COMMENTARY
THEIR FLAG IS RED, WHITE AND BLUE. OUR FLAG IS STILL RED.
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
The Senate has just rejected, by a 66-34 vote, a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would give special protection to the American flag and enable Congress to pass legislation penalizing acts of desecration on that banner. That vote fell just one vote short of the required 2/3 (66.66%) vote needed to pass it on to the state legislatures for a vote and final enactment. Of course, this kind of proposition is red meat to most Republicans and many Democrats. They can vote for these kind of measures all day, every day, and not work up a sweat. The political calculus which drives American bourgeois electoral politics, votes, makes this a real slam dunk. The flag-burning community (all eleven of them) against your average sunshine, couch potato patriot. Even perennial Democratic presidential campaign consultant Robert Schrum can figure that one out.
The Democrats, not to be outdone, proposed as an alternative federal legislation which would protect the flag on federal property. A WORKERS PARTY Senator, on a straight up or down vote on the amendment would vote NO. (Yes, even if that meant a bloc with Democrats- this after all, is a democratic rights issue which we most definitely care about). He or she would also then turn around and vote NO on any federal anti-flag-burning legislation for the same reason (and feel good about being able kick the Democrats in the shins). Following are some quick comments on these developments.
There was a time in America when the American flag was worth militants fighting and dying for- the Civil War, 1861-65. Unfortunately, certain forebears of the current august Senators on Capitol Hill, particularly from the Southern states, had no problem desecrating that flag as they beat the path to secession from the Union over the slavery question. Shouldn’t they then be just a little more circumspect about the rights of others these days who may not be respectful to their Confederate (oops, American) flag.
The amendment’s main sponsor Senator Hatch of Utah (Jesus, I thought he died during the Hoover administration, I really have to pay more attention to who is alive and who isn’t up on the Hill) who claimed that his motivation was to show respect for soldiers, etc. If the Senator means support the troops I already have a proposal for that- and it has nothing to do with flag-burning amendments. It has to do with fully funding 138,000 pairs of sneakers to get American troops the hell out of Iraq now. (See my blog, dated June 23, 2006). Hatch’s bizarre efforts are clear proof of why they are in that quagmire in the first place.
Personally, this writer does not see the point of flag-burning as political protest. However, this is a First Amendment free speech issue and even the Neanderthals on the United States Supreme Court have, for now, declared that it is a protected expression of free speech. Moreover, I can sympathize with any militant (or ordinary citizen, for that matter) who is so outraged by the government’s policies that he or she needs to make such a material statement. However, in contrast to that form of expression let me propose another. This writer shed no tears when 'Old Glory' was pulled down from the American Embassy after the Cuban Revolution by the Cubans or when it was pulled down from the American Embassy by the Vietnamese in 1975. Organizing the fight for socialism to change the flag from red, white and blue to red- that’s the real way to express our outrage. OUR FLAG IS STILL RED.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
*From The Archives Of "Women And Revolution"-In Defense of Homosexual Rights: The Marxist Tradition
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for "Communism and homosexuality".
Markin comment:
The following is an article from the Summer 1988 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.
In Defense of Homosexual Rights: The Marxist Tradition
Defense of democratic rights for homosexuals is part of the historic tradition of Marxism. In the 1860s, the prominent lawyer J.B. von Schweitzer was tried, found guilty and disbarred for homosexual activities in Mannheim, Germany. The socialist pioneer Ferdinand Lassalle aided von Schweitzer, encouraging him to join Lassalle's Universal German Workingmen's Association in 1863. After Lassalle's death, von Schweitzer was elected the head of the group, one of the organizations that merged to form the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). The SPD itself waged a long struggle in the late 19th century against Paragraph 175 of the German penal code, which made homosexual acts (for males) a crime. August Bebel and other SPD members in the Reichstag attacked the law, while the SPD's party paper Vorwarts reported on the struggle against state persecution of homosexuals.
In 1895 one of the most infamous anti-homosexual outbursts of the period targeted Oscar Wilde, one of the leading literary lights of England (where homosexuality had been punishable by death until 1861). Wilde had some socialist views of his own: his essay, "The Soul of Man Under Socialism," was smuggled into Russia by young radicals. When the Marquess of Queensberry called him a sodomist, Wilde sued for libel. Queensberry had Wilde successfully prosecuted and sent to prison for being involved with Queensberry's son. The Second International took up Wilde's defense. In the most prestigious publication of the German Social Democracy, "Die Neue Zeit", Eduard Bernstein, later known as a revisionist but then speaking as a very decent Marxist, argued that there was nothing sick about homosexuality, that Wilde had committed no crime, that every socialist should defend him and that the people who put him on trial were the criminals.
Upon coming to power in 1917 in Russia, the Bolshevik Party began immediately to undercut the old bourgeois prejudices and social institutions responsible for the oppression of both women and homosexuals— centrally the institution of the family. They sought to create social alternatives to relieve the crushing burden of women's drudgery in the family, and abolished all legal impediments to women's equality, while also abolishing all laws against homosexual acts. Stalin's successful political counterrevolution rehabilitated the reactionary ideology of bourgeois society, glorifying the family unit. In 1934 a law making homosexual acts punishable by imprisonment was introduced, and mass arrests of homosexuals took place. While defending the socialized property forms of the USSR against capitalist attack, we Trotskyists fight for political revolution in the USSR to restore the liberating program and goals of the early Bolsheviks, including getting the state out of private sexual life. As Grigorii Batkis, director of the Moscow Institute of Social Hygiene, pointed out in "The Sexual Revolution in Russia," published in the USSR in 1923:
"Soviet legislation bases itself on the following principle:
'It declares the absolute non-interference of the state and society into sexual matters so long as nobody isinjured and no one's interests are encroached upon
"Concerning homosexuality, sodomy, and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offenses against public morality—Soviet legislation treats these exactly the same as so-called 'natural' intercourse. All forms of sexual intercourse are private matters." [emphasis in original]
—quoted in John Lauritsen and David Thorstad, The Early Homosexual Rights Movement 1864-1935
Markin comment:
The following is an article from the Summer 1988 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.
In Defense of Homosexual Rights: The Marxist Tradition
Defense of democratic rights for homosexuals is part of the historic tradition of Marxism. In the 1860s, the prominent lawyer J.B. von Schweitzer was tried, found guilty and disbarred for homosexual activities in Mannheim, Germany. The socialist pioneer Ferdinand Lassalle aided von Schweitzer, encouraging him to join Lassalle's Universal German Workingmen's Association in 1863. After Lassalle's death, von Schweitzer was elected the head of the group, one of the organizations that merged to form the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). The SPD itself waged a long struggle in the late 19th century against Paragraph 175 of the German penal code, which made homosexual acts (for males) a crime. August Bebel and other SPD members in the Reichstag attacked the law, while the SPD's party paper Vorwarts reported on the struggle against state persecution of homosexuals.
In 1895 one of the most infamous anti-homosexual outbursts of the period targeted Oscar Wilde, one of the leading literary lights of England (where homosexuality had been punishable by death until 1861). Wilde had some socialist views of his own: his essay, "The Soul of Man Under Socialism," was smuggled into Russia by young radicals. When the Marquess of Queensberry called him a sodomist, Wilde sued for libel. Queensberry had Wilde successfully prosecuted and sent to prison for being involved with Queensberry's son. The Second International took up Wilde's defense. In the most prestigious publication of the German Social Democracy, "Die Neue Zeit", Eduard Bernstein, later known as a revisionist but then speaking as a very decent Marxist, argued that there was nothing sick about homosexuality, that Wilde had committed no crime, that every socialist should defend him and that the people who put him on trial were the criminals.
Upon coming to power in 1917 in Russia, the Bolshevik Party began immediately to undercut the old bourgeois prejudices and social institutions responsible for the oppression of both women and homosexuals— centrally the institution of the family. They sought to create social alternatives to relieve the crushing burden of women's drudgery in the family, and abolished all legal impediments to women's equality, while also abolishing all laws against homosexual acts. Stalin's successful political counterrevolution rehabilitated the reactionary ideology of bourgeois society, glorifying the family unit. In 1934 a law making homosexual acts punishable by imprisonment was introduced, and mass arrests of homosexuals took place. While defending the socialized property forms of the USSR against capitalist attack, we Trotskyists fight for political revolution in the USSR to restore the liberating program and goals of the early Bolsheviks, including getting the state out of private sexual life. As Grigorii Batkis, director of the Moscow Institute of Social Hygiene, pointed out in "The Sexual Revolution in Russia," published in the USSR in 1923:
"Soviet legislation bases itself on the following principle:
'It declares the absolute non-interference of the state and society into sexual matters so long as nobody isinjured and no one's interests are encroached upon
"Concerning homosexuality, sodomy, and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offenses against public morality—Soviet legislation treats these exactly the same as so-called 'natural' intercourse. All forms of sexual intercourse are private matters." [emphasis in original]
—quoted in John Lauritsen and David Thorstad, The Early Homosexual Rights Movement 1864-1935
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
THE ANGELS OF DEATH RIDE AGAIN
COMMENTARY
DOWN WITH THE BARBARIC DEATH PENALTY!!
The United States Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, has just overturned a Kansas State Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of a Kansas death penalty statute. The Kansas court had held that the statute- which provided that where the evidence was equally divided on the question of sentencing a defendant to life imprisonment without parole or death the death penalty should apply- was unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment. Apparently the U.S. Supreme Court had no such qualms as it positioned itself just slightly to the left of the medieval Star Chamber. New justices, Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito voted with the majority, the usual rogue’s gallery of robed closet Nazis Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. That should come as no surprise to militants.
The immediate impact on the decision on death penalty cases is to further narrow the so-called technical arguments for appeal on due process or equal protection grounds. There was a time when the legal concept of an ‘evolving standard of human decency’ on such grounds in death penalty cases was making some headway. That concept seems foreclosed by the U.S. Supreme Court lineup for the foreseeable future. The wrangling now seems to be over whether the court will continue to ‘tinker with the machinery of death’ as the liberals on the court will argue or basically let the death machine roll along relatively unimpeded. Remember this, however, not one of the nine current justices, liberal or conservative, has come close to publically calling the death penalty unconstitutional. Whatever the grounds for argument against it all militants know that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment and should be abolished.
A reader might ask what a workers party justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would do. In the immediate case, obviously bloc with the minority of justices to oppose this decision which narrows the legal basis for appeals. He or she, however, would write a separate opinion denouncing the death penalty and use the U.S. Supreme Court as a tribunal to galvanize support. Realistically, although many bourgeois governments have abolished the death penalty, at the point where we had a workers party U.S. Supreme Court justice we would probably have a workers government. As one of its first acts that government would abolish such punishment without fanfare.
In any case, no serious militant today should believe that the fight against the death penalty (for the guilty as well as the innocent) depends on court majorities. While all legal avenues, including the U.S. Supreme Court, should be pursued in individual death penalty cases this is a fight that can only be finally won by organizing mass demonstrations and other militant action. Let us do it. DOWN WITH DEATH PENALTY!
DOWN WITH THE BARBARIC DEATH PENALTY!!
The United States Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, has just overturned a Kansas State Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of a Kansas death penalty statute. The Kansas court had held that the statute- which provided that where the evidence was equally divided on the question of sentencing a defendant to life imprisonment without parole or death the death penalty should apply- was unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment. Apparently the U.S. Supreme Court had no such qualms as it positioned itself just slightly to the left of the medieval Star Chamber. New justices, Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito voted with the majority, the usual rogue’s gallery of robed closet Nazis Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. That should come as no surprise to militants.
The immediate impact on the decision on death penalty cases is to further narrow the so-called technical arguments for appeal on due process or equal protection grounds. There was a time when the legal concept of an ‘evolving standard of human decency’ on such grounds in death penalty cases was making some headway. That concept seems foreclosed by the U.S. Supreme Court lineup for the foreseeable future. The wrangling now seems to be over whether the court will continue to ‘tinker with the machinery of death’ as the liberals on the court will argue or basically let the death machine roll along relatively unimpeded. Remember this, however, not one of the nine current justices, liberal or conservative, has come close to publically calling the death penalty unconstitutional. Whatever the grounds for argument against it all militants know that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment and should be abolished.
A reader might ask what a workers party justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would do. In the immediate case, obviously bloc with the minority of justices to oppose this decision which narrows the legal basis for appeals. He or she, however, would write a separate opinion denouncing the death penalty and use the U.S. Supreme Court as a tribunal to galvanize support. Realistically, although many bourgeois governments have abolished the death penalty, at the point where we had a workers party U.S. Supreme Court justice we would probably have a workers government. As one of its first acts that government would abolish such punishment without fanfare.
In any case, no serious militant today should believe that the fight against the death penalty (for the guilty as well as the innocent) depends on court majorities. While all legal avenues, including the U.S. Supreme Court, should be pursued in individual death penalty cases this is a fight that can only be finally won by organizing mass demonstrations and other militant action. Let us do it. DOWN WITH DEATH PENALTY!
Monday, June 26, 2006
*Eyewitness To The Spanish Civil War-George Orwell's "Homage To Catalonia"
Click on title to link to Wikipedia's entry for the Party Of Marxist Unification (POUM)whose militia George Orwell fought in and an organization thta has been the subject, including in this space, of on-going controversy for its role in the Spanish revolution.
BOOK REVIEW
HOMAGE TO CATALONIA, GEORGE ORWELL, HARCOURT BRACE JOVANOVICH, NEW YORK, 1952
AS WE APPROACH THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BEGINNING OF THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR MILITANTS NEED TO DRAW THE LESSONS FOR THE DEFEAT OF THAT REVOLUTION.
I have been interested, as a pro-Republican partisan, in the Spanish Civil War since I was a teenager. Underlying my interests has always been a nagging question of how that struggle could have been won by the working class. The Spanish proletariat certainly was capable of both heroic action and the ability to create organizations that reflected its own class interests i.e. the worker militias and factory committees. Of all modern working class revolutions after the Russian revolution Spain showed the most promise of success. Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky noted that the political class consciousness of the Spanish proletariat was higher at the time than that of the Russian proletariat in 1917. George Orwell’s book gives some eyewitness insights into the causes of that defeat from the perspective of a political rank and file militant who fought in the trenches in a Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) militia unit during the key year 1937.
Leon Trotsky in his polemical article ‘The Lessons of Spain-Last Warning’, collected in The Spanish Revolution, 1931-39 , his definitive assessment of the Spanish situation in the wake of the defeat of the Barcelona uprising in May 1937, while asserting that the POUM was the most honest revolutionary party in Spain, stated that in the final analysis the approaching defeat of the revolution could be laid to the policies of the POUM. Orwell’s book parallels that argument on the ground in Spain although he certainly was not a Trotsky partisan.
Let us be clear here- we are not talking about the Orwell who later, after World War II, lost his political moorings and decided that the road to human progress passed through the nefarious intelligence agencies of British imperialism. Unfortunately, many militants have traveled that road. Nor are we talking about the later author of Animal Farm and 1984 who warmed the hearts of Western Cold Warriors. We are talking about the militant George Orwell who fought as a volunteer against fascism in Spain in 1937 when it counted. That Orwell has something to say to militants. We need to listen to him if we are to make sense of the disaster in Spain.
While Homage to Catalonia is in part a journal of Orwell’s personal experiences as a militiaman under the stress of war that part is less useful to militants today. The parts that are important are the political chapters. One should, moreover, discount Orwell’s self-proclaimed blasé attitude toward politics. Here is an intensely political man.
Orwell draws two important conclusions from his experiences. First, the war against Franco could not be won without a simultaneous extension of the revolution to the creation of a workers state. The workers and peasants of Spain could not be persuaded to and would not and fight to the finish merely for ‘democracy’. This premise ran counter to the objective policies pursued by all the pro-Republican parties. Orwell describes very vividly the changes toward defeatism that occurred in working class morale in Barcelona, the Petrograd of Spain, after the May days of 1937during his stay.
The second conclusion Orwell draws is that the role of the Spanish Communist Party and its sponsor, the Soviet Union was not just momentarily anti-revolutionary in the interests of defeating Franco but counterrevolutionary. The Soviet Union had no interest in creating a second workers state. In the final analysis, despite providing weapons, the Soviet Union was more interested in finding allies among the European imperialists than in revolution. In long-range hindsight that seems clear but at the time it was far from obvious to militants on the ground, especially the militants of the Spanish Communist party who got caught up in the Stalinist security apparatus. Of course, this extreme shift to the right on the part of the Stalinists dovetailed with the interests of the liberal Republicans. However, in the end they all had to flee.
This writer notes that at the time many European militants, like Victor Serge, and organizations , like the Independent Labor Party in England, covered for the erroneous policies of the POUM based on their position as the most coherent, organized and militant ostensibly revolutionary organization in Spain. That support was at the time the subject of intense debate on the extreme left. Fair enough. What does not make sense is that since 1991 or so under the impact of the so-called ‘death of communism’ a virtual cottage industry has developed, centered on the British journal Revolutionary History, seeking today to justify the positions of the POUM. Jesus, can’t these people learn something after all this time.
And what was the POUM? That party, partially created by cadre formerly associated with Trotsky in the Spanish Left Opposition, failed on virtually every count. That party made every mistake in the revolutionary book. Those conscious mistakes from its inception included, but were not limited to, the creation of an unprincipled bloc between the former Left Oppositionists and the former Right Oppositionists (Bukharinites) of Juan Maurin to form the POUM in 1935; political support to the Popular Front including entry into the government coalition in Catalonia by its leader, Andreas Nin; creation of its own small trade union federation instead of entry in the massive anarchist led-CNT to fight for the perspective of a workers state; a willful failure to seriously expand the organization outside of Catalonia; creation of its own militia units and other institutions reflecting a hands-off attitude toward political struggle with other parties; and, fatally, an equivocal role in the Barcelona uprising of 1937. In short, at best, the POUM pursued left social democratic policies in a situation that required Bolshevik policies. Read 1937Orwell for other insights into the POUM.
BOOK REVIEW
HOMAGE TO CATALONIA, GEORGE ORWELL, HARCOURT BRACE JOVANOVICH, NEW YORK, 1952
AS WE APPROACH THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BEGINNING OF THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR MILITANTS NEED TO DRAW THE LESSONS FOR THE DEFEAT OF THAT REVOLUTION.
I have been interested, as a pro-Republican partisan, in the Spanish Civil War since I was a teenager. Underlying my interests has always been a nagging question of how that struggle could have been won by the working class. The Spanish proletariat certainly was capable of both heroic action and the ability to create organizations that reflected its own class interests i.e. the worker militias and factory committees. Of all modern working class revolutions after the Russian revolution Spain showed the most promise of success. Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky noted that the political class consciousness of the Spanish proletariat was higher at the time than that of the Russian proletariat in 1917. George Orwell’s book gives some eyewitness insights into the causes of that defeat from the perspective of a political rank and file militant who fought in the trenches in a Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) militia unit during the key year 1937.
Leon Trotsky in his polemical article ‘The Lessons of Spain-Last Warning’, collected in The Spanish Revolution, 1931-39 , his definitive assessment of the Spanish situation in the wake of the defeat of the Barcelona uprising in May 1937, while asserting that the POUM was the most honest revolutionary party in Spain, stated that in the final analysis the approaching defeat of the revolution could be laid to the policies of the POUM. Orwell’s book parallels that argument on the ground in Spain although he certainly was not a Trotsky partisan.
Let us be clear here- we are not talking about the Orwell who later, after World War II, lost his political moorings and decided that the road to human progress passed through the nefarious intelligence agencies of British imperialism. Unfortunately, many militants have traveled that road. Nor are we talking about the later author of Animal Farm and 1984 who warmed the hearts of Western Cold Warriors. We are talking about the militant George Orwell who fought as a volunteer against fascism in Spain in 1937 when it counted. That Orwell has something to say to militants. We need to listen to him if we are to make sense of the disaster in Spain.
While Homage to Catalonia is in part a journal of Orwell’s personal experiences as a militiaman under the stress of war that part is less useful to militants today. The parts that are important are the political chapters. One should, moreover, discount Orwell’s self-proclaimed blasé attitude toward politics. Here is an intensely political man.
Orwell draws two important conclusions from his experiences. First, the war against Franco could not be won without a simultaneous extension of the revolution to the creation of a workers state. The workers and peasants of Spain could not be persuaded to and would not and fight to the finish merely for ‘democracy’. This premise ran counter to the objective policies pursued by all the pro-Republican parties. Orwell describes very vividly the changes toward defeatism that occurred in working class morale in Barcelona, the Petrograd of Spain, after the May days of 1937during his stay.
The second conclusion Orwell draws is that the role of the Spanish Communist Party and its sponsor, the Soviet Union was not just momentarily anti-revolutionary in the interests of defeating Franco but counterrevolutionary. The Soviet Union had no interest in creating a second workers state. In the final analysis, despite providing weapons, the Soviet Union was more interested in finding allies among the European imperialists than in revolution. In long-range hindsight that seems clear but at the time it was far from obvious to militants on the ground, especially the militants of the Spanish Communist party who got caught up in the Stalinist security apparatus. Of course, this extreme shift to the right on the part of the Stalinists dovetailed with the interests of the liberal Republicans. However, in the end they all had to flee.
This writer notes that at the time many European militants, like Victor Serge, and organizations , like the Independent Labor Party in England, covered for the erroneous policies of the POUM based on their position as the most coherent, organized and militant ostensibly revolutionary organization in Spain. That support was at the time the subject of intense debate on the extreme left. Fair enough. What does not make sense is that since 1991 or so under the impact of the so-called ‘death of communism’ a virtual cottage industry has developed, centered on the British journal Revolutionary History, seeking today to justify the positions of the POUM. Jesus, can’t these people learn something after all this time.
And what was the POUM? That party, partially created by cadre formerly associated with Trotsky in the Spanish Left Opposition, failed on virtually every count. That party made every mistake in the revolutionary book. Those conscious mistakes from its inception included, but were not limited to, the creation of an unprincipled bloc between the former Left Oppositionists and the former Right Oppositionists (Bukharinites) of Juan Maurin to form the POUM in 1935; political support to the Popular Front including entry into the government coalition in Catalonia by its leader, Andreas Nin; creation of its own small trade union federation instead of entry in the massive anarchist led-CNT to fight for the perspective of a workers state; a willful failure to seriously expand the organization outside of Catalonia; creation of its own militia units and other institutions reflecting a hands-off attitude toward political struggle with other parties; and, fatally, an equivocal role in the Barcelona uprising of 1937. In short, at best, the POUM pursued left social democratic policies in a situation that required Bolshevik policies. Read 1937Orwell for other insights into the POUM.
Friday, June 23, 2006
DON'T WE GET IT!- THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS DO NOT WANT TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ
COMMENTARY
AMERICA, WHERE ARE YOU NOW? DON’T YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS? DON’T YOU KNOW WE NEED YOU NOW? WE CAN’T FIGHT ALONE AGAINST THE MONSTER. Lyrics from ‘Monster’, a 1960’s rock song by Steppenwolf.
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Well the votes are in from various proposals for withdrawing from Iraq put forth by some Democrats. The results speak for themselves. On the parliamentary level anti-war militants are alone. Forget the ‘softball’ non-binding Levin-Reed proposal. Jesus, they all vote for those things as a cheap way to bolster their tarnished images. They can vote for that kind of proposition all day. No, I am talking about the Kerry proposal. That went down 86-13.
In this series the writer has been trying to hammer home the one real question that counts on the parliamentary level. Yes or No on the war budget. We had our answer on that one last week- 98-1 for the war budget. Enough said.
If we had a workers party representative, which we obviously desperately need now, he or she would use Congress as a tribune to denounce all of this nonsense.
Here is a proper workers party proposal. We would have our representative(s) introduce a bill to fully fund the purchase of 138,000 pairs of the best all purpose, all weather, all terrain sneakers money could buy to cut and run today. We may only get our own vote(s) now-tomorrow, as the situation in Iraq continues to get more desperate-who knows?
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
AMERICA, WHERE ARE YOU NOW? DON’T YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS? DON’T YOU KNOW WE NEED YOU NOW? WE CAN’T FIGHT ALONE AGAINST THE MONSTER. Lyrics from ‘Monster’, a 1960’s rock song by Steppenwolf.
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Well the votes are in from various proposals for withdrawing from Iraq put forth by some Democrats. The results speak for themselves. On the parliamentary level anti-war militants are alone. Forget the ‘softball’ non-binding Levin-Reed proposal. Jesus, they all vote for those things as a cheap way to bolster their tarnished images. They can vote for that kind of proposition all day. No, I am talking about the Kerry proposal. That went down 86-13.
In this series the writer has been trying to hammer home the one real question that counts on the parliamentary level. Yes or No on the war budget. We had our answer on that one last week- 98-1 for the war budget. Enough said.
If we had a workers party representative, which we obviously desperately need now, he or she would use Congress as a tribune to denounce all of this nonsense.
Here is a proper workers party proposal. We would have our representative(s) introduce a bill to fully fund the purchase of 138,000 pairs of the best all purpose, all weather, all terrain sneakers money could buy to cut and run today. We may only get our own vote(s) now-tomorrow, as the situation in Iraq continues to get more desperate-who knows?
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Thursday, June 22, 2006
HONOR PAL MALATER, MILITANT-HUNGARY WORKERS REVOLUTION, 1956
As we approach the 50th anniversary of the heroic Hungarian uprising of 1956 let us remember the fallen militants who were fighting to bring a socialist solution to the problems of Stalinist-dominated Hungary. Honor the memory of Pal Malater, Defense Minister , anti-fascist fighter in World War II and fighter for socialism, executed by the Russian Stalinists in the aftermath of the Hungarian uprising.
SEE OCTOBER 2006 ARCHIVES, DATED OCTOBER 21 FOR ANOTHER BLOG ON THIS SUBJECT AT THE TIME OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY
In one of the cruel ironies of history anti-communists, including the current President Bush, and Hungarian nationalist have appropriated the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian uprising of 1956. Militants must learn about that struggle and take back a heritage that is rightly ours and not the imperialists and their hangers-on.
Hungary, 1956 is a classic example of what the initial stages of a working class political revolution against Stalinist bureaucratic represssion looks like. In the main, the workers were fighting for some kind of indigenous workers government free from Stalinist repression. Let history and Mr. Bush note that the militant pro-socilaist workers were definitely not fighting for a restoration of capitalist rule in Hungary.
Did the militants have illusions in Western-style democracy? Surely, some did. Just as some Eastern Europeon and Chinese workers and students had in 1989. Did the Catholic church play a counterrevolutionary role in league with the agencies of U.S.imperialism and try to turn religious working class elements against socialism? You bet. Just as Pope John Paul and the Catholic church did in Poland in the 1970’s and 1980's. Did the Soviet Union motivate its invading troops by falsely claiming a fascist uprising was occurring? By all means yes, but the first wave of Soviet troops correctly fraternized with the Hungarian workers once they knew the score.
Notwithstanding the above stumbling blocks on the road to revolution , the central fight, the fight in the streets was for a new form of workers government. The prove is in the pudding-the uprising split the Hungarian Communist party to its core with the bulk of the party going over to the insurgents. The pre-conditions for success were there but the militants needed a party that knew what it was doing in the chaotic situation to have any chance of success. Unfortunately, for many reasons which can be read about in various postings on this site no such party emerged. Read about this important event in Cold War history.
REVISED OCTOBER 21, 2006
SEE OCTOBER 2006 ARCHIVES, DATED OCTOBER 21 FOR ANOTHER BLOG ON THIS SUBJECT AT THE TIME OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY
In one of the cruel ironies of history anti-communists, including the current President Bush, and Hungarian nationalist have appropriated the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian uprising of 1956. Militants must learn about that struggle and take back a heritage that is rightly ours and not the imperialists and their hangers-on.
Hungary, 1956 is a classic example of what the initial stages of a working class political revolution against Stalinist bureaucratic represssion looks like. In the main, the workers were fighting for some kind of indigenous workers government free from Stalinist repression. Let history and Mr. Bush note that the militant pro-socilaist workers were definitely not fighting for a restoration of capitalist rule in Hungary.
Did the militants have illusions in Western-style democracy? Surely, some did. Just as some Eastern Europeon and Chinese workers and students had in 1989. Did the Catholic church play a counterrevolutionary role in league with the agencies of U.S.imperialism and try to turn religious working class elements against socialism? You bet. Just as Pope John Paul and the Catholic church did in Poland in the 1970’s and 1980's. Did the Soviet Union motivate its invading troops by falsely claiming a fascist uprising was occurring? By all means yes, but the first wave of Soviet troops correctly fraternized with the Hungarian workers once they knew the score.
Notwithstanding the above stumbling blocks on the road to revolution , the central fight, the fight in the streets was for a new form of workers government. The prove is in the pudding-the uprising split the Hungarian Communist party to its core with the bulk of the party going over to the insurgents. The pre-conditions for success were there but the militants needed a party that knew what it was doing in the chaotic situation to have any chance of success. Unfortunately, for many reasons which can be read about in various postings on this site no such party emerged. Read about this important event in Cold War history.
REVISED OCTOBER 21, 2006
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
A NON-COMMUNIST VIEWS THE STALINIZATION OF THE AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY
BOOK REVIEW
AMERICAN COMMUNISM AND THE SOVIET UNION, THEODORE DRAPER, The Viking Press, New York, 1960
THE COMPANION VOLUME-THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN COMMUNISM WAS REVIEWED ON MAY 30, 2006
As an addition to the historical record of the period from the illness and death of Lenin in the Soviet Union and the ensuing struggle for power in the Russian Communist party to the consolidation of Stalinist rule and its extension to the American party in 1929 American Communism and the Soviet Union and its companion volume detailing the period from 1917 to 1923-The Roots of American Communism (which has been reviewed separately) – is the definitive scholarly study on the early history of the American Communist Party. The author, an ex-communist, but at the time of writing an anti-communist who however unlike other former communists nevertheless does a thorough job or presenting the personalities and issues in a reasonably straightforward and unbiased manner. Given that these volumes were researched and published during the heart of the Cold War hysteria against the Soviet Union in the 1950’s this is not faint praise.
Also useful for this period in conjunction with these two volumes and to round them out, from the pro-Communist partisan perspective of one of the main leaders, is James P. Cannon’s The First Ten Years of American Communism and the Prometheus Research Library’s James P. Cannon and the Early Communist Movement. Absent from Mr. Draper’s analysis is any real feel for why the early leaders and rank and file of the party put themselves on the line against American imperialism, faced harassment, imprisonment or worst to create an American Bolshevik party. While there is no dearth of memoirs of other participants in the early American communist movement, Cannon’s analysis most honestly fills that gap.
That said, why must militants read these works today? After the demise of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe anything positively related to Communist studies is deeply discounted. Nevertheless, for better or worse, the American Communist Party (and its offshoots) needs to be studied as an ultimately flawed example of a party that failed in its mission to create a radical version of society in America after it became essentially a tool of Soviet diplomacy. Now is the time for militants to study the mistakes and draw the lessons of that history.
For those not familiar with Mr. Draper’s first volume a helpful introductory chapter gives a summary of the events from 1917-1923. After the successful fight to bring the party above ground, 1923 opened with the struggle within the party, reflected by a sentiment in the American labor movement, in favor of an independent labor party, or rather a farmer-labor party. That effort proved stillborn. This is also the period when the party toyed with the idea of supporting the Lafollette movement, a bourgeois third party operation. Party support for that effort was abandoned at the last minute. Draper seems to think that the failure of the party to correctly intersect those two movements was a central reason that the party’s influence was limited in the 1920’s.
Fair enough. However, from a communist perspective what was the reality? The Farmer-Labor party was, as the name clearly denotes, a two class party which was based on contradictory programs. Ultimately, one or the other program would create fundamental antagonisms. This contradiction has been played out numerous times in the international revolutionary movement and, except in Russia where the Bolsheviks adopted the Social Revolutionary land program, has proven disastrous to the working class. As for the LaFollette movement it has long been established in the Marxist movement that bourgeois parties are not to be supported politically. No less an authority than James P. Cannon, a central leader of the party in the 1920’s has some very relevant comments on the opportunist and half-baked nature of this proposal. All in all, I think that Draper’s position is influenced by looking at these maneuvers through the prism of the Popular Front policies of the 1930’s when the party allegedly increased its influence by pandering to the New Deal Democrats and other bourgeois formations.
The party’s rocky road continues with the process of the ‘Bolshevization’ policy of the party ordered by the head of the Communist International Zinoviev to bring all parties in line with the Russian party organizational forms. I have heard of and seen much about this policy and about Zinoviev’s role in it but mainly at the level of high policy in the Comintern. Mr. Draper, for the first time in my experience, presents an analysis of the effects of the process at the base of the American party. Jesus, it was even more bureaucratically organized at the base than at the top. This was not accidental, as the cell structure mandated by the Comintern lent itself to easier bureaucratic control at the top. Zinoviev may have, historically, been underappreciated as a revolutionary politician and agitator but certainly this scheme does nothing to enhance his reputation.
Very important sections of Mr. Draper’s book deal with the intersection of communism and the black question and the struggle for American Trotskyism. I will not address the issue of American Trotskyism here as I have dealt with that topic elsewhere in this space and the reader really should read Cannon’s History of American Communism and History of American Trotskyism to fill in the details. However, Draper’s chapter on the black question is one of the best overviews of this question available.
The section on the development of communist work among blacks, the creation of a black cadre and the formulating of the question of a black nation with the right to national self-determination is an essential chapter (including footnotes at the back) for any militant trying to find the roots of communist work among blacks. Although the 1920’s was not the heyday of black recruitment to the party, the pioneer work in the 1920’s gave the party a huge leg up when the radicalization of the 1930’s among all workers occurred.
Nevertheless, the left-wing movement in America, including the Communist Party and its offshoots has always had problems with what has been called the Black Question. Marxists have always considers support to the right of national self-determination to be a wedge against the nationalists and as a way to put the class axis to the fore. In any case, Marxist have always predicated that support on there being a possibility for the group to form a nation. Absent that, other methods of struggle are necessary to deal with special oppression. Part of the problem with the American Communist position on self-determination was that the conditions which would have created the possibility of a black state were being destroyed with the mechanization of agriculture, the migration of blacks to the Northern industrial centers and the overwhelming need to fight for black people’s rights to survive under the conditions of the Great Depression. Carefully read this section.
After reviewing the history of the American Communist party from 1919- 29 I have come away with one nagging question. How did militants from different pre-World War I radicals organizations like the left wing of the Socialist Party and the Industrial Workers of the World that were clearly attracted to the Russian revolution and wanted to bring such a revolution here wind up as Stalinist publicity agents for Soviet foreign policy? I think James P. Cannon, one of the militants attracted to the Russian revolution, had his finger on an answer. Most of his fellow militants started out sincerely wanting to make a revolution (I reserve my judgment on that comment in the case of William Z. Foster) but made their accommodations with bourgeois society at some point in the 1920’s when the immediate possibilities of an American revolution looked very bleak.
In short, it is easier being a cheerleader for someone else’s revolution than to make your own. As is well known revolutionary movements are great devourers of human material. That this process occurred in America in the 1920’s set the radical movement a long way back. Read more and make up your own mind.
AMERICAN COMMUNISM AND THE SOVIET UNION, THEODORE DRAPER, The Viking Press, New York, 1960
THE COMPANION VOLUME-THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN COMMUNISM WAS REVIEWED ON MAY 30, 2006
As an addition to the historical record of the period from the illness and death of Lenin in the Soviet Union and the ensuing struggle for power in the Russian Communist party to the consolidation of Stalinist rule and its extension to the American party in 1929 American Communism and the Soviet Union and its companion volume detailing the period from 1917 to 1923-The Roots of American Communism (which has been reviewed separately) – is the definitive scholarly study on the early history of the American Communist Party. The author, an ex-communist, but at the time of writing an anti-communist who however unlike other former communists nevertheless does a thorough job or presenting the personalities and issues in a reasonably straightforward and unbiased manner. Given that these volumes were researched and published during the heart of the Cold War hysteria against the Soviet Union in the 1950’s this is not faint praise.
Also useful for this period in conjunction with these two volumes and to round them out, from the pro-Communist partisan perspective of one of the main leaders, is James P. Cannon’s The First Ten Years of American Communism and the Prometheus Research Library’s James P. Cannon and the Early Communist Movement. Absent from Mr. Draper’s analysis is any real feel for why the early leaders and rank and file of the party put themselves on the line against American imperialism, faced harassment, imprisonment or worst to create an American Bolshevik party. While there is no dearth of memoirs of other participants in the early American communist movement, Cannon’s analysis most honestly fills that gap.
That said, why must militants read these works today? After the demise of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe anything positively related to Communist studies is deeply discounted. Nevertheless, for better or worse, the American Communist Party (and its offshoots) needs to be studied as an ultimately flawed example of a party that failed in its mission to create a radical version of society in America after it became essentially a tool of Soviet diplomacy. Now is the time for militants to study the mistakes and draw the lessons of that history.
For those not familiar with Mr. Draper’s first volume a helpful introductory chapter gives a summary of the events from 1917-1923. After the successful fight to bring the party above ground, 1923 opened with the struggle within the party, reflected by a sentiment in the American labor movement, in favor of an independent labor party, or rather a farmer-labor party. That effort proved stillborn. This is also the period when the party toyed with the idea of supporting the Lafollette movement, a bourgeois third party operation. Party support for that effort was abandoned at the last minute. Draper seems to think that the failure of the party to correctly intersect those two movements was a central reason that the party’s influence was limited in the 1920’s.
Fair enough. However, from a communist perspective what was the reality? The Farmer-Labor party was, as the name clearly denotes, a two class party which was based on contradictory programs. Ultimately, one or the other program would create fundamental antagonisms. This contradiction has been played out numerous times in the international revolutionary movement and, except in Russia where the Bolsheviks adopted the Social Revolutionary land program, has proven disastrous to the working class. As for the LaFollette movement it has long been established in the Marxist movement that bourgeois parties are not to be supported politically. No less an authority than James P. Cannon, a central leader of the party in the 1920’s has some very relevant comments on the opportunist and half-baked nature of this proposal. All in all, I think that Draper’s position is influenced by looking at these maneuvers through the prism of the Popular Front policies of the 1930’s when the party allegedly increased its influence by pandering to the New Deal Democrats and other bourgeois formations.
The party’s rocky road continues with the process of the ‘Bolshevization’ policy of the party ordered by the head of the Communist International Zinoviev to bring all parties in line with the Russian party organizational forms. I have heard of and seen much about this policy and about Zinoviev’s role in it but mainly at the level of high policy in the Comintern. Mr. Draper, for the first time in my experience, presents an analysis of the effects of the process at the base of the American party. Jesus, it was even more bureaucratically organized at the base than at the top. This was not accidental, as the cell structure mandated by the Comintern lent itself to easier bureaucratic control at the top. Zinoviev may have, historically, been underappreciated as a revolutionary politician and agitator but certainly this scheme does nothing to enhance his reputation.
Very important sections of Mr. Draper’s book deal with the intersection of communism and the black question and the struggle for American Trotskyism. I will not address the issue of American Trotskyism here as I have dealt with that topic elsewhere in this space and the reader really should read Cannon’s History of American Communism and History of American Trotskyism to fill in the details. However, Draper’s chapter on the black question is one of the best overviews of this question available.
The section on the development of communist work among blacks, the creation of a black cadre and the formulating of the question of a black nation with the right to national self-determination is an essential chapter (including footnotes at the back) for any militant trying to find the roots of communist work among blacks. Although the 1920’s was not the heyday of black recruitment to the party, the pioneer work in the 1920’s gave the party a huge leg up when the radicalization of the 1930’s among all workers occurred.
Nevertheless, the left-wing movement in America, including the Communist Party and its offshoots has always had problems with what has been called the Black Question. Marxists have always considers support to the right of national self-determination to be a wedge against the nationalists and as a way to put the class axis to the fore. In any case, Marxist have always predicated that support on there being a possibility for the group to form a nation. Absent that, other methods of struggle are necessary to deal with special oppression. Part of the problem with the American Communist position on self-determination was that the conditions which would have created the possibility of a black state were being destroyed with the mechanization of agriculture, the migration of blacks to the Northern industrial centers and the overwhelming need to fight for black people’s rights to survive under the conditions of the Great Depression. Carefully read this section.
After reviewing the history of the American Communist party from 1919- 29 I have come away with one nagging question. How did militants from different pre-World War I radicals organizations like the left wing of the Socialist Party and the Industrial Workers of the World that were clearly attracted to the Russian revolution and wanted to bring such a revolution here wind up as Stalinist publicity agents for Soviet foreign policy? I think James P. Cannon, one of the militants attracted to the Russian revolution, had his finger on an answer. Most of his fellow militants started out sincerely wanting to make a revolution (I reserve my judgment on that comment in the case of William Z. Foster) but made their accommodations with bourgeois society at some point in the 1920’s when the immediate possibilities of an American revolution looked very bleak.
In short, it is easier being a cheerleader for someone else’s revolution than to make your own. As is well known revolutionary movements are great devourers of human material. That this process occurred in America in the 1920’s set the radical movement a long way back. Read more and make up your own mind.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
*"Blood Of Spain-"Memories Of The Spanish Civil War- An Oral History From Post-Franco Spain
Click on title to link to a guest commentary on Ronald Fraser's "Blood Of Spain". e
BOOK REVIEW
BLOOD OF SPAIN; AN ORAL HISTORY OF THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR, RONALD FRASER, PANTHEON, 1979
As the 70th Anniversary of the beginning of the Spanish Civil War is approaching this writer is reviewing some important works that militants should read in order to draw the lessons of the defeat of the Spanish revolution. The writer has been interested, as a pro-Republican partisan, in the Spanish Civil War since he was a teenager. What initially perked my interest, and remains of interest, is the passionate struggle of the Spanish working class to create its own political organization of society, its leadership of the struggle against Spanish fascism and the romance surrounding the entry of the International Brigades, particularly the American Abraham Lincoln Battalion of the 15th Brigade, into the struggle.
Underlying my interests has always been a nagging question of how that struggle could have been won by the working class. The Spanish proletariat certainly was capable of both heroic action and the ability to create organizations that reflected its own class interests i.e. the worker militias and factory committees. Of all modern working class revolutions after the Russian revolution Spain showed the most promise of success. Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky noted that the political class-consciousness of the Spanish proletariat at that time was higher than that of the Russian proletariat in 1917. Yet it failed in Spain. Mr. Fraser’s oral history of the period, if only indirectly, gives some answers to the reasons for that failure.
The format Mr. Fraser has chosen, an oral history by participants from all sections of Spanish society and virtually all political parties, is an interesting way to provide those answers. His decision to emphasize the rank and file and middle-level participants as they remembered those experiences in the mid-1970’s rather than the big name leaders was also a wise decision. Lapses of memory and errors by the participants over time, however, are obvious drawbacks to this format. As are the reinforced hardening of political lines due to the suppression of political life under Franco. Additionally, from this partisan writer’s political perspective too much space was given to secondary events at the expense of actions like the May Days in Barcelona, 1937. As was Mr. Fraser's attempt to be politically all-inclusive and even-handed which sometimes confused the issues presented. Nevertheless, this is a book that militants should read in order to get the favor of the conflict.
The Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 has been the subject of innumerable works from every possible political and military perspective possible. A fair number of such treatises, especially from those responsible for the military and political policies on the Republican side, are merely alibis for the disastrous policies that led to defeat. Mr. Fraser’s work reaches down beyond those perspectives to look at the base of society that actually fought the war. What he finds is the furious nature of the struggle in Spanish society between the old agrarian- based economy and the newer capitalist- based economy; the religious tensions caused by the breakup of the old agrarian society and the tensions between believers and church-burners; the struggle between centralizers and federalists which formed the core of the unresolved national questions, especially in Catalonia; the intense political struggles within the broad sections that supported both left and right, especially the role of the Stalinist police apparatus; the international ideological political factors that played a role, if not, as erroneously assumed, the decisive factor; and, finally, the burning personal antagonisms that in a civil war pit brother against brother, family against family, town against town, etc.. Read on.
BOOK REVIEW
BLOOD OF SPAIN; AN ORAL HISTORY OF THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR, RONALD FRASER, PANTHEON, 1979
As the 70th Anniversary of the beginning of the Spanish Civil War is approaching this writer is reviewing some important works that militants should read in order to draw the lessons of the defeat of the Spanish revolution. The writer has been interested, as a pro-Republican partisan, in the Spanish Civil War since he was a teenager. What initially perked my interest, and remains of interest, is the passionate struggle of the Spanish working class to create its own political organization of society, its leadership of the struggle against Spanish fascism and the romance surrounding the entry of the International Brigades, particularly the American Abraham Lincoln Battalion of the 15th Brigade, into the struggle.
Underlying my interests has always been a nagging question of how that struggle could have been won by the working class. The Spanish proletariat certainly was capable of both heroic action and the ability to create organizations that reflected its own class interests i.e. the worker militias and factory committees. Of all modern working class revolutions after the Russian revolution Spain showed the most promise of success. Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky noted that the political class-consciousness of the Spanish proletariat at that time was higher than that of the Russian proletariat in 1917. Yet it failed in Spain. Mr. Fraser’s oral history of the period, if only indirectly, gives some answers to the reasons for that failure.
The format Mr. Fraser has chosen, an oral history by participants from all sections of Spanish society and virtually all political parties, is an interesting way to provide those answers. His decision to emphasize the rank and file and middle-level participants as they remembered those experiences in the mid-1970’s rather than the big name leaders was also a wise decision. Lapses of memory and errors by the participants over time, however, are obvious drawbacks to this format. As are the reinforced hardening of political lines due to the suppression of political life under Franco. Additionally, from this partisan writer’s political perspective too much space was given to secondary events at the expense of actions like the May Days in Barcelona, 1937. As was Mr. Fraser's attempt to be politically all-inclusive and even-handed which sometimes confused the issues presented. Nevertheless, this is a book that militants should read in order to get the favor of the conflict.
The Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 has been the subject of innumerable works from every possible political and military perspective possible. A fair number of such treatises, especially from those responsible for the military and political policies on the Republican side, are merely alibis for the disastrous policies that led to defeat. Mr. Fraser’s work reaches down beyond those perspectives to look at the base of society that actually fought the war. What he finds is the furious nature of the struggle in Spanish society between the old agrarian- based economy and the newer capitalist- based economy; the religious tensions caused by the breakup of the old agrarian society and the tensions between believers and church-burners; the struggle between centralizers and federalists which formed the core of the unresolved national questions, especially in Catalonia; the intense political struggles within the broad sections that supported both left and right, especially the role of the Stalinist police apparatus; the international ideological political factors that played a role, if not, as erroneously assumed, the decisive factor; and, finally, the burning personal antagonisms that in a civil war pit brother against brother, family against family, town against town, etc.. Read on.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
THE HEROIC AGE OF AMERICAN COMMUNISM-From The Pen Of James P.Cannon
BOOK REVIEW
THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN TROTSKYISM, James P. Cannon, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1972
If you are interested in the history of the American Left or are a militant trying to understand some of the past lessons of our history concerning the communist response to various social and labor questions this book is for you. This book is part of a continuing series of volumes of the writings of James P. Cannon that were published by the organization he founded, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Cannon died in 1974. Look in this space for other related reviews of this series of documents on and by an important American Communist.
In their introduction the editors motivate the purpose for the publication of the book by stating the Cannon was the finest Communist leader that America had ever produced. This an intriguing question that has underlined this reviewer's approach to these volumes. The editors trace their political lineage back to Cannon’s leadership of the early Communist Party and later after his expulsion to the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party so their perspective is obvious. What does the documentation provided here show?
This certainly is the period of Cannon’s political maturation, and the beginning of a long political collaboration working with Trotsky. The period under discussion- from the late 1920’s when he was expelled as leader of the American Communist Party through the early 1930’s with the start of the great labor upsurge which would bring wide spread unionization to the working class to 1938 and the formation of the SWP. Cannon won his spurs in this struggle to orient those organizations toward a revolutionary path. One thing is sure- in his prime, which includes this period- Cannon had the instincts to want to lead a revolution and had the evident capacity to do so. That he never had an opportunity to lead a revolution is his personal tragedy and ours as well.
This book is based on a series of lectures that Cannon gave in New York in 1943 before he, along with 17 other party leaders, went to prison for revolutionary opposition to World War II. Volumes of his writings, as noted above, published later have dealt much more fully with some of the subjects of these lectures. I note The History of American Communism on the origins of the Communist party; The Left Opposition, 1928-31 on the early “dog days” after his expulsion from the Communist Party; The Communist League of America, 1932-1934 on the fight to go to the masses with an upsurge in labor struggles; and, the separately published James P. Cannon and the Early American Communist Movement on the internal struggle in the early period.
Thus, I want to take up for review and analysis here the last part of the present book the period and policies which have come down in the history of the international Trotskyist movement as the ‘French turn’. In America this policy meant that the Workers Party, predecessor of the SWP formed in 1934, dissolved and entered the Socialist Party (SP) as part of an international tactic of revolutionary regroupment in the process of forming a vanguard party.
This writer has long been interested in and a little uneasy about the implementation of the policy of the ‘French turn’. Since it is not immediately apparent why one political organization would enter another organization for such a purpose and because many of today’s militants may not be familiar with the period a little pre-history is in order. After the rise of Hitler in Germany in 1933 and after the defeat of the heroic Austrian working class in 1934 there was great turmoil toward the left in the international labor movement. That movement, in reaction and disgust at the erroneous policies of the Communist International and its ‘third period’ catastrophic theory of capitalist collapse, gravitated toward the international social democracy.
Trotsky, after declaring the Communist International and its parties dead as revolutionary organizations in the wake of Hitler’s rise in Germany maintained that new parties internationally and a new International was on the political agenda. Thus, the question for the mainly small and somewhat poorly organized pro-Trotskyist propaganda groupings was the need to move away from acting as a faction of the Comintern in order to take advantage of turmoil in the international labor movement in order to break out of their isolation and create at least small vanguard parties. Trotsky responded by strongly suggesting that his followers, at first in France then later elsewhere, enter social democratic and labor organizations in order to take advantage of this leftward movement.
In America, under Cannon’s leadership, the Communist League of America (CLA) after successfully leading labor strikes in Minneapolis and elsewhere, fused with other radical labor activists in 1934 into the American Workers Party headed by A.J. Muste to form the Workers Party (WP) in 1934. While the cadre of the CLA were politically well-educated and theoretically grounded that was not as true of Muste’s forces. In a sense this fusion represented on the American terrain an application of the Trotsky-inspired international entry policy. Nevertheless, Cannon led the drive for what amounted to a second use of the entry tactic into the Socialist Party in order to intersect the growing left wing there.
The implementation of this policy was the subject of two internal fights in the WP before the policy was finally approved. The first fight was led those who were opposed to such an entry on the principle that revolutionaries could not enter a party affiliated with the betrayers of the Second International (the Oehlerites). That policy leads to sectarianism and isolation. The second fight, led by Muste himself, was concerned with the separate organizational integrity of the WP. That policy leads to organizational fetishism and isolation. At the time, and in hindsight, no militant could or should have argued on either of these grounds. Nevertheless, this writer believes an argument could be made on tactical grounds against entry in the Socialist Party. Why? Because of the untested nature of the newly-formed and politically undereducated WP. A sophisicated maneuver such as entry against a hardened, opportunist Socialist left wing with such forces would cause later problems. As indeed they did. The reviewer’s alternative. United front, that is march separately but fight together, the Socialist Party to death whenever and wherenever common issues came up, especially on trade union policy in the rising CIO, the role of their comrades in the Spanish Civil War and their response to the Moscow Trials.
Cannon, in defending the policy at the time mentions that, despite the onerous conditions of entry set by the left-wing leadership, he believed, as did Trotsky, that the results of entry were justified by the organizational wreckage of the Socialist Party after the expulsion of the Trotskyist forces. Additional factors included the accrual of new forces, the freezing out of the Stalinists from influence in the Socialist Party and the work of the Trotsky Defense Committee. Those results may be creditable but this writer believes that such results could have been obtained more easily from the outside.
The reviewer’s position has always been colored by looking at the policy from the hindsight of the divisive and fundamental faction fight of the 1939-40 period which basically split the party in two over the question of defense of the Soviet Union when it became operative in the lead up to World War II. Not an inconsiderable section of the opposition to defense of the Soviet Union came from the forces, especially from the socialist youth group, recruited during the entry. Thus, I still remain troubled by the policy. In the future militants will once again have to face this problem of how to regroup revolutionary forces, although naturally it will be under different conditions. Nevertheless the question of whether to use or not use this tactic in any particular situation will come up. Read this section of the book and make up your own mind on this question.
SOME OF THE BOOKS REVIEWED HERE MAY NOT BE READILY AVAILABLE AT LOCAL LIBRARIES OR BOOKSTORES. CHECK AMAZON.COM FOR AVAILABILITY THERE, BOTH NEW AND USED. YOU CAN ALSO GOOGLE THE JAMES P. CANNON INTERNET ARCHIVES.
THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN TROTSKYISM, James P. Cannon, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1972
If you are interested in the history of the American Left or are a militant trying to understand some of the past lessons of our history concerning the communist response to various social and labor questions this book is for you. This book is part of a continuing series of volumes of the writings of James P. Cannon that were published by the organization he founded, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Cannon died in 1974. Look in this space for other related reviews of this series of documents on and by an important American Communist.
In their introduction the editors motivate the purpose for the publication of the book by stating the Cannon was the finest Communist leader that America had ever produced. This an intriguing question that has underlined this reviewer's approach to these volumes. The editors trace their political lineage back to Cannon’s leadership of the early Communist Party and later after his expulsion to the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party so their perspective is obvious. What does the documentation provided here show?
This certainly is the period of Cannon’s political maturation, and the beginning of a long political collaboration working with Trotsky. The period under discussion- from the late 1920’s when he was expelled as leader of the American Communist Party through the early 1930’s with the start of the great labor upsurge which would bring wide spread unionization to the working class to 1938 and the formation of the SWP. Cannon won his spurs in this struggle to orient those organizations toward a revolutionary path. One thing is sure- in his prime, which includes this period- Cannon had the instincts to want to lead a revolution and had the evident capacity to do so. That he never had an opportunity to lead a revolution is his personal tragedy and ours as well.
This book is based on a series of lectures that Cannon gave in New York in 1943 before he, along with 17 other party leaders, went to prison for revolutionary opposition to World War II. Volumes of his writings, as noted above, published later have dealt much more fully with some of the subjects of these lectures. I note The History of American Communism on the origins of the Communist party; The Left Opposition, 1928-31 on the early “dog days” after his expulsion from the Communist Party; The Communist League of America, 1932-1934 on the fight to go to the masses with an upsurge in labor struggles; and, the separately published James P. Cannon and the Early American Communist Movement on the internal struggle in the early period.
Thus, I want to take up for review and analysis here the last part of the present book the period and policies which have come down in the history of the international Trotskyist movement as the ‘French turn’. In America this policy meant that the Workers Party, predecessor of the SWP formed in 1934, dissolved and entered the Socialist Party (SP) as part of an international tactic of revolutionary regroupment in the process of forming a vanguard party.
This writer has long been interested in and a little uneasy about the implementation of the policy of the ‘French turn’. Since it is not immediately apparent why one political organization would enter another organization for such a purpose and because many of today’s militants may not be familiar with the period a little pre-history is in order. After the rise of Hitler in Germany in 1933 and after the defeat of the heroic Austrian working class in 1934 there was great turmoil toward the left in the international labor movement. That movement, in reaction and disgust at the erroneous policies of the Communist International and its ‘third period’ catastrophic theory of capitalist collapse, gravitated toward the international social democracy.
Trotsky, after declaring the Communist International and its parties dead as revolutionary organizations in the wake of Hitler’s rise in Germany maintained that new parties internationally and a new International was on the political agenda. Thus, the question for the mainly small and somewhat poorly organized pro-Trotskyist propaganda groupings was the need to move away from acting as a faction of the Comintern in order to take advantage of turmoil in the international labor movement in order to break out of their isolation and create at least small vanguard parties. Trotsky responded by strongly suggesting that his followers, at first in France then later elsewhere, enter social democratic and labor organizations in order to take advantage of this leftward movement.
In America, under Cannon’s leadership, the Communist League of America (CLA) after successfully leading labor strikes in Minneapolis and elsewhere, fused with other radical labor activists in 1934 into the American Workers Party headed by A.J. Muste to form the Workers Party (WP) in 1934. While the cadre of the CLA were politically well-educated and theoretically grounded that was not as true of Muste’s forces. In a sense this fusion represented on the American terrain an application of the Trotsky-inspired international entry policy. Nevertheless, Cannon led the drive for what amounted to a second use of the entry tactic into the Socialist Party in order to intersect the growing left wing there.
The implementation of this policy was the subject of two internal fights in the WP before the policy was finally approved. The first fight was led those who were opposed to such an entry on the principle that revolutionaries could not enter a party affiliated with the betrayers of the Second International (the Oehlerites). That policy leads to sectarianism and isolation. The second fight, led by Muste himself, was concerned with the separate organizational integrity of the WP. That policy leads to organizational fetishism and isolation. At the time, and in hindsight, no militant could or should have argued on either of these grounds. Nevertheless, this writer believes an argument could be made on tactical grounds against entry in the Socialist Party. Why? Because of the untested nature of the newly-formed and politically undereducated WP. A sophisicated maneuver such as entry against a hardened, opportunist Socialist left wing with such forces would cause later problems. As indeed they did. The reviewer’s alternative. United front, that is march separately but fight together, the Socialist Party to death whenever and wherenever common issues came up, especially on trade union policy in the rising CIO, the role of their comrades in the Spanish Civil War and their response to the Moscow Trials.
Cannon, in defending the policy at the time mentions that, despite the onerous conditions of entry set by the left-wing leadership, he believed, as did Trotsky, that the results of entry were justified by the organizational wreckage of the Socialist Party after the expulsion of the Trotskyist forces. Additional factors included the accrual of new forces, the freezing out of the Stalinists from influence in the Socialist Party and the work of the Trotsky Defense Committee. Those results may be creditable but this writer believes that such results could have been obtained more easily from the outside.
The reviewer’s position has always been colored by looking at the policy from the hindsight of the divisive and fundamental faction fight of the 1939-40 period which basically split the party in two over the question of defense of the Soviet Union when it became operative in the lead up to World War II. Not an inconsiderable section of the opposition to defense of the Soviet Union came from the forces, especially from the socialist youth group, recruited during the entry. Thus, I still remain troubled by the policy. In the future militants will once again have to face this problem of how to regroup revolutionary forces, although naturally it will be under different conditions. Nevertheless the question of whether to use or not use this tactic in any particular situation will come up. Read this section of the book and make up your own mind on this question.
SOME OF THE BOOKS REVIEWED HERE MAY NOT BE READILY AVAILABLE AT LOCAL LIBRARIES OR BOOKSTORES. CHECK AMAZON.COM FOR AVAILABILITY THERE, BOTH NEW AND USED. YOU CAN ALSO GOOGLE THE JAMES P. CANNON INTERNET ARCHIVES.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
SENATOR KERRY FINALLY GETS IT- A LITTLE
COMMENTARY
‘CUT AND RUN’ IN IRAQ NOW-YOU BET. GET THE TROOP TRANSPORTS REVVED UP ON THE RUNWAY TODAY.
IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED STATES/ALLIED TROOPS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST NOW! NO TO KERRY’S DRAW DOWN PLAN.
FORGET ELEPHANTS, DONKEYS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY
Just when this writer thought it was safe to slide into summer and take a little breather from the tedious observation of the buildup to the 2006-2008 election cycle worming his way out of the woodwork comes Senator John Forbes Kerry, puntative Democratic presidential hopeful. Kerry’s purpose- to unvail yet another plan to withdraw United States troops from Iraq (but not from the region) in an undaunted effort to get himself out of his previous pro-war quagmire. And he wants the Senate to debate the proposal, to boot. The yahoos on the right from the President on down are already salivating over the prospect of having ‘Cut and Run’ John in their sights.
While militants take no pleasure at the antics of the right Kerry’s proposal is not what serious militants mean by withdrawal. We mean Immediate Withdrawal (that means now, better yet, yesterday) and bringing the troops back to the United States (not Kuwait, etc.). And most definitely not as reserve troops for some other imperialist adventure, like Afghanistan. If we had workers party representatives in Congress we would shapely oppose and loudly vote down this proposal and counterpose our own, on the above mentioned conditions.
This writer can appreciate that Senator Kerry has pretty forthrightly, for a capitalist politican, repudiated his previous pro-war stance. The writer, himself, was slow to oppose the Vietnam War. We have all made political mistakes. The point is not to try to make a political virtue out of that mistake. But, what I really want to know is this. When is Senator Kerry (or any other capitalist politican) going to vote in opposition to the war budget? That, at this point, is the only real form of opposition to the war on the parlimentray level. Militants must hold any candidate's feet to the fire on this issue.
One more point- Senator Kerry is not like Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, a hawk and creature of defense interests, who came out of nowhere to oppose the Iraq war. Senator Kerry had some credentials, severely tarnished by now to be sure, as an opponent of unjust wars from his anti-Vietnam War days. Now, after over three years and one presidential campaign and long after all serious militants have long opposed the war Kerry tries to bleed all over us with his sorry mea culpas. No thanks. Apologies not accepted.
As a footnote- Hillary 'War-Hawk' Clinton still does not get it. Don’t worry, General Hillary, we are coming after your political head too. John Forbes Kerry just raised his profile earlier. And you wonder why we need to build a workers party. Enough said.
POSTSCRIPT- JUNE 17, 2006- WHEN THESE GUYS AND GALS IN CONGRESS WANT TO BURY SOMETHING THEY CAN DO IT QUICKLY. SENATOR KERRY'S PROPOSAL ON A TROOP DRAW DOWN FROM IRAQ WAS PLACED ON THE SHELF BY A VOTE OF 93-6. THAT MEANS EVEN THE SO-CALLED ANTI-WAR SENATORS IN KERRY'S OWN DEMOCRATIC PARTY DID NOT WANT TO TOUCH THIS PROPOSAL WITH A TEN-FOOT POLE. JESUS, WHERE DO THEY GET THESE GUYS (AND GALS) FROM. ON THE REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE- THE VOTE ON THE WAR BUDGET, OR RATHER THE SUPPLEMENTARY WAR BUDGET THE VOTE WAS 98-1(ONLY SENATOR SPECTOR FOR DIFFERENT REASONS VOTED AGAINST). THAT MEANS NO SO-CALLED ANTI-WAR DEMOCRAT VOTED AGAINST IT. I SAY AGAIN-AND YOU WONDER WHY WE NEED A WORKERS PARTY. FORWARD.
‘CUT AND RUN’ IN IRAQ NOW-YOU BET. GET THE TROOP TRANSPORTS REVVED UP ON THE RUNWAY TODAY.
IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED STATES/ALLIED TROOPS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST NOW! NO TO KERRY’S DRAW DOWN PLAN.
FORGET ELEPHANTS, DONKEYS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY
Just when this writer thought it was safe to slide into summer and take a little breather from the tedious observation of the buildup to the 2006-2008 election cycle worming his way out of the woodwork comes Senator John Forbes Kerry, puntative Democratic presidential hopeful. Kerry’s purpose- to unvail yet another plan to withdraw United States troops from Iraq (but not from the region) in an undaunted effort to get himself out of his previous pro-war quagmire. And he wants the Senate to debate the proposal, to boot. The yahoos on the right from the President on down are already salivating over the prospect of having ‘Cut and Run’ John in their sights.
While militants take no pleasure at the antics of the right Kerry’s proposal is not what serious militants mean by withdrawal. We mean Immediate Withdrawal (that means now, better yet, yesterday) and bringing the troops back to the United States (not Kuwait, etc.). And most definitely not as reserve troops for some other imperialist adventure, like Afghanistan. If we had workers party representatives in Congress we would shapely oppose and loudly vote down this proposal and counterpose our own, on the above mentioned conditions.
This writer can appreciate that Senator Kerry has pretty forthrightly, for a capitalist politican, repudiated his previous pro-war stance. The writer, himself, was slow to oppose the Vietnam War. We have all made political mistakes. The point is not to try to make a political virtue out of that mistake. But, what I really want to know is this. When is Senator Kerry (or any other capitalist politican) going to vote in opposition to the war budget? That, at this point, is the only real form of opposition to the war on the parlimentray level. Militants must hold any candidate's feet to the fire on this issue.
One more point- Senator Kerry is not like Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, a hawk and creature of defense interests, who came out of nowhere to oppose the Iraq war. Senator Kerry had some credentials, severely tarnished by now to be sure, as an opponent of unjust wars from his anti-Vietnam War days. Now, after over three years and one presidential campaign and long after all serious militants have long opposed the war Kerry tries to bleed all over us with his sorry mea culpas. No thanks. Apologies not accepted.
As a footnote- Hillary 'War-Hawk' Clinton still does not get it. Don’t worry, General Hillary, we are coming after your political head too. John Forbes Kerry just raised his profile earlier. And you wonder why we need to build a workers party. Enough said.
POSTSCRIPT- JUNE 17, 2006- WHEN THESE GUYS AND GALS IN CONGRESS WANT TO BURY SOMETHING THEY CAN DO IT QUICKLY. SENATOR KERRY'S PROPOSAL ON A TROOP DRAW DOWN FROM IRAQ WAS PLACED ON THE SHELF BY A VOTE OF 93-6. THAT MEANS EVEN THE SO-CALLED ANTI-WAR SENATORS IN KERRY'S OWN DEMOCRATIC PARTY DID NOT WANT TO TOUCH THIS PROPOSAL WITH A TEN-FOOT POLE. JESUS, WHERE DO THEY GET THESE GUYS (AND GALS) FROM. ON THE REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE- THE VOTE ON THE WAR BUDGET, OR RATHER THE SUPPLEMENTARY WAR BUDGET THE VOTE WAS 98-1(ONLY SENATOR SPECTOR FOR DIFFERENT REASONS VOTED AGAINST). THAT MEANS NO SO-CALLED ANTI-WAR DEMOCRAT VOTED AGAINST IT. I SAY AGAIN-AND YOU WONDER WHY WE NEED A WORKERS PARTY. FORWARD.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
*DEFEND LYNNE STEWART, MOHAMED YOUSRY, AHMED ABDEL SATTAR!
Click on title to link the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee site.
COMMENTARY
THIS NOTICE IS PASSED ON FROM THE PARTISAN DEFENSE COMMITTEE, P.O. BOX 99, CANAL STREET STATION, NEW YORK, NY. 10013-0099. I NEED ONLY ADD THAT TOO FEW LAWYERS HAVE BEEN AS INTREPID IN THE DEFENSE OF UNPOPULAR CASES AND THE STRUGGLE FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AS MS. STEWART. SHE MUST NOT SERVE ANY JAIL TIME AND MUST BE VINDICATED ON APPEAL ON THE FRAME UP CHARGES SO SHE CAN CONTINUE TO REPRESENT THE OPPRESSED AND FORGOTTEN OF THE WORLD. A FEW MORE FIGHTING LAWYERS WOULD ALSO HELP.
NEW YORK CITY—It is urgent that fighters for civil liberties and black and labor rights rally to the defense of leftist attorney Lynne Stewart, translator Mohamed Yousry and paralegal Ahmed Abdel Sattar. The three are scheduled for sentencing on March 10, having been convicted on frame-up charges of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism and to defraud the U.S. government. The 65-year-old Stewart, who has been diagnosed with cancer, faces more than 20 years in prison—an effective life sentence. Her "crime" was her vigorous legal defense of Islamic fundamentalist cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for conspiracy to blow up NYC-area landmarks. Yousry also faces more than 20 years, while Abdel Sattar may get a life sentence. These convictions are outrageous attacks on the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney as well as everybody's free speech rights. Protest outside the courthouse at Thomas Paine Park, Centre and Worth Streets in lower Manhattan, 9:00 a.m.! Pack the courtroom!
Stewart's alleged crime consists of making the views of her imprisoned client known to a Reuters journalist, in violation of unprecedented and patently unconstitutional Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) devised by the Clinton government. The government's case was based on hundreds of hours of videotaped and recorded discussions between the sheik and his attorney that are supposed to be free from government snoops. The prosecution was allowed to play inflammatory and irrelevant videotapes of Osama bin Laden during the anniversary week of the September 11 attacks—in a courtroom located within walking distance of the World Trade Center! Following the trial, one juror wrote to the judge that she had been pressured by the witchhunt atmosphere of the deliberations into voting for conviction, against her better judgment. She had been told by another juror that if she didn't vote to convict, it would be her fault if anyone died in a terrorist attack.
In an October ruling rejecting defense motions to overturn the verdicts, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl cited a previous court ruling that "speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it is the very vehicle of the crime itself." But even the U.S. attorneys who prosecuted the case admitted that no crime occurred, that no terrorist attack resulted from this fabricated "conspiracy." As we stressed in "Lynne Stewart Denied New Trial" (WV No. 860, 9 December 2005), the government's aim "is not only to scare away any lawyer from defending a client with unpopular views but to criminalize dissent."
Stewart's translator, Mohamed Yousry, is a graduate student who had been carrying out research for his doctorate on Abdel Rahman on the recommendation of his New York University department chairman, Zachary Lockman. In a Los Angeles Times (6 February) opinion piece, Lockman wrote that if this conviction is allowed to stand, "We may well see other translators prosecuted for doing their jobs, and other scholars facing jail terms for conducting research on controversial issues." But the Bush administration has not always been getting its way in its attempt to silence critics of government policy. In December, the six-month trial of Palestinian rights activist Sami Al-Arian, former University of South Florida professor, and three co-defendants, who faced 51 charges related to "supporting terrorism," ended in acquittal or a hung jury on all counts. Al-Arian still faces retrial and possible deportation. Government hands off Sami Al-Arian!
Since her conviction, Lynne Stewart has continued speaking out against government repression, including at a Partisan Defense Committee rally in NYC in support of her struggle and in defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal and Assata Shakur (see "Lynne Stewart Speaks at NYC Rally," WV No. 855, 30 September 2005). Stewart was targeted particularly for her lifetime of legal practice in defense of victims of repression and racist injustice. What next? Will publishing a column by Mumia, who was framed up in effect as a "terrorist" for his political views, be considered "material support to terrorism"?
This "war on terror" prosecution threatens the rights of all who would fight against anti-immigrant bigotry, racial oppression and attacks on labor. Just as the prosecution of Stewart, Yousry and Abdel Sattar has ominous implications, so too does powerful protest in their defense have broader portent. The capitalist courts have made clear their intention to seal their fate behind bars. The labor movement and all defenders of democratic rights have every interest in fighting against this frame-up.
COMMENTARY
THIS NOTICE IS PASSED ON FROM THE PARTISAN DEFENSE COMMITTEE, P.O. BOX 99, CANAL STREET STATION, NEW YORK, NY. 10013-0099. I NEED ONLY ADD THAT TOO FEW LAWYERS HAVE BEEN AS INTREPID IN THE DEFENSE OF UNPOPULAR CASES AND THE STRUGGLE FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AS MS. STEWART. SHE MUST NOT SERVE ANY JAIL TIME AND MUST BE VINDICATED ON APPEAL ON THE FRAME UP CHARGES SO SHE CAN CONTINUE TO REPRESENT THE OPPRESSED AND FORGOTTEN OF THE WORLD. A FEW MORE FIGHTING LAWYERS WOULD ALSO HELP.
NEW YORK CITY—It is urgent that fighters for civil liberties and black and labor rights rally to the defense of leftist attorney Lynne Stewart, translator Mohamed Yousry and paralegal Ahmed Abdel Sattar. The three are scheduled for sentencing on March 10, having been convicted on frame-up charges of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism and to defraud the U.S. government. The 65-year-old Stewart, who has been diagnosed with cancer, faces more than 20 years in prison—an effective life sentence. Her "crime" was her vigorous legal defense of Islamic fundamentalist cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for conspiracy to blow up NYC-area landmarks. Yousry also faces more than 20 years, while Abdel Sattar may get a life sentence. These convictions are outrageous attacks on the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney as well as everybody's free speech rights. Protest outside the courthouse at Thomas Paine Park, Centre and Worth Streets in lower Manhattan, 9:00 a.m.! Pack the courtroom!
Stewart's alleged crime consists of making the views of her imprisoned client known to a Reuters journalist, in violation of unprecedented and patently unconstitutional Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) devised by the Clinton government. The government's case was based on hundreds of hours of videotaped and recorded discussions between the sheik and his attorney that are supposed to be free from government snoops. The prosecution was allowed to play inflammatory and irrelevant videotapes of Osama bin Laden during the anniversary week of the September 11 attacks—in a courtroom located within walking distance of the World Trade Center! Following the trial, one juror wrote to the judge that she had been pressured by the witchhunt atmosphere of the deliberations into voting for conviction, against her better judgment. She had been told by another juror that if she didn't vote to convict, it would be her fault if anyone died in a terrorist attack.
In an October ruling rejecting defense motions to overturn the verdicts, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl cited a previous court ruling that "speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it is the very vehicle of the crime itself." But even the U.S. attorneys who prosecuted the case admitted that no crime occurred, that no terrorist attack resulted from this fabricated "conspiracy." As we stressed in "Lynne Stewart Denied New Trial" (WV No. 860, 9 December 2005), the government's aim "is not only to scare away any lawyer from defending a client with unpopular views but to criminalize dissent."
Stewart's translator, Mohamed Yousry, is a graduate student who had been carrying out research for his doctorate on Abdel Rahman on the recommendation of his New York University department chairman, Zachary Lockman. In a Los Angeles Times (6 February) opinion piece, Lockman wrote that if this conviction is allowed to stand, "We may well see other translators prosecuted for doing their jobs, and other scholars facing jail terms for conducting research on controversial issues." But the Bush administration has not always been getting its way in its attempt to silence critics of government policy. In December, the six-month trial of Palestinian rights activist Sami Al-Arian, former University of South Florida professor, and three co-defendants, who faced 51 charges related to "supporting terrorism," ended in acquittal or a hung jury on all counts. Al-Arian still faces retrial and possible deportation. Government hands off Sami Al-Arian!
Since her conviction, Lynne Stewart has continued speaking out against government repression, including at a Partisan Defense Committee rally in NYC in support of her struggle and in defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal and Assata Shakur (see "Lynne Stewart Speaks at NYC Rally," WV No. 855, 30 September 2005). Stewart was targeted particularly for her lifetime of legal practice in defense of victims of repression and racist injustice. What next? Will publishing a column by Mumia, who was framed up in effect as a "terrorist" for his political views, be considered "material support to terrorism"?
This "war on terror" prosecution threatens the rights of all who would fight against anti-immigrant bigotry, racial oppression and attacks on labor. Just as the prosecution of Stewart, Yousry and Abdel Sattar has ominous implications, so too does powerful protest in their defense have broader portent. The capitalist courts have made clear their intention to seal their fate behind bars. The labor movement and all defenders of democratic rights have every interest in fighting against this frame-up.
*IN HONOR OF RICHARD WILLIAMS OF THE OHIO SEVEN
Click on the title to link to "Wikipedia"'s entry for the Ohio 7. As always with this source and its collective editorial policy, especially with controversial political groups like the Ohio 7, be careful checking the accuracy of the information provided at any given time.
COMMENTARY
THIS NOTICE IS PASSED ON FROM THE PARTISAN DEFENSE COMMITTEE, P.O. BOX 99, CANAL STREET STATION, NEW YORK, NY 10013-0099. Check link at right. I NEED ONLY ADD THAT THE LAST OF THE OHIO SEVEN, LAAMAN AND MANNING MUST NOT DIE IN PRISON.
Richard Williams, one of three remaining Ohio 7 prisoners, died at the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, on 7 December 2005, one month after his 58th birthday. The cause was complications resulting from cancer and Hepatitis C. Prison and government authorities hounded Williams—who maintained to the end his anti-imperialist, anti-racist beliefs—to his grave. When he could barely walk, he was still shackled and chained any time he left the Butner facility. Interferon treatments were delayed until it was far too late.
This is bitter news. Williams had been held at U.S. Penitentiary Lompoc, California, and was remanded to solitary after the September 2001 terror attacks. As his son, Netdahe Williams Stoddard, wrote in a recent letter: "Richard was a strong and healthy man up to that autumn of 2001. Fifteen months of solitary confinement, lack of exercise, medical neglect and abuse by a reactionary and vengeful federal government left dad suffering from an array of medical problems." Even after he suffered a mild heart attack in February 2002, during a short stay back in the general prison population, Lompoc authorities sent him back to solitary.
Richard Williams came of age politically in prison. A working-class kid from Beverly, Massachusetts, in 1967 he chose prison over joining the Army when convicted of marijuana possession. In prison again in the early '70s, he organized protests and strikes for better conditions. After his release, he joined other activists in protecting the homes of people in the Boston area who were targeted by anti-busing racists. In 1979, he and his comrades went to Greensboro, North Carolina, to protest the Klan's murder of five unionists, civil rights workers and supporters of the Communist Workers Party. In 1981, he joined what he called "the armed clandestine movement."
Williams was convicted in 1986 of five bombings of military recruitment and corporate facilities and sentenced to 45 years. But an effective life sentence wasn't enough for a government that wanted to bury such radicals in prison. The next year he went on trial for the 1981 killing of a New Jersey state trooper. Fellow Ohio 7 defendant Tom Manning testified that he had shot the officer in self-defense and that Williams was not even present. The result was a hung jury.
In 1989 Williams was tried on charges of conspiring with fellow Ohio 7 defendants Ray Luc Levasseur (released from prison in November 2004) and Patricia Gros Levasseur to overthrow the government of the United States. The charges of "seditious conspiracy" were based on a 1948 law designed to criminalize left-wing political and labor activity (see "RICO Witchhunt Targets Ohio 7," WV No. 476, 28 April 1989). But despite spending millions on a trial that dragged on for months against an isolated handful of leftists, the government's attempt to revive "thought crime" sedition prosecutions was rejected when the jury refused to convict.
The government wasn't finished, however. In 1991 he was retried and convicted of the New Jersey killing in a courtroom packed with state troopers and their supporters. Criminally, Williams and the rest of the Ohio 7 were abandoned by the bulk of the left, including many of those who had vicariously cheered their earlier actions. As Ray Levasseur wrote in 1992: "The real deal with those that renounce us and retreat from trials and prison battlegrounds is that we are seen as anti-imperialists with guns.... The dichotomy was striking: a frenzied police power bent on exacting their pound of flesh, and the wilted response of the Left"
The actions of the Ohio 7 are not crimes from the standpoint of the working class. However, as Marxists, we do not share the political views that animated Richard Williams, Jaan Laaman, Tom Manning and the rest of the Ohio 7. Despairing of organizing the proletariat in struggle, they decided that the road to fighting this racist, exploitative system was "clandestine armed resistance" by a handful of dedicated leftists. Despite these political differences, the Spartacist League and Partisan Defense Committee have forthrightly defended these militants, adding Williams, Laaman, Manning and Levasseur to the PDC's prisoner stipend program, and have always respected their commitment and integrity.
At the PDC's Holiday Appeal benefit in New York City, two days after Richard Williams' death, leftist attorney Lynne Stewart spoke movingly of her years-long association with Williams. Stewart, who faces sentencing on trumped-up charges of "aiding terrorism" for her defense of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, noted that Williams and his comrades "truly believed in what they were doing. And they truly believed that victory was around the corner."
Richard Williams stood up to some of the worst that the rulers' courts and prison system could inflict and never wavered. He never repudiated his road taken, and more than 20 years in prison hellholes could not break him. Honor Richard Williams! Free Jaan Laaman and Tom Manning!
COMMENTARY
THIS NOTICE IS PASSED ON FROM THE PARTISAN DEFENSE COMMITTEE, P.O. BOX 99, CANAL STREET STATION, NEW YORK, NY 10013-0099. Check link at right. I NEED ONLY ADD THAT THE LAST OF THE OHIO SEVEN, LAAMAN AND MANNING MUST NOT DIE IN PRISON.
Richard Williams, one of three remaining Ohio 7 prisoners, died at the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, on 7 December 2005, one month after his 58th birthday. The cause was complications resulting from cancer and Hepatitis C. Prison and government authorities hounded Williams—who maintained to the end his anti-imperialist, anti-racist beliefs—to his grave. When he could barely walk, he was still shackled and chained any time he left the Butner facility. Interferon treatments were delayed until it was far too late.
This is bitter news. Williams had been held at U.S. Penitentiary Lompoc, California, and was remanded to solitary after the September 2001 terror attacks. As his son, Netdahe Williams Stoddard, wrote in a recent letter: "Richard was a strong and healthy man up to that autumn of 2001. Fifteen months of solitary confinement, lack of exercise, medical neglect and abuse by a reactionary and vengeful federal government left dad suffering from an array of medical problems." Even after he suffered a mild heart attack in February 2002, during a short stay back in the general prison population, Lompoc authorities sent him back to solitary.
Richard Williams came of age politically in prison. A working-class kid from Beverly, Massachusetts, in 1967 he chose prison over joining the Army when convicted of marijuana possession. In prison again in the early '70s, he organized protests and strikes for better conditions. After his release, he joined other activists in protecting the homes of people in the Boston area who were targeted by anti-busing racists. In 1979, he and his comrades went to Greensboro, North Carolina, to protest the Klan's murder of five unionists, civil rights workers and supporters of the Communist Workers Party. In 1981, he joined what he called "the armed clandestine movement."
Williams was convicted in 1986 of five bombings of military recruitment and corporate facilities and sentenced to 45 years. But an effective life sentence wasn't enough for a government that wanted to bury such radicals in prison. The next year he went on trial for the 1981 killing of a New Jersey state trooper. Fellow Ohio 7 defendant Tom Manning testified that he had shot the officer in self-defense and that Williams was not even present. The result was a hung jury.
In 1989 Williams was tried on charges of conspiring with fellow Ohio 7 defendants Ray Luc Levasseur (released from prison in November 2004) and Patricia Gros Levasseur to overthrow the government of the United States. The charges of "seditious conspiracy" were based on a 1948 law designed to criminalize left-wing political and labor activity (see "RICO Witchhunt Targets Ohio 7," WV No. 476, 28 April 1989). But despite spending millions on a trial that dragged on for months against an isolated handful of leftists, the government's attempt to revive "thought crime" sedition prosecutions was rejected when the jury refused to convict.
The government wasn't finished, however. In 1991 he was retried and convicted of the New Jersey killing in a courtroom packed with state troopers and their supporters. Criminally, Williams and the rest of the Ohio 7 were abandoned by the bulk of the left, including many of those who had vicariously cheered their earlier actions. As Ray Levasseur wrote in 1992: "The real deal with those that renounce us and retreat from trials and prison battlegrounds is that we are seen as anti-imperialists with guns.... The dichotomy was striking: a frenzied police power bent on exacting their pound of flesh, and the wilted response of the Left"
The actions of the Ohio 7 are not crimes from the standpoint of the working class. However, as Marxists, we do not share the political views that animated Richard Williams, Jaan Laaman, Tom Manning and the rest of the Ohio 7. Despairing of organizing the proletariat in struggle, they decided that the road to fighting this racist, exploitative system was "clandestine armed resistance" by a handful of dedicated leftists. Despite these political differences, the Spartacist League and Partisan Defense Committee have forthrightly defended these militants, adding Williams, Laaman, Manning and Levasseur to the PDC's prisoner stipend program, and have always respected their commitment and integrity.
At the PDC's Holiday Appeal benefit in New York City, two days after Richard Williams' death, leftist attorney Lynne Stewart spoke movingly of her years-long association with Williams. Stewart, who faces sentencing on trumped-up charges of "aiding terrorism" for her defense of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, noted that Williams and his comrades "truly believed in what they were doing. And they truly believed that victory was around the corner."
Richard Williams stood up to some of the worst that the rulers' courts and prison system could inflict and never wavered. He never repudiated his road taken, and more than 20 years in prison hellholes could not break him. Honor Richard Williams! Free Jaan Laaman and Tom Manning!
* From The Partisan Defense Committee-FREE JAAN LAAMAN AND TOM MANNING!
Click on the title to link to the Partisan Defense Committee Web site.
COMMENTARY
THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN PASSED ON FROM THE PARTISAN DEFENSE COMMITTEE, P.O BOX 99, CANAL STREET STATION, NEW YORK, NY 10013-0099. I NEED ONLY ADD MILITANTS MUST SUPPORT THE CALL TO FREE THE LAST OF THE OHIO SEVEN. THEY MUST NOT DIE IN PRISON.
In April 2005, we added Tom Manning to our prisoner stipend program along with his comrades Jaan Laaman and Richard Williams, as we had with Ray Luc Levasseur up through his release in 2004. Now Tom Manning and Jaan Laaman are the last two Ohio 7 prisoners still incarcerated, and if the U.S. government has its way, they will spend the rest of their lives behind bars.
Like Williams, Manning grew up poor and working class. He was sent to Vietnam, where he saw the atrocities of U.S. imperialism up close. In the 1970s and '80s, he worked with other leftist radicals in community organizing, prisoner support and welfare advocacy. In a 7 June 1999 statement, Manning wrote: "I am a Freedom Fighter who took up arms to support and defend an International Movement for Human Rights, Self Determination, Justice and Dignity for all Peoples."
Manning spent years in continual lockdown in some of the worst hellholes of the prison system—USP Marion (Illinois) and USP Florence ADMAX (Colorado),
a sensory deprivation unit of steel and concrete with no sound and minimal human contact, designed to break prisoners. Manning is currently at USP Hazelton (West Virginia).
The PDC received a letter dated 27 November 2005, from Jaan Laaman in which he wrote, "This year I came across some profound new evidence and I now have a possibility of reopening and challenging my entire [Massachusetts] conviction and sentence. I have always maintained my innocence in this case and now I may finally be able to prove it."
If Jaan can prevail in this legal challenge he may be eligible for parole on the federal conviction he is also serving. As he put it, "any legal effort is an uphill battle, especially for political prisoners." The PDC has sent a check for $500 to the Jaan Laaman Legal Freedom Fund, PO. Box 681, East Boston, MA 02128. Funds are urgently needed to hire legal defense to pursue Laaman's appeal. We encourage our supporters to help Jaan Laaman's fight for freedom.
You can read about Jaan Laaman and other class-war prisoners in the online magazine he contributes to: www.4strugglemag.org. Or write to 4strugglemag, 2035 St. Laurent Boulevard, Montreal, Quebec, H2X 2T3, Canada. •
COMMENTARY
THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN PASSED ON FROM THE PARTISAN DEFENSE COMMITTEE, P.O BOX 99, CANAL STREET STATION, NEW YORK, NY 10013-0099. I NEED ONLY ADD MILITANTS MUST SUPPORT THE CALL TO FREE THE LAST OF THE OHIO SEVEN. THEY MUST NOT DIE IN PRISON.
In April 2005, we added Tom Manning to our prisoner stipend program along with his comrades Jaan Laaman and Richard Williams, as we had with Ray Luc Levasseur up through his release in 2004. Now Tom Manning and Jaan Laaman are the last two Ohio 7 prisoners still incarcerated, and if the U.S. government has its way, they will spend the rest of their lives behind bars.
Like Williams, Manning grew up poor and working class. He was sent to Vietnam, where he saw the atrocities of U.S. imperialism up close. In the 1970s and '80s, he worked with other leftist radicals in community organizing, prisoner support and welfare advocacy. In a 7 June 1999 statement, Manning wrote: "I am a Freedom Fighter who took up arms to support and defend an International Movement for Human Rights, Self Determination, Justice and Dignity for all Peoples."
Manning spent years in continual lockdown in some of the worst hellholes of the prison system—USP Marion (Illinois) and USP Florence ADMAX (Colorado),
a sensory deprivation unit of steel and concrete with no sound and minimal human contact, designed to break prisoners. Manning is currently at USP Hazelton (West Virginia).
The PDC received a letter dated 27 November 2005, from Jaan Laaman in which he wrote, "This year I came across some profound new evidence and I now have a possibility of reopening and challenging my entire [Massachusetts] conviction and sentence. I have always maintained my innocence in this case and now I may finally be able to prove it."
If Jaan can prevail in this legal challenge he may be eligible for parole on the federal conviction he is also serving. As he put it, "any legal effort is an uphill battle, especially for political prisoners." The PDC has sent a check for $500 to the Jaan Laaman Legal Freedom Fund, PO. Box 681, East Boston, MA 02128. Funds are urgently needed to hire legal defense to pursue Laaman's appeal. We encourage our supporters to help Jaan Laaman's fight for freedom.
You can read about Jaan Laaman and other class-war prisoners in the online magazine he contributes to: www.4strugglemag.org. Or write to 4strugglemag, 2035 St. Laurent Boulevard, Montreal, Quebec, H2X 2T3, Canada. •
Saturday, June 10, 2006
BOYCOTT WAL-MART!
COMMENTARY
THE RACE TO THE BOTTOM MUST STOP HERE!
SUPPORT THE BOYCOTT- UNIONIZE WAL-MART
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
This writer has just received news that the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers (MFT) has voted to support the Wal-Mart boycott. Thus, the MFT joins a growing number of other unions and union federations nationally and internationally in support of this first step in the struggle to organize Wal-Mart. Every militant is obliged to and must support this boycott as a first step in the struggle against this greedy mega-corporation. To list the egregious labor practices of this corporation is like reading pages from the history relating the sweatshop conditions of the American labor movement at the turn of the 20th century. Whatever piddling savings one might receive by shopping at Wal-Mart is negated by the degradation of its labor force. It is high time for the labor movement to move on this outfit and move hard. The race to the bottom stops here.
Whatever the practical effect of the boycott it can only be a first step in the ultimate union organization of Wal-Mart. A boycott is not enough! A consumer boycott, as has been shown by past practices, is only as effective as the diffuse shopping public is aware of it. In general, a consumer boycott has little or no effect at all. In any case it is not decisive. There is no short-cut to effective organization at the point of production and, particularly in the case of Wal-Mart, distribution. The leadership of the organized American labor movement (now centered in the AFL-CIO and Change to Win Coalition) has chiefly used to the tactic of boycott to avoid the hard struggle to unionize the workforce. In the final analysis only organization in the field will bring unionization.
To organize Wal-Mart means there must be the will to organize Wal-Mart. It is necessary to go all out to win once the decision has been made to organize this monster along industrial lines, like the automobile industry in the 1930’s. Previous local efforts (such as in Quebec and Texas) to organize particular stores have shown that this strategy (or lack of strategy) has been a failure. Wal-Mart is just too big and powerful to be taken on piecemeal. This writer has seen estimates that the number of field organizers necessary to effectively organize Wal-Mart is at least 3000. Militants must call on the organized labor movement to fund and sent out that number en masse. The time is now.
Those even slightly familiar with the Wal-Mart operation know that the corporation has a fleet of at least 7000 trucks to transport and deliver goods to its various locations. This should make every militant salivate at the prospect of organizing that fleet. Militants must demand that the Teamsters International Union organize the fleet. Know this, if the trucks, the key to the distribution process are unionized that is a very powerful argument in the workers favor if a showdown with other parts of the Wal-Mart workforce is necessary. This writer suggests that militants read Teamster Rebellion and Teamster Power by Farrell Dobbs; a central organizer of the successful Teamster union drives in Minneapolis and later over the road drivers in the 1930’s. (These books have been reviewed elsewhere in this space, (see April 2006 archives.) One thing is sure, if it took practically a civil war to bring the relatively loosely organized trucking company bosses to their knees in the 1930’s it will be 1000 times harder to do so against this monolithic giant. But the victory will be sweeter.
I mentioned above the need to fund field organizers, and plenty of them, and other support staff. Unlike the 1930’s the organized labor movement has no lack of funds for such an operation today. However, what is necessary is the political will to organize and fight rather rely someone else’s good will. The great lesson from the 1930’s is that you win on the streets, not in the White House or courthouse. Organized labor’s support for the failed Kerry Democratic presidential campaign wasted millions of dollars. Instead of using funds to support bourgeois candidates, mainly so-called Democratic Party ‘friends of labor’, through COPE and other PAC’s for minimal or no returns use the funds to organize Wal-Mart (and the South, while we are at it). That is the real way to use union money.
SUPPORT THE CALL TO ORGANIZE WAL-MART NOW!
NO MONEY FOR POLITICANS-USE THE FUNDS FOR THE ORGANIZING DRIVE AT WAL-MART!
BRING MOTIONS TO YOUR UNION CALLING FOR SUPPORT OF THE WAL-MART BOYCOTT!
BRING MOTIONS TO CALLING ON YOUR UNION TO SUPPORT AN ORGANIZING DRIVE OF WAL-MART!
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
FOR MORE POLITICAL COMMENTARY AND BOOKS REVIEWS CHECK MY BLOG AT- Http://markinbookreview.blogspot.com/
THE RACE TO THE BOTTOM MUST STOP HERE!
SUPPORT THE BOYCOTT- UNIONIZE WAL-MART
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
This writer has just received news that the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers (MFT) has voted to support the Wal-Mart boycott. Thus, the MFT joins a growing number of other unions and union federations nationally and internationally in support of this first step in the struggle to organize Wal-Mart. Every militant is obliged to and must support this boycott as a first step in the struggle against this greedy mega-corporation. To list the egregious labor practices of this corporation is like reading pages from the history relating the sweatshop conditions of the American labor movement at the turn of the 20th century. Whatever piddling savings one might receive by shopping at Wal-Mart is negated by the degradation of its labor force. It is high time for the labor movement to move on this outfit and move hard. The race to the bottom stops here.
Whatever the practical effect of the boycott it can only be a first step in the ultimate union organization of Wal-Mart. A boycott is not enough! A consumer boycott, as has been shown by past practices, is only as effective as the diffuse shopping public is aware of it. In general, a consumer boycott has little or no effect at all. In any case it is not decisive. There is no short-cut to effective organization at the point of production and, particularly in the case of Wal-Mart, distribution. The leadership of the organized American labor movement (now centered in the AFL-CIO and Change to Win Coalition) has chiefly used to the tactic of boycott to avoid the hard struggle to unionize the workforce. In the final analysis only organization in the field will bring unionization.
To organize Wal-Mart means there must be the will to organize Wal-Mart. It is necessary to go all out to win once the decision has been made to organize this monster along industrial lines, like the automobile industry in the 1930’s. Previous local efforts (such as in Quebec and Texas) to organize particular stores have shown that this strategy (or lack of strategy) has been a failure. Wal-Mart is just too big and powerful to be taken on piecemeal. This writer has seen estimates that the number of field organizers necessary to effectively organize Wal-Mart is at least 3000. Militants must call on the organized labor movement to fund and sent out that number en masse. The time is now.
Those even slightly familiar with the Wal-Mart operation know that the corporation has a fleet of at least 7000 trucks to transport and deliver goods to its various locations. This should make every militant salivate at the prospect of organizing that fleet. Militants must demand that the Teamsters International Union organize the fleet. Know this, if the trucks, the key to the distribution process are unionized that is a very powerful argument in the workers favor if a showdown with other parts of the Wal-Mart workforce is necessary. This writer suggests that militants read Teamster Rebellion and Teamster Power by Farrell Dobbs; a central organizer of the successful Teamster union drives in Minneapolis and later over the road drivers in the 1930’s. (These books have been reviewed elsewhere in this space, (see April 2006 archives.) One thing is sure, if it took practically a civil war to bring the relatively loosely organized trucking company bosses to their knees in the 1930’s it will be 1000 times harder to do so against this monolithic giant. But the victory will be sweeter.
I mentioned above the need to fund field organizers, and plenty of them, and other support staff. Unlike the 1930’s the organized labor movement has no lack of funds for such an operation today. However, what is necessary is the political will to organize and fight rather rely someone else’s good will. The great lesson from the 1930’s is that you win on the streets, not in the White House or courthouse. Organized labor’s support for the failed Kerry Democratic presidential campaign wasted millions of dollars. Instead of using funds to support bourgeois candidates, mainly so-called Democratic Party ‘friends of labor’, through COPE and other PAC’s for minimal or no returns use the funds to organize Wal-Mart (and the South, while we are at it). That is the real way to use union money.
SUPPORT THE CALL TO ORGANIZE WAL-MART NOW!
NO MONEY FOR POLITICANS-USE THE FUNDS FOR THE ORGANIZING DRIVE AT WAL-MART!
BRING MOTIONS TO YOUR UNION CALLING FOR SUPPORT OF THE WAL-MART BOYCOTT!
BRING MOTIONS TO CALLING ON YOUR UNION TO SUPPORT AN ORGANIZING DRIVE OF WAL-MART!
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
FOR MORE POLITICAL COMMENTARY AND BOOKS REVIEWS CHECK MY BLOG AT- Http://markinbookreview.blogspot.com/
Thursday, June 08, 2006
*The Cause That Passes Through The Prisons- From The Pen Of James P. Cannon
Click on title to link to the James P.Cannon Internet Archive for James P. Cannon's trial testimony for revolutionary socialist opposition to World War II that is the basis for the book below, "Letters From Prison".
BOOK REVIEW
LETTERS FROM PRISON, JAMES P. CANNON, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1973
If you are interested in the history of the American Left or are a militant trying to understand some of the past lessons of our history concerning the communist response to various social and labor questions this book is for you. This book is part of a continuing series of volumes of the writings of James P. Cannon that were published by the organization he founded, the Socialist Workers Party, in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Cannon died in 1974. Look in this space for other related reviews of this series of documents on and by an important American Communist.
In their introduction the editors motivate the purpose for the publication of the book by stating the Cannon was the finest Communist leader that America had ever produced. This an intriguing question that underlies the reviewer's analysis of these volumes of Cannon's work. The editors trace their political lineage back to Cannon’s leadership of the early Communist Party and later, after his expulsion, to the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party so their perspective is obvious. What does the documentation provided here show?
This certainly is the period of Cannon’s political maturation after a long and fruitful political collaboration working with Leon Trotsky, the exiled Russian revolutionary. The period under discussion in his letters to his long time companion Rose Krasner- the years 1944-45, after Cannon and 17 other leaders of the Socialist Workers Party had been indicted, convicted, refused appeal by the United States Supreme Court and then imprisoned under the then new Smith Act provisions for their revolutionary opposition to American participation in World War II - demonstrate a continued commitment to the goals of revolutionary socialism and a desire to fight for those goals. One thing is sure- in his prime, which includes this period- Cannon had the instincts to want to lead a revolution and had the evident capacity to do so. That he never had an opportunity to lead a revolution is his personal tragedy and ours as well.
When the American Government under Franklin D. Roosevelt goaded on by one of his favorite abject ‘labor lieutenants of capitalism’, Daniel Tobin, President of the International Teamsters Union, went after the real opponents of World war II, the Socialist Workers Party and the Teamsters local their supporters led in Minneapolis, they went to the right address. Unfortunately, unlike in World War I, those organizations were politically virtually the only ones in opposition to the war from the left. The American Socialist Party and the American Communist Party( after a short opposition during the infamous Hitler-Stalin Pact) had both made their peace with imperialism. If anything those organizations were among the chief labor cheerleaders of the prosecutions.
This volume of letters from Sandstone prison by James P. Cannon, central leader of the Socialist Workers Party, are testimony to what happens to revolutionaries when they fundamentally oppose a bourgeois government on its most cherished right, the right to make war. They go to jail. Kicking and screaming, yes, and using every avenue to avoid that fate. But, when the time comes that is what they do. In no case do they flinch from the consequences of the necessary action to oppose war. This comes with the territory of being a revolutionary. While few today remember such boldness in the face of a popular war, militants today who stand in opposition to the current Iraq War would do well to honor that commitment by the Minneapolis 18.
As his letters indicate, political people do not roll over when in prison but within the limiting circumstances they find themselves in they act as political people and carry on as best they can –whether it is Czarist, fascist, Stalinist or bourgeois prisons. In the present case it turned out to be an advantage that many of the party leaders were with Cannon and could essentially form a leadership in exile to supplement the official leadership left behind on the outside. Of course, all things being equal, prison definitely cuts into the effectiveness of a revolutionary but the enforced idleness from the outside struggle can be used as a time to study and for reflection. Cannon did this very ambitiously and systematically. Through Karsner and other sources Cannon kept up with internal party affairs and made plans for the future of the party.
Finally, it is rather ironic that Cannon, who was the guiding force in the American Communist Party’s class struggle defense organization-the International Labor Defense in the mid-1920’s should need the services of the Socialist Workers Party’s class struggle defense organization -the Non-Partisan Labor Defense. What Cannon said in the 1920’s applied to his own case. The struggle of the class-war prisoners- the cause that passes through the prisons- is the concern of the whole working class. An injury to one is an injury to all. That slogan is still valid for today’s militants to organize around.
SOME OF THE BOOKS REVIEWED HERE MAY NOT BE READILY AVAILABLE AT LOCAL LIBRARIES OR BOOKSTORES. CHECK AMAZON.COM FOR AVAILABILITY THERE, BOTH NEW AND USED. YOU CAN ALSO GOOGLE THE JAMES P. CANNON INTERNET ARCHIVES.
BOOK REVIEW
LETTERS FROM PRISON, JAMES P. CANNON, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1973
If you are interested in the history of the American Left or are a militant trying to understand some of the past lessons of our history concerning the communist response to various social and labor questions this book is for you. This book is part of a continuing series of volumes of the writings of James P. Cannon that were published by the organization he founded, the Socialist Workers Party, in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Cannon died in 1974. Look in this space for other related reviews of this series of documents on and by an important American Communist.
In their introduction the editors motivate the purpose for the publication of the book by stating the Cannon was the finest Communist leader that America had ever produced. This an intriguing question that underlies the reviewer's analysis of these volumes of Cannon's work. The editors trace their political lineage back to Cannon’s leadership of the early Communist Party and later, after his expulsion, to the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party so their perspective is obvious. What does the documentation provided here show?
This certainly is the period of Cannon’s political maturation after a long and fruitful political collaboration working with Leon Trotsky, the exiled Russian revolutionary. The period under discussion in his letters to his long time companion Rose Krasner- the years 1944-45, after Cannon and 17 other leaders of the Socialist Workers Party had been indicted, convicted, refused appeal by the United States Supreme Court and then imprisoned under the then new Smith Act provisions for their revolutionary opposition to American participation in World War II - demonstrate a continued commitment to the goals of revolutionary socialism and a desire to fight for those goals. One thing is sure- in his prime, which includes this period- Cannon had the instincts to want to lead a revolution and had the evident capacity to do so. That he never had an opportunity to lead a revolution is his personal tragedy and ours as well.
When the American Government under Franklin D. Roosevelt goaded on by one of his favorite abject ‘labor lieutenants of capitalism’, Daniel Tobin, President of the International Teamsters Union, went after the real opponents of World war II, the Socialist Workers Party and the Teamsters local their supporters led in Minneapolis, they went to the right address. Unfortunately, unlike in World War I, those organizations were politically virtually the only ones in opposition to the war from the left. The American Socialist Party and the American Communist Party( after a short opposition during the infamous Hitler-Stalin Pact) had both made their peace with imperialism. If anything those organizations were among the chief labor cheerleaders of the prosecutions.
This volume of letters from Sandstone prison by James P. Cannon, central leader of the Socialist Workers Party, are testimony to what happens to revolutionaries when they fundamentally oppose a bourgeois government on its most cherished right, the right to make war. They go to jail. Kicking and screaming, yes, and using every avenue to avoid that fate. But, when the time comes that is what they do. In no case do they flinch from the consequences of the necessary action to oppose war. This comes with the territory of being a revolutionary. While few today remember such boldness in the face of a popular war, militants today who stand in opposition to the current Iraq War would do well to honor that commitment by the Minneapolis 18.
As his letters indicate, political people do not roll over when in prison but within the limiting circumstances they find themselves in they act as political people and carry on as best they can –whether it is Czarist, fascist, Stalinist or bourgeois prisons. In the present case it turned out to be an advantage that many of the party leaders were with Cannon and could essentially form a leadership in exile to supplement the official leadership left behind on the outside. Of course, all things being equal, prison definitely cuts into the effectiveness of a revolutionary but the enforced idleness from the outside struggle can be used as a time to study and for reflection. Cannon did this very ambitiously and systematically. Through Karsner and other sources Cannon kept up with internal party affairs and made plans for the future of the party.
Finally, it is rather ironic that Cannon, who was the guiding force in the American Communist Party’s class struggle defense organization-the International Labor Defense in the mid-1920’s should need the services of the Socialist Workers Party’s class struggle defense organization -the Non-Partisan Labor Defense. What Cannon said in the 1920’s applied to his own case. The struggle of the class-war prisoners- the cause that passes through the prisons- is the concern of the whole working class. An injury to one is an injury to all. That slogan is still valid for today’s militants to organize around.
SOME OF THE BOOKS REVIEWED HERE MAY NOT BE READILY AVAILABLE AT LOCAL LIBRARIES OR BOOKSTORES. CHECK AMAZON.COM FOR AVAILABILITY THERE, BOTH NEW AND USED. YOU CAN ALSO GOOGLE THE JAMES P. CANNON INTERNET ARCHIVES.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
DEFEAT THE ANTI-SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
NO TO THE HETEROSEXUAL ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN MARRIAGE UNTIL DEATH (OR DIVORCE, OR ABANDONMENT, OR TIREDNESS, ETC.) CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
COMMENTARY
Damn it! Every time you think some progress has been made in the world to take us out of the dark ages of human experience the yahoos come up with something else. This time it is an effort, not for the first time, to ban gay and lesbian same-sex marriages by no less than a constitutional amendment. Hell, if we are going to discuss the subject of marriage rationally and constitutionally then let us ban marriage altogether by such an amendment.
Markin, stop it now you know you do not mean that. Well no I don’t, despite my unsuccessful experiences with marriage. Although I am personally no fan of the institution, if two people (or for that matter more) want to tie the knot that is their business. The point of my sarcastic remark however is valid. Why, other than the bookkeeping fact of registering a marriage for statistical purposes, should the state get involved in such a subject that is very specific to the individuals involved? KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE BEDROOM!
CONTACT YOUR SENATORS URGING A NO VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT. BEAT BACK THE YAHOOS ON THIS ONE. AND LET US KEEP THEM ON THE RUN.
POSTSCRIPT- JUNE 10, 2006
As you may know in order to keep the federal constitutional amendment process going a 2/3 majority vote by the United States Senate is necessary. A vote on the anti-same sex marriage amendment has been taken and defeated on this basis. The supporters of democratic rights for all have won a reprieve. A couple of points. How the hell, in the year 2006, can 49 supposedly worldly Senators vote to support such a reactionary measure. Well, I suppose anything is possible in politics- I suppose next they'll try to resurrect prohibition of alcohol-all that got them was a big laugh and shame-faced reversal later. Also, please note, the major sponser of this bill, Senator Allard of Colorado, has been quoted as saying he will continue to bring this bill to a vote each year as long as he draws breath. Be ready. Meanwhile, the battle ground appears to be in the state legislatures. Be ready to fight the battles there.
COMMENTARY
Damn it! Every time you think some progress has been made in the world to take us out of the dark ages of human experience the yahoos come up with something else. This time it is an effort, not for the first time, to ban gay and lesbian same-sex marriages by no less than a constitutional amendment. Hell, if we are going to discuss the subject of marriage rationally and constitutionally then let us ban marriage altogether by such an amendment.
Markin, stop it now you know you do not mean that. Well no I don’t, despite my unsuccessful experiences with marriage. Although I am personally no fan of the institution, if two people (or for that matter more) want to tie the knot that is their business. The point of my sarcastic remark however is valid. Why, other than the bookkeeping fact of registering a marriage for statistical purposes, should the state get involved in such a subject that is very specific to the individuals involved? KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE BEDROOM!
CONTACT YOUR SENATORS URGING A NO VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT. BEAT BACK THE YAHOOS ON THIS ONE. AND LET US KEEP THEM ON THE RUN.
POSTSCRIPT- JUNE 10, 2006
As you may know in order to keep the federal constitutional amendment process going a 2/3 majority vote by the United States Senate is necessary. A vote on the anti-same sex marriage amendment has been taken and defeated on this basis. The supporters of democratic rights for all have won a reprieve. A couple of points. How the hell, in the year 2006, can 49 supposedly worldly Senators vote to support such a reactionary measure. Well, I suppose anything is possible in politics- I suppose next they'll try to resurrect prohibition of alcohol-all that got them was a big laugh and shame-faced reversal later. Also, please note, the major sponser of this bill, Senator Allard of Colorado, has been quoted as saying he will continue to bring this bill to a vote each year as long as he draws breath. Be ready. Meanwhile, the battle ground appears to be in the state legislatures. Be ready to fight the battles there.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
THE BOY ORATOR OF THE PLATTE
BOOK REVIEW
A GODLY HERO: THE LIFE OF WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN, MICHAEL KAZIN, Knopf, New York, 2006
William Jennings Bryan is a rather interesting and paradoxical figure in American political history. While America has produced its share of political chameleons Bryan is a different breed- a true believer. Although famous, or infamous, for the fight for cheap silver and later the fight against the teaching of evolution in the public schools, which militants then as now oppose, he stood for more than that. In Bryan one can observe an apparently sincere political fighter who supported many progressive issues vital to the rural and urban working classes of the day, including legalizing the right to strike, reigning in the trusts and the fight against the bankers. A proud forthright fighter, a vanishing type of politician, then as now.
Although Bryan was the Democratic Party candidate for President in 1896, the only one of his three presidential campaigns for militants today to seriously investigate, I do not believe that party would be his home today, nor would the progressive part of his politics resonant with the substance of Democratic policy today. It is ironic that over a century later Bryan’s politics would be far to the left of what passes for the Democratic center today. Nevertheless, on the dark side, his alliance with the Old South Democratic Party and its Jim Crow policies concerning blacks in the South and dependence of the urban political machines in the North precluded any support for the Bryan ticket by militants at that time.
Moreover, there are limits that even a sincerely religious man can bring to political discourse. His Christian fundamentalism never let him really fight to the end for the program of agrarian relief and industrial reform that he articulated so well.
Mr. Kazin’s mainly admiring biography does much to reintroduce the events surrounding the rising and declining fortunes of Mr. Bryan who today, if remembered at all, is mainly known for being on the wrong side of evolution question in the Scopes trial. However, that later issue does not define what Bryan represented in American history. Rather, one must look at the populist, agrarian forces in revolt and the program Bryan tried to implement in his bid for power.
Bryan political career represented the last dying gasp of the agrarian revolt that flared up in the America Midwest and West in the last third of the 19th century. That such a revolt, left to its own devices, was doomed in the face of the rise of industrial production; the increased mechanization of agriculture and with it the decline of the family farm, and the dominance of finance capital do not make that revolt any less poignant. The question faced by Bryan and any other potential leader was the manner in which the revolt would be harnessed to win power and what allies would be sought to fight against the ravages of capitalist expansion.
Mr. Bryan took an essentially parliamentary, traditional road by trying to use the Democratic Party as a vehicle for social change. Many later politicians have also broken their teeth trying that same strategy of using the Democratic Party for progressive social change. In 1896, and perhaps earlier, such a road was futile. In short, Mr. Bryan could have led an independent third party revolt, based on the already existing People’s Party (which in his early career Bryan had been closely linked to) allied with the industrial working classes of the Northeast and Midwest. Interestingly, many of the radical leaders of the early 20th socialist and communist movements who would form third parties, were influenced, directly or indirectly by the 1896 campaign.
This third party strategy was left to other forces that later formed the Socialist party in 1901. Mr. Bryan’s political trajectory, however, was not to join that fight for working class independent political expression. Over time he moved dramatically to the right culminating in support for the suppression of radicals in World War I. We have that seen that political phenomena before, as well. That said, this is an important book that details one type of parliamentary strategy still followed today by many progressives about the way to bring social change. That today the strategy has produced meager returns and is bankrupt does not lessen its interest. In Bryan's time it at least made some rational political sense. Forward.
A GODLY HERO: THE LIFE OF WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN, MICHAEL KAZIN, Knopf, New York, 2006
William Jennings Bryan is a rather interesting and paradoxical figure in American political history. While America has produced its share of political chameleons Bryan is a different breed- a true believer. Although famous, or infamous, for the fight for cheap silver and later the fight against the teaching of evolution in the public schools, which militants then as now oppose, he stood for more than that. In Bryan one can observe an apparently sincere political fighter who supported many progressive issues vital to the rural and urban working classes of the day, including legalizing the right to strike, reigning in the trusts and the fight against the bankers. A proud forthright fighter, a vanishing type of politician, then as now.
Although Bryan was the Democratic Party candidate for President in 1896, the only one of his three presidential campaigns for militants today to seriously investigate, I do not believe that party would be his home today, nor would the progressive part of his politics resonant with the substance of Democratic policy today. It is ironic that over a century later Bryan’s politics would be far to the left of what passes for the Democratic center today. Nevertheless, on the dark side, his alliance with the Old South Democratic Party and its Jim Crow policies concerning blacks in the South and dependence of the urban political machines in the North precluded any support for the Bryan ticket by militants at that time.
Moreover, there are limits that even a sincerely religious man can bring to political discourse. His Christian fundamentalism never let him really fight to the end for the program of agrarian relief and industrial reform that he articulated so well.
Mr. Kazin’s mainly admiring biography does much to reintroduce the events surrounding the rising and declining fortunes of Mr. Bryan who today, if remembered at all, is mainly known for being on the wrong side of evolution question in the Scopes trial. However, that later issue does not define what Bryan represented in American history. Rather, one must look at the populist, agrarian forces in revolt and the program Bryan tried to implement in his bid for power.
Bryan political career represented the last dying gasp of the agrarian revolt that flared up in the America Midwest and West in the last third of the 19th century. That such a revolt, left to its own devices, was doomed in the face of the rise of industrial production; the increased mechanization of agriculture and with it the decline of the family farm, and the dominance of finance capital do not make that revolt any less poignant. The question faced by Bryan and any other potential leader was the manner in which the revolt would be harnessed to win power and what allies would be sought to fight against the ravages of capitalist expansion.
Mr. Bryan took an essentially parliamentary, traditional road by trying to use the Democratic Party as a vehicle for social change. Many later politicians have also broken their teeth trying that same strategy of using the Democratic Party for progressive social change. In 1896, and perhaps earlier, such a road was futile. In short, Mr. Bryan could have led an independent third party revolt, based on the already existing People’s Party (which in his early career Bryan had been closely linked to) allied with the industrial working classes of the Northeast and Midwest. Interestingly, many of the radical leaders of the early 20th socialist and communist movements who would form third parties, were influenced, directly or indirectly by the 1896 campaign.
This third party strategy was left to other forces that later formed the Socialist party in 1901. Mr. Bryan’s political trajectory, however, was not to join that fight for working class independent political expression. Over time he moved dramatically to the right culminating in support for the suppression of radicals in World War I. We have that seen that political phenomena before, as well. That said, this is an important book that details one type of parliamentary strategy still followed today by many progressives about the way to bring social change. That today the strategy has produced meager returns and is bankrupt does not lessen its interest. In Bryan's time it at least made some rational political sense. Forward.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
ON THE SLOGANS- BRING OUR/THE TROOPS HOME!
THEY MAY BE OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS BUT THESE ARE NOT OUR TROOPS! END THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ NOW!! IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED STATES/ALLIED TROOPS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST!!!
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
In light of the recent seemingly never-ending revelations concerning American military atrocities toward Iraqi civilians it is high time to set the record straight about the appropriate slogans that anti-war militants use to affect the political outcome of the situation in Iraq. For those militants, including this writer, who have opposed the American war aims since before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 our main slogan expressing our opposition to imperialism has been for the immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all American and Allied forces from the Middle East. That continues to be the thrust of our political struggle today.
The recent revelations also underscore the aimless nature of the occupation. The role of American troops has been reduced to search and destroy missions against the so-called insurgents with the Iraqi population cast merely as subjects for ‘collateral damage’ in pursuit of that strategy. Enough!! Those militants old enough to remember the Vietnam War or who have studied about it must be painfully aware of the similarities to the current situation. Most infamously- Remember My Lai.
Nevertheless the bulk of anti-war militants, abetted by the organizations which have led the anti-war demonstrations such as the United for Justice and Peace Coalition have centered their calls for action on the social patriotic slogans Bring the Troops Home or Bring Our Troops Home. Even though some elements of that movement have begun calling for Immediate Withdrawal recently the demand is still tied to getting our ‘boys and girls’ out of harms way.
Why are such slogans social patriotic? The essence of such calls is that the American troops used to destroy Iraq and murder and maim Iraqi civilians are our troops rather than agents of the American government- the main enemy of the peoples of the world. Those slogans imply there is just a misunderstanding over policy which reasonable people can disagree over. That is transparently just not the case. The hard fact is that we citizens have no control over the military deployment of any troops. To say so creates illusions that we do. While we have no interest in seeing individual soldiers harmed we also cannot take political and military responsibility for their use. If we are going to get anywhere with opposition to the war we better give up that last illusions on that score. We cannot have it both ways. Not on this issue. Get the hell out of Iraq Now!
Revised July 12, 2006
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
In light of the recent seemingly never-ending revelations concerning American military atrocities toward Iraqi civilians it is high time to set the record straight about the appropriate slogans that anti-war militants use to affect the political outcome of the situation in Iraq. For those militants, including this writer, who have opposed the American war aims since before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 our main slogan expressing our opposition to imperialism has been for the immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all American and Allied forces from the Middle East. That continues to be the thrust of our political struggle today.
The recent revelations also underscore the aimless nature of the occupation. The role of American troops has been reduced to search and destroy missions against the so-called insurgents with the Iraqi population cast merely as subjects for ‘collateral damage’ in pursuit of that strategy. Enough!! Those militants old enough to remember the Vietnam War or who have studied about it must be painfully aware of the similarities to the current situation. Most infamously- Remember My Lai.
Nevertheless the bulk of anti-war militants, abetted by the organizations which have led the anti-war demonstrations such as the United for Justice and Peace Coalition have centered their calls for action on the social patriotic slogans Bring the Troops Home or Bring Our Troops Home. Even though some elements of that movement have begun calling for Immediate Withdrawal recently the demand is still tied to getting our ‘boys and girls’ out of harms way.
Why are such slogans social patriotic? The essence of such calls is that the American troops used to destroy Iraq and murder and maim Iraqi civilians are our troops rather than agents of the American government- the main enemy of the peoples of the world. Those slogans imply there is just a misunderstanding over policy which reasonable people can disagree over. That is transparently just not the case. The hard fact is that we citizens have no control over the military deployment of any troops. To say so creates illusions that we do. While we have no interest in seeing individual soldiers harmed we also cannot take political and military responsibility for their use. If we are going to get anywhere with opposition to the war we better give up that last illusions on that score. We cannot have it both ways. Not on this issue. Get the hell out of Iraq Now!
Revised July 12, 2006
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
A NON-COMMUNIST VIEW OF THE FORMATION OF THE AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY
BOOK REVIEW
THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN COMMUNISM, THEODORE DRAPER, The Viking Press, New York, 1957
THE COMPANION VOLUME- AMERICAN COMMUNISM AND SOVIET RUSSIA WAS REVIEWED ON JUNE 21, 2006
As an addition to the historical record of the period from the Russian Revolution of 1917 to the formation and consolidation of the legal, open party in 1923 The Roots of American Communism and its companion volume detailing the period from 1923 to 1929-American Communism and Soviet Russia (which will be reviewed separately) – is the definitive scholarly study on the early history of the American Communist Party. The author, an ex-communist, but at the time of writing an anti-communist unlike other former communists nevertheless does a thorough job or presenting the personalities and issues in a reasonably straightforward manner. Given that these volumes were researched and published during the heart of the Cold War hysteria against the Soviet Union in the 1950’s this is not faint praise.
Also useful for this period in conjunction with these two volumes and to round them out, from the pro-Communist partisan perspective of one of the main leaders, is James P. Cannon’s The First Ten Years of American Communism and the Prometheus Research Library’s James P. Cannon and the Early Communist Movement. Absent from Mr. Draper’s analysis is any real feel for why the early leaders and rank and file of the party put themselves on the line, faced harassment, imprisonment or worst to create an American Bolshevik party. While there is no dearth of memoirs of other participants in the early movement, Cannon’s analysis most honestly fills that gap.
That said, why must militants read these works today? After the demise of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe anything positively related to Communist studies is deeply discounted. Nevertheless, for better or worse, the American Communist Party (and its offshoots) needs to be studied as an ultimately flawed example of a party that failed in its mission to create a radical version of society in America when it became merely a tool of Soviet diplomacy. Now is the time for militants to study the mistakes and draw the lessons of that history.
For those not familiar with this period a few helpful introductory chapters by Mr. Draper give an analysis of the forces that made up the radical scene prior to World War I. Those forces included the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), independent syndicalists influenced by the French anarchist movement and the anti-war left-wing of the Socialist party, including various foreign language federations. Thus, in its formative period the American party (or parties, to be more correct) gathered all those fresh elements which responded to the Bolshevik victory in Russia, saw it as the wave of the future and wanted to establish that kind of socialism here. As this writer has noted elsewhere, while those diffuse forces proved to be difficult to organize, this mix provided for a better internal party life than, say, in England where the militant Celtic and anarcho-syndicalist elements were not recruited resulting in a ‘stillborn’ party.
Mr. Draper also addresses the various important faction fights which occurred inside the party. To make sense of this is sometimes no simple task. That overview also highlights some of the now more obscure personalities, where they stood on the issues and insights into the significance of the crucial early fights in the party. These include questions which are still relevant today; a legal vs. an underground party; the revolutionary attitude toward parliamentary politics; support to third party bourgeois candidates; trade union policy; class war defense as well as how to rein in the intense internal struggle of the various factions for organizational control of the party.
This presentation makes it somewhat easier for those not well-versed in the intricacies of the political disputes which wracked the early American party to understand how these questions tended to pull the party in on itself. In many ways, given the undisputed rise of American imperialism in the immediate aftermath of World War I, this is a story of the ‘dog days’ of the party. Unfortunately, that American rise combined with the international ramifications of the internal disputes in the Russian Communist Party and in the Communist International shipwrecked the party as a revolutionary party toward the end of this period. That subject is more fully addressed in the second volume. Read this book.
SOME OF THE BOOKS REVIEWED HERE MAY NOT BE READILY AVAILABLE AT LOCAL LIBRARIES OR BOOKSTORES. CHECK AMAZON.COM FOR AVAILABILITY THERE, BOTH NEW AND USED.
THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN COMMUNISM, THEODORE DRAPER, The Viking Press, New York, 1957
THE COMPANION VOLUME- AMERICAN COMMUNISM AND SOVIET RUSSIA WAS REVIEWED ON JUNE 21, 2006
As an addition to the historical record of the period from the Russian Revolution of 1917 to the formation and consolidation of the legal, open party in 1923 The Roots of American Communism and its companion volume detailing the period from 1923 to 1929-American Communism and Soviet Russia (which will be reviewed separately) – is the definitive scholarly study on the early history of the American Communist Party. The author, an ex-communist, but at the time of writing an anti-communist unlike other former communists nevertheless does a thorough job or presenting the personalities and issues in a reasonably straightforward manner. Given that these volumes were researched and published during the heart of the Cold War hysteria against the Soviet Union in the 1950’s this is not faint praise.
Also useful for this period in conjunction with these two volumes and to round them out, from the pro-Communist partisan perspective of one of the main leaders, is James P. Cannon’s The First Ten Years of American Communism and the Prometheus Research Library’s James P. Cannon and the Early Communist Movement. Absent from Mr. Draper’s analysis is any real feel for why the early leaders and rank and file of the party put themselves on the line, faced harassment, imprisonment or worst to create an American Bolshevik party. While there is no dearth of memoirs of other participants in the early movement, Cannon’s analysis most honestly fills that gap.
That said, why must militants read these works today? After the demise of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe anything positively related to Communist studies is deeply discounted. Nevertheless, for better or worse, the American Communist Party (and its offshoots) needs to be studied as an ultimately flawed example of a party that failed in its mission to create a radical version of society in America when it became merely a tool of Soviet diplomacy. Now is the time for militants to study the mistakes and draw the lessons of that history.
For those not familiar with this period a few helpful introductory chapters by Mr. Draper give an analysis of the forces that made up the radical scene prior to World War I. Those forces included the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), independent syndicalists influenced by the French anarchist movement and the anti-war left-wing of the Socialist party, including various foreign language federations. Thus, in its formative period the American party (or parties, to be more correct) gathered all those fresh elements which responded to the Bolshevik victory in Russia, saw it as the wave of the future and wanted to establish that kind of socialism here. As this writer has noted elsewhere, while those diffuse forces proved to be difficult to organize, this mix provided for a better internal party life than, say, in England where the militant Celtic and anarcho-syndicalist elements were not recruited resulting in a ‘stillborn’ party.
Mr. Draper also addresses the various important faction fights which occurred inside the party. To make sense of this is sometimes no simple task. That overview also highlights some of the now more obscure personalities, where they stood on the issues and insights into the significance of the crucial early fights in the party. These include questions which are still relevant today; a legal vs. an underground party; the revolutionary attitude toward parliamentary politics; support to third party bourgeois candidates; trade union policy; class war defense as well as how to rein in the intense internal struggle of the various factions for organizational control of the party.
This presentation makes it somewhat easier for those not well-versed in the intricacies of the political disputes which wracked the early American party to understand how these questions tended to pull the party in on itself. In many ways, given the undisputed rise of American imperialism in the immediate aftermath of World War I, this is a story of the ‘dog days’ of the party. Unfortunately, that American rise combined with the international ramifications of the internal disputes in the Russian Communist Party and in the Communist International shipwrecked the party as a revolutionary party toward the end of this period. That subject is more fully addressed in the second volume. Read this book.
SOME OF THE BOOKS REVIEWED HERE MAY NOT BE READILY AVAILABLE AT LOCAL LIBRARIES OR BOOKSTORES. CHECK AMAZON.COM FOR AVAILABILITY THERE, BOTH NEW AND USED.
Monday, May 29, 2006
***A Small Slice Of The Spanish Civil War- From The Pen Of Ernest Heminway
Click on title to link to Wikipedia's entry for "For Whom The Bells Toll".
BOOK REVIEW
FOR WHOM THE BELLS TOLL, ERNEST HEMINGWAY
AS THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BEGINNING OF THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR APPROACHES THE WRITER IS REVIEWING BOOKS ON AND ABOUT THIS SUBJECT WHICH SHOULD BE OF INTEREST TO TODAY’S MILITANTS
I have been interested, as a pro-Republican partisan, in the Spanish Civil War since I was a teenager. What initially perked my interest, and remains of interest, is the passionate struggle of the Spanish working class to create its own political organization of society, its leadership of the struggle against Spanish Fascism and the romance surrounding the entry of the International Brigades, particularly the American Abraham Lincoln Battalion of the 15th Brigade, into the struggle.
Underlying my interests has always been a nagging question of how that struggle could have been won by the working class. The Spanish proletariat certainly was capable of both heroic action and the ability to create organizations that reflected its own class interests i.e. the worker militias and factory committees. Of all modern working class uprisings after the Russian revolution Spain showed the most promise of success. Russian Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky noted in one of his writings on Spain that the Spanish proletariat at the start of its revolutionary period had a higher political consciousness than the Russian proletariat in 1917.
That understanding of the political consciousness of the Spanish proletariat calls into question the strategies put forth by the parties of the Popular Front, including the Spanish Communist Party- defeat Franco first, and then make the social transformation of society. Ernest Hemingway in his novel For Whom the Bells Toll weighs in on that question here. Whatever value the novel had or has as a narrative of a small slice of the Spanish events one must look elsewhere to discovery the causes of the Republican defeat.
Ernest Hemingway most definitively was in love with Spain and always, lurking just below, the surface was his love affair with death. That combination placed in the context of the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39 makes for an explosive, dramatic tale. The hero is an American, Robert Jordan, aka Ernest Hemingway, of fizzy politics but a desire to help the Spanish people. Additionally Jordan, if expediency demands it, is willing to face danger and death at the command of the Communist-dominated International Brigades (although it is not always clear whether he is an American Lincoln Brigade volunteer or a freelancer). Hemingway's critique of the Stalinist domination of the military command and therefore authors of the military strategy that led to defeat at times overwhelms the story. His skewering of Andre Marty, leader of the International Brigades, also has that same effect. In short, Hemingway believed that 'outside forces’ meddling in Spanish affairs led to death for Jordan and disaster for the Spanish people. Well, nobody expects nor is it mandatory for a novelist to be politically astute or correct. Here Hemingway joins that crowd.
The one subject that Ernest Hemingway seemed consistently to excel at was the telling of war stories. And whatever else might be true of For Whom the Bell Tolls it is preeminently a war story. A classic war romance if you have also seen the movie treatment of the book starring Gary Cooper and Ingrid Bergman. It might be a male thing, it might be a Hemingway thing, or it might be that the nature of war lends itself to dramatic tension that holds a story together. Today, in some literary circles, it is not considered politically correct to laud works by such dead, white males as Hemingway but the flat out truth is that the man could write. If his work stands outside the current canon of American literary efforts then something is wrong with the new canon.
To make matters worst the current leftist-oriented literary establishment, grizzled, hard-bitten academic warriors that they are, has not been the only force that has taken aim at Hemingway's head. At the time of publication in 1940 the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Battalion, those who actually fought in Spain, and the various Communist Parties throughout the world were unhappy with the novel. Why? Hemingway was too harsh on the deficiencies of the Communists, the International Brigades and the Republican forces in general. Above I mentioned that writers were not expected to be politically astute. That is one thing. But to say that Hemingway was essentially sabotaging the exiled Republican efforts to aid the refugees by the thrust of his novel is also politically wrong. The man did materially and militarily aid the Republican side (financially aiding volunteers and supplying ambulances). That accrues to his honor. In short, Hemingway's writings-yes. Hemingway's politics-no.
BOOK REVIEW
FOR WHOM THE BELLS TOLL, ERNEST HEMINGWAY
AS THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BEGINNING OF THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR APPROACHES THE WRITER IS REVIEWING BOOKS ON AND ABOUT THIS SUBJECT WHICH SHOULD BE OF INTEREST TO TODAY’S MILITANTS
I have been interested, as a pro-Republican partisan, in the Spanish Civil War since I was a teenager. What initially perked my interest, and remains of interest, is the passionate struggle of the Spanish working class to create its own political organization of society, its leadership of the struggle against Spanish Fascism and the romance surrounding the entry of the International Brigades, particularly the American Abraham Lincoln Battalion of the 15th Brigade, into the struggle.
Underlying my interests has always been a nagging question of how that struggle could have been won by the working class. The Spanish proletariat certainly was capable of both heroic action and the ability to create organizations that reflected its own class interests i.e. the worker militias and factory committees. Of all modern working class uprisings after the Russian revolution Spain showed the most promise of success. Russian Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky noted in one of his writings on Spain that the Spanish proletariat at the start of its revolutionary period had a higher political consciousness than the Russian proletariat in 1917.
That understanding of the political consciousness of the Spanish proletariat calls into question the strategies put forth by the parties of the Popular Front, including the Spanish Communist Party- defeat Franco first, and then make the social transformation of society. Ernest Hemingway in his novel For Whom the Bells Toll weighs in on that question here. Whatever value the novel had or has as a narrative of a small slice of the Spanish events one must look elsewhere to discovery the causes of the Republican defeat.
Ernest Hemingway most definitively was in love with Spain and always, lurking just below, the surface was his love affair with death. That combination placed in the context of the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39 makes for an explosive, dramatic tale. The hero is an American, Robert Jordan, aka Ernest Hemingway, of fizzy politics but a desire to help the Spanish people. Additionally Jordan, if expediency demands it, is willing to face danger and death at the command of the Communist-dominated International Brigades (although it is not always clear whether he is an American Lincoln Brigade volunteer or a freelancer). Hemingway's critique of the Stalinist domination of the military command and therefore authors of the military strategy that led to defeat at times overwhelms the story. His skewering of Andre Marty, leader of the International Brigades, also has that same effect. In short, Hemingway believed that 'outside forces’ meddling in Spanish affairs led to death for Jordan and disaster for the Spanish people. Well, nobody expects nor is it mandatory for a novelist to be politically astute or correct. Here Hemingway joins that crowd.
The one subject that Ernest Hemingway seemed consistently to excel at was the telling of war stories. And whatever else might be true of For Whom the Bell Tolls it is preeminently a war story. A classic war romance if you have also seen the movie treatment of the book starring Gary Cooper and Ingrid Bergman. It might be a male thing, it might be a Hemingway thing, or it might be that the nature of war lends itself to dramatic tension that holds a story together. Today, in some literary circles, it is not considered politically correct to laud works by such dead, white males as Hemingway but the flat out truth is that the man could write. If his work stands outside the current canon of American literary efforts then something is wrong with the new canon.
To make matters worst the current leftist-oriented literary establishment, grizzled, hard-bitten academic warriors that they are, has not been the only force that has taken aim at Hemingway's head. At the time of publication in 1940 the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Battalion, those who actually fought in Spain, and the various Communist Parties throughout the world were unhappy with the novel. Why? Hemingway was too harsh on the deficiencies of the Communists, the International Brigades and the Republican forces in general. Above I mentioned that writers were not expected to be politically astute. That is one thing. But to say that Hemingway was essentially sabotaging the exiled Republican efforts to aid the refugees by the thrust of his novel is also politically wrong. The man did materially and militarily aid the Republican side (financially aiding volunteers and supplying ambulances). That accrues to his honor. In short, Hemingway's writings-yes. Hemingway's politics-no.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)