist movement in America.
This selection includes provocative essays on the benighted William Faulkner; the heroic Soviet writer, Isaac Babel; unkindly digs at the reputation of Theodore Dreiser; the then unjustifiably much neglected Sholom Aleichem; a very justifiably angry Richard Wright, a quirky view of George Eliot; and, Jewish characters in Charles Dickens’ “Oliver Twist”. Not bad, right?
And then, less successfully, some more generic essays about his crowd, the malaise of, mainly Jewish, New York intellectuals of the 1950s. Also an objectivist apologia for the failure of socialist ideas to take roots in the mainstream of American political life thus retrospectively (and prospectively as well) absolving himself, and his crowd, from a share of the responsibility for its then current failure by “farming” out the task to the American imperial state, the "State Department socialism' that is still with us. I guess with that last phase the "ceasefire" is over. But read this book if you want to know what high-grade literary criticism was like before the zany deconstructionists held sway.
Recently I have begun to post entries under the headline- “Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By” and "Films To While Away The Class Struggle By"-that will include progressive and labor-oriented songs and films that might be of general interest to the radical public. I have decided to do the same for some books that may perk that same interest under the title in this entry’s headline. Markin
Book Review
Irving Howe: Selected Writings 1950-1990, Irving Howe, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1990
A couple of years ago, as part of a series of some youthful recollections triggered by a fellow high school classmate who was looking for a far different type response, more banal and routine family stuff mainly, I dragged out memories of my first associations with the name Irving Howe and his New York-based journal, “Dissent”, that I frequently read at the local branch of the library. The points there can rightly serve as background of Howe’s selected writings, mainly from “Dissent”, under review here:
“In two recent commentaries I have done my fair share of kicking Professor Irving Howe, the late social democratic editor of the intellectual quarterly magazine "Dissent", around. And I am not finished by any means. (See "The Retreat of the “Greatest Generation” Intellectuals" and "Who ‘Lost’ the Sixties?" in the May 2008 archives) But today, as this is as is oft-quoted a confessional age, I have a confession, or rather two confessions, to make about my connections to Irving Howe. So for the time that it takes to write this commentary up I will call an armed truce with the shades of the professor.
Confession #1- in the mist of time of my youth I actually used to like to read "Dissent". The articles were interesting, and as we were too poor for the family to afford a subscription, I spent many an hour reading through back issues at the local public library. I make no pretense that I understood all that was in each article and some that I re-read latter left me cold but there you have it.
Probably the most impressive article I read was Norman Mailer’s "White Negro". I could relate to the violence and sense of 'hipness' that was hidden just under the surface of the article, especially the violence as it was not that far removed from that in my own poor white working class neighborhood, although I probably would not have articulated it that way at the time. Interestingly, Professor Sorin in his Howe biography notes that Howe thought the article was a mistake for "Dissent" to publish for that very homage to violence implicit in the article. That now says it all.
The funny thing about reading "Dissent", at the time, thinking about it now, was that I was personally nothing more than a Kennedy liberal and thought that the magazine reflected that New Frontier liberalism. I was somewhat shocked when I found out later that it was suppose to be an independent 'socialist' magazine. Most of my political positions at the time were far to the left of what was being presented there editorially, especially on international issues. I might add that I also had an odd political dichotomy in those days toward those to the left of my own liberalism. I was very indulgent toward communists but really hated socialists, really social democrats. Go figure. Must have been something in the water.
Confession#2- Irving Howe actually acted, unintentionally, as my recruiting sergeant to the works of Leon Trotsky that eventually led to my embrace of a Trotskyist world view. As I noted last year I have been a Marxist since 1972. But after some 150 years of Marxism claiming to be a Marxist is only the beginning of wisdom. One has to find the modern thread that continues in the spirit of the founders. This year marks my 35th year as a follower of Leon Trotsky. Back in 1972, as part of trying to find a political path to modern Marxism I picked up a collection of socialist works edited by Professor Howe. In that compilation was an excerpt from Trotsky’s "History of the Russian Revolution", a section called "On Dual Power". I read it, and then re-read it. Next day I went out to scrounge up a copy of the whole work. And the rest is history. So, thanks, Professor Howe- now back to the polemical wars- the truce is over.”
That said, it is again time to call a truce, or at least a momentary “ceasefire” as I briefly mention how good Professor Howe can be when he is away from the class struggle and deep in reflection on his specialty, American literary traditions, important Western canon authors and even, occasionally, a gem about the trials and tribulations of past history of the generic socialist movement in America.
This selection includes provocative essays on the benighted William Faulkner; the heroic Soviet writer, Isaac Babel; unkindly digs at the reputation of Theodore Dreiser; the then unjustifiably much neglected Sholom Aleichem; a very justifiably angry Richard Wright, a quirky view of George Eliot; and, Jewish characters in Charles Dickens’ “Oliver Twist”. Not bad, right?
And then, less successfully, some more generic essays about his crowd, the malaise of, mainly Jewish, New York intellectuals of the 1950s. Also an objectivist apologia for the failure of socialist ideas to take roots in the mainstream of American political life thus retrospectively (and prospectively as well) absolving himself, and his crowd, from a share of the responsibility for its then current failure by “farming” out the task to the American imperial state, the "State Department socialism' that is still with us. I guess with that last phase the "ceasefire" is over. But read this book if you want to know what high-grade literary criticism was like before the zany deconstructionists held sway.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
*Against The Stream- Why Not To Write A Political Memoir- A Personal Note
Click on the title to link to the "Leon Trotsky Internet Archive" online copy of Leon Trotsky's "Forward" to his 1930 memoir, "My Life"; definitely a necessary memoir for future revolutionaries to read and take heart in, and that idea will give some perspective to the rationale for the entry below.
Markin comment:
A couple of years ago someone, who had paid attention to the various entries that I had placed in this space (and in other blogs that I write for) concerning various episodes that I have related about my wayward childhood and about the scatter-shot way that I came to communist political class consciousness, suggested that I make some kind of autobiographical sketch out of the entries. And place them in one spot so that any interested party could see them, and reflect on his or her own path to political maturity. Her hope, which she tried to instill in me, was that some of the more searching elements among today’s youthful activists might find some useful information in order not to go through the same kind of mistakes that I had made.
That prospect, I admit, was enticing, especially as I have recently been making connections with more young activists in my anti-war political work as a few of them have come to see that the over-inflated prospects that Obama came into presidential office floating on have not panned out. And they are therefore now looking for some other answers. However, I have balked at the notion of a “memoir” for a number of reasons that I will describe below: mainly, that my experiences, after comparison with the life stories of many others in the ostensibly revolutionary movement, are too unique to serve any useful political purpose; that in the age of the “death of communism” the recollection of such experiences would seem to be passé; and, that, in the final analysis, each generation must and will come to see the need for a communist future in its own way, and place its own stamp on that collective historical experience.
I have, by now, seemingly endlessly made the autobiographical point that I come from the bottom part of the working class, the place where the erratically employed, unskilled working people edge over into the lumpenproletariat; the hardened criminals, big and small. All I have ever needed to say to bring that point home is that my formative years were spent growing up in a public housing project. That cultural gradient evokes shades in the 20th century of the novelists James T. Farrell and Nelson Algren, and maybe, in the 19th century Charles Dickens, more than the biographies of most socialists that I have read about. And that is the point I am trying to make here. In the end, communists need to get to the housing project dwellers but this was hardly the recruiting grounds when I was a kid, and it certainly is not today, for those who want to make communist propaganda and make their political statements through work in small circles.
Additionally, I have read many biographies of our socialist and communist forbears, at least those who stayed in the movement long enough to be memoir or biography- worthy, and have noted that while they come from a variety of backgrounds, usually middle class, I distinctly do not recall, except, maybe some of the Jewish immigrant children from the Lower East Side in New York City like Irving Howe or Howard Fast, many coming from utter poverty to the socialist movement. And in those New York cases that utter poverty was trumped by the cultural uplift of the Jewish experience and their parents’ exposure to prior socialist propaganda in Europe.
I have met, in a lifetime of left- wing political activism, many activists who came from the lower classes but the more typical case is one like Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich who grabbed the main chance with the Democratic Party. That rags-to-riches story, or a variation of it has helped hold up the “American dream” for far longer than it was ever true, if it was ever true. In short, the bottom edges of society are a dangerous place, a hard place to survive in even for the honest working poor. What they are not is a place where we can build today the working class party we need to eliminate the vestiges of this class on the way to our communist future.
Even if the uniqueness of my off-beat way to political consciousness were not enough to stall any plans for creating a memoir the timeliness of such an effort seems questionable. In 1975, perhaps, when there was still some residual effect from the social and political turmoil of the 1960s in the air it might have made some sense. However, deep in the age of the “death of communism” it seems rather passé, except to some of the old geezers of the “Generation of ‘68” that want to cut up old torches. The way that some poor working kid from the “projects” came to see the virtues of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky and their progeny seems like a “yawner” to this writer. I am not sure that I would want to read that story, and I lived it!
And that gets to the real point for not writing a memoir in this age and that one must keep focused on. In the age of "Sidekick", "paypal", in your "Facebook", in "Myspace" book, "Twitter", glitter and whatnot technology my story is as dead as … print in a real book. The political language that I have learned to use, the political concepts that I am trying to impart are somewhat incomprehensible to those we are trying to reach today. I think in great systematic and global strategic terms. This is not, and correct me if I am wrong, the way that kids think today. The best of them, as far as I can see are happy just to get through the day; maybe connect with what they think the world is by “social networking”; and, maybe, carving a niche for themselves in some small sector of the global preservation movement. No high risk adventures or grandiose theories for this crowd, but also not way out of the morass. Still, and this is key, each generation must find its own way out, and an old geezer’s tale will not lead the way out.
That said, we have all of the above against the possible effect of some little cyberspace memento. However, as the person who attempted to goad me into this thing noted, the entries are almost all here already, the reading of the various entries to draw the political lessons requires only minimal time and, here is the clincher, maybe one person, would be drawn to the posts and think through his or her own experiences and decide that he or she has to break with bourgeois society, break with the imperial war machine, and break with the Democrats. (I will not even assume that such a person is interested the Republicans, that is too far a political trail to traverse in these times.) Although I have decided not to do the project there is plenty of material here to whet the appetite for those who are looking for that way out. Forward.
Markin comment:
A couple of years ago someone, who had paid attention to the various entries that I had placed in this space (and in other blogs that I write for) concerning various episodes that I have related about my wayward childhood and about the scatter-shot way that I came to communist political class consciousness, suggested that I make some kind of autobiographical sketch out of the entries. And place them in one spot so that any interested party could see them, and reflect on his or her own path to political maturity. Her hope, which she tried to instill in me, was that some of the more searching elements among today’s youthful activists might find some useful information in order not to go through the same kind of mistakes that I had made.
That prospect, I admit, was enticing, especially as I have recently been making connections with more young activists in my anti-war political work as a few of them have come to see that the over-inflated prospects that Obama came into presidential office floating on have not panned out. And they are therefore now looking for some other answers. However, I have balked at the notion of a “memoir” for a number of reasons that I will describe below: mainly, that my experiences, after comparison with the life stories of many others in the ostensibly revolutionary movement, are too unique to serve any useful political purpose; that in the age of the “death of communism” the recollection of such experiences would seem to be passé; and, that, in the final analysis, each generation must and will come to see the need for a communist future in its own way, and place its own stamp on that collective historical experience.
I have, by now, seemingly endlessly made the autobiographical point that I come from the bottom part of the working class, the place where the erratically employed, unskilled working people edge over into the lumpenproletariat; the hardened criminals, big and small. All I have ever needed to say to bring that point home is that my formative years were spent growing up in a public housing project. That cultural gradient evokes shades in the 20th century of the novelists James T. Farrell and Nelson Algren, and maybe, in the 19th century Charles Dickens, more than the biographies of most socialists that I have read about. And that is the point I am trying to make here. In the end, communists need to get to the housing project dwellers but this was hardly the recruiting grounds when I was a kid, and it certainly is not today, for those who want to make communist propaganda and make their political statements through work in small circles.
Additionally, I have read many biographies of our socialist and communist forbears, at least those who stayed in the movement long enough to be memoir or biography- worthy, and have noted that while they come from a variety of backgrounds, usually middle class, I distinctly do not recall, except, maybe some of the Jewish immigrant children from the Lower East Side in New York City like Irving Howe or Howard Fast, many coming from utter poverty to the socialist movement. And in those New York cases that utter poverty was trumped by the cultural uplift of the Jewish experience and their parents’ exposure to prior socialist propaganda in Europe.
I have met, in a lifetime of left- wing political activism, many activists who came from the lower classes but the more typical case is one like Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich who grabbed the main chance with the Democratic Party. That rags-to-riches story, or a variation of it has helped hold up the “American dream” for far longer than it was ever true, if it was ever true. In short, the bottom edges of society are a dangerous place, a hard place to survive in even for the honest working poor. What they are not is a place where we can build today the working class party we need to eliminate the vestiges of this class on the way to our communist future.
Even if the uniqueness of my off-beat way to political consciousness were not enough to stall any plans for creating a memoir the timeliness of such an effort seems questionable. In 1975, perhaps, when there was still some residual effect from the social and political turmoil of the 1960s in the air it might have made some sense. However, deep in the age of the “death of communism” it seems rather passé, except to some of the old geezers of the “Generation of ‘68” that want to cut up old torches. The way that some poor working kid from the “projects” came to see the virtues of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky and their progeny seems like a “yawner” to this writer. I am not sure that I would want to read that story, and I lived it!
And that gets to the real point for not writing a memoir in this age and that one must keep focused on. In the age of "Sidekick", "paypal", in your "Facebook", in "Myspace" book, "Twitter", glitter and whatnot technology my story is as dead as … print in a real book. The political language that I have learned to use, the political concepts that I am trying to impart are somewhat incomprehensible to those we are trying to reach today. I think in great systematic and global strategic terms. This is not, and correct me if I am wrong, the way that kids think today. The best of them, as far as I can see are happy just to get through the day; maybe connect with what they think the world is by “social networking”; and, maybe, carving a niche for themselves in some small sector of the global preservation movement. No high risk adventures or grandiose theories for this crowd, but also not way out of the morass. Still, and this is key, each generation must find its own way out, and an old geezer’s tale will not lead the way out.
That said, we have all of the above against the possible effect of some little cyberspace memento. However, as the person who attempted to goad me into this thing noted, the entries are almost all here already, the reading of the various entries to draw the political lessons requires only minimal time and, here is the clincher, maybe one person, would be drawn to the posts and think through his or her own experiences and decide that he or she has to break with bourgeois society, break with the imperial war machine, and break with the Democrats. (I will not even assume that such a person is interested the Republicans, that is too far a political trail to traverse in these times.) Although I have decided not to do the project there is plenty of material here to whet the appetite for those who are looking for that way out. Forward.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
*Are You Now, Or Have You Ever In The Past Knowingly Been A.......Bolshevik?
Click on the title to link to an "American Left History" blog entry "*Barack Obama Ain't No Bolshevik, He Ain't Even A Menshevik", dated January 31, 2010.
Markin comment:
The English political writer and satirist, George Orwell, who in the final analysis was more than willing to “outsource” the struggle for our communist future to the democratic imperialists like dear old Mother England, nevertheless once wrote a key essay on the need for precision and clarity in political language. "Politics and the English language". For that essay, and of course his early heroic soldiering in a POUM militia in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s, every labor militant today should take as required reading, and act on it. (Advice this writer tries to adhere to, although not always successfully, as some of the entries in this space attest to). What brings Orwell’s essay to mind is the recent flare-up between American President Democrat Barack Obama and his erstwhile adversaries in the Congressional Republican Caucus. The specific charge that Obama was defending himself against was some benighted predilection for “bolshevism”, highlighted by his dogged determination to get some form of national health coverage (watered down, of course). For my commentary on this mini-flare-up see my entry “*Barack Obama Ain’t No Bolshevik, He Ain’t Even a Menshevik”, dated January 31, 2009.
What this all brings to mind is the need for some precision in our political language, especially in these days of debased political rhetoric and the rise of “shorthand” English through the dramatic increase in Internet use as a way to communicate to both attract attention and to “dumb down” political discourse. Of course, other than as a foil for my above-mentioned earlier commentary American President Barack Obama is not now, and has never been, a Bolshevik. Moreover, even a marginally politically aware person should know that the American ruling class circles are not in the habit of turning over the reins of their imperial state to Bolsheviks, knowing or unknowing ones. Certainly the Republican know that, the only question is why the tern “Bolshevik” would come up in mainstream American political discourse in the year 2010. And I confess, that is a mystery to me, as well. They are on much more “solid ground”, if they want to muddy the waters, with whether Barack Obama is actually, as required by the U.S. Constitution, a citizen.
This catch phrase “Bolshevik” , has a long pedigree, although it has been a long time since I have heard it used seriously back in the 1960s when, at the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, it had a semblance of reasonable usage in political discourse. Or, even earlier, in the aftermath of the Russian revolution when the American government was rounding up every known radical that it could get its hands on. Better still for our side, in the 1930s when militant trade unionists were on the picket lines to get better contracts or to get their unions the expression, “We have to talk Bolshevik” to the bosses would come up. And so on.
Let me finish up with this little anecdote from my youthful past. When I was in high school, in the 10th grade I believe, during the heart of the Cold War in the 1960s I took a European History course from old Mr. Kelly. Now in those days Mr. Kelly was the well known and beloved, I think, head football coach for the school team and a veteran of World War I. Like I said, he was old. He was moreover one of those old-school type teachers prevalent then who latched onto a teaching job through political influence and got to teach History because there was no “heavy lifting” to it. I, of course, devoured history by the gallons.
One day when I was called upon by Mr. Kelly to give an answer I did so but in an off-hand, rather surly way, which was my style, my statement of individuality if you will, in those days. Old school Mr. Kelly took umbrage and the long and short of it was that I had to stay after school for him. When I showed up and we “talked” suddenly the old man stunned me with this remark. “What are you, some kind of Bolshevik? I defiantly answered no. And truthfully as well. In those days I was nothing but a folk music and blues-loving, card carrying young member of the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), an anti-communist, liberal organization trying to push the New Deal back onto center stage in American political life. So you see the point, I hope. I was no Bolshevik then. Obama is no Bolshevik now. And old Orwell is right, get the language of political discourse back on track, at all costs.
Markin comment:
The English political writer and satirist, George Orwell, who in the final analysis was more than willing to “outsource” the struggle for our communist future to the democratic imperialists like dear old Mother England, nevertheless once wrote a key essay on the need for precision and clarity in political language. "Politics and the English language". For that essay, and of course his early heroic soldiering in a POUM militia in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s, every labor militant today should take as required reading, and act on it. (Advice this writer tries to adhere to, although not always successfully, as some of the entries in this space attest to). What brings Orwell’s essay to mind is the recent flare-up between American President Democrat Barack Obama and his erstwhile adversaries in the Congressional Republican Caucus. The specific charge that Obama was defending himself against was some benighted predilection for “bolshevism”, highlighted by his dogged determination to get some form of national health coverage (watered down, of course). For my commentary on this mini-flare-up see my entry “*Barack Obama Ain’t No Bolshevik, He Ain’t Even a Menshevik”, dated January 31, 2009.
What this all brings to mind is the need for some precision in our political language, especially in these days of debased political rhetoric and the rise of “shorthand” English through the dramatic increase in Internet use as a way to communicate to both attract attention and to “dumb down” political discourse. Of course, other than as a foil for my above-mentioned earlier commentary American President Barack Obama is not now, and has never been, a Bolshevik. Moreover, even a marginally politically aware person should know that the American ruling class circles are not in the habit of turning over the reins of their imperial state to Bolsheviks, knowing or unknowing ones. Certainly the Republican know that, the only question is why the tern “Bolshevik” would come up in mainstream American political discourse in the year 2010. And I confess, that is a mystery to me, as well. They are on much more “solid ground”, if they want to muddy the waters, with whether Barack Obama is actually, as required by the U.S. Constitution, a citizen.
This catch phrase “Bolshevik” , has a long pedigree, although it has been a long time since I have heard it used seriously back in the 1960s when, at the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, it had a semblance of reasonable usage in political discourse. Or, even earlier, in the aftermath of the Russian revolution when the American government was rounding up every known radical that it could get its hands on. Better still for our side, in the 1930s when militant trade unionists were on the picket lines to get better contracts or to get their unions the expression, “We have to talk Bolshevik” to the bosses would come up. And so on.
Let me finish up with this little anecdote from my youthful past. When I was in high school, in the 10th grade I believe, during the heart of the Cold War in the 1960s I took a European History course from old Mr. Kelly. Now in those days Mr. Kelly was the well known and beloved, I think, head football coach for the school team and a veteran of World War I. Like I said, he was old. He was moreover one of those old-school type teachers prevalent then who latched onto a teaching job through political influence and got to teach History because there was no “heavy lifting” to it. I, of course, devoured history by the gallons.
One day when I was called upon by Mr. Kelly to give an answer I did so but in an off-hand, rather surly way, which was my style, my statement of individuality if you will, in those days. Old school Mr. Kelly took umbrage and the long and short of it was that I had to stay after school for him. When I showed up and we “talked” suddenly the old man stunned me with this remark. “What are you, some kind of Bolshevik? I defiantly answered no. And truthfully as well. In those days I was nothing but a folk music and blues-loving, card carrying young member of the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), an anti-communist, liberal organization trying to push the New Deal back onto center stage in American political life. So you see the point, I hope. I was no Bolshevik then. Obama is no Bolshevik now. And old Orwell is right, get the language of political discourse back on track, at all costs.
Friday, January 01, 2010
*On Political Consciousness In The Post-Soviet Era- A Guest Commentary
Click on the title to link to a "Workers Vanguard" article, dated January 1, 2010, by Joseph Seymour, "Critical Notes On The "Death Of Communism" And The Ideological Conditions Of The Post-Soviet World".
Markin comment:
Despite the unwieldy title this is an extraordinary article that tries, as all we who call ourselves communists and our sympathizers must try, to understand the political conditions that we live under in a world situation that, on the one hand, cries out for socialist/communist solutions and on the other, given our meager resources, human and financial, we are almost hopelessly unable to effect. I second Seymour's points about the essential propaganda/ cadre-creating tasks that we need to working on in this period until things open up for us. That, given today's political realities, seems like a "no-brainer", as much as we would like to be able to lead mass struggles.
Markin comment:
Despite the unwieldy title this is an extraordinary article that tries, as all we who call ourselves communists and our sympathizers must try, to understand the political conditions that we live under in a world situation that, on the one hand, cries out for socialist/communist solutions and on the other, given our meager resources, human and financial, we are almost hopelessly unable to effect. I second Seymour's points about the essential propaganda/ cadre-creating tasks that we need to working on in this period until things open up for us. That, given today's political realities, seems like a "no-brainer", as much as we would like to be able to lead mass struggles.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
*In The Time Of The Robber Barons- Yankee Reformers In The Late 19th Century (The Time Of The Three Name People)
Click on title to link to the "Radical Academy" website for more information about some of the three name Boston reformers (like Oliver Wendell Holmes) mentioned in the book reviewed below.
Book Review
Yankee Reformers in the Urban Age: Social Reform In Boston 1880-1900, Arthur Mann, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1966
I have reviewed many historical events and trends in this space over the past few years. Although I have concentrated on bringing some light to the struggles of workers, blacks, other emerging minorities, and women those segments of the population hardly exhaust the historical list of progressive struggles. The book under review, ‘ Yankee Reformers in the Urban Age”, sheds light on a mainly white, mainly male, mainly Protestant movement to challenge the unfettered rise of the industrial capitalist and the system that wreaked havoc on the American landscape in general, and as this is a regional case study, Boston in particular. Many of the figures presented here have faded or disappeared from the history books even in Boston and so it is noteworthy, at least to this reviewer, that the author Arthur Mann, in what appears to have been his doctoral dissertation, has uncovered some figures that I had not previously known about.
Today, with the virtual disappearance of the public intellectual, and the virtual extinction of the radical public intellectual in the Boston academic milieu it is hard to believe that during the period under study, essentially the period that ushers in the imperial age in America that there were scores of such reformers shouting from the rooftops. They ranged from academic types like Frank Parsons to religious figures of all denominations like Steven Boyle O’Reilly (Catholic), to writers and artists like Benjamin Flowers to labor agitators and leaders like Frank K. Foster. Today, beyond radical gadflies Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky one would be hard-pressed to name more, and even those two figures were intimately associated with universities during their long careers.
Of course, Boston in the 19th century was no stranger to left-wing propaganda and agitation, to speak nothing of various social experiments that dotted the region like Brook Farm. Boston basically provided the Who’s Who of the anti-slavery movement from William Lloyd Garrison to Wendell Phillips. Moreover, transcendentalism, feminism, temperance, primitive socialism, communistic efforts like the above-mentioned Brook Farm and the like got full hearings in this region. With the victory the Union forces in the Civil War, the abolition of slavery and the death and despair of the key leaders those early trends lost steam.
The efforts under discussion in this book represent a revival of that vibrant milieu under the new circumstances of the late 19th century. The whole array of isms from trade unionism to anti-imperialism to Marxism had small but devoted adherents. All the motley schemes for the improvement of humankind from the single tax to temperance to women’s suffrage to various utopian plans had eager audiences. The political (and anti-political) movements that coursed through America from incipient local labor parties to the Knight of Labor to the People’s Party also had some minor traction. That these local trends, which mirrored the national trends, were defeated, and rather easily defeated, in the wave of the rise of the “robber barons” and the American imperial expansionist era does not detract from the interest that they provide today. In fact, I would imagine that in some nook or some cranny some little group today is still advocating, or thinking about advocating most of the ideas presented in this book. And in those efforts thinking that they have created something new and radical. Read on.
Note: Professor Mann has a chapter of special interest to this reviewer on “The Workers: Cooperators and Collective Individualists” which is centered on the struggles in the labor movement about whether to throw the capitalist bums out or just fight for “a piece of the pie” (sound familiar?). This chapter is a very interesting study of the defeat of the political actionists (read Marxists, or some kind of socialists) by the “realist” trade unionists who wanted to get immediate gratification of their needs (and got very little in any case, except the virtual liquidation of the independent artisan and skilled crafts into cogs in the industrial factory system. I will do a separate commentary on this chapter which fits rather nicely, as a local case study, with the “Labor’s Untold Story” series I have been running lately.
Also interesting , although somewhat less so, is a chapter on the then burgeoning women’s movement, the social base of that movement among the educated women of the upper classes of Boston, and the tensions between the rather more moderate goals of the Boston movement and the nationally, more inclusive (including working class women,) organizations. That subject will be addressed in more detail as well at a latter time.
Book Review
Yankee Reformers in the Urban Age: Social Reform In Boston 1880-1900, Arthur Mann, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1966
I have reviewed many historical events and trends in this space over the past few years. Although I have concentrated on bringing some light to the struggles of workers, blacks, other emerging minorities, and women those segments of the population hardly exhaust the historical list of progressive struggles. The book under review, ‘ Yankee Reformers in the Urban Age”, sheds light on a mainly white, mainly male, mainly Protestant movement to challenge the unfettered rise of the industrial capitalist and the system that wreaked havoc on the American landscape in general, and as this is a regional case study, Boston in particular. Many of the figures presented here have faded or disappeared from the history books even in Boston and so it is noteworthy, at least to this reviewer, that the author Arthur Mann, in what appears to have been his doctoral dissertation, has uncovered some figures that I had not previously known about.
Today, with the virtual disappearance of the public intellectual, and the virtual extinction of the radical public intellectual in the Boston academic milieu it is hard to believe that during the period under study, essentially the period that ushers in the imperial age in America that there were scores of such reformers shouting from the rooftops. They ranged from academic types like Frank Parsons to religious figures of all denominations like Steven Boyle O’Reilly (Catholic), to writers and artists like Benjamin Flowers to labor agitators and leaders like Frank K. Foster. Today, beyond radical gadflies Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky one would be hard-pressed to name more, and even those two figures were intimately associated with universities during their long careers.
Of course, Boston in the 19th century was no stranger to left-wing propaganda and agitation, to speak nothing of various social experiments that dotted the region like Brook Farm. Boston basically provided the Who’s Who of the anti-slavery movement from William Lloyd Garrison to Wendell Phillips. Moreover, transcendentalism, feminism, temperance, primitive socialism, communistic efforts like the above-mentioned Brook Farm and the like got full hearings in this region. With the victory the Union forces in the Civil War, the abolition of slavery and the death and despair of the key leaders those early trends lost steam.
The efforts under discussion in this book represent a revival of that vibrant milieu under the new circumstances of the late 19th century. The whole array of isms from trade unionism to anti-imperialism to Marxism had small but devoted adherents. All the motley schemes for the improvement of humankind from the single tax to temperance to women’s suffrage to various utopian plans had eager audiences. The political (and anti-political) movements that coursed through America from incipient local labor parties to the Knight of Labor to the People’s Party also had some minor traction. That these local trends, which mirrored the national trends, were defeated, and rather easily defeated, in the wave of the rise of the “robber barons” and the American imperial expansionist era does not detract from the interest that they provide today. In fact, I would imagine that in some nook or some cranny some little group today is still advocating, or thinking about advocating most of the ideas presented in this book. And in those efforts thinking that they have created something new and radical. Read on.
Note: Professor Mann has a chapter of special interest to this reviewer on “The Workers: Cooperators and Collective Individualists” which is centered on the struggles in the labor movement about whether to throw the capitalist bums out or just fight for “a piece of the pie” (sound familiar?). This chapter is a very interesting study of the defeat of the political actionists (read Marxists, or some kind of socialists) by the “realist” trade unionists who wanted to get immediate gratification of their needs (and got very little in any case, except the virtual liquidation of the independent artisan and skilled crafts into cogs in the industrial factory system. I will do a separate commentary on this chapter which fits rather nicely, as a local case study, with the “Labor’s Untold Story” series I have been running lately.
Also interesting , although somewhat less so, is a chapter on the then burgeoning women’s movement, the social base of that movement among the educated women of the upper classes of Boston, and the tensions between the rather more moderate goals of the Boston movement and the nationally, more inclusive (including working class women,) organizations. That subject will be addressed in more detail as well at a latter time.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
* Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story"- A Guest Review
Click on title to link to Renegade Eye's posting of review in "Socialist Appeal" of the Michael Moore film, "Capitalism: A Love Story".
Markin comment:
Thanks for saving me from having to review this work. While we can all appreciate the work of Michael Moore in tweaking the right I would feel much better about his work, his person and his politics if he didn't have that front row seat safely ensconced in the midst of the Democratic Party. Michael- Break with the Democrats! Enough said.
Markin comment:
Thanks for saving me from having to review this work. While we can all appreciate the work of Michael Moore in tweaking the right I would feel much better about his work, his person and his politics if he didn't have that front row seat safely ensconced in the midst of the Democratic Party. Michael- Break with the Democrats! Enough said.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
*On The Question Of The "N" Word- A Guest Commentary
Click on title to link to an article reprinted from Young Spartacus pages of Workers Vanguard No. 807, 1 August 2003, "The "N" Word In Racist America".
Markin comment:
In an entry today concerning Lead Belly's classic, "Bourgeois Blues", I let his original lyrics remain. I also pointed out that I have many political, social and personal family reasons for not liking or using the word. I, generally, agree with the sentiments in the linked article on this subject. Read on.
Markin comment:
In an entry today concerning Lead Belly's classic, "Bourgeois Blues", I let his original lyrics remain. I also pointed out that I have many political, social and personal family reasons for not liking or using the word. I, generally, agree with the sentiments in the linked article on this subject. Read on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)