HONOR THE MEMORY OF THE HUNGARIAN WORKERS UPRISING- 1956- HONOR PAL MALETER

COMMENTARY

HONOR THE 5OTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIGHT AGAINST STALINISM AND FOR SOCIALISM-HONOR THE MEMORY OF THE HEROIC PAL MALETER-MILITANT FIGHTER FOR SOCIALISM

In June of 2006 I wrote a blog concerning the meaning of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 after United States President George W. Bush on a tour of Eastern Europe falsely claimed the valiant efforts of the Hungarian workers in 1956 to create a workers democracy there on behalf of Western imperialism. (See June 2006 archive, dated June 22). Now, as we approach the 50th anniversary of that uprising I am paying honor to that event at its proper time. I stand by the ideas expressed in the above-mentioned blog. Especially so, as I have read more about the extraordinary Pal Maleter. Forget Imre Nagy, who has received far more notice and acclaim- Defense Minister Maleter was the real, if flawed, thing in a world of stodgy Stalinist bureaucrats. The world Stalinist movement produced few such leaders. It produced many more rank and file subjective revolutionary militants. We could have used them then and we sure as hell could use more subjective revolutionaries now.

The world Communist movement would be in a very different place if there had been more militants like Maleter (and “Che” Guevara as well, to name another, for lack of a better term, Left Stalinist ). These were not our people- but they were our people. I would also include an additional point to that June posting mentioned above.

The official Stalinist Hungarian Communist Party in 1956 splintered under the impact of working class pressure from below. In that case, the mass of lower and middle (and in a few cases, such as Maleter's, leadership) cadre went over to the side of the working class revolutionaries. That fracture of the official party and state bureaucracies was observed more fully in the demise of Stalinism in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union in the 1989-1992 period. The difference between the two periods, however, was in the latter case the Stalinist bureaucracy was by then a house of cards easily blown away in the wind. The Stalinist bureaucrats were no longer interested in saving socialism (as they perceived it) but in saving their hides. Such is the contrary nature of Stalinism. Why the use of the word is instead of was in the last sentence? Events within the Stalinist Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese state bureaucracy are heading slowly toward such a crisis as occurred during both the above-mentioned events . One would have to assume that the same fracture in the Stalinist bureaucracy of the party and the state will occur there as well. Which way will the bureaucracies go? Hungary-1956 or the Soviet Union/ Eastern Europe 1989-1992? More later.

ON A LEFT-WING MILITANT'S HEDGING OF BETS

COMMENTARY

SHAME-FACED CONFESSION OF A POLITICAL JUNKIE


As part of a series of collective commentaries in a previous blog (see October 2006 archive, dated October 1) this writer was rash enough to project that the Republicans would hold on to both Houses of Congress in the upcoming November elections. And I put my money where my mouth was. I offering 3/2 odds on that proposition, desperately looking for takers. I then assumed it was like finding money on the ground. In the interest of full disclosure please refer to that blog. What I have to say here is that I am, as it were, in the processing of refining my position on that prediction (how do you like them weasel words?). In short, the odds of a Democratic takeover of either House in my book have gone to even-take your pick. However, the same political landscape that made me so rash as to bet on the Republicans is still intact. A Democratic win in November of one or both the Houses would still not represent a sea-change in the nature of capitalist political options such as occurred in let us say 1932 or 1960. So what gives?

The long and short of it is the Republicans are so incompetent and scandal-ridden on such wide-ranging subjects as sex and the matter of “personal” finances that the Democrats just by staying in place and not stealing as much as the Republicans look good by comparison. Add Iraq and it takes no pyschic to predict the results. Prime evidence for this is the fate of Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. He was pistol-whipped by upstart anti-war candidate Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary in August. He thereafter decided to run as an "independent". The latest polls show him with a commanding lead over Lamont. That case has been repeated elsewhere where marginally anti-war Democrats are leading Iraq-scarred Republicans. Let antiwar activists, however, face an extremely hard reality- the Democrats have no more of an idea of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq than the Bush Administration does. Although I do not relish playing the role of Cassandra those who wish for a Democratic victory next month will soon enough see what I have been saying for the past several months comes to pass. Stay tune for the final line on the elections. Meanwhile, I eat my pie humbly.

ADDED NOTES: October 22, 2006. Christ, even the Republicans are distancing themselves from the Bush fiasco in Iraq. First it was Senators Warner and Hagel arguing for more options and tactical flexibility (except, of course the obvious one of immediate withdrawal). Now 'ole Texas gal'- Republican Senator Kay Bailey Richardson has stated that had she known then what she knows today she would have not voted to give the green light for war in Iraq. Hell, these guys ( and gals) had far more access to 'intelligence' about Iraq than the average citizen would ever had. These people WANTED to go to war assuming that it would be a walkover. When they got walked over they started deserting that ship like fleeing rats. I have been saying for months, jokingly, that only the immediate Bush entourage was still committed to this misadventure. Now it looks like this may be almost literally true. Let me repeat the message I have been hammering home all election season-GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ NOW!

Apparently, however, not every pro-war activist is ready to call 'uncle'. Despite the fact that even the editors of National Review are starting to buckle and call Iraq a mistake Boston Globe Op-Ed columnist Jeff Jacoby, last heard from preaching moral relativism to the poor Amish (see October 2006 archives, HANDS OFF THE AMISH, dated October 10), had a commentary in the October 22, 2006 edition drawing every possible historical analogy at his command in order to justify "staying the course" in Iraq. He drew on analogies to the American War of 1812, the Battle of the Bulge in World War II and that last refuge of every rascal-the American Civil War to buttress his argument to show one never knows what the outcome will be once one starts down a particular slippery slope. Damn, you know your position is very, very shaky when you have to bring out this kind of historical ammunition for a war that was consciously fudged from the start. Hopefully, some future administration will not be "staying" that course in Iraq when Mr. Jacoby's young son comes of military age.

*FOR REAL JUSTICE-FREE LYNNE STEWART!

Click on title to link to the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee site.

COMMENTARY

WE NEED LAWYERS WHO ARE FUSS-
MAKERS NOT RAINMAKERS

FREE CO-DEFENDANTS YOUSRY AND SATTAR

Well, the Bush Administration has finally got New York Attorney Lynne Stewart (DESPITE HER DISBARMENT I WILL CONTINUE TO CALL HER ATTORNEY) where they want her. Ms. Stewart had previously been indicted on the vague and flimsy charge of "materially" aiding terrorism by essentially, on the record presented by the government at the trial, providing zealous advocacy for her client, Sheik Rahman, who had been convicted in various terrorist schemes including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. At a trial in Federal District Court in New York City where the prosecution used every scare tactic in the post- 9/11 “War on Terror” playbook she was convicted. On October 16, 2006 she was finally sentenced on the charges. The federal judge in the case noting the severity of the crime but also the invaluable service that Ms. Stewart had rendered to the voiceless and downtrodden sentence her to 28 months.

This sentence has been described as victory of sorts by Attorney Stewart and other commentators. The ever upbeat Ms. Stewart is quoted as stating that she, like some of her clients, could do that time “standing on her head”. Well, that may be, but the fact of the matter is that Ms. Stewart should not have been indicted, should not have been convicted and most definitely not sentenced for her actions on behalf of her client. Only the fact that the judge did not totally surrender to the government’s blatant appeals to “national security” issues and sentence her to the thirty years that they requested makes this any kind of “victory”. That joy over any lesser sentence could be considered as such is a telling reminder of the times we live in.

This case and the publicity surrounding it has dramatically warned any attorney who is committed to zealous defense of an unpopular or voiceless client to back off or face the consequences. The chilling effect on such advocacy, in some cases the only possible way to truly defend a client in this overheated reactionary atmosphere, is obvious. Moreover, the whole question of “material” aid to terrorism is a Pandora’s box for any political activist or even a merely interested non-political participant in any organization on the government’s “hit” list.

The government has the possibility of appealing the sentence to the Federal Court of Appeals so as of today October 18, 2006 the travails of Ms. Stewart are not over. Moreover, her conviction is still on appeal. From what I can gather in any reasonably quiet appeals court some of more blatant actions by the prosecution at trial would warrant, at minimum, a new trial if not the overturning of the conviction. Again, in these times such confidence may be unwarranted. In short, the “people’s lawyer” Lynne Stewart needs financial help to wage these new battles. Please consider sending a donation to the Lynne Stewart Defense Fund or to the organization I support- the Partisan Defense Committee- which will forward the donation. You can google either organization for addresses.

REVISED: NOVEMBER 2, 2006

ADDED NOTE: IN ANOTHER TELLING TALE OF THE TIMES THE INFORMATION THAT I RECEIVED FROM THE MASS MEDIA "NEGLECTED" TO INFORM THAT MS. STEWART'S ARAB TRANSLATOR , MOHAMED YOUSRY RECEIVED A 20 MONTH SENTENCE AND PARALEGAL ABDEL SATTAR RECEIVED 24 YEARS- NO THAT IS NOT A MISPRINT-24 YEARS. I MAKE UP OF THAT EGREGIOUS MISTAKE HERE. NEED LESS TO SAY- FREE STEWART, YOUSRY AND SATTAR.

SOFT-CORE SELL OF A STALINIST HENCHMAN

BOOK REVIEW

KHRUSHCHEV, ROY MEDVEDEV, ANCHOR PRESS, NEW YORK, 1983

At one time in the seemingly distant pass the name Roy Medvedev was associated very closely with the left-wing elements of the opposition movements into the former Soviet Union at the time of Khrushchev’s leadership. One would hardly know from reading this biography that the two were, at least formally, political opponents. Mr. Medvedev has produced a biography that beyond acting as catalogue of Mr. Khrushchev’s travels and activities as leader of the former Soviet Union is little more than a soft-core sell of an old Stalinist henchman. This tact on the part of the author may be due to the fact that book was published in 1983 when the Soviet Union was in the early process of going to hell in a hand basket and so the Khrushchev period appeared, in retrospect, to be a Golden Age of Stalinism-without Stalin. Nevertheless if one is looking for a more profound analysis of a key personality of the immediate post-Stalin period one will have to look elsewhere.

That said, Mr. Medvedev cannot be faulted for his general factual presentation. He dutifully, if superficially, goes through Mr. Khrushchev’s rise to the top layer of the Stalin entourage, the struggle for power after Stalin’s death in 1953, the monumental revelations of the crimes of Stalin at the 20th and later the 22nd Russian Communist Party Congresses, the various domestic crises particularly the continuing problems in agriculture that years later would contribute to the downfall of the Soviet Union, the international disputes within the world Communist movement, the at times very heated struggle with the West during various episodes of the Cold War and his eventual downfall from power in 1964.

The reviewer grew up in America at the time of the rise and fall of the Khrushchev regime and it was useful to be reminded of those events, their importance in the history of that period and as a refreshing of my memory of my reaction to the events at the time. For those who have forgotten or do not know of the key events such as the attempts at nuclear disarmament, the crisis in Berlin and the Cuban Missile Crisis this book provide a competent review of those events.

The stumbling block to any further credit to Mr. Medvedev’s book is his rather fawning attitude over Mr. Khrushchev’s achievements in the post-Stalin period. Yes, Mr. Khrushchev performed an important, if not adequate, service to the international communist movement by his revelations of Stalin’s crimes. But any leftist critic of Stalinism has the right to ask- Mr. Khrushchev what were you doing at the time of all these acknowledged crimes while a henchman of Mr. Stalin? It is not enough to argue that there was little one could do. The history and fate of the Left Opposition in the Russian Communist Party and that of other oppositionists in the wastes of Russia testify to other routes for those who considered themselves Bolsheviks. No, this gloss-over will not do.

Mr. Khrushchev, Mr. Medvedev and I shared one thing in common. At one time we all stood for the defense of the Soviet Union against attack by world imperialism and internal counterrevolution. Beyond that we part ways. I note that all through this paean to the intrepid Mr. Khrushchev there is very little sense that in the Khrushchev era, despite some obvious thawing of the internal political environment, that workers and farmers councils could have been a more appropriate way out of the impasse of Soviet society than just playing musical chairs with the top levels of the Soviet bureaucracy. The gap between that Leninist understanding of the road to socialism and Mr. Khrushchev’ s top-down operation certainly did its part to weaken the Soviet Union and cause its ultimate collapse. Stalinism certainly represented the political expropriation of the working class, the labor camps, the judicial murders, the bureaucratic perks and all of that. However, in the final analysis the Stalin regime also meant the practice of "socialism in one country" which placed natural limits on the internal developments of the Soviet Union. Stalin liked it that way. Nothing in the book indicated that Khrushchev saw the world any differently.



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 MARXIST INTERNET ARCHIVES.

*IT AIN'T GOING TO BE POPULAR BUT-HANDS OFF NORTH KOREA!

Click on the headline to link to a Workers Vanguard article U.S. Imperialism Hands Off North Korea!, dated January 17, 2003.

COMMENTARY

AMERICAN IMPERIALISM- WHEN YOU LET THE GENIE OUT OF THE BOTTLE –WATCH OUT-AND DON’T CRY ABOUT IT

In a recent blog commenting on Massachusetts Senator John Forbes Kerry’s emerging presidential campaign for the elections of 2008 (see October 2006 archives, dated October 13th) this writer commented on Mr. Kerry’s hue and cry over the fact that North Korea had recently detonated some small nuclear devise and his call for America to take ‘appropriate action’ including, presumably a preemptive first strike against that country. That position has also been echoed by others in the liberal and Democratic Party establishments. At that time I wrote that I would have further comments later. Here goes.

The hard realities of international politics and military policy in the year 2006 are that any “third world” countries that are in the crosshairs of the American imperialists(or other imperialists) need nuclear weapons in order to survive. I warned from the start this commentary would not be pretty. The two destructive wars in Iraq over the past 15 years, where a marginally harmful figure to imperialists interests like Saddam Hussein was dealt severe conventional military blows, when the West even had a tiny thought that he had the potential (in some distant future) to produce such weaponry dramatically brings that point home. In the current one-superpower world dominated overwhelmingly by a far-flung American military presence this fact cannot have been lost on any leader of a small nation-least of all Kim Jung Il of North Korea.

Western imperialism’s hypocrisy over the occurrence of the blast and the media’s treatment of it, replete with vintage film footage reminiscent of old Soviet May Day parades, like some central event of the presumably long past Cold War seems strikingly irrational in the context of current American military capabilities.
Let me cite the standard leftist comments on such hypocrisy. While such comments might seem tired and reflect an old Cold War reality they nevertheless should underline any leftist response to the international situation today. Hell, for all practical purposes it is starting to look like that kind of world again. To begin- America, after all, let the genie out of the bottle when it first developed the atomic bomb for use in the waning days of World War II. Those who let the genie out of the bottle should not cry- over 60 years later- when some upstarts come along, use the simplification of that technology to develop their own weaponry and want to play in the same sandbox.

Commentators , in defending American leadership of an exclusive nuclear club, have placed great emphasis on the deterrent effect, based on mutually assured destruction, of the then escalating nuclear arms race during most parts of the Cold War which ended with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991-92. Two comments should disabuse the reader of the notion of firm stewardship by American imperialism over that time. One, the Americans ruling class did in fact use nuclear weapons on essentially defenseless and defeated people in Japan. And has been the only power in history to do so. Two, the American imperialists today have several thousand serious nuclear weapons with the capacity to launch them anytime, anywhere and if history is any judge with little compunction to use them. “Third World” tin-pot dictators, quasi-socialist bureaucrats and other assorted rulers are not the only ones that should be worried by such facts. Damn, I am worried too.

Among the first political activities that I engaged in as a youth was the fight for unilateral nuclear disarmament. I admired the struggles of the British Labor Party to make Great Britain a nuclear-free zone during the height of the Cold War. As an advocate today for a socialist world that youthful dream still holds sway in the back of my mind- but now with a much better understanding of the nature of world politics and far less naiveté about the nature and intentions of the American capitalist system. Iraq today is only the most graphic example of the ruthlessness of that system. However, unlike such groups as the hard-line Stalinist Workers World Party which apparently wants the North Korean U.S. political franchise (for what it is worth) I do not see Kim Jung Il as one of nature’s noblemen. Nor is North Korea a “workers paradise” by any stretch of the imagination. However it is up to the workers and peasants of North Korea (along with their brethren in the South) to take care of that question of "regime change" and move forward to a socialist society. That task cannot be outsourced under the bloody dictates of international imperialism and its hangers-on. Until that future socialist time , however, make no mistake I join others, including the Workers World Party, in demanding- HANDS OFF NORTH KOREA!

Revised October 20, 2006

WHO IS SENATOR JOHN FORBES KERRY AND WHY IS HE BLEEDING ALL OVER THE RUG?

COMMENTARY

KERRY’S MEA CULPA IS NOT ENOUGH-WE NEED A WORKERS PARTY CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT

FORGET ELEPHANTS, DONKEYS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!!

No one can fault Massachusetts United Senator John Forbes Kerry for lacking in commemorative spirit. Last spring he wooed an audience at Fanueil Hall with a speech observing the 35th Annivesary of his testimony before a Senate Committee investigating the Vietnam War (Do people in the real world, outside of politics, really observe such anniversaries?). This week, the week of October 8, 2006, he again is on the stump celebrating the 4th Anniversary of his ill-fated vote to authorize President Bush to go to war in Iraq. The highlight of the speech apparently was his ‘heartfelt’ admission that he was wrong to give such approval. As a matter of elemenatry politic hygiene one would think with Kerry ‘s gyrations that he would be hiding out alone somewhere in the hills of New Hampshire not shouting about it from the rooftops. But such is the nature of capitalist politics- when you really have the 'fire in the belly' to be president there is nothing you will not do to abase yourself to get that ‘job’. Ask Bill Clinton (and maybe, ask Hillary). Ask the master- Hubert Horatio Humphrey. Need I say more.

Let us go through the numbers on the question of opposition to the Iraq war one more time. On the national parliamentary level the only real action that counts in opposition to the war in Iraq is not some belated mea culpa on an authorization vote but the vote on the war budget. You know, the way the damn war gets funded. Senator Kerry voted with both hands (and probably both feet) for that one. Democrats and Republicans LIKE to vote for the war budgets. It is now worst than useless to think otherwise. A new set of worker party candidates or other independents with a socialist program must be put forth to vote against the war budget (among other things). But that is the music of the future. As bad as Kerry’ position is THAT women, punitive ( I do not mean putative) Democratic presidential candidate New York Senator Hillary “Hawk”Clinton’s is even worst. While making some very tentative anti-war sounds she continues to stand by her 2002 vote. And like Kerry in 2004 she will probably be anointed the ‘anti-war’ candidate in 2008 agains the Republicans. Well, let the liberal anti-war activists twist in the wind on that one.

One other point about Senator Kerry deserves mentioning here lest one think that he is the reincarnation of the pacifist Indian leader Gandhi. This week North Korea exploded some small nuclear devise which raised all kinds of hypocritical outcries of 'foul' from the exclusive international nuclear club headed by American imperialism. Senator Kerry went out of his way to comment on this so-called outrage and argued for ‘appropriate’ action to stem the North Koreans. For those who need it spelled out that means preemptive military strikes, if necessary. Kerry represents the real position of the Iraqi defeatist wing of the capitalist class. To President Bush they say- It’s Iran, stupid, It’s North Korea, stupid. No one in the establishment, least of all Kerry, is turning swords into plowshares here, they just want another target. After two destructive wars in Iraq the hard reality of international politics in the case of small ‘third world’ nations in the crosshairs of American (or other) imperialist guns is you damn well better have nuclear weapons or you will not survive. More on this latter.

VOTE FOR THE IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ REFERENDUM IN MASSACHUSETTS ON NOVEMBER 7TH

COMMENTARY

RESOLUTIONS AND GOOD INTENTIONS ARE NOT ENOUGH- USE THE VOTE TO SUPPORT ANTI-WAR FRATERNATIZATION WITH THE TROOPS IN IRAQ

FORGET ELEPHANTS, DONKEYS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!!

According to the Boston Globe of October 11, 2006 the voters of a number of Massachusetts communities will be able to vote on November 7th on a non-binding referendum calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The measure sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee (Quakers) and other anti-war organizations will be on the ballot in various communities depending on the Massachusetts House of Representatives district. The gist of the resolution is a call on your local state representative to support a resolution to call on the Congress and the President to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq. Given that all hell is breaking out in Iraq at some level this should be regarded as sub-parliamentary cretinism. I personally think that it would be much easier to turn swords into plowshares than get any effective action out of this cumbersome parliamentary maneuver. Nevertheless it is minimally supportable by militant leftists as an expression of opposition to the Iraq war. But, hear me out further.

Petitions, people’s peace treaties and referenda against war pushed by the more pacific, reformist-minded elements of anti- war movements throughout history have been a dime a dozen every time a serious military conflict arises. Those forces that place primary emphasis on such methods of redress fundamentally believe that those who have the power to take a nation to war are at heart “reasonable” and subject to parliamentary pressure from the masses. At last count their efforts have had zero effect on the continuation or cessation of any war, particularly the current one. Nevertheless, as a political proposition such acts do no harm and can give a minimal voice to anti-war opposition. That it is hardly enough goes without saying. Let me, however, propose another way to look at such a vote.

Any even moderately political person who has paid attention to the situation in Iraq over the last period knows that it is desperately necessary to cut and run with “all deliberate speed out” of that quagmire. That part is a no-brainer. Nevertheless, the President, the Congress, the military chieftains and, yes, the anti-war movement have failed the troops in Iraq. The shortest and only way home now for the troops is to organize AMONG THEMSELVES TO COME HOME. Our role on this side of the ocean is to act in solidarity with such efforts and form civilian solidarity committees to aid these efforts. Thus, on November 7th voters in the effected Massachusetts districts can use their vote not only for calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq but to support the troops efforts' to get out. Until then it is still necessary to say and organize around- GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ NOW!!

ADDED NOTE: For the past several months I have been proposing the above course of action regarding troop solidarity committees. During that time I have also been adamant that there will be no troop drawdown soon. Today’s Boston Globe (October 12, 2006) brings the grim confirmation of that projection. No drawdown until 2010, according to the Army chieftains. During this same several month period I have been arguing that the only meaningful measure on a parliamentary level is a vote against the war budget. That is the litmus test for any labor party or socialist candidate (forget the Democrats and Republicans, they like to vote for these budgets). Moreover, on the state level I have proposed this parliamentary question in another form. In the heat of the current Governor’s race I have posed the question to ask Deval Patrick (Republican Kerry Healey is beyond the pale), the darling of the parliamentary anti-war left here, whether as Commander-in Chief of the Massachusetts National Guard he would refuse to send troops to Iraq. No liberal really want to know the answer to that one. Nevertheless, these are the real parliamentary tactics needed for the times.

*HANDS OFF THE AMISH!

Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for the Amish tradition and information on their ways.

COMMENTARY

THE MEEK MAY NOT INHERIT THE EARTH-BUT THEY SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE

Sometimes a political writer is forced by circumstances to comment on events that would normally go under the radar. As a counterexample, as I write this blog news has just come over the radio that the North Koreans have exploded a nuclear devise. That is a normal event to comment on for a hardline political man. However, as the headline above indicates I feel compelled to make a comment on the tragedy that occurred in Pennsylvania Dutch Country last week when an individual went berserk and killed or wounded several Amish girls while they were attending school. Most times I would note the tragedy, make a mental note about the continued irrationality of some human behavior and further note for the 1000th time that it is a dangerous world out there. However some of the commentary concerning the unusual reaction of forgivemess and acceptance by the Amish themselves to the tragedy in their midst bears comment.

In the Sunday Boston Globe of October 8, 2006 one Jeff Jacoby a self-styled ‘libertarian’ conservative and op-ed page regular in that paper indignantly commented on this pious reaction by the Amish. Yes, he gave the obligatory, although in this case left-handed compliment, about the good grace with which that community took its tragedy. But what got Mr. Jacoby steaming and fuming was reportedly the action of one of the Amish elders who while consoling a community youth tried to emphasize the traditional Amish doctrine that one should not have hate in one’s heart toward those who do evil. This is merely the early Christian example, honored more in the breach than the observance, of turning the other cheek. Mr. Jacoby ended his tirade by stating that he would not want to live in a world where such forgiveness was the norm.

One should note that this is the same writer who is apparently one of three or four people outside of the immediate Bush entourage who still supports the bloody American invasion of Iraq. And Mr. Jacoby is also a columnist who has seemingly made a profession of calling for the suppression of every Moslem that the United States can get its hands on. I could go on but enough of Mr. Jacoby's qualifications as an exemplar of moral realism to the gentle Amish. It is indeed a wicked and dangerous world.

Strangely, Mr. Jacoby and I probably are closer in our understanding of the modern world than we are to the Amish. The mental world that separates an Amish elder from us can be measured in centuries. Nevertheless, anyone including myself, who has spend time in Amish country admiring their simple life, their excellent handicrafts and healthful food, and their simple well-tended homes and farms knows that whatever their odd relationship to the modern world they should be left alone. There are all kinds of unsung acts of bravery in the world. There are all kinds of unsung courageous acts in the world. In an age when tragedy is daily thrown in our faces with the evening meal the quiet dignity of the Amish in their sorrow has much to comment it.

As an advocate of socialism this writer knows that the Amish way is neither good for the mass of humanity nor the way forward. Nevertheless, I would hope that under a socialist regime the Amish community would be left in peace and that we would let the natural attrition and benefits of socialist society lure the young into the modern world. But until that time I am ready to cross swords with anyone in defense of their lifestyle and their simple belief in the goodness of humankind. HANDS OFF.

*From The Pen Of Leon Trotsky- Practical Problems In Building A Socialist Society

Click on title to link to the Leon Trotsky Internet Archive's copy of his 1923 article, "The Struggle For Cultured Speech".


BOOK REVIEW

PROBLEMS OF EVERYDAY LIFE, LEON TROTSKY, MONAD PRESS, NEW YORK, 1973


Sometimes those of us embattled socialists still trying to propagandize for the socialist worldview get so totally caught up in that fight that we at times neglect the goals of our efforts. No so Leon Trotsky who, despite being in a continual fight inside the Russian Communist Party in the 1920’s to save and extend the Russian Revolution, from time to time wrote essays and gave speeches on behalf of those goals. The book under review contains a wide-ranging selection of some of the everyday issues and examples of the aspirational messages given by him at the time. Although some of those issues are particular to the Russian situation, such as illiteracy and wide spread alcohol abuse, due to the underdevelopment of Russian society at that time (and unfortunately now as well) some of the aspirational essays should be taken to heart by socialists working today.

Generally, when educated people speak of culture they are referring to “high culture”, the arts and the like. Trotsky was not unaware of that distinction and wrote many enduring essays elsewhere on the subjects of literature and the arts. Here Trotsky looks at the deeper meaning of culture for the mass of society. That is those characteristics and manners of behavior that would lead to a more educated workforce, a more enlightened population and that would give the fight for a socialist society a gigantic push forward. Thus, he wrote about the problems of endemic alcoholism, illiteracy, swearing, the fight against religious superstition, the fight for cleanliness and promptness and the like. Except in a mocking manner most cultural writers do not take such issues seriously other than to distance themselves from the habits of the underclasses. Yet here was a big-time intellectual, revolutionary leader, and in this reviewer’s opinion an exemplar of communist man, harping on the necessity of acquiring just such virtues.

Part of the compilation in this book is also taken up with Trotsky’s daydreaming in print about how a future socialist and then communist classless society might look. He did not neglect the importance of using the preexisting industrial apparatus left from capitalism as the starting point for his analysis. He also presents many interesting predictions about the use of technology, including nuclear technology, and mass communications to make the transition easier. However, Trotsky’s dreams certainly do not include a theory of “barrack communism”, that is, the equality of all citizens based on scarcity or return to a more primitive form of society. On the contrary, Trotsky’s communist future is explicitly based on abundance so that the question of daily survival is taken off the agenda for the mass of humankind. Then society will, as a matter of course, develop many great political thinkers, literary writers and other types of geniuses and put the geniuses of past societies in the shade. Yes, I can get behind goals like that. Yes, those are what the goals of socialism are all about.

NEWS FLASH: OUT OF THE LOOP MILITANT LEFTIST CALLS THE SITUATION IN IRAQ A FULL-BLOWN CIVIL WAR

COMMENTARY

A BASIC RULE OF POLITICS- DO NOT BE AFRAID TO CALL A THING BY ITS RIGHT NAME

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY


I am privy to no special insider information on the trials and tribulations of the internal situation in Iraq. I get my information from the mass media just like most citizens. However, as a politico I pay very close attention to the writings of political journalists, especially those who have been to Iraq and have eye-witness observations about the situation. What is amazing in the fall of 2006 is their near unanimous agreement, regardless of political persuasion, that Iraq is in the midst of a sectarian civil war. Yet, virtually none will call the situation there by that name. They are in a classic position of hedging their bets. Why?

This writer has not and does not support American foreign policy in general and Iraq policy in particular. On the other hand the political writers I have read have some kind of fundamental belief in the rightness of the direction of general American foreign policy. In short, those writers exhibit in a different way that same hubris that animated the Bush Administration to go into Iraq in the first place. That is, it seemed to be the right thing to do at the time and although it did not turn out to be the right thing to do nevertheless we must stay to correct the errors. This the arrogance of power-once removed. Sweet Jesus, under that theory of responsibility our grandchildren will be fighting in Iraq.

The daily news out of Iraq is uniformly grim. X number of Shia, Sunni or others are daily found handcuffed, shot and dumped on the outskirts of town. Or in a river. The recently augmented American forces sent into Baghdad have seemingly kicked every door in the city down to no real effect, except to recruit for the insurgents or some sectarian militia. There are not enough morgues in Iraq (and maybe the whole Middle East) to hold the victims. Additionally, this week, the week of October 1, 2006 a whole brigade of American-trained and financed Iraqi police had to be disbanded for complicity with sectarian militias and general ugliness. Dear readers this is civil war pure and simple. Not the prelude to, not a low-level about to be, but a full blown civil war.

A year or so ago the situation was not nearly as clear. However, now why are even thoughtful bourgeois journalists and commentators being so coquettish about calling a thing by its right name? Does it have to look like the first skirmishes of the American Civil War at Bull Run before the situation in Iraq is recognized as such? Well, this out-of-the-loop leftist is not going out on any political limb whatever-Iraq is in a full-blown civil war. End of story.

What to do about it? This writer has long called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. That position is a no-brainer now. However, for the slow-witted Bush Administration here is a quick and short term solution. And it has the virtue of coming from a late, revered member of the Republican Party. Call Iraq a victory and withdraw now. During the Vietnam War Vermont Republican United States Senator George Aikens (I believe) made that comment. For those enthralled by parliamentary solutions this seems an eminently reasonable solution. Let future historians argue and fuss over the truth of that assertion of victory. In the meantime-GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ NOW!


THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!

VOTE REPUBLICAN-SUPPORT THE LINCOLN-JOHNSON TICKET IN 1864!! VOTE DEMOCRATIC-SUPPORT THE JACKSON-VAN BUREN TICKET IN 1832!

COMMENTARY

QUESTION: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A LEFTIST COULD HAVE CRITICALLY SUPPORTED A CAPITALIST PARTY? ANSWER: SEE ABOVE. DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT TODAY.

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!

NOTE: The original intention of this writer was to produce two commentaries on the above-mentioned question, one for the Republicans and one for the Democrats. After some thought I realized that except for a change of names I would have been basically writing the same dreary commentary twice. In any case, how much can any writer endure of the same nonsense put out by these two parties over the last one hundred plus years? How much space should be taken up by separate commentaries even on the expansive Internet? Moreover, the little tidbits of wisdom I was going to write about the current crop of Democratic contenders can wait for another day. After all we have two long years to lambaste the likes of Hillary “Hawk” and the Johnnies.

I know some readers will be offended by my choice of Andrew Jackson as the last supportable Democrat. They will ask- What about William Jennings Bryan in 1896? Yes indeed, what about William Jennings Bryan. I am not at all sure that his “cheap money” Cross of Gold campaign was in the interest of working people (or ultimately farmers, for that matter) but that is beside the point. I do not particularly want to argue over the virtues of this or that candidate but to make the point that it has been a very long time since leftists could have supported a capitalist party candidate. As the commentary below will make clear as an almost universally acceptable choice of a ‘progressive’ capitalist politician Lincoln is better in every way.

For Andrew Jackson buffs. Yes, I know Mr. Jackson got waylaid in 1824 by the maneuverings of one John Quincy Adams but cut me a little slack. I was born in Mr. Adams’s hometown of Quincy, Massachusetts so call me a ‘homer’ on that one. Not only that but J.Q.'s position against slavery, the burning issue of the times, was light years ahead of the slaveholder Jackson's. Enough said. For Green Party buffs. Sorry, but leftists have no basis for voting for a modern capitalist third party operation. I did add an appropriate couple of sentences at the end of the commentary about the Greenies. That seems about right. Finally, remember when reading the commentary below where it says Republican put Democrat, where it says Hoover put Roosevelt, etc., etc. Here goes.

Today, after suffering through the likes of Herbert Hoover, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and various Bushes it is hard to believe these denizens claim the heritage of the party created by Lincoln and the other early stalwarts. Something went terribly wrong somewhere in the 1870’s (even before the Compromise of 1877 which only codified the defeat of the aims of Reconstruction, limited as they were) and it has been downhill ever since. Nevertheless, Lincoln, Chase, Seward, Staunton, the Radical Republicans and others can claim the respect of today’s militants, and the Republican Party presidential candidate Lincoln a retroactive vote in 1864, for two major reasons.

First, when the issue was hot on the fire and there was no way around it Lincoln and his compatriots organized an army and fought a Civil War to abolish black slavery. Now, not all of their motives were pure as the driven snow and to some extend Lincoln, in particular, had to be led kicking and screaming to fight for that aim-but in the end he did it. That is also why, in this writer’s opinion, it is a dicey thing to think that militants should have supported Lincoln-Hamlin in 1860. At that point Lincoln had not been tested and was essentially a sectional candidate, if that. But 1864 is a different question-then all the issues were on the table. Civil wars tend to such clarity. Lincoln passed the test.

Every militant abolitionist or unionist still alive after three years of war, could have, albeit critically, supported the ticket. Even with the War Democrat Johnson on it. That tactical concession could be justified by the need to rally plebian support in the Northern cities. There can be no second guessing that choice just because Johnson’s later career proved him a bust after Lincoln’s assassination. After the furor of the war was over and the Radical Republican elements during Reconstruction lost heart or faith in their program of emancipation for black people all hell broke loose and it broke over the head of those same black people. At that point the Republicans became just another in a long line of garden variety capitalist parties. And what of the program of those selfsame Republicans today toward the question of the oppression of blacks and other minorities? That can be stated in one phrase- their response to Hurricane Katrina. Enough said.

The second reason that militants tip their hat to the Republican Party and to Lincoln is less obvious but also related to the Civil War struggle-that is the preservation of the union or more appropriately the conditions for the formation of a unitary continent-wide national capitalist state. Support for such an outcome by militants today would seem strange but back then when capitalism represented a progressive trend in human history it was not. That system allowed the productive forces of society to be developed more fully than the previous localized, agrarian-dominated society.

Think of this- if the Southern armies, dominated by the planter classes, has won the war or more likely fought to a stalemate and had been allowed to keep their separate state it would have hampered the development of free labor to the detriment of working people. The United States would have probably become, as envisioned by some Southern thinkers, a large ‘banana republic’, an exporter of raw materials for the world market. Today we know that capitalism has outlived its effective useful life. We also know how to deal with that even if we today do not have enough forces to do something about it. But, back then the gods were on our side, the struggle against slavery was righteous and we were sustained by the spirit of the better angels of our nature.

As for the Green Party no commentary can be provided except maybe a comment on the similarities of the program and personalities of that party and the ill-fated Henry Wallace-led Progressive Party campaign of 1948. Sorry Greenies.

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!

*ON THE QUESTION OF CRITICAL SUPPORT TO SOCIALIST ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

Click on the headline to link to a Lenin Internet Archives entry from his Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder-Should we Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?

COMMENTARY

WHAT TO DO (OR NOT TO DO) WHEN YOU DO NOT HAVE YOUR OWN WORKERS PARTY CANDIDATE TO VOTE FOR IN ELECTIONS

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY


In the run-up to the 2006 midterm elections working people are again being subjected to the "choice" between the dual parties of capitalist exploitation, imperialist war and racist oppression. It is a choice between the justly feared and despised Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld Republican cabal in power and a Democratic "opposition" campaigning for a more effective plan for prosecuting the very bipartisan "war on terror" at home and abroad—in particular, how best to cut the losses of U.S. imperialism in the bloody occupation of Iraq in order to more efficiently deploy its forces against the peoples of the world in places like Cuba, Iran, North Korea and China.

It is thus appropriate now that we are in the thick of this downbeat 2006 electoral campaign season to highlight some points concerning what militant leftists can or should do when faced with the above choice while at the same time not having a mass socialist or labor party candidate to support. Unfortunately, the necessity for discussion of the subject matter of this commnetary reflects the continued weakness of the left and of our inability to field a mass socialist or labor party candidate of our own. If militants were strong enough we would not have to worry about supporting other small socialist formations or about the question of political support to them except on our own terms.

Anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists make a virtue out of necessity by abstaining on principle from parliamentary elections. Militant leftists do not. I would note, however, that on the basis of my observations on the 2004 election cycle something of the old hard anarchist opposition to parliamentary elections has been blunted- and not for the better. In the old days anarchists seriously opposed such elections and revolutionary socialists could half agree with them on the issue of opposition to electoral cretinism favored by reformist socialist parties as the path to socialism.

In 2004 I ran into any number of anarchists whose anti-parlimentary position was more frivolous and less well thought out. These types argued that parliamentary politics was so silly that it did not matter who one voted for-including capitalist Democratic Party candidate John Forbes Kerry. That is just plain wrong. Revolutionary militant leftists use such periods, when appropriate, to support candidates that at least provide some cutting edge against the heavy weight of capitalist politics. In short, as an elementary question militants must draw a class line in opposition to all capitalist parties. Thus it is important to know under what conditions support to socialist/labor candidates can be given.

While rejecting the notion that the working class can gain power through the vehicle of bourgeois electoralism it is necessary to recognize that there are times when the intervention of revolutionaries into the parliamentary/electoral cycle can provide a useful platform from which to put forward a socialist program and attempt to further socialist goals. Such tactics include revolutionaries standing as candidates, one can think of the heroic Karl Liebknecht in World War I campaigning on an anti-war platform while subject to conscription in the German Army in this regard. Another tactic is offering critical support to such parties as draw even a minimal class line against the capitalist parties.

In his powerful book on communist principles and tactics, "Left-Wing" Communism—An Infantile Disorder (1920), Bolshevik leader V.I. Lenin explained: "It is entirely a matter of knowing how to apply these tactics in order to raise— not lower—the general level of proletarian class-consciousness, revolutionary spirit, and ability to fight and win." Lenin advised the fledgling British Communists to extend critical support to the British Labour Party in order to expose the Labour traitors' pretensions to "socialism" and to break workers' illusions in them.

On the other hand, at times support for a labor party or socialist party may be precluded for other reasons, such as their participation in a national unity government with other classes (the so-called Popular Front), strikebreaking while governing on behalf of the capitalists (the General Strike in England in 1926 comes to mind) or when other ostensibly socialist formations may better represent the interests of the working class (various Socialist/Communist campaigns).

To give a different but symmetric error from the 'soft' anarchist position noted above in the 2004 campaign season I ran into many, too many leftist, particularly old ex-Communist Party members, who used the Leninist policy in order to "critically" support the Democrat Kerry. As if the the "big tent" Democratic Party was just some garden variety labor party. Wrong. While labor organizations, particularly the labor bureaucracy live by, die by and spend their money on this party neither by program, politics or inclination is it any kind of labor party. No support under any theory, including "lesser evil" politics is warranted by militants. Thus militants need to seek out candidates or organizations who draw the class line. Those who do not do so deserve no support.

As an example of a non-supportable candidate in California the International Socialist Organization is running one of its members for United States Senate on the small-time capitalist Green Party ticket. Aside from some individually supportable democratic demands in the Green Party program, especially on environmental issues, the Green Party is historically one in a long line of capitalist "progressive" third party operations that merely act as pressure groups on the Democratic Party. That precludes any support from militants. That is the clearest example that I know of on the class line question among socialist organizations. Readers may know of others on their local level that I am not aware of. Keep me informed. Enough said.

THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!

ON CARD, CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS, CANDIDATES AND A PREDICTION

COMMENTARY

RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE CURRENT POLITICAL LANDSCAPE.

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY


WHAT KIND OF MONSTER IS RUMSFELD ANYWAY?

On a couple of occasions over the past several months I have commented on the question of calls for Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. The first time was when some retired generals were clamoring for his resignation in the spring. The second time was this summer, the summer of 2006, when New York Senator Hillary Clinton, hands trembling, put in her bid for this year’s Profiles in Courage Award after hearings of the Senate Armed Forces Committee.

At that time I noted, tongue in cheek I thought, that my mother a life-long Republican had called for that resignation a couple of years ago. Now comes news that other very influential Republicans had the same thought. According to Bob Woodward’s new book former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and apparently the President’s wife, First Lady Laura Bush, also sought to get rid of the bastard. Card has since confirmed the truth of that information. Thus, this begs the question of how much real political courage it took for Congressional Democrats to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation. and just how vile a character the man is if elements in the inner circle of his own Administration wanted his head on a platter. Yes, we are definitely dealing with some kind of monster here. I am republishing my blog from the time of the generals’ armchair revolt in the spring to provide the real solution to the Rumsfeld problem.

IN THE CASE OF ONE DONALD RUMSFELD- RESIGNATION IS NOT ENOUGH!

In the normal course of events leftists, including this writer, have no particular need to comment on, much less advocate or support a call, for the resignation of one of the ministers of a capitalist government. In this case, we are talking about the controversy over the possible resignation of one Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, Minister of War in the Bush Cabinet. Let the capitalist politicians sort it out among themselves is this writer’s usual stance on such matters. Let the beady-eyed “talking head” liberal and conservative media pundits spout forth on behalf of the best interests of “their” system. After all this is not exactly like the summer of 1917 in Russia where the Bolsheviks were agitating around the slogan –“Down with the Ten Capitalist Ministers”- as a stopgap political ploy against the Popular Front Provisional Government on the way to overthrowing that government. This current controversy nevertheless has my interest.


The case of Mr. Rumsfeld is special. Every once in a while a politician comes along in American public life who leftists can use to personalize everything that is wrong with the capitalist system. And epitomize what the rest of the world has come to fear and loathe as the dark side of the American spirit. One Richard M. Nixon, once President of the United and now residing in one of Dante’s circles of hell, comes to mind from an earlier generation. In that sense we need our Donalds. Hell, I have enjoyed politically kicking Mr. Rumsfeld around when he was riding high. And, excuse my manners; I enjoy kicking him around when he is down. (To give credit where credit is due, the late two lines were inspired by the late Dr. Hunter Thompson.) Nevertheless this specimen must go. There will be no tears shed here for Mr. Rumsfeld.

Many liberals , and some not so liberal, in Congress looking to rehabilitate their sorry records on Iraq, including the key question of voting for the war budget, are having a cheap field day on this one. However, in any moderately effective European parliamentary system guys like Rumsfeld would have been long gone. Although I should perhaps qualify that statement since the august members of the British Labor Party could not muster enough votes to vote 'no confidence' in Mr. Rumsfeld’s fellow hawkish crony, Mr. Anthony Blair.

I must admit that I am a little uncomfortable when all manner of retired general are coming out of the woodwork aiming at Mr. Rumsfeld’s head. We militant leftists are after all respectable people and THESE are certainly not our kind of people. Except under normal circumstances these types, despite an occasional candidate for the role of American Napoleon Bonaparte like General Douglas MacArthur, keep quiet and take their consultant fees. Things must be far, far worst than we suspect in Iraq if the chiefs are abandoning ship already. Moreover, the thrust of the former generals’ criticism is that Mr. Rumsfeld did not adequately provision them with enough troops to get the job done. This is a veiled, and maybe not so veiled, call for escalation. There are differences between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War which we need to appreciate but escalation would dramatically close the gap between those differences. We could go from the Big Muddy of Vietnam to the Big Sandy of Iraq. Watch out.

Finally, and to get back on the left on this issue, if there is any justice in this world Mr. Rumsfeld, despite his probable cabinet immunity defense, clearly should be tried as a war criminal. He exceeds by orders of magnitude the standards necessary for such an indictment. However, my vision is not to have him tried before some bogus Court of International Criminal Justice. My suggestion is that he be sent, alone (or with a few of his neo-con conspirators), to Baghdad, without armor. There he should be tried by a tribunal of the victims of his war crimes, the impoverished and desperate urban and rural masses of Iraq. Resignation is not enough- Indeed!!

ON THE WILES OF CONSERVATIVE POLITICANS

In a blog posted this summer I commented on the effect of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling on the question of the Executive Branch’s authority to try detainees in military commissions under very much less than even the inadequate conditions of what passes for justice these days. At that time I noted that once the smoke cleared Congress would give the Bush Administration what it wanted. This week, the week of Septemeber 25th, after much wrangling by fellow Republicans apparently solely for effect, the Senate gave the administration pretty much what it wanted, including the virtual suspension of habeas corpus in these cases.

Two points. First, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, a hard fought for and important right going back centuries, is definitely not a good sign for the rest of us. Some commentators have declared that these provisions will not pass constitutional muster. Grow up. I will take bets at 5 to 2 that the current Supreme Court will defer to the so-called legislative intent and bow before the executive authority on this one. Believe me, I would rather lose this bet.

Second, this legislation shreds the concepts that are embodied in the Geneva Conventions concerning the status of enemy combatants. Without having illusions in the effectiveness of these Conventions and noting the weaknesses of the protections in them, militant leftists fight to keep them in place as a legal avenue of redress. Otherwise someday we might be reduced to dependence on what amounts to the goodwill of governments who wish us nothing but ill-will. No thanks. Below I have republished my comments at the time of the Supreme Court decision.


SUPREME COURT OUTLAWS PRIVATE PRESIDENTIAL MILITARY COURTS-FOR NOW

PRESIDENT MUST BEG CONGRESS REAL HARD FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

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 June archives) 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 (see June archives) 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 for 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.

WHAT FOURTH AMENDMENT?

I had expected Congress by now to give the Administration its desired open-ended program to wiretap domestic operations to its heart’s context without the niceties of Fourth Amendment protection. The Congress adjourned without taking up a final vote on this legislation. Presumably it will do so in an aptly named “lame duck” session after the November 7th elections. More then. Until then below is a republication of a blog commenting on Judge Diggs Taylor's ruling that such previous practices were unconstitutional.

A VICTORY (IF ONLY TEMPORARY) FOR THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
COMMENTARY
SHOCKING REVELATION: A FEDERAL JUDGE ACTUALLY KNOWS THE 4th AMENDMENT EXISTS. APPARENTLY NOT EVERY LAW SCHOOL TUITION WAS WASTED.

Every once in a while a judge does something right. While militant leftists have no illusions in the bourgeois judicial system, as such, we will grasp in both hands every little minor victory, even if temporary, that comes our way. In this case a federal district court judge, Judge Diggs Taylor, has held that the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping of every piece of information not nailed down and that the agency can get its hands on is unconstitutional. Judge Diggs Taylor will not be getting invited to any Federalist Society seminars or other such cozy affairs any time soon.

Naturally, the Bush Administration, normally slow to act when democratic rights are to be enforced, has ordered the Justice Department to appeal this decision- immediately, with all deliberate speed. When the 6th Circuit Appeals Court or the Supremes get this one you know its fate. I will take bets, even up, on a 5-4 quashing of this decision even though I have it on good authority that Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy et. al are all unaware that there IS a Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Now for the politics. Yes, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are pretty faded as working documents for any kind of just society today. But, damn, something like the Fourth Amendment against general searches and seizures even though its parameters are getting narrower and narrower with virtually every new court decision is something every militant leftist must defend. WE WOULD WANT THIS SAFEGUARD UNDER A WORKERS GOVERNMENT- WE DESPERATELY NEED IT NOW.

We are the best defenders of that right against unreasonable searches and seizures if for no other reason that it makes our work easier. Hell, what do you think the original American revolutionaries, particularly those at the base, were fighting against? Yes, that very same prohibition against general writs of assistance that the National Security Agency and the Bush Administration are more than happy to flaunt in our faces. Do we really want to have big brother having the right to look at everything we do. On the other hand we are not Pollyannas. We are not blinded by a mistaken believe in the “sweet” rule of law that gets bandied about in the media when it gets misty-eyed about democracy. Moreover, such rights are honored more in the breech than the observance. If this government wants to get information (even if not usable in court) it will find a way to get it, warrant or no warrant. Notwithstanding that premise we will savor this decision a little for now.

ON THE GOVERNOR’S RACE IN MASSACHUSETTS

The focus of these commentaries under the writer's byline described below generally reflect an interest in the national political scene. However, here in Massachusetts where the writer resides there is a Governor's race that has drawn some media attention due to the fact that it pits a Harvard-trained Republican woman, Kerry Healey, against a Harvard-trained black male Democrat, Deval Patrick. While this contest may be of interest to elitist affirmative action devotees and the like the gist of the campaign has the all to familar ring of a traditional Massachusetts dogfight.

That, in any case, is not what interests me here. What interests me is one question that I would pose to Mr. Patrick (Ms. Healey is beyond the pale on this one) and every militant leftist or anti-war activist should do the same. If you are elected Governor will you as Commander-in-Chief of the Massachusetts National Guard refuse to provide troops to the federal government for service in Iraq? YES OR NO.
Mr. Patrick is the darling of the liberal anti-war element in the state but I do not believe those 'folks' would like his answer. Nevertheless, this question is really the complement, on the state level, to the question of voting on the war budget by Congressmen at federal level. In short, at the state level it is the only real way to stop the war in Iraq. Ask away.


DO I HAVE ANY TAKERS?

Probably the only real fun for a leftist looking at the 2006 elction cycle is taking a bet or two on the results of the elections for the the major parties. In order to bet on such outcomes it is necessary to be, as with all smart bets, detached from the hurly-burly of the campaigns. This writer can affirm his disinterestedness in these campaigns with both hands held high.In any case here is the proposition-the early October line is 3/2 that the Republicans will retain both Houses of Congress. What? If one looked uncritically at the mainstream media one would have thought that 2006 was going to be a sea-change kind of election. And certainly we need a change. However, as we get closer it is apparent that the Republicans can hang on because, for the most part, the Democrats are playing the Republican-lite tune. Even with the Congressman Foley scandal.

Christ, any party that cannot separate itself out from and get outmaneuvered on the national security/Iraq quagmire against a genuinely dingbat Republican party deserves to go the way of the Whigs. Moreover, there was really a lot of wishful thinking by the media about Democratic changes from the get-go. Before the media got a hold of the story last spring there were not that many close races. So to keep the story alive the media conveniently doubled the number of close electoral contests to 50. Looking at the polls recently show that, like last spring, there are really only about 25 real contests in the House and a half dozen in the Senate. Inertia and gerrymandering have struck again. I can hardly wait for the Democratic post-election sniffles about what went wrong. However, at 3/2 I consider it like finding money on the ground. Any takers?

THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!

THESE ARE NOT SALAD DAYS FOR LIBERAL HAWKS

BOOK REVIEW

THE GOOD FIGHT: WHY LIBERALS-AND ONLY LIBERALS-CAN WIN THE WAR ON TERROR AND MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, PETER BEINART, HARPERCOLLINS, NEWYORK, 2006

In the normal course of events these days the tasks of working class socialists, particularly during the electoral cycle, are to create and distribute propaganda in favor of socialist solutions to the crisis of humankind and to organize around a socialist program. Since we are not in an immediate struggle for political power that is more than enough work. Thus, usually the goings-on among capitalist propagandists and ideologues have no direct relation to working on those tasks. However every once in a while, as now during a electoral cycle, it is interesting to take note of what is going on in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Why? Make no mistake, while the relation of forces today is totally on their side, in the final analysis we will have to directly fight the liberal wing of that party for the political allegiance of the better elements of that party. Does any militant leftist believe that today in 2006 that our recruiting grounds are located anywhere in the vicinity of the Republican Party?

With that thought in mind Mr. Beinart’s book, the Good Fight, is an outline of a plan to undercut the so-called liberal-pacifist wing of the Democratic Party in order to draw back the allegiance of what at one time were the elements that made the Democratic Party a governing party during much of the 20th century. In short, Mr. Beinart is fighting for what appears to him to be the ‘soul’ of the Democratic Party. Mr. Beinart’s central argument is that while he and other liberal hawks were wrong, dead wrong, on support to the Bush Administrations war in Iraq those who did at least get that question right are nevertheless wrong on a strategy to either defeat or contain Islamic terrorism. Of course, in the process Mr. Beinart thus retroactively absolves himself of his ‘little error’ on Iraq in the interests of the greater war on terrorism. Nobody ever said democratic ideologues were incapable of the occasional sleight-of-hand.

The predicate for this thesis is that there is vast ‘conspiracy’ underfoot by those, apparently led by the filmmaker Michael Moore and kindred spirits, who want to take over the Democratic Party and emulate Neville Chamberlain's capitualtion to Hitler at Munich as a reaction to the current "war on terror". The result, according to Mr. Beinart, is that the centrist/ Lieberman wing will have no home and the Democratic Party will not rule again like in the good old days of the Cold War against the Soviet Union. In answer, this writer makes this observation-what planet does Mr. Beinart live on? If memory serves Mr. Moore supported one General Wesley Clark, the mad commander of NATO forces in Serbia who attempted to bomb that country back to Stone Age conditions, in the presidential primaries of 2004. Moreover, do any rational liberal politicians or activists take political counsel from Mr. Moore? Certainly he is a political gadfly and provocative filmmaker but, please, go after the big game. And spend less time on the Internet.

Moreover, and I do not need to rely on memory for this one, who in the Democratic Party opposed the now crumbling war in Afghanistan? There were very few of us in those days, even those who were allegedly opposed to all wars on pacifist grounds, out on the streets protesting that invasion in the aftermath of the hysteria over 9/11. I saw no Democratic Party opposition, hawk or dove, to that little adventure. No, overall, as we are painfully aware every day, the Democratic Party is nothing more than a somewhat loyal parliamentary opposition. They take no more risks than the Republicans. The real problem is that on foreign policy, either in its containment or confrontational stages, the Democratic Party is Republican-lite. That in a nutshell is their political malaise-the Republicans do better at and are perceived to be better at protecting the long term interests of the ruling classes-end of story.

Mr. Beinart’s book does bring up a serious political question about how to fight the war on terror for those who favor a workers government and we duck the issue at our peril. Be forewarned, Islamic fundamentalism is a present threat to not only democratic forms of government but ultimately also to socialist forms as well. Thus, without being forced to outline an abstract blueprint to a theoretical question- How would a workers government in power respond to the actions of the Islamic terrorists? Fair enough.

The obvious first answer is that a workers government would try to break the stranglehold of Islamic fundamentalism at the base by, yes, throwing lots of money and organizers at the problems which keep the Islamic masses in poverty. Beyond that the breaking up of the Islamic terrorist organizations appears to be much more of police problem than a military one. A workers government, like any responsible government, would mercilessly track down every one of these cells in the appropriate manner. Finally, a workers government under foreseeable conditions would not be a pacifist government, even though its long-term aim is a peaceful world. There is a long way to go before humankind gets to that stage.

Let me suggest the following as one possible scenario that a future workers government might follow. The Soviet Union’s intervention into Afghanistan in 1979 drove the West, including the American Democratic Party headed by one President Jimmy Carter, to support the Islamic fundamentalists of that time as a proxy against the Soviets. The Soviet Union, even if eventually only half-heartedly committed to the intervention, in retrospect, was then the vanguard of the fight against Islamic fundamentalism. Does anyone today want to rethink that Western opposition to Soviet intervention into Afghanistan? One should. A workers government today would follow the Soviet lead demonstrated in Afghanistan and in earlier fights in the 1920’s against counterrevolutionary Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia as it attempted to consolidate the Soviet state. That is a sketch of some aspects of a workers government policy to think about. As these thoughts suggest in the fight against Islamic fundamentalism the real options are fairly narrow.

CONFESSIONS OF AN OLD MILITANT-A CAUTIONARY TALE

THIS CONFESSION IS NOT FOR THE FAINT-HEARTED-BE FOREWARNED.

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY

I VOTED FOR VICE PRESIDENT HUBERT HORATIO HUMPHREY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1968. MOREOVER, I ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNED FOR THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET IN THE FALL OF THAT YEAR. AND AS AN ASPIRING YOUNG POLITICAN I WAS PERFECTLY WILLING TO ACCEPT AN ENTRY-LEVEL POSITION IN A VICTORIOUS HUMPHREY ADMINISTRATION.

The thought of that rash youthful action as I am writing this piece still brings a blush to my cheeks. Of all the political mistakes I have made in my life this is the one that is still capable of doing that. In today’s confessional age, however, it is good to get it off my conscience. Right? Please, let me tell you the story. If at any point it sounds awfully familiar concerning today’s political choices please feel free to stop.

First, I must plead my youth as a mitigating circumstance. And as this is also an age when victims give voice to their travails you must realize that I was a victim of circumstances throughout all of this experience. Those circumstances most certainly had a name. That name, one Richard Milhous Nixon, at one time President of the United States, common war criminal, and political sociopath now residing in one of Dante’s circles of hell. You knew, didn’t you, that at least one of the villains had to be a Republican- some things never change. It may be hard for today’s militants to understand how much THAT man dominated our political hatreds in those days. To put it in perspective just remember that Mr. Nixon was the ‘godfather’ of the current president, Mr. Bush, common war criminal, political sociopath and a prime candidate for one of Dante’s circles of hell. Enough said.

In the early and mid- 1960’s this writer defined himself as a left-liberal of the Americans for Democratic Action school of politics. He had worked for civil rights for blacks and against war, particularly the Vietnam War then beginning to take center stage in national politics. When it became apparent that Mr. Nixon was going to be a serious candidate for president I made a very calculated political decision. Despite his war follies the writer was fully committed to supporting one Lyndon Baines Johnson, one time President of the United States, common war criminal, political sociopath and now also residing in one of Dante’s circles. Those readers who supported the pro- Iraqi War Democratic presidential candidate, one John Forbes Kerry, in 2004 know the surreal mental gymnastics entailed to justify my position at that time. Why Johnson? Because he was the only candidate that could defeat the main villain of the piece, Mr. Nixon.

At no time did I consider the candidacy of the anti-war candidate Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota viable by the above-mentioned standard. It must have been something about Irish poets and wits. In any case, after Mr. Johnson announced that he was not going to run again I easily switched my allegiance to Senator Robert Kennedy of New York. Even today I have a little soft spot for the memory of that man. If ever a bourgeois politician could move me it was Bobby. Remember this, it was Robert Kennedy was nailed on the head what Mr. Nixon represented politically- the dark side of the American spirit. However, in the final analysis, what drove me to the Kennedy campaign was the belief that he was the only candidate who could defeat Mr. Nixon.

After the Kennedy assassination in June 1968 and after a little confusion I moved on to support Mr. Humphrey, one time Vice President of the United States, common war criminal and political sociopath now at the Dante residence. Why? Because he was… (you can fill in the rest now). You were warned that this story was not for the faint-hearted. Why did I turn against the Democratic Party? Well, I finally got it about the nature of the American imperialist political system. How did I come to that conclusion? A little thing called the draft into the Army during Vietnam. But that is a story for another time. However, the story has a happy ending. Over the years I have voted for various socialist and labor party candidates and propositions and have not regretted one of those votes. Still, old habits die hard. I am still looking for that entry-level government job- in a victorious workers government.


THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!

*THE TROOPS ARE NOT COMING HOME THIS CHRISTMAS OR ANY CHRISTMAS SOON!

Click on the title to link to an "Under The Hood" (Fort Hood G.I. Coffeehouse)Web site online article about the "Oleo Strut" Coffeehouse, an important development in the anti-Vietnam War struggle. Hats off to those bygone anti-war fighters.

COMMENTARY

IRAQ LOOKS MORE AND MORE LIKE VIETNAM EVERY DAY-IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL UNITED STATES/ALLIED TROOPS!


FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY


This writer for a long time has resisted the seemingly facile task of comparing the situation in Iraq today to the Vietnam of some forty years ago. But it is getting harder and harder to do so. On the face of it the differences are obvious. In Vietnam, revolutionary leftist forces were attempting to unify into one state that which by international diplomacy and previous bouts of international Stalinist treachery had been artificially split.

Furthermore, the defining principle behind the revolutionary forces there was the resolution of the agrarian question and the fight for what those forces conceived to be the road to socialism. Today in Iraq there are nationalist/sectarian forces which want to take revenge on the results of the European- derived Treaty of Versailles after World War I and re-divide this artificially created state-gun in hands. The fact that in Kurdish-controlled areas only the Kurdish flag can fly really says it all. Additionally, as far as this writer can tell, from the little known about the murky underworld of radical Islamic politics there are no forces fighting for anything like a secular- democratic much less a socialist solution to the problems there. Rather something like an Islamic Republic under repressive and anti-women Sharia law appears to be the favored political solution.

However, those differences between the domestic forces in Iraq and Vietnam aside the real way Iraq today looks like Vietnam is the similarities in the role of American imperialism on the ground. The latest news this week, the week of September 18, 2006, coming from the central military command is there will be no draw down of troops any time soon. LET ME REPEAT- THERE WILL NOT BE ANY DRAW DOWN ANY TIME SOON. All those who foolishly believed that draw down would occur and did not take the Bush Administration at its word when it declared empathically that troops would not be withdrawn as long as it drew breathe should ponder this. More on this below.

Moreover, in the week of September 25, 2006 we have the spectacle of the consensus of the various American intelligence services in a 'leaked' report finding that the situation in general and in Iraq in particular is to say the least grim. LET ME REPEAT-THERE WILL BE NO SOLUTION TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CREATED AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTED 'WAR AGAINST TERRORISM' UNTIL THE GREEK CALENDS. There is no way to prettify those sentiments. The question is what to do about it.

There are starting to be voices heard, dormant for a while, spearheaded by the editors of National Review and other neo-con sources that the lesson to be learned from Iraq is that to really win in Iraq the Americans must sent in more troops. How much such sentiments are worth from these previous supporters of a quick and cheap air power strategy in Iraq is beside the point. What is noteworthy is that this premise is not an isolated sentiment even among alleged opponents of the war. And that, in a nutshell, is where the comparison to Vietnam comes into play. The hubris which led the United States into the quagmire of Iraq is still very much in play.

The notion that in order rectify the original mistake of invasion more mistakes, such as increased troop levels, can solve the problem and bring victory where none is possible is the same mentality that led to all the escalations of the Vietnam era.
Against all reason the Bushies of America and the world cannot believe that the situation is lost. Well hell, that is their problem. Militant leftists have other problems like organizing the opposition and getting the troops out to worry over.

Additionally, President Bush himself is getting a little testy at the Prime Minister of Iraq. He cannot believe that at this late stage the wholly-owned American puppet government in Iraq hasn’t stepped up to its tasks of creating domestic tranquility. One should remember the names Diem and Thieu from Vietnamese history who got the same kinds of dressing-downs from previous American administrations. With that thought in mind let me ask this question. Is there anyone today on the planet outside the immediate Bush family that believes that the writ of the Iraqi government runs outside the Green Zone (and even that premise might be shaky)? These guys (and they are overwhelmingly men) never led anything, went into exile under Saddam rather than go underground and build a resistance movement and represent no one but themselves. And the Bushies like it that way.

But, enough of that. The real question is what are we anti-war, anti-imperialist activists going to do about the situation. President Bush has been rightly accused of upping the security alerts during election time to highlight the security question that he has (successfully) used as a trump card to swing the electoral balance in his favor. A less well-known fact is that during the fall of election years, including this year, the leaderships of the reformist anti-war movements close down the nationally-centered anti-war demonstration campaigns which are the lynch pins of their politics. It is no secret that this is done to help so-called 'anti-war' Democratic politicians or at least not be a source of embarrassment to the weak Democratic parliamentary opposition to the war.

In a blog written this summer (see August archives) I wrote an open letter to the troops in Iraq. The thrust of the letter was that the conventional politicians, their own military leadership and the anti-war movement had left the troops in Iraq hanging in the wind. As we enter the fall electoral campaign this is truer than ever. I will repeat here what I stated there- if the troops are to withdraw from Iraq it will have to be on their own hook. Start forming the soldiers and sailors solidarity committees now. Militant leftists here must support those efforts. Begin to fraternize with the troops here. If you live near Oceanside, California go to Camp Pendleton. In North Carolina go to Fort Bragg and Camp Lejuene. Go to Fort Campbell in Kentucky. If you live near naval bases go there. Unfortunately today there is no other way to end the war. FORWARD.

Revised, September 27, 2006

THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!

*From The Archives Of "Women And Revolution"-"Silkwood"-A Film Review

Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for Karen Silkwood

Markin comment:

The following is an article from the Spring 1984 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.

**********

Silkwood. Directed by Mike Nichols. Written by
Nora Ephron and Alice Arlen. ABC Motion Pictures.
A Twentieth Century-Fox release, 1984.

By Amy Rath

The long-standing controversy over the death of Karen Silkwood is being debated yet again, as the release of the movie Silkwood brings the case into the public eye. Silkwood has long been embraced by feminist and ecology groups as a heroine and martyr to the atomic power industry—the "no-nuke" Norma Rae; many believe she was deliberately poisoned with radioactive material and murdered to shut her up. Now, the movie, starring Meryl Streep and directed by Mike Nichols, has been seized upon by such bourgeois mouthpieces as the New York Times and the Washington Post to propagandize for the nuclear energy industry and smear her name.

"Fact and Legend Clash in "Silkwood'," cired the Times' science writer William J. broad, masquerading as a movie critic in the Sunday Arts and Leisure section. "Chicanery," "meretricious," "a perversion of the reporter's craft," blasts a Times (25 December 1983) editorial. That same day the Washington Post printed a piece by one Nick Thimmesch, a free-lance journalist with ties to Silkwood's employer, the Kerr-McGee corporation, charging "glaring discrepancies between the known record and the film's representations."

These are lies. In fact, Silkwood sticks remarkably close to the documentary record. If anything, it is surprisingly devoid of politics for such an alleged propaganda tract. Frankly, it's a little dull. It includes a lot of material (some of it made up, presumably for dramatic interest) about Karen Silkwood's unremarkable personal life. Like most people, she had problems with her lovers and roommates, didn't get along with her ex-spouse, was often troubled, and drank and took drugs. The bulk of the movie is a retelling of the last few weeks of her life, and raises more questions than it answers. How were Karen Silkwood's body and home contaminated with plutonium? Was Kerr-McGee deliberately covering up faulty fuel rods, which could lead to a disastrous accident at the breeder-reactor in Washington state where the rods were to be shipped? What happened on that Oklahoma highway on 13 November 1974, when Karen Silkwood was killed in a car crash, en route to an interview with a New York Times reporter?

The ending of the movie shows Silkwood blinded by the headlights of a truck on the highway, then her mangled body and car, seeming to imply that she was run off the road, as indeed independent investigators have concluded from an examination of her car and the tire tracks on the road and grass. Then a written message on the screen reports that Oklahoma police ruled her death a one-car accident and found traces of methaqualone (Quaalude) and alcohol in her blood¬stream. The conclusion is left for the viewer to decide We may never know the answers to these questions. As we noted in Workers Vanguard (No. 146,25 February 1977) in an article titled "Conspiracy and Cover-Up in Atomic Industry: FBI Drops Inquiry in Karen Silkwood Death":

"The abrupt cancellation of the second Congressional investigation into FBI handling of the case of Karen Silkwood has added to a widespread belief that the facts surrounding the death of the young trade unionist two years ago are being covered up at the highest levels of industry and government.

"...her documentation of company negligence and falsification of safety records was damning to powerful interests and as long as the bourgeois courts and commissions are running the investigations of her death, the only results will be successive cover-ups of the cover-ups."

In the fall of 1974 Karen Silkwood had been working for two years as a laboratory technician at the Cimarron, Oklahoma plutonium processing facility owned by Kerr-McGee, one of the largest energy conglomerates in the U.S. She became interested in health and safety issues at the plant. She brought her worries to the union, the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers (OCAW), and was elected as a union safety inspector, the movie makes this appear to be her first interest in the union. In fact, she had been one of the few die-hards in a defeated strike the previous year; she never crossed the picket line and she remained in the union even when its membership went down to 20. Along with fellow unionists, she traveled to union headquarters in Washington, D.C., where officials assigned her to gather documentation of company cover-ups of faulty fuel rods, as well as other safety violations.

Early in November 1974, Silkwood was repeatedly contaminated with plutonium, one of the deadliest materials known to man, in circumstances which have never been fully explained. In the Hollywood movie Meryl Streep ends up with raw pink patches over her face from decontamination scrubdowns. Her panicked expression when she knows she has to face a second one imparts the horror of it. Yet it is only a pale image of the reality. Silkwood's first scrubdown was with Tide and Clorox; the two others which, occurred over the next two days employed a sandpaper-like paste of potassium permanganate and sodium bisulfate. De¬spite this chemical torture (try scrubbing yourself with Ajax sometime), her skin still registered high levels of radiation. Worse yet, three days of nasal smears (to monitor inhaled radioactive contamination) increased to over 40,000 disintegrations per minute (dpm)— normal background radiation from cosmic rays and naturally occurring isotopes is roughly 30 dpm.

Silkwood's house was contaminated as well; it was stripped and her belongings were sealed and buried— one scene poignantly portrayed in the movie. An examination conducted at the medical facility at Los Alamos showed that she had received internal contami¬nation possibly as high as 24 nanocuries of plutonium (about 50,000 dpm). The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC, now Nuclear Regulatory Commission) has set a lifetime limit of 16 nanocuries; many specialists consider this hundreds of times too high. The fact is that plutonium is an extremely potent carcinogen, inhalation of which is virtually certain to induce lung cancer at levels where other radioactive nuclides can be tolerat¬ed. And Silkwood was particularly susceptible—she was female, had lung problems (asthma) and was small, under 100 pounds. In short, the plutonium she received chained her to cancer and a painful, slow death.

It is for this contamination, which an Oklahoma jury ruled the responsibility of Kerr-McGee, that $10.5 million in punitive damages was assessed against the company for the Silkwood estate. On January 11 the Supreme Court ruled the court had a legitimate right to assess this penalty; however, the case has been returned to a Jower court where Kerr-McGee may challenge the award on new grounds. Kerr-McGee has held that the contamination was "by her own hand," as a plot to discredit the company, a contention repeated by the New York Times in its editorial, which doesn't even mention that a jury had ruled this imputation not proved.

Since then, theories about Silkwood's contamination have included such slanderous tales as that put forth by alleged FBI informer Jacque Srouji, who claimed that Silkwood was deliberately contaminated by the union, to create a martyr. This is a telling indication of how far the capitalists will go to discredit the only thing that stands between the workers and total disregard for any safety. In the movie the International union representatives are made to appear as a bunch of slick bureaucrats who push Silkwood way out front without anywhere near sufficient backup. Certainly the OCAW is as craven before the capitalists as any other union in the U.S. But it has fought, however partially, for safer conditions for the workers it represents.

In the movie, Silkwood posits that someone purposely contaminated her urine-specimen jar with plutonium while it was in her locker room, a jar she later accidentally broke in her bathroom at home. This explanation is plausible, but we can't know for certain. We do know that Silkwood had been a straight A student in school, the only girl in her high school chemistry class, a member of the National Honor Society. She had studied medical technology. She knew that tampering with plutonium was death. The idea that she would deliberately contaminate herself could originate only in the sick and vicious minds of a profit-mad industry like Kerr-McGee.

Even the New York Times had to admit that Kerr-McGee was "a hellish place to work." Between 1970 and 1974 there were 574 reported exposures to plutonium. Dr. Karl Morgan, formerly a health physicist at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, testified at a Congressional investigation that he had never seen a facility so poorly run. The plant was constructed in a tornado alley; the tornado warnings were so frequent that the company never bothered to remove the plutonium to a safe place. Yet the hazards of the plant get barely a nod in the film. Only one other instance of contamination is shown, Silkwood's friend Thelma. But when Silkwood is shown leaving off her urine sample at the lab for analysis, the audience sees many such samples lined up, thus many more contaminations.

Yes, nuclear power is dangerous. An accident such as almost happened at Three Mile Island could kill thousands of people. But the only "solution" to this problem provided by the movie Silkwood—and shared in real life by the OCAW union tops—is, ironically enough, the New York Times! Get the Times to publish the damning evidence, and the AEC will make Kerr-McGee straighten things out. The crusading press will save America by publicly exposing wrong, and the government will step in and perform justice. Sure. This is a liberal pipedream: the AEC serves the interests of power conglomerates like Kerr-McGee, and the New York Times worships money, not justice.

The "no-nukers" hail the name of Silkwood in their campaign to abolish nuclear power. But the problem is that you have to replace it with something, and in this capitalist society there is no such thing as a danger-free source of energy. For generations workers have died miserably in coal mines and suffocated to death with black lung disease. Like any technology, nuclear power can be used and abused. It is not so much a question of a special technology, but the irrationality of the capitalist economy which makes all industry in the U.S., including the nuclear industry, hazardous. Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan threatens to blow up the world hundreds of times over to save American profits. Over 90 percent of the nuclear waste in this country is military. And that's nothing compared to the global nuclear holocaust plotted in the Pentagon. That is the real danger of nuclear power.

The no-nuke movement is part of a middle-class ecological concern that the disastrous conditions which workers have faced for generations might spread to the suburbs, perhaps even onto a college campus. Anti-nuke groups actively publicize and collect funds for the Silkwood lawsuit but not a peep is heard in protest against the murder of Gregory Goobic during a two-week strike by OCAW Local 1-326 in Rodeo, California last January. Goobic, a 20-year-old union member, was run down by a scab truck while picketing a Union 76 oil refinery. A company boss, with arms folded, stood in the dead striker's blood as cops kept the other picketers away. The capitalists and their government are not interested in the lives of their employees, particularly when adequate wages, work¬ing conditions and safety precautions stand in the way of profits. Obviously one thing militants in unions such as OCAW must do is fight for safety committees with the power to close down plants. But equally necessarily is the struggle to replace the pro-capitalist labor bureaucracy with a leadership that will break with both bourgeois parties and build a workers party. The world will be safe to live in when the ruling class has been expropriated by a workers government that runs society for the benefit of all, not the profits of a few.

Silkwood has been denounced by corporate spokesmen at the New York Times for portraying Karen Silkwood as "a nuclear Joan of Arc" when she was really "a victim of her own infatuation with drugs"; it has been denounced by anti-nuke fan Anna Mayo of the Village Voice for portraying her as a dope-smoking "bad girl" when she was really "beloved daughter, sister, friend, union martyr and heroine of the largest, most viable grass-roots force in the U.S. and Western Europe, the anti-nuclear movement."

Actually, Karen Silkwood was simply a union militant fighting the best she could for a better life for herself and her coworkers against one of the least safe, most powerful, biggest price-gouging capitalist enterprises in the country. And we think the movie did a nice job showing it."