Click on the title to link to a "YouTube" film clip of Jim Morrison and The Doors performing their classic rock anthem, "The End".
CD REVIEW
THE BEST OF THE DOORS, ELECTRA ASYLUM RECORDS, 1985
Since my youth I have had an ear for American (and other roots music), whether I was conscious of that fact or not. The origin of that interest first centered on the blues, then early rock and roll and later, with the folk revival of the early 1960’s, folk music. I have often wondered about the source of this interest. I am, and have always been a city boy, and an Eastern city boy at that. Nevertheless, over time I have come to appreciate many more forms of roots music than in my youth. The subject of the following review is an example.
The Doors are roots music? Yes, in the sense that one of the branches of rock and roll derives from early rhythm and blues and in the special case of Jim Morrison, leader of the Doors, the attempt to musically explore the shamanic elements in the Western American Native American culture. Some of that influence is apparent here.
More than one rock critic has argued that at their best the Doors were the best rock and roll band ever created. Those critics will get no argument here. What a reviewer with that opinion has to do is determine whether any particular CD captures the Doors at their best. This reviewer advises that if you want to buy only one Doors CD that would be The Best of the Doors. If you want to trace their evolution other CD’s do an adequate job.
A note on Jim Morrison as an icon of the 1960’s. He was part of the trinity – Morrison, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix who lived fast and died young. The slogan- Drugs, sex, and rock and roll. And we liked that idea. Then. Their deaths were part of the price we felt we had to pay if we were going to be free. And creative. Even the most political, including this writer, among us felt those cultural winds and counted those who espoused this vision as part of the chosen. Those who believed that we could have a far-reaching positive cultural change without a political change proved to be wrong long ago. But, these were still our people.
MARK THIS WELL. Whatever excesses were committed by the generation of ’68, and there were many, were mainly made out of ignorance and foolishness. Our opponents at the time , exemplified by one Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States and common criminal, spent every day of their lives as a matter of conscious, deliberate policy raining hell down on the peoples of the world, minorities in this country, and anyone else who got in their way. 40 years of ‘cultural wars’ by his proteges in revenge is a heavy price to pay for our youthful errors. Enough.
Doors — The End lyrics
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again
Can you picture what will be
So limitless and free
Desperately in need...of some...stranger's hand
In a...desperate land
Lost in a Roman...wilderness of pain
And all the children are insane
All the children are insane
Waiting for the summer rain, yeah
There's danger on the edge of town
Ride the King's highway, baby
Weird scenes inside the gold mine
Ride the highway west, baby
Ride the snake, ride the snake
To the lake, the ancient lake, baby
The snake is long, seven miles
Ride the snake...he's old, and his skin is cold
The west is the best
The west is the best
Get here, and we'll do the rest
The blue bus is callin' us
The blue bus is callin' us
Driver, where you taken' us
The killer awoke before dawn, he put his boots on
He took a face from the ancient gallery
And he walked on down the hall
He went into the room where his sister lived, and...then he
Paid a visit to his brother, and then he
He walked on down the hall, and
And he came to a door...and he looked inside
Father, yes son, I want to kill you
Mother...I want to...WAAAAAA
C'mon baby,--------- No "take a chance with us"
C'mon baby, take a chance with us
C'mon baby, take a chance with us
And meet me at the back of the blue bus
Doin' a blue rock
On a blue bus
Doin' a blue rock
C'mon, yeah
Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
It hurts to set you free
But you'll never follow me
The end of laughter and soft lies
The end of nights we tried to die
This is the end
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Sunday, July 09, 2006
IN THE TIME OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE?
BOOK REVIEW
AMONG EMPIRES: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors, Charles S Maier, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma. 2006
With the demise of the former Soviet Union in 1991-92 and the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq in the post- 9/11 period there has been an inordinate among of ink spilled in academic circles over the question of whether the United States has become the latest empire. In fact, this question has created something of a cottage industry. Professor Maier’s book is a contribution, and not the worst, to this controversy. Militants of this generation who understand what is wrong with the drift of American society must confront the question of the imperialistic nature of the United States head-on. For my generation, the generation of '68, the imperialistic nature of the United States was a given. The question at that time centered more around fights about what to do about it. For a variety of reasons we were not successful in taming the monster. Each generation must come to an understanding of the nature of imperialist society in its own way. And fight it. Thus, this book is a good place to start to understand that question.
A lot of the current controversy in academic circles (governmental and military circles have no such difficulties accepting the imperial premise) about whether there is an American Empire gets tangled up in comparisons with past empires. True, the American Empire does not look like previous empires. The real problem is trying to pigeonhole the contours of empire based on past experiences. As if the builders of each empire doe not learn something from the mistakes of previous empires. Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin long ago analyzed the basis contours of modern imperialism in his seminal work Imperialism- The Highest Stage of Capitalism. That outline, although in need of updating to reflect various, mainly technological, chnages in the global capitalist structure remains an important document for militants today. By his or virtually any other definition the United States gets the nod.
But let’s get down to brass tasks. Hell, the American Empire, is the mightiest military machine the world has ever known defending a nationally-based global economic infrastructure. Previous empires, like the Roman and British, are 'punk' bush league operations in comparison. Academics can afford to have an agnostic view about whether an empire exists or the effects of imperial power. However, when one’s door is kicked in by a foreign, heavily armed soldier in some god forsaken village in Iraq or Vietnam, or your city is flattened in order to ‘save’ it a ready definition of imperialism comes to mind. And a good one.
One of the issues that cloud the question of the American Empire is that there is no readily apparent imperialist ideology. In fact, it is argued, for historical reasons, that there is some kind of popular anti-imperialist ideology in America that has always countered the trend toward empire. I take exception to that notion. While there has always been a section of the chattering classes that has held this position it has never really taken popular root. What is really the dominating popular theme is more like-don’t tread on me. That is a very different proposition. And it can be seen most unequivocally when a war, any war, comes along and virtually everyone- from the groves of academia to the local barroom- gets on board. Then the imperialist fist is bared for all to see.
With that caveat, this writer recommends this book. Agnostism on the question of empire in acceptable in the academy. It is the nature of such an institution. Unless that heavily-armed soldier mentioned about comes kicking down those doors.
AMONG EMPIRES: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors, Charles S Maier, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma. 2006
With the demise of the former Soviet Union in 1991-92 and the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq in the post- 9/11 period there has been an inordinate among of ink spilled in academic circles over the question of whether the United States has become the latest empire. In fact, this question has created something of a cottage industry. Professor Maier’s book is a contribution, and not the worst, to this controversy. Militants of this generation who understand what is wrong with the drift of American society must confront the question of the imperialistic nature of the United States head-on. For my generation, the generation of '68, the imperialistic nature of the United States was a given. The question at that time centered more around fights about what to do about it. For a variety of reasons we were not successful in taming the monster. Each generation must come to an understanding of the nature of imperialist society in its own way. And fight it. Thus, this book is a good place to start to understand that question.
A lot of the current controversy in academic circles (governmental and military circles have no such difficulties accepting the imperial premise) about whether there is an American Empire gets tangled up in comparisons with past empires. True, the American Empire does not look like previous empires. The real problem is trying to pigeonhole the contours of empire based on past experiences. As if the builders of each empire doe not learn something from the mistakes of previous empires. Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin long ago analyzed the basis contours of modern imperialism in his seminal work Imperialism- The Highest Stage of Capitalism. That outline, although in need of updating to reflect various, mainly technological, chnages in the global capitalist structure remains an important document for militants today. By his or virtually any other definition the United States gets the nod.
But let’s get down to brass tasks. Hell, the American Empire, is the mightiest military machine the world has ever known defending a nationally-based global economic infrastructure. Previous empires, like the Roman and British, are 'punk' bush league operations in comparison. Academics can afford to have an agnostic view about whether an empire exists or the effects of imperial power. However, when one’s door is kicked in by a foreign, heavily armed soldier in some god forsaken village in Iraq or Vietnam, or your city is flattened in order to ‘save’ it a ready definition of imperialism comes to mind. And a good one.
One of the issues that cloud the question of the American Empire is that there is no readily apparent imperialist ideology. In fact, it is argued, for historical reasons, that there is some kind of popular anti-imperialist ideology in America that has always countered the trend toward empire. I take exception to that notion. While there has always been a section of the chattering classes that has held this position it has never really taken popular root. What is really the dominating popular theme is more like-don’t tread on me. That is a very different proposition. And it can be seen most unequivocally when a war, any war, comes along and virtually everyone- from the groves of academia to the local barroom- gets on board. Then the imperialist fist is bared for all to see.
With that caveat, this writer recommends this book. Agnostism on the question of empire in acceptable in the academy. It is the nature of such an institution. Unless that heavily-armed soldier mentioned about comes kicking down those doors.
Friday, July 07, 2006
A MODEST PROPOSAL-RECRUIT, RUN INDEPENDENT LABOR MILITANTS IN THE 2006 ELECTIONS
COMMENTARY
IN THIS TIME OF THE ‘GREAT FEAR’ WE NEED CANDIDATES TO FIGHT FOR A WORKERS GOVERNMENT.
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
All “anti-parliamentarian”, “anti-state”, “non-political” anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist brothers and sisters need read no further. This writer does not want to sully the purity of your politics with the taint of parliamentary electoral politics. Although I might remind you, as we remember the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, that your political ancestors in Spain were more than willing to support the state and enter the government when they got the chance- the bourgeois state and the bourgeois government. But, we can fight that issue out later. We will, hopefully, see you then on the same side of the barricades.
As for other militants- here is my modest proposal. Either recruit fellow labor militants or present yourselves as candidates to run for public office, especially for Congress, during the 2006 election cycle. Why? Even a quick glance at the news of the day is calculated to send the most hardened politico screaming into the night. The quagmire in Iraq, immigration walls, flag-burning amendments, anti same-sex marriage amendments, the threat to separation of church state raised by those who would impose a fundamentalist Christian theocracy on the rest of us, and the attacks on the hard fought gains of the Enlightenment posed by bogus theories such as ‘intelligent design’. And that is just an average day. Therefore, this election cycle provides militants, at a time when the dwindling electorate is focused on politics, a forum to raise our program and our ideas. We use this as a tool, like leaflets, petitions, meetings, demonstrations, etc. to get our message across. Why should the Donkeys, Elephants, and Greens have a monopoly on the public square?
I mentioned in the last paragraph the idea of program. Let us face it if we do not have a program to run on then it makes no sense for militants to run for public office. Given the political climate our task at this time is to fight an exemplary propaganda campaign. Our program is our banner in that fight. The Democrats and Republicans DO NOT RUN on a program. The sum of their campaigns is to promise not to steal from the public treasury (or at least not too much), beat their husbands or wives or grossly compromise themselves in any manner. On second thought, given today’s political climate, they may not promise not to beat their husbands or wives. You get the point. Damn, even the weakest neophyte labor militant can make a better presentation before working people than that. In any case, this writer presents a five point program that labor militants can run on (you knew this was coming, right?). As point five makes clear this is not a ‘minimum’ program but a program based on our need to fight for power.
1. FIGHT FOR THE IMMEDIATE AND UNCONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL OF U.S. TROOPS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST NOW (OR BETTER YET, YESTERDAY)! U.S. HANDS OFF THE WORLD! VOTE NO ON THE WAR BUDGET! The quagmire in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East (Palestine, Iran) is the fault line of American politics today. Every bourgeois politician has to have his or her feet put to the fire on this one. Not on some flimsy ‘sense of the Congress’ softball motion for withdrawal next, year, in two years, or (my favorite) when the situation is stable. Moreover, on the parliamentary level the only real vote that matters is the vote on the war budget. All the rest is fluff. Militants should make a point of trying to enter Congressional contests where there are so-called anti-war Democrats or Republicans (an oxymoron, I believe) running to make that programmatic contrast vivid.
But, a young militant might argue, that would split the ‘progressive’ forces. Grow up, please! That argument has grown stale since it was first put forth in the ‘popular front’ days of the 1930’s. If you want to end the war in Iraq fight for this position on the war budget. Otherwise the same people (ya, those progressive Democrats) who unanimously voted for the last war budget get a free ride on the cheap. Senator Hillary “Hawk” Clinton desperately needs to be opposed by labor militants. Closet Republican, Democratic Senator Lieberman of Connecticut should not take his richly deserved beating on the war issue from a dissident Democrat. By rights this is our issue. Let us take it back.
2. FIGHT FOR A LIVING WAGE AND WORKING CONDITIONS-UNIVERSAL FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL. It is a ‘no-brainer’ that no individual, much less a family, can live on the minimum wage of $5/hr. (or proposed $7/hr). What planet do these politicians live on? We need an immediate fight for a living wage, full employment and decent working conditions. We need universal free health care for all. End of story. The organized labor movement must get off its knees and fight to organize Wal-Mart and the South. A boycott of Wal-Mart is not enough. A successful organizing drive will, like in the 1930’s, go a long way to turning the conditions of labor around.
3. FIGHT THE ATTACKS ON THE ENLIGHTENMENT. Down with the Death Penalty! Full Citizenship Rights for All Immigrants who make it here! Stop the Deportations! For the Separation of Church and State! Defend abortion rights! Down with ant-same sex marriage legislation! Full public funding of education! Stop the ‘war on drugs’, basically a war on blacks and minority youth-decriminalize drugs! Defend political prisoners! This list of demands hardly exhausts the “culture war” issues we defend. It is hard to believe that in the year 2006 over 200 years after the American Revolution and the French Revolution we are fighting desperately to preserve many of the same principles that militants fought for in those revolutions. But, so be it.
4. FIGHT FOR A WORKERS PARTY. The Donkeys, Elephants and Greens have had their chance. Now is the time to fight for our own party and for the interests of our own class, the working class. Any campaigns by independent labor militants must highlight this point. And any such campaigns can also become the nucleus of a workers party network until we get strong enough to form at least a small party. None of these other parties, and I mean none, are working in the interests of working people and their allies. The following great lesson of politic today must be hammered home. Break with the Democrats, Republicans and Greens!
5. FIGHT FOR A WORKERS AND XYZ GOVERNMENT. THIS IS THE DEMAND THAT SEPARATES THE MILITANTS FROM THE FAINT-HEARTED REFORMISTS. We need our own form of government. In the old days the bourgeois republic was a progressive form of government. Not so any more. That form of government ran out of steam about one hundred years ago. We need a Workers Republic. We need a government based on workers councils with a ministry (I do not dare say commissariat in case any stray anarchists are still reading this) responsible to it. Let us face it if we really want to get any of the good and necessary things listed above accomplished we are not going to get it with the current form of government.
Why the XYZ part? What does that mean? No, it is not part of an algebra lesson. What it reflects is that while society is made up mainly of workers (of one sort or another) there are other classes (and parts of classes) in society that we seek as allies who could benefit from a workers government. Examples- small independent contractors, intellectuals, the dwindling number of small farmers, and some professionals like dentists. Ya, I like the idea of a workers and dentists government. The point is you have got to fight for it.
Obviously any campaign based on this program will be an exemplary propaganda campaign for the foreseeable future. But we have to start now. Continuing to support or not challenging the bourgeois parties does us no good now. That is for sure. While bourgeois electoral laws do not favor independent candidacies at this late date write-in campaigns are possible. ROLL UP YOUR SHEEVES! GET THOSE PETITIONS SIGNED! PRINT OUT THE LEAFLETS! PAINT THOSE BANNERS! GET READY TO SHAKE HANDS AND KISS BABIES.
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!
IN THIS TIME OF THE ‘GREAT FEAR’ WE NEED CANDIDATES TO FIGHT FOR A WORKERS GOVERNMENT.
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
All “anti-parliamentarian”, “anti-state”, “non-political” anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist brothers and sisters need read no further. This writer does not want to sully the purity of your politics with the taint of parliamentary electoral politics. Although I might remind you, as we remember the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, that your political ancestors in Spain were more than willing to support the state and enter the government when they got the chance- the bourgeois state and the bourgeois government. But, we can fight that issue out later. We will, hopefully, see you then on the same side of the barricades.
As for other militants- here is my modest proposal. Either recruit fellow labor militants or present yourselves as candidates to run for public office, especially for Congress, during the 2006 election cycle. Why? Even a quick glance at the news of the day is calculated to send the most hardened politico screaming into the night. The quagmire in Iraq, immigration walls, flag-burning amendments, anti same-sex marriage amendments, the threat to separation of church state raised by those who would impose a fundamentalist Christian theocracy on the rest of us, and the attacks on the hard fought gains of the Enlightenment posed by bogus theories such as ‘intelligent design’. And that is just an average day. Therefore, this election cycle provides militants, at a time when the dwindling electorate is focused on politics, a forum to raise our program and our ideas. We use this as a tool, like leaflets, petitions, meetings, demonstrations, etc. to get our message across. Why should the Donkeys, Elephants, and Greens have a monopoly on the public square?
I mentioned in the last paragraph the idea of program. Let us face it if we do not have a program to run on then it makes no sense for militants to run for public office. Given the political climate our task at this time is to fight an exemplary propaganda campaign. Our program is our banner in that fight. The Democrats and Republicans DO NOT RUN on a program. The sum of their campaigns is to promise not to steal from the public treasury (or at least not too much), beat their husbands or wives or grossly compromise themselves in any manner. On second thought, given today’s political climate, they may not promise not to beat their husbands or wives. You get the point. Damn, even the weakest neophyte labor militant can make a better presentation before working people than that. In any case, this writer presents a five point program that labor militants can run on (you knew this was coming, right?). As point five makes clear this is not a ‘minimum’ program but a program based on our need to fight for power.
1. FIGHT FOR THE IMMEDIATE AND UNCONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL OF U.S. TROOPS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST NOW (OR BETTER YET, YESTERDAY)! U.S. HANDS OFF THE WORLD! VOTE NO ON THE WAR BUDGET! The quagmire in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East (Palestine, Iran) is the fault line of American politics today. Every bourgeois politician has to have his or her feet put to the fire on this one. Not on some flimsy ‘sense of the Congress’ softball motion for withdrawal next, year, in two years, or (my favorite) when the situation is stable. Moreover, on the parliamentary level the only real vote that matters is the vote on the war budget. All the rest is fluff. Militants should make a point of trying to enter Congressional contests where there are so-called anti-war Democrats or Republicans (an oxymoron, I believe) running to make that programmatic contrast vivid.
But, a young militant might argue, that would split the ‘progressive’ forces. Grow up, please! That argument has grown stale since it was first put forth in the ‘popular front’ days of the 1930’s. If you want to end the war in Iraq fight for this position on the war budget. Otherwise the same people (ya, those progressive Democrats) who unanimously voted for the last war budget get a free ride on the cheap. Senator Hillary “Hawk” Clinton desperately needs to be opposed by labor militants. Closet Republican, Democratic Senator Lieberman of Connecticut should not take his richly deserved beating on the war issue from a dissident Democrat. By rights this is our issue. Let us take it back.
2. FIGHT FOR A LIVING WAGE AND WORKING CONDITIONS-UNIVERSAL FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL. It is a ‘no-brainer’ that no individual, much less a family, can live on the minimum wage of $5/hr. (or proposed $7/hr). What planet do these politicians live on? We need an immediate fight for a living wage, full employment and decent working conditions. We need universal free health care for all. End of story. The organized labor movement must get off its knees and fight to organize Wal-Mart and the South. A boycott of Wal-Mart is not enough. A successful organizing drive will, like in the 1930’s, go a long way to turning the conditions of labor around.
3. FIGHT THE ATTACKS ON THE ENLIGHTENMENT. Down with the Death Penalty! Full Citizenship Rights for All Immigrants who make it here! Stop the Deportations! For the Separation of Church and State! Defend abortion rights! Down with ant-same sex marriage legislation! Full public funding of education! Stop the ‘war on drugs’, basically a war on blacks and minority youth-decriminalize drugs! Defend political prisoners! This list of demands hardly exhausts the “culture war” issues we defend. It is hard to believe that in the year 2006 over 200 years after the American Revolution and the French Revolution we are fighting desperately to preserve many of the same principles that militants fought for in those revolutions. But, so be it.
4. FIGHT FOR A WORKERS PARTY. The Donkeys, Elephants and Greens have had their chance. Now is the time to fight for our own party and for the interests of our own class, the working class. Any campaigns by independent labor militants must highlight this point. And any such campaigns can also become the nucleus of a workers party network until we get strong enough to form at least a small party. None of these other parties, and I mean none, are working in the interests of working people and their allies. The following great lesson of politic today must be hammered home. Break with the Democrats, Republicans and Greens!
5. FIGHT FOR A WORKERS AND XYZ GOVERNMENT. THIS IS THE DEMAND THAT SEPARATES THE MILITANTS FROM THE FAINT-HEARTED REFORMISTS. We need our own form of government. In the old days the bourgeois republic was a progressive form of government. Not so any more. That form of government ran out of steam about one hundred years ago. We need a Workers Republic. We need a government based on workers councils with a ministry (I do not dare say commissariat in case any stray anarchists are still reading this) responsible to it. Let us face it if we really want to get any of the good and necessary things listed above accomplished we are not going to get it with the current form of government.
Why the XYZ part? What does that mean? No, it is not part of an algebra lesson. What it reflects is that while society is made up mainly of workers (of one sort or another) there are other classes (and parts of classes) in society that we seek as allies who could benefit from a workers government. Examples- small independent contractors, intellectuals, the dwindling number of small farmers, and some professionals like dentists. Ya, I like the idea of a workers and dentists government. The point is you have got to fight for it.
Obviously any campaign based on this program will be an exemplary propaganda campaign for the foreseeable future. But we have to start now. Continuing to support or not challenging the bourgeois parties does us no good now. That is for sure. While bourgeois electoral laws do not favor independent candidacies at this late date write-in campaigns are possible. ROLL UP YOUR SHEEVES! GET THOSE PETITIONS SIGNED! PRINT OUT THE LEAFLETS! PAINT THOSE BANNERS! GET READY TO SHAKE HANDS AND KISS BABIES.
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!
*Hands Off Ward Churchill- A Guest Commentary
Click on the title to link to a "Workers Vanguard", newspaper of the Spartacist League/U.S, article on the subject mentioned in the headline.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
HO-HUM-THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO FIGHT FOR A $7 FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE
COMMENTARY
WHAT PLANET ARE THESE PEOPLE ON? FIGHT FOR A LIVING WAGE!
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Is there no end to this madness of bourgeois parliamentary politics? This writer has just recently learned that the leader of the House Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, wants to reintroduce legislation that would raise the federal minimum wage standard from $5 to $7 (rounded off)/hour. This is legislation that earlier in the session the Republican-dominated Congress brushed aside without a murmur as an outrage against humankind. This project is supposedly the lynchpin of the Democratic program, and incidentally the road to heaven for working people, for the 2006 election cycle in the fall.
Let’s do the math-rounding off a little. National median household income is about $50,000/yr. $5*40hours*52 weeks= $10,000 /yr. That is very, very, very poor, indeed. Now, let us try $7*40 hours*52 weeks=$15,000/yr. Even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would agree that still is very, very, very poor, indeed. These numbers speak to “Third World” economic conditions. And it’s no accident that a significant proportion of people at the bottom are blacks, Hispanics and immigrants from “third world” countries. Jesus, with this program this writer has to seriously reconsider his longtime fundamental opposition to capitalist parties and to capitalism. $7/hour minimum wages means we have entered paradise. Forget socialist equality. Forget the classless society. Just vote Democratic in 2006.
Seriously though, this issue brings up what militants must do. Our program is not small, incremental increases of minimum wage levels but a living wage for all. That is the program that a workers party representative in Congress would fight for. However, that is not the end all or be all of our program. Karl Marx long ago argued against the bourgeois and socialist theorists of the Iron Law of Wages (those who thought the struggle for increased wages was Utopian or counterproductive because the capitalists’ wage bills were fixed) and trade union reformists of his times that the remedy was not a “fair day’s pay for a far day’s work” but the ultimate abolition of the wage system through societal redistribution of the social surplus generated by labor. That is our ultimate goal.
Nevertheless, the capitalists will argue that raising the minimum wage will eliminate jobs here or send jobs to other countries. No, it will reduce their profits-maybe (they always seem to be able to generate those non-existent funds when pressed to the wall by successful strikes). That is the bottom line. To be honest, it is not the concern of militants if individual capitalists go under. Our immediate fight is for jobs, and jobs with a living wage and some dignity. To stop runaway shops labor has to organize internationally. To stop the race to the bottom here labor has to organize Wal-Mart and the South, for openers. That is the beginning. The end? Remember Karl Marx’s point-ABOLISH THE WAGE SYSTEM.
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!
WHAT PLANET ARE THESE PEOPLE ON? FIGHT FOR A LIVING WAGE!
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Is there no end to this madness of bourgeois parliamentary politics? This writer has just recently learned that the leader of the House Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, wants to reintroduce legislation that would raise the federal minimum wage standard from $5 to $7 (rounded off)/hour. This is legislation that earlier in the session the Republican-dominated Congress brushed aside without a murmur as an outrage against humankind. This project is supposedly the lynchpin of the Democratic program, and incidentally the road to heaven for working people, for the 2006 election cycle in the fall.
Let’s do the math-rounding off a little. National median household income is about $50,000/yr. $5*40hours*52 weeks= $10,000 /yr. That is very, very, very poor, indeed. Now, let us try $7*40 hours*52 weeks=$15,000/yr. Even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would agree that still is very, very, very poor, indeed. These numbers speak to “Third World” economic conditions. And it’s no accident that a significant proportion of people at the bottom are blacks, Hispanics and immigrants from “third world” countries. Jesus, with this program this writer has to seriously reconsider his longtime fundamental opposition to capitalist parties and to capitalism. $7/hour minimum wages means we have entered paradise. Forget socialist equality. Forget the classless society. Just vote Democratic in 2006.
Seriously though, this issue brings up what militants must do. Our program is not small, incremental increases of minimum wage levels but a living wage for all. That is the program that a workers party representative in Congress would fight for. However, that is not the end all or be all of our program. Karl Marx long ago argued against the bourgeois and socialist theorists of the Iron Law of Wages (those who thought the struggle for increased wages was Utopian or counterproductive because the capitalists’ wage bills were fixed) and trade union reformists of his times that the remedy was not a “fair day’s pay for a far day’s work” but the ultimate abolition of the wage system through societal redistribution of the social surplus generated by labor. That is our ultimate goal.
Nevertheless, the capitalists will argue that raising the minimum wage will eliminate jobs here or send jobs to other countries. No, it will reduce their profits-maybe (they always seem to be able to generate those non-existent funds when pressed to the wall by successful strikes). That is the bottom line. To be honest, it is not the concern of militants if individual capitalists go under. Our immediate fight is for jobs, and jobs with a living wage and some dignity. To stop runaway shops labor has to organize internationally. To stop the race to the bottom here labor has to organize Wal-Mart and the South, for openers. That is the beginning. The end? Remember Karl Marx’s point-ABOLISH THE WAGE SYSTEM.
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!
Friday, June 30, 2006
SUPREME COURT OUTLAWS PRIVATE PRESIDENTIAL MILITARY COURTS-FOR NOW
COMMENTARY
PRESIDENT MUST BEG CONGRESS REAL HARD FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Just as I started feeling good about beating up on the United States Supreme Court justices this week, calling them black-robed closet Nazis and Neanderthals (see above commentaries) the justices vote by 5-4 (oops, 5-3 Chief Justice Roberts recused himself on this one- but WE all know where he stands) to deny President Bush the right to use his own executive-derived and organized private Star Chamber proceedings against detained ‘enemy combatants’.
This decision would seem to negate this writer’s usual uncanny grasp of which way the political winds are blowing. Not so. Without trying to weasel out of this squeamish situation by lawyerly argument I would point out that in The Angels of Death Ride Again that the Court was positioning itself just to the left of the medieval Star Chamber. And I am correct on this. The Court’s decision did not strike down the executive military commissions as the vehicles for show trials that such commissions had become but only that the President must ask Congress nicely to set them up with all due regard for those shopworn concepts- the rule of law and the constitutional balance of powers. When the Court starts bringing these arguments in it’s definitely time to head for cover. How hard do you think the Bush administration is going to have to fight Congress (presumably in an election year) to get approval for legislation military commissions to try a bunch of Moslems fanatics. Damn, they live and breathe for these kinds of soft ball votes.
We live in desperate times as the above commentaries for only ONE WEEK make abundantly clear so we have to take even small victories, such as this decision when we can get them. Any limitation, no matter how small, on the Imperial Presidency can only help give us a little breather. Enough said.
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!
PRESIDENT MUST BEG CONGRESS REAL HARD FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Just as I started feeling good about beating up on the United States Supreme Court justices this week, calling them black-robed closet Nazis and Neanderthals (see above commentaries) the justices vote by 5-4 (oops, 5-3 Chief Justice Roberts recused himself on this one- but WE all know where he stands) to deny President Bush the right to use his own executive-derived and organized private Star Chamber proceedings against detained ‘enemy combatants’.
This decision would seem to negate this writer’s usual uncanny grasp of which way the political winds are blowing. Not so. Without trying to weasel out of this squeamish situation by lawyerly argument I would point out that in The Angels of Death Ride Again that the Court was positioning itself just to the left of the medieval Star Chamber. And I am correct on this. The Court’s decision did not strike down the executive military commissions as the vehicles for show trials that such commissions had become but only that the President must ask Congress nicely to set them up with all due regard for those shopworn concepts- the rule of law and the constitutional balance of powers. When the Court starts bringing these arguments in it’s definitely time to head for cover. How hard do you think the Bush administration is going to have to fight Congress (presumably in an election year) to get approval for legislation military commissions to try a bunch of Moslems fanatics. Damn, they live and breathe for these kinds of soft ball votes.
We live in desperate times as the above commentaries for only ONE WEEK make abundantly clear so we have to take even small victories, such as this decision when we can get them. Any limitation, no matter how small, on the Imperial Presidency can only help give us a little breather. Enough said.
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!
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
NO TO THE FLAG-BURNING AMENDMENT-NO TO FEDERAL ANTI-FLAG-BURNING LEGISLATION
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.
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.
*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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)