Markin comment:
The following is an article from an archival issue of Women and Revolution, Winter-Spring, 1996, 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.
******************
Class- Struggle Defense Work In The U.S. - Building on the Heritage of the International Labor Defense
We print below an edited speech by Deborah Mackson, executive director of the Partisan Defense Committee, prepared for April 7995 regional educationals in New York, Chicago and Oakland as part of a series of meetings and rallies sponsored by the PDC to mobilize support for Mum/a Abu-Jamal and the fight against the racist death penalty.
Mumia Abu-Jamal describes his current conditions of incarceration on death row at the State Correctional Institution at Greene County, Pennsylvania as "high-tech hell." When Governor Tom Ridge assaults all of the working people and minorities of this country by initiating the first execution of a political prisoner in America since the Rosenbergs, he must hear a resounding "No!" from coast to coast. Because Jamal is an articulate voice for the oppressed, this racist and rotting capitalist state wants to silence him forever. He is indeed dangerous. He is indeed a symbol. He is, indeed, innocent. Hear his powerful words, and you will begin to understand the hatred and fear which inspires the vendetta against this courageous fighter:
"Over many long years, over mountains of fears, through rivers of repression, from the depths of the valley of the shadow of death, I survive to greet you, in the continuing spirit of rebellion.... As America's ruling classes rush backwards into a new Dark Age, the weight of repression comes easier with each passing hour. But as repression increases, so too must resistance.... Like our forefathers, our fore-mothers, our kith and kin, we must fight for every inch of ground gained. The repressive wave sweeping this country will not stop by good wishes, but only by a counterwave of committed people firm in their focus."
We of the Partisan Defense Committee, the Spartacist League and the Labor Black Leagues are committed to a campaign to free this former Black Panther, award-winning journalist and supporter of the controversial MOVE organization who was framed for the 1981 killing of a Philadelphia policeman. Our aim is to effect an international campaign of protest and publicity like that which ultimately saved the nine Scottsboro Boys, framed for rape in Alabama in 1931, from the electric chair. We must mobilize the working class and all the oppressed in the fight to free this class-war prisoner framed by the government's murderous vendetta.
As Marxists, we are opposed to the death penalty on principle. We say that this state does not have the right to decide who lives and who dies. Capital punishment is part of the vast arsenal of terror at the hands of this state, which exists to defend the capitalist system of exploitation and oppression. America's courts are an instrument of the bourgeoisie's war on the working people and the poor; they are neither neutral nor by any stretch of the imagination "color blind."
To us, the defense of America's class-war prisoners— whatever their individual political views may be—is a responsibility of the revolutionary vanguard party which must champion all causes in the interest of the proletariat. The Partisan Defense Committee was initiated by the Spartacist League in 1974 in the tradition of the working-class defense policies of the International Labor Defense, under its founder and first secretary from 1925 to 1928, James P. Cannon. Today, I want to talk to you about how that tradition was built in this country by the best militants of the past 100 years—the leaders of class-struggle organizations like the pre-World War I Industrial Workers of the World, the early Socialist and Communist parties and the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party.
The Roots of Black Oppression
To forge a future, one has to understand the past. The modern American death penalty is the barbaric inheritance of a barbaric system of production: chattel slavery. Like the capitalists who hold state power today, the slavocracy used the instruments of their power, special bodies of armed men and the "justice" system— the laws, courts and prisons—to control people for profit. Directly descendant from the slavocracy's tradition of property in black people is the death penalty. A trail through history illustrates this truth. The "slave codes" codified a series of offenses for which slaves could be killed but for which whites would receive a lesser sentence. In Virginia, the death penalty was mandatory for both slaves and free blacks for any crime for which a white could be imprisoned for three years or more. In Georgia, a black man convicted of raping a white woman faced the death penalty; a white man got two years for the same crime, and punishment was "discretionary" if the victim was black. Slaves could not own property, bear arms, assemble or testify against whites in courts of law. Marriage between slaves was not recognized; families were sold apart; it was illegal to teach a slave to read and write. Slaves were not second- or third-class citizens—they were not human, but legally "personal, movable property," chattel.
William Styron in The Confessions of Nat Turner has the fictional character T.R. Gray explain the slaveowners' rationale to Turner:
"The point is that you are animate chattel and animate chattel is capable of craft and connivery and wily stealth. You ain't a wagon, Reverend, but chattel that possesses moral choice and spiritual volition. Remember that well. Because that's how come the law provides that animate chattel like you can be tried for a felony, and that's how come you're goin' to be tried next Sattidy. "He paused, then said softly without emotion: 'And hung by the neck until dead'."
While the slave codes were a Southern institution, legal and extralegal terror were never exclusive to the South. As early as 1793, fugitive slave laws were on the federal books. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Law was passed in response to the growing abolitionist influence which had inspired several Northern states to pass "personal liberty laws," giving some protection to slaves who had successfully negotiated the Underground Railroad. The 1850 law, seeking to protect the private property of slaveholders, put the burden of proof on captured blacks, but gave them no legal power to prove their freedom—no right to habeas corpus, no right to a jury trial, no right even to testify on their own behalf.
Many blacks were caught in the clutches of this infamous law, which had no bounds. For example, a man in southern Indiana was arrested and returned to an owner’ who claimed he had run away 79 years before. The law knew no pretense. A magistrate's fee doubled if he judged an unfortunate black before the bench a runaway slave instead of a tree man. And fugitives were pursued with vigor. In Battle Cry of Freedom, historian James McPherson recounts the story of Anthony Burns, a slave who stowed away from Virginia to Boston in 1854. The feds spent the equivalent of $2.3 million in current dollars to return him to his "owner." That is approximately equal to what an average death penalty case costs today.
Any hope that "blind justice" could be sought from the U.S. Supreme Court was dashed with the 1856 Dred Scott decision. Chief Justice Taney wrote that at the time the Constitution was adopted, Negroes "had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order...so far inferior, that they had no rights which a white man was bound to respect."
While slavery itself was overthrown in the Civil War and Reconstruction, the needs of the American capitalists for compulsory agricultural labor in the South remained. A new, semi-capitalistic mode of agriculture developed, in which the semi-slave condition of the freed blacks was made permanent by the re-establishment of the social relations of slavery: color discrimination buttressed by segregation and race prejudice.
After the Civil War the slave codes became the "black codes," a separate set of rules defining crime and punishment for blacks and limiting their civil rights. They were enforced by the extralegal terror of the Ku Klux Klan; in the last two decades of the 19th century, lynching vastly outnumbered legal executions. As W.E.B. Du Bois said of lynching:
"It is not simply the Klu Klux Klan; it is not simply weak officials; it is not simply inadequate, unenforced law. It is deeper, far deeper than all this: it is the in-grained spirit of mob and murder, the despising of women and the capitalization of children born of 400 years of Negro slavery and 4,000 years of government for private profit."
The promise of Radical Reconstruction, equality, could only be fulfilled by attacking the problem at its very root: private property in the means of production. Neither Northern capitalists nor Southern planters could abide that revolution, so they made a deal, the Compromise of 1877, in their common interest. That's why we call on American workers, black and white, to finish the Civil War—to complete, through socialist revolution, the unfinished tasks of the Second American Revolution!
In the wake of the Compromise of 1877, the U.S. Supreme Court began to dismantle the Civil Rights Acts of the Reconstruction period. One landmark decision was Plessey v. Ferguson in 1896, which permitted "separate but equal" treatment of black and white in public facilities. But separate is never equal. This was simply the legal cover for the transformation of the "black codes" into "Jim Crow"—the "grandfather clause," poll tax, literacy test, all designed to deny blacks the vote, and the institution of separate facilities from schools to cemeteries. This legal and practical segregation, instituted in the South and transported North, was a tool to divide and rule.
America's Racist Death Penalty
The death penalty was applied at will until 1972. From 1930 to 1967 the U.S. averaged 100 or more executions per year. In 1972, following a decade of civil rights protests, the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty was "cruel and unusual punishment" because of its arbitrary and capricious application. But the hiatus lasted only four years.
In 1976-the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty and has been expanding it ever since. In 1986 the court ruled it unconstitutional to execute the insane, but gave no criteria for defining insanity; in 1988 it approved the execution of 16-year-olds; in 1989 it ruled for the execution of retarded persons. Since 1976, 276 people have been executed in this country. Between January and April of 1995, 17 were killed. And innocence is no barrier, as the Supreme Court recently decreed in the case of Jesse Dewayne Jacobs, executed in Texas in January 1995 after the prosecution submitted that he had not committed the crime for which he had been sentenced. The Supreme Court said it didn't matter, he'd had a "fair trial." What an abomination!
Perhaps the most telling case in recent history was the 1987 McCleskey decision. The evidence submitted to the courts illustrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that racism ruled the application of the death penalty. Overall, a black person convicted of killing a white person is 22 times more likely to be sentenced to death than if the victim is black. When the McCleskey case went to court, liberals across the country hoped for a Brown v. Board of Education decision in regard to the death penalty. The evidence of racial bias was clear and overwhelming. But while the Supreme Court accepted the accuracy of the evidence, it said it doesn't matter. The court showed the real intention of the death penalty when it stated that McCleskey's claim "throws into serious question the principles that underlie our entire criminal justice system" and "the validity of capital punishment in our multi-racial society." Or as a Southern planter wrote in defense of the slave codes, "We have to rely more and more on the power of fear.... We are determined to continue masters" (quoted in Kenneth Stampp, The Peculiar Institution).
Let's take a look for a moment at "our multi-racial society." The U.S. has the highest rate of incarceration in the world: 344 per 100,000. It is one of the two "advanced" industrial countries left in the world which employs capital punishment. As of January 1995, 2,976 men, women and children occupied America's death rows; 48 are women, 37 are juveniles. According to the latest census, blacks make up 12 percent of the population, yet 51 percent of the people awaiting execution are minorities and 40 percent are black.
Eighty-four percent of all capital cases involve white victims even though 50 percent of murder victims in America are black. Of a total of 75 people executed for interracial murders, three involved a black victim and a white defendant, 72 involved a white victim and a black defendant. The death penalty is truly an impulse to genocide against the black population for whom the ruling class no longer sees any need in its profit-grabbing calculations.
Understanding this and understanding the broader importance of the black question in America, we take up Jamal's case as a concrete task in our struggle for black freedom and for proletarian revolution in the interests of the liberation of all of humanity.
Early History of Class-Struggle Defense
From the beginning of the communist movement, a commitment to those persecuted by the ruling classes, whether "on the inside" or out, has been recognized as an integral part of the class struggle. Marx and Engels spent years defending and supporting the refugees of-the Paris Commune.
As Trotskyists, we feel this responsibility keenly because we inherited some of the finest principles for class-struggle defense from James R Cannon, the founder of American Trotskyism. The traditions which inspired the International Labor Defense (ILD) were forged in hard class struggle, dating back to the rise of the labor movement after the Civil War. One of the first acts of the Republican government following the Compromise of 1877 was to pull its troops from the South and send them to quell the railway strikes that had broken out throughout the Northern states. The federal strikebreakers tipped the scales in the hard-fought battles of the time, many of which escalated into general strikes, and the workers were driven back in defeat. But united struggle against the bosses had been launched, and less than a decade later the workers movement had taken up the fight for an eight-hour day.
In the course of this struggle, workers in Chicago amassed at Haymarket Square in early May of 1886. The protest was just winding down when a bomb went off, likely planted by a provocateur. The cops opened fire on the workers, killing one and wounding many. The government’s response was to frame up eight workers, who were sympathetic to anarchist views, on charges of murder. They were tried and convicted, not for the bombing but for their agitation against the employers. Four were hanged, one committed suicide, three were finally pardoned in 1891.
The period from the turn of the century to America's entry into World War I was one of intense social struggle; militant strikes were more numerous than at any time since. The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW—the Wobblies) led union organizing drives, anti-lynching campaigns and a free speech movement. The level of struggle meant more frequent arrests, which gave rise to the need for defense of the class and individuals. The left and most labor currents and organizations rallied to the defense of victims of the class war. Non-sectarian defense was the rule of the day. The Wobbly slogan, "an injury to one is an injury to all," was taken to heart by the vast majority of the workers.
This was Cannon's training ground. One of his heroes was Big Bill Haywood, who conceived the ILD with Cannon in Moscow in 1925. As Cannon said, the history of the ILD is "the story of the projection of Bill Haywood's influence—through me and my associates—into the movement from which he was exiled, an influence for simple honesty and good will and genuine non-partisan solidarity toward all the prisoners of the class war in America."
Big Bill Haywood came from the Western Federation of Miners, one of the most combative unions this country has ever produced. The preamble to their constitution was a series of six points, beginning, "We hold that there is a class struggle in society and that this struggle is caused by economic conditions." It goes on to note, "We hold that the class struggle will continue until the producer is recognized as the sole master of his product," and it asserts that the working class and it alone can and must achieve its own emancipation. It ends, "we, the wage slaves...have associated in the Western Federation of Miners."
Not all labor organizations of the time had this class-struggle perspective. Contrast the tract of Samuel Rompers' American Federation of Labor (AFL), "Labor's Bill of Grievances," which he sent to the president and Congress in 1908:
"We present these grievances to your attention because we have long, patiently and in vain waited for redress.
There is not any matter of which we have complained but for which we nave in an honorable and lawful manner submitted remedies. The remedies for these grievances proposed by labor are in line with fundamental law, and with progress and development made necessary by changed industrial conditions."
The IWW, whose constitution began, "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common," was founded in 1905. Haywood was an initiator and one of its most aggressive and influential organizers. As a result of that and his open socialist beliefs, in 1906 he, along with George Pettibone and Charles Moyer, were arrested for the bombing murder of ex-governor Frank Steunenberg of Idaho (the nemesis of the combative Coeur d'Alene miners). The three were kidnapped from Colorado, put on a military train and taken to Idaho.
The Western Federation of Miners and the IWW launched a tremendous defense movement for the three during the 18 months they were waiting to be tried for their lives. Everyone from the anarchists to the AFL participated. Demonstrations of 50,000 and more were organized all across the country. It was this case that brought James Cannon to political consciousness.
The case was important internationally, too. While they were in jail, Maxim Gorky came to New York and sent a telegram to the three with greetings from the Russian workers. Haywood wired back that their imprisonment was an expression of the class struggle which was the same in America as in Russia and in all other capitalist countries.
On a less friendly note, Teddy Roosevelt, then president of America, publicly declared the three "undesirable citizens." Haywood responded that the laws of the country held they were innocent until proven guilty and that a man in Roosevelt's position should be the last to judge them until the case was decided in court.
The Socialist Party (founded in 1901) also rallied to the defense. While in jail, Haywood was nominated as the party's candidate for governor of Colorado and got 16,000 votes. The leader of the SP, Eugene Debs, wrote his famous "Arouse, Ye Slaves" for the SP's Appeal to Reason:
"If they attempt to murder Moyer, Haywood and their brothers, a million revolutionists, at least, will meet them with guns.... Let them dare to execute their devilish plot and every state in this Union will resound with the tramp of revolution....
"Get ready, comrades, for action!... A special revolutionary convention of the proletariat...would be in order, and, if extreme measures are required, a general strike could be ordered and industry paralyzed as a preliminary to a general uprising."
Haywood's trial began in May of 1907. It was Clarence Darrow for the defense and the infamous Senator William E. Borah for the frame-up (prosecution). That this was a political trial was clear to everybody. The prosecution, for example, introduced into evidence issues of the anarchist journal Alarm from 1886, when Haymarket martyr Albert Parsons was its editor. Haywood thought that Dar-row's summary to the jury in his case was the best effort Darrow ever made in the courtroom. But Haywood also got a bit exasperated with his lawyer. In his autobiography, he tells the story of Darrow coming to jail depressed and worried. The defendants would always try to get him to lighten up. Finally Pettibone got tired of this and told Darrow they knew it would be really hard on him to lose this great case with all its national and international attention, but, hey! he said, "You know it's us fellows that have to be hanged!"
Every day of the trial the defense committee packed the courtroom with what Haywood called "a labor jury of Socialists and union men." This is a practice we proudly follow today. On the stand, Haywood told the story of the Western Federation of Miners and its battles against the bosses, putting them on trial. He refused to be intimidated by Senator Borah. When Borah asked whether Haywood had said that Governor Steunenberg should be exterminated, Haywood replied that to the best of his remembrance, he said he should be "eliminated."
On June 28 Haywood was acquitted. Soon thereafter, so were his comrades. At a Chicago rally organized to greet him upon his release, he told the crowd of 200,000, "We owe our lives to your solidarity." Haywood knew that innocence was not enough. It is that kind of solidarity we are seeking to mobilize today for Mumia Abu-Jamal.
The Labor Movement and World War I
Haywood was elected to the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party in 1908, during its most left-wing period. In 1910, he was one of the party's delegates to the Socialist Congress of the Second International in Copenhagen. Shortly after, the SP moved to the right, and in 1912 (the year Debs polled nearly a million votes in his campaign for president) a number of leftists, including the young Jim Cannon, left the Socialist Party. A year later, when Haywood was purged from the executive board, there was another mass exodus.
The IWW, in which Haywood and Cannon remained active, expanded the scope of its activities. This was the period of the free speech movement and anti-lynching ' campaigns. One Wobbly pamphlet, "Justice for the Negro: How He Can Get It," discusses the question of integrated struggle and how to stop lynchings:
"The workers of every race and nationality must join in one common group against their one common enemy—the employers—so as to be "able to defend themselves and one another. Protection for the working class lies in complete solidarity of the workers, without regard to race, creed, sex or color. 'One Enemy—One Union!' must be their watchword."
They almost got it right: as syndicalists, they didn't understand the need for a vanguard party to fight for a revolutionary program.
With the beginning of World War I and preparations for U.S. involvement, the government declared political war on the IWW and the left. Thousands of Wobblies were imprisoned under "criminal syndicalism" laws—100 in San Quentin and Folsom alone. In response, the IWW adopted the slogan, "Fill the jails." It was a misguided tactic, but unlike many so-called socialists today, the Wobbliest had a principled position where it counted: they'd go to jail before they'd cross a picket line.
1917 was the year of the Russian Revolution. A month after that world-historic event, Haywood was back on trial in Chicago with some 18 other Wobblies. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in Leaven worth prison. In 1919 he was released on bail pending appeal and devoted his time to the IWW's General Defense Committee, launching a campaign to raise bail money for those in prison. When the Red Scare and the Palmer Raids began, Haywood learned that he was a primary target. So, as his appeal went to the Supreme Court, he sailed for the Soviet Union. A student of history, he had no illusions in "blind justice."
Cannon was also heavily influenced by the case of California labor leaders Tom Mooney and Warren Billings. In 1916, as America was preparing to go to war, Mooney and Billings were framed up for a bombing at a Preparedness Day Parade in San Francisco. The Preparedness Movement was a bourgeois movement of "open shop" chamber of commerce, right-wing vigilante groups, who were very serious about getting the U.S. into World War I. They went into Mexico to fight Pancho Villa as practice. The Preparedness Movement was opposed by labor, and in fact two days before the bombing there had been a 5,000-strong labor demonstration in San Francisco.
Mooney and Billings were convicted. Mooney was sentenced to hang, Billings got a life sentence. At first, their case was taken up only by the anarchists. The official AFL labor movement took a hands-off position. But when it became clear that they had been framed with perjured testimony, a "Mooney movement" swept the country.
The Mooney case had a big impact on Russian immigrant workers, among others. Thus the Mooney case was carried back to Russia, and in April of 1917 the Russian anarchists led a Mooney defense demonstration in Petrograd at the American consulate. Worried about Russia pulling out of World War I at that point, Woodrow Wilson personally interceded on behalf of Mooney and Billings. It didn't get them out of jail, but the effect of international pressure was not lost on Cannon.
In the U.S., the cops broke up Mooney defense meetings and arrested those present. The class-struggle nature of the defense movement, involving such actions as one-day strikes, was a felt threat to the ruling class, especially in the face of a war. In a conscious effort to dissipate this movement, the state commuted Mooney's death sentence to life in prison. In combination with the domestic repression following the war, this took the life out of the Mooney movement. Mooney and Billings stayed in prison for 22 years. They were released in 1939, and Mooney spent two and a half of the next three years in the hospital and then-died.
In his eulogy "Good-by Tom Mooney!" Cannon wrote:
"They imprisoned Mooney—as they imprisoned Debs and Haywood and hundreds of others—in order to clear the road of militant labor opposition to the First World War, and they kept him in prison for revenge and for a warning to others."
As World War II began, Cannon would find himself in the same position.
The Tradition of International Labor Defense
The parties of the Second International backed their own ruling classes in World War I, and the Bolsheviks fought for a new international party committed to the Marxist movement's call, "Workers of the World Unite!" In 1919, the leaders of the Russian Revolution founded the Third International, the Comintern, to build revolutionary parties which could take up the struggle against capitalist rule. 1919 was also a year of massive strike activity in the U.S. This wave of class struggle swelled the ranks of the Socialist Party, which then split in September. The most left-wing workers regrouped, giving birth to the American Communist movement, and Cannon was among them.
America in the 1920s was not a nice place to be. Warren Harding was elected in a landslide victory on the slogan of "Return to Normalcy." And "normal" was racist and repressive. His attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, launched a war on the left inspired by fear of the Russian Revolution, which resulted in massive deportations of leftists and jailing of American radicals. The young Communist Party went underground. 1920 saw more lynchings and anti-black pogroms than any time in recent memory. The Klan grew like wildfire, and the government passed anti-immigration legislation that would give Newt Gingrich and Pete Wilson wet dreams.
When it was clear that the IWW was for all practical purposes broken, many of its jailed members, including Eugene Debs, were pardoned. The Communists, however, remained in jail. The union movement took it on the chops as well, and by the end of the 1920s only 13 percent of the workforce of this country was unionized.
The 1921 Third Congress of the Comintern was held under the watchword "To the Masses." In the U.S., the newly formed party had been underground and could hardly make a turn to the masses. At the Comintern's urging, the Workers (Communist) Party emerged in December of 1921 with Cannon as its first chairman and main public spokesman.
By the time of the Fourth Congress of the Comintern in 1922, the tactic of the united front had been defined; the Fourth Congress detailed its application. The need for the united front grew out of the post-World War I ebbing of the revolutionary tide following the Russian Revolution. The offensive by the capitalists against the proletariat and its parties was forcing even the reformist-led organizations into partial and defensive struggles to save their very lives.
The slogan "march separately, strike together" encapsulated the two aims of the united-front tactic: class unity and the political fight for a communist program. The Comintern sought both to achieve the maximum unity of the working masses in their defensive struggles and to expose in action the hesitancy of the leadership of the reformist organizations of the Second International to act in the interests of the proletariat and the inability of its program to win against the ruling class.
The united front is a tactic we use today. Our call for labor/black mobilizations to stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal and abolish the racist death penalty has brought together many different organizations and individuals to save Jamal's life. At these rallies and demonstrations, we
have insisted on the right to argue for our program to put an end to racist injustice and capitalist exploitation through socialist revolution.
In line with the policies hashed out at the Third and Fourth Congresses, the Communist International founded an international defense organization, the International Red Aid. These events had a substantial effect on the young American party, and one of the direct results was the foundation in 1925 of the International Labor Defense (ILD).
Cannon's goal was to make the ILD the defense arm of the labor movement. Cannon wrote to Debs on the occasion of his endorsement of the ILD:
"The main problem as I see it is to construct the ILD on the broadest possible basis. To conduct the work in a non-partisan and non-sectarian manner and finally establish the impression by our deeds that the ILD is the defender of every worker persecuted for his activities in the class struggle, without any exceptions and without regard to his affiliations."
From 1925 to 1928, the ILD was pretty successful in achieving that goal. It established principles to which we adhere today:
• United-front defense: The ILD campaigns were organized to allow for the broadest possible participation.
• Class-struggle defense: The ILD sought to mobilize the working class in protest on a national and international scale, relying on the class movement of the workers and
placing no faith in the justice of the capitalist courts, while using every legal avenue open to them.
• Non-sectarian defense: When it was founded, the ILD immediately adopted 106 prisoners, instituting the practice of financially assisting these prisoners and their
families. Many had been jailed as a result of the "criminal syndicalism" laws; some were Wobblies, some were anarchists, some were strike leaders. Not one was a member of the Communist Party. The ILD launched the first Holiday Appeal. Of course, the ILD also vigorously defended its own, understanding the vital importance of the legal rights of the Communist Party to exist and organize.
Social Defense and Union Struggle
The ILD's most well-known case was the defense of Sacco and Vanzetti. The frame-up for murder and robbery of these two immigrant anarchist workers, who were sent to their deaths by the state of Massachusetts in 1927, grew directly out of the "red scare" of the early '20s. The ILD applied with alacrity the main lines of its program: unity of all working-class forces and reliance on the class movement of the workers. Thousands of workers rallied to their cause, and unions around the country contributed to a defense fund set up by Italian workers in the Boston area. But the level of class struggle is key to the outcome of defense cases, and the ILD's exemplary campaign proved insufficient to save the lives of Sacco and Vanzetti.
As the case drew to a close, one of the feints used by the state was to start rumors that Sacco and Vanzetti's death penalty sentence would be commuted to life without parole. This was designed to dissipate the Sacco and Vanzetti movement and prepare their execution. Cannon rang the alarm bells from the pages of the Labor Defender, rallying ILD supporters to mass demonstrations and warning them of the devious and two-faced nature of the bourgeoisie. Cannon had not forgotten the demobilization of the Mooney movement after his sentence had been commuted nor the living death that Mooney and Billings were enduring in their 22 years of internment.
This has significance for us today as we fight against the threatened execution of Jamal. Life in prison is hell. Think about the "life" of Geronimo ji Jaga (Pratt), another former Panther, jailed for a quarter of a century for a crime the state knows he did not commit. While some call upon Pennsylvania governor Ridge to convert Jamal's sentence to life without parole, we demand the freedom of both these innocent men.
The ILD also worked in defense of the class as a whole. In 1926, about 16,000 textile workers hit the bricks in Passaic, New Jersey. Their strike was eventually defeated, but it drew sharp lessons on the role of the state and demonstrated for Cannon the absolute necessity for a permanent, organized and always ready non-partisan labor defense organization. Cannon wrote in the Labor Defender:
"Our I.L.D. is on the job at Passaic. Not a single striker went into court without our lawyer to defend him. There was not a single conviction that was not appealed. Nobody had to remain in jail more than a few days for lack of bail.... A great wave of protest spread thru the labor movement and even the most conservative labor leaders were compelled to give expression to it."
In 1928, the Trotskyist Left Opposition (including Cannon) was expelled from the Communist Party. The ILD remained under the control of the Communist Party and thus became subject to the zigzags of Stalinist policies throughout the 1930s, including the perversion of the united front from a tactic for class unity into an instrument for class collaboration and counterrevolution.
In 1929, Stalin declared the "Third Period," an ultraleft shift, the main tactic of which was to smash the Social Democratic and other leftist parties by creating what the Stalinists called "united fronts from below." The Comintern charged the reformists with "social fascism"; the real fascists were to be dealt with secondarily. In Germany, this policy contributed to Adolph Hitler's seizure of power— there was no united fight against fascism by the workers in the mass Communist and Social Democratic parties. This policy had an effect on the U.S. party and its defense work.
Legal Lynching in the American South
One result of the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Depression was that 200,000people made the rails their home as they moved from place to place looking for work. On 25 March 1931, nine black youths, ranging in age from 13 to 20, were riding the Memphis to Chattanooga freight train. Two young white women, fearful of being jailed for hoboing when the train was stopped after reports that there had been a fight with some white boys, accused the blacks of rape. Among the nine were Olen Montgomery—blind in one eye and with 10 percent vision in the other—headed for Memphis hoping to earn enough money to buy a pair of glasses; Willie Roberson, debilitated by years-long untreated syphilis and gonorrhea—which is important if you're going to be talking about a rape case; and Eugene Williams and Roy Wright, both 13 years old.
The group were nearly lynched on the spot. The trial began in Scottsboro, Alabama on April 6. Four days later, despite medical evidence that no rape had occurred—not to mention gross violations of due process—eight were sentenced to death and one of the 13-year-olds to life in prison. The Communist Party issued a statement condemning the trial as a "legal" lynching. That night, the campaign to free the Scottsboro Boys began.
Freedom was a long time coming. A series of trials and appeals all went badly for the defendants. In 1933, one of the alleged victims, Ruby Bates, recanted her testimony, but it wasn't until 1937 that four of the defendants were freed. Three more were paroled in the 1940s, and in 1948 Haywood Patterson escaped from Angola prison to Michigan, where the governor refused to extradite him. The last, Andy Wright, who had had his 1944 parole revoked, was finally released in 1950. The nine had spent 104 years in jail for a "crime" that never happened.
The ILD made the word "Scottsboro" synonymous, nationally and internationally, with Southern racism, repression and injustice. Their campaign was responsible for saving the Scottsboro Boys from the electric chair. As Haywood Patterson's father wrote in a letter to his son, "You will burn sure if you don't let them preachers alone and trust in the International Labor Defense to handle the case."
The CP's publicity was massive and moving. They organized demonstrations in Harlem and across the country, appealing to the masses to put no confidence in the capitalist courts and to see the struggle for the freedom of these youths as part of the larger class struggle. Young Communists in Dresden, Germany marched on the American consulate, and, when officials refused to accept their petition, hurled bottles through windows. Inside each was the note: "Down with American murder and Imperialism. For the brotherhood of black and white young proletarians. An end to the bloody lynching of our Negro co-workers."
In the South, the defense effort faced not only the racist system but the homegrown fascists of the Ku Klux Klan as well, which launched a campaign under the slogan "The Klan Rides Again to Stamp Out Communism."
The ILD's success in rallying the masses to the defense of the Scottsboro Boys happened despite their sectarian "Third Period" tactics. The ILD denounced the NAACP, the ACLU and most of the trade-union movement as "social fascists" and threw the "Trotskyite" likes of Jim Cannon out of Scottsboro defense meetings. But fascism was on the rise in Europe, and, seeking now to make as many allies as he could, in 1935 Stalin' declared the "Third Period" at an end. A Comintern resolution urged the Communist parties to form "popular fronts" with any and all for progressive ends. In the U.S. this meant supporting Roosevelt and abandoning the struggle to link the defense of black people with the fight against the capitalist system. You can imagine the surprise of the NAACP, who were now greeted warmly by the ILD as "comrades"! This comradeship did not extend to the Trotskyists. The Scottsboro Defense Committee was formed, and a lot of the life went out of the movement as the case dragged on.
Cannon and his party, the Communist League of America, supported the efforts of the ILD to free the Scottsboro Boys. The Trotskyists insisted on the importance of an integrated movement to fight in their defense. Cannon pointed out that it was wrong to view the Scottsboro case solely as a "Negro issue" and agitated in the pages of the Militant for the organization of white workers around the case.
When Clarence Darrow refused to work on the case unless the ILD withdrew because he didn't like its agitation methods, Cannon wrote:
"The ILD was absolutely right in rejecting the presumptuous demands of Darrow and Hays, and the Scottsboro prisoners showed wisdom in supporting the stand of their defense organization. Any other course would have signified an end to the fight to organize the protest of the masses against the legal lynching; and with that would have ended any real hope to save the boys and restore their freedom."
Darrow's big argument was: "You can't mix politics with a law case." Cannon replied:
"That is a reactionary lie. It is father to the poisonous doctrine that a labor case is a purely legal relation between the lawyer and client and the court.... It was the influence of this idea over the Sacco-Vanzetti Defense Committee which paralyzed the protest mass movement at every step and thereby contributed to the final tragic outcome. Not to the courts alone, and not primarily there, but to the masses must the appeal of the persecuted of class and race be taken. There is the power and there is the justice."
Communists on Trial
During the time that the Scottsboro Boys were languishing in their Southern jails, World War II began in Europe. The American workers had gone through the experience of one of the biggest union organizing drives in the history of the country, resulting in the formation of the CIO, and many of the new industrial unions had won significant victories. Communists, including the Trotskyists, Jim Cannon and the Socialist Workers Party, had participated in and led many of these struggles. War is great for capitalist economies—the destruction creates constant demand, and if you win, you get new markets to exploit. But to go to war, you have to regiment the population at home, and that begins with the suspension of civil liberties.
On the eve of America's entry into World War II, Congress passed the Smith Act, requiring the fingerprinting and registering of all aliens residing in the United States and making it a crime to advocate or teach the "violent overthrow of the United States government" or to belong to a group advocating or teaching it.
For public consumption, this act was billed as an antifascist measure, but the Socialist Workers Party (successor to the Communist League of America) and Minneapolis Teamsters were the first victims of the Smith Act prosecutions. Why did the head of the Teamsters Union, Daniel J. Tobin, the U.S. attorney general, Francis Biddle, and the president of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, conspire to take away the First Amendment rights of a small Trotskyist party, a party with maybe a couple thousand members and influence in one local of one union?
Part of the answer is that the SWP was effective. The party had led some hard class struggle; it was their comrades who had provided the leadership for the Minneapolis strike of 1934 which led to the formation of Teamsters Local 544. Another part of the answer is politics: the SWP was forthright in its opposition to the coming war. This was a calculated government attack designed to cripple the SWP where it had the most influence in the proletariat as America girded for imperialist war.
In the courtroom, the SWP's goal was to put the capitalist system on trial, a tradition we carry forward in our own cases. On the stand, Cannon pedagogically explained the positions of the SWP on the questions of the day and Marxism in general. But the Minneapolis defendants went to jail for 16 months—sentenced on the same day that Congress voted to enter the war. The ruling class hoped that the party would be leaderless and pass from the stage. But at that time the SWP was still a revolutionary party with a revolutionary program and a collective leadership—so that hope was, in the main, dashed.
A number of CIO unions issued statements in defense of the Minneapolis defendants, as did numerous black organizations. The American Communist Party, however, issued the following statement: "The Communist Party has always exposed, fought against and today joins the fight to exterminate the Trotskyite fifth column from the life of our nation." In line with their support for Roosevelt and the war, the CP aided the government in the Smith Act prosecution of the SWP and aided the FBI in their persecution of the Trotskyists in the trade unions. The CP's disgusting collaboration did not prevent them from being prosecuted under the very same Smith Act, beginning in 1948. The Trotskyists, of course, defended the CP unequivocally against the government prosecution while criticizing the CP's Stalinist politics.
Years later the attorney general, Francis Biddle, apologized for prosecuting the Trotskyists. The bourgeoisie sometimes apologizes when its crisis is safely over. Fifty years after the end of World War II, the U.S. government "apologized" for the wartime roundup and internment of Japanese Americans, offering a token compensation to those whose homes were seized and livelihoods ruined. They say whatever outrageous trampling of civil liberties occurred was an "excess" or "wrong" and of course it will "never happen again." But the Reagan government drew up plans to intern Arab Americans in concentration camps in Louisiana after the bombing of Libya. Those camps are ready and waiting for the next time the bourgeoisie feels its rule is substantially threatened.
Class-Struggle Defense Work
The Partisan Defense Committee was initiated in 1974 by the Spartacist League with the goal of re-establishing in the workers movement united-front, non-sectarian defense principles in the tradition of Cannon's ILD.
This was not anticipated to be, nor has it been, an easy task. Unlike the ILD, which inherited the rich and principled defense traditions of the IWW and the personal authority of mass leaders like Cannon and Haywood, we were the immediate inheritors of a tradition of Stalinist perversion of defense work. In addition, the ILD was founded as a transitional organization, seeking to organize the masses for class-struggle defense work under the leadership of the party. By its second conference, the ILD had 20,000 individual members, a collective, affiliated membership of 75,000, and 156 branches across the country. The PDC attempts to conduct its work in a way that will make the transformation to such an organization possible.
The PDC program of raising money for monthly stipends for class-war prisoners is an example of an ILD practice to which we adhere. We currently send stipends to 17 prisoners, including Jamal, Geronimo ji Jaga and other former supporters of the Black Panther Party, victims of the FBI's murderous COINTELPRO frame-ups; Jerry Dale Lowe, a miner condemned to eleven years in prison for defending his picket line; and members of the MOVE organization locked up because they survived the racist cop assaults on their homes and murder of their family. We also follow the ILD's policy of strict accounting of finances and have modeled our journal, Class-Struggle Defense Notes, on the ILD's Labor Defender.
We take to heart Cannon's point:
"The problem of organization is a very significant one for labor defense as a school for the class struggle. We must not get the idea that we are merely 'defense workers' collecting money for lawyers. That is only a part of what we are doing. We are organizing workers on issues which are directly related to the class struggle. The workers who take part in the work of the ILD are drawn, step by step into the main stream of the class struggle. The workers participating begin to learn the ABC of the labor struggle."
Class-struggle defense is a broad category. We are a small organization and must pick and choose our cases carefully, with an eye to their exemplary nature. The case of Mario Munoz a Chilean miners' leader condemned to death in 1976 by the Argentine military junta, is a good example. This was the PDC's first major defense effort. Co-sponsored with the Committee to Defend Workers and Sailor Prisoners in Chile, the international campaign of protest by unions and civil libertarians won asylum for Munoz and his family in France.
Some of our work has been in defense of the revolutionary party. The Spartacist League takes its legality— the right to exist and organize—very seriously, and has been quick to challenge every libel and legal attack. The party successfully challenged the FBI's slanderous description of the SL as "terrorists" who covertly advocate the violent’ Overthrow of the government. A 1984 settlement forced them to describe the SL as a "Marxist political organization."
The PDC takes up not only the cases but the causes of the whole of the working people. We have initiated labor/black mobilizations against the Klan from San Francisco to Atlanta to Philadelphia to Springfield, Illinois, and mobilized sections of the integrated labor movement to join these efforts to stop the fascists from spewing their race hate.
In 1989, we broadened our thinking about how the PDC could champion causes of the international proletariat and offered to organize an international brigade to Afghanistan to fight alongside the forces of the left-nationalist Kabul regime against the imperialist-backed, anti-woman Islamic fundamentalists on the occasion of the withdrawal of Soviet troops. When our offer of a brigade was declined, we launched a successful campaign to raise money for the victims of the mullah-led assault on Jalalabad. To reflect this, we expanded the definition of the PDC to one of a legal and social defense organization. To carry out this campaign, it was necessary to expand the PDC internationally. Sections of the International Communist League initiated fraternal organizations in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan.
Currently we focus our efforts on Mumia Abu-Jamal and the fight to abolish the racist death penalty. Our actions in the Jamal case embody many of the principles of our defense work and the integral relationship of that work to the Marxist program of the Spartacist League, in this case particularly in regard to the fight for black liberation, which is key to the American revolution. This is a political death penalty case which illustrates the racism endemic in this country in its crudest, most vicious form and lays bare the essence of the state.
Throughout the very difficult period ahead, we will put all our faith in the mobilization of the working class and none in the capitalist courts. We embark now on exhausting every legal avenue open to Jamal, but we know the result hinges on the class struggle.
We hope you will join us in the fight to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, to abolish the racist death penalty and finish the Civil War. Forward to the third American revolution! •
Friday, December 01, 2006
*HO CHI MINH AND THE VIETNAMESE NATIONAL LIBERATION STRUGGLE
Click on title to link to Wikipedia's entry for Ho Chi Minh.
HO CHI MINH AND THE NATIONAL LIBERATION STRUGGLE IN VIETNAM
BOOK REVIEW
HO CHI MINH: A LIFE, WILLIAM J. DUIKER, HYPERION PRESS, NEW YORK, 2000
By way of an introduction I note that while I was writing a draft of this book review President George W. Bush had just completed participation in an international conference held in Vietnam. In one of the small ironies of history a photograph of the meeting between American and Vietnamese leaders displayed a huge bust of the late Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh hovering over the room. There was a time in the 1950’s and 1960’s when Ho was more than a mere historical reminder in the room. To many youth, particularly in the West, ‘Uncle’ Ho represented the most intransigent opposition to Western imperialism. Today, at a time when heroes for leftists are few and far between and Vietnam’s leadership has taken a distinctly different direction toward the shoals of “market socialism” and away from Ho Chi Minh’s ideas a look at his politically flawed but fascinating life seems in order.
The Russian Bolshevik revolutionary leader Leon Trotsky on more than one occasion noted that the Western labor movement had not produced the kind of hardened, resilient and committed revolutionaries produced in Russian and Eastern Europe. While there were definite historical reasons for that divergence centered on different political conditions it nevertheless remained an abiding different (and does until this day). The life of Ho Chi Minh as presented in the biography under review is yet another example that highlights that difference, this time in early 20th Asia, in revolutionary commitment and intensity. While the fates and the political directions of both Trotsky and the Stalinist Ho diverted shapely the commitment to communism, as they understood it, remained a lifelong commitment, even under inhumanly trying circumstances. Ho’s biographer has done an excellent job of gathering the materials, some only recently accessible from Soviet and other archives, which enable a knowledgeable reader to follow the ups and downs of his political career. That, said, the author does not and cannot really understand the nature of communist commitment and in the end can not draw any serious political conclusions about the life of his subject. His book nevertheless will be used as a definitive study of Ho’s life and influence.
Forty or so years ago the name Ho Chi Minh brought forth either anger or admiration. Anger, from the former colonialist power France for having been forced to abandon Vietnam after its military defeat and from a neo-colonialist American imperialist military force about to get its comeuppance from guerilla and regularly armed forces led by the wily Ho. Admiration, from the youth of the world, particularly the West, that a ‘new’ strategy might be 'aborning' to defeat the various imperialisms of the world and create another road to socialism not based on the Soviet or Chinese-style models.
Ho essentially built up his organization from scratch under very loose Communist International supervision from Moscow. From an American Communist’s point of view the Communist International always seemed to be intervening, for good or evil, in the internal life of its party to insure implementation of the party line. Sometimes the commands were as quickly communicated as the telegram wires would carry them. Such was apparently not the case in remote Vietnam. While Ho was a committed Stalinist he was clearly no self-serving bureaucrat of the Soviet-type revolutionaries have come to loathe. Rather it is his virtually unchanging lifelong political perspective of a variation of the ‘bloc of four classes’ strategy handed down from the Comintern in the lead up to the Chinese Revolution of the mid-1920’s that places him in the Stalinist camp. Previously, I have called such a strategy as applied to places like China and Vietnam as 'Stalinism under the gun'. Apparently the vicissitudes of Vietnamese mountain life and geographical proximity led to more contact with the Chinese revolutionaries. Seemingly Ho was more influenced by them than the Soviets on some aspects of revolutionary rural warfare. However, a look at Ho’s political actions, especially in the post World War II period, shows a pronounced bias toward Soviet leadership in the showdown of between the Soviet Union and China for leadership of the international communist movement. That tilt was not reciprocated by the Soviets as they generally saw the Vietnamese struggle as marginal to their global interests.
One of the most contradictory phenomena that confronted the revolutionary movement in the 20th century was the fact that unlike Karl Marx’s projections the socialist revolution did not start in the Western industrialized society. It started in economically backward Russia and moved East. Moreover, it started with a small although very politicized industrial working class dependent on the good will of a vast peasantry and preceded to areas where the industrial working class was either virtually non-existent or had been militarily or politically decimated. Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnam under French colonialism represented just such a development. Hence, from the beginning of the revolutionary struggle in Vietnam it was an alliance between the revolutionary intellectuals and the peasantry that formed the basis for the national liberation front not the traditionally Bolshevik intellectual/worker combination prescribed by Lenin. This is important, because the program which will animated the peasantry, land to the tiller, is very different from the program of workers democracy. And that in a nutshell is the difference between Stalinism and Trotskyism in Vietnam. The difference between ‘socialism in one country’ and permanent revolution’ Ho won that political fight but can anyone today argue that Vietnam is on the road to socialism as either Stalinists or Trotskyists would understand the development.
ADDITIONAL NOTE: Let me make one thing clear-as a partisan of Leon Trotsky this writer has many political differences with world Stalinism. Not the least of which the blood line draw over the question of the murder of Vietnamese Trotskyists by Ho‘s forces in the post-World War II uprising against the French during the first phase of the independence struggle. Yes, we then, later during the American phase of the struggle and now defend the Vietnamese revolution against world imperialism and against internal counterrevolution but a political crime of such magnitude cannot be swept under the rug. Some day the memory of the struggles and sacrifice of the Vietnamese Trotskyist liberation fighters will receive their just recognition-in Vietnam and elsewhere.
HO CHI MINH AND THE NATIONAL LIBERATION STRUGGLE IN VIETNAM
BOOK REVIEW
HO CHI MINH: A LIFE, WILLIAM J. DUIKER, HYPERION PRESS, NEW YORK, 2000
By way of an introduction I note that while I was writing a draft of this book review President George W. Bush had just completed participation in an international conference held in Vietnam. In one of the small ironies of history a photograph of the meeting between American and Vietnamese leaders displayed a huge bust of the late Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh hovering over the room. There was a time in the 1950’s and 1960’s when Ho was more than a mere historical reminder in the room. To many youth, particularly in the West, ‘Uncle’ Ho represented the most intransigent opposition to Western imperialism. Today, at a time when heroes for leftists are few and far between and Vietnam’s leadership has taken a distinctly different direction toward the shoals of “market socialism” and away from Ho Chi Minh’s ideas a look at his politically flawed but fascinating life seems in order.
The Russian Bolshevik revolutionary leader Leon Trotsky on more than one occasion noted that the Western labor movement had not produced the kind of hardened, resilient and committed revolutionaries produced in Russian and Eastern Europe. While there were definite historical reasons for that divergence centered on different political conditions it nevertheless remained an abiding different (and does until this day). The life of Ho Chi Minh as presented in the biography under review is yet another example that highlights that difference, this time in early 20th Asia, in revolutionary commitment and intensity. While the fates and the political directions of both Trotsky and the Stalinist Ho diverted shapely the commitment to communism, as they understood it, remained a lifelong commitment, even under inhumanly trying circumstances. Ho’s biographer has done an excellent job of gathering the materials, some only recently accessible from Soviet and other archives, which enable a knowledgeable reader to follow the ups and downs of his political career. That, said, the author does not and cannot really understand the nature of communist commitment and in the end can not draw any serious political conclusions about the life of his subject. His book nevertheless will be used as a definitive study of Ho’s life and influence.
Forty or so years ago the name Ho Chi Minh brought forth either anger or admiration. Anger, from the former colonialist power France for having been forced to abandon Vietnam after its military defeat and from a neo-colonialist American imperialist military force about to get its comeuppance from guerilla and regularly armed forces led by the wily Ho. Admiration, from the youth of the world, particularly the West, that a ‘new’ strategy might be 'aborning' to defeat the various imperialisms of the world and create another road to socialism not based on the Soviet or Chinese-style models.
Ho essentially built up his organization from scratch under very loose Communist International supervision from Moscow. From an American Communist’s point of view the Communist International always seemed to be intervening, for good or evil, in the internal life of its party to insure implementation of the party line. Sometimes the commands were as quickly communicated as the telegram wires would carry them. Such was apparently not the case in remote Vietnam. While Ho was a committed Stalinist he was clearly no self-serving bureaucrat of the Soviet-type revolutionaries have come to loathe. Rather it is his virtually unchanging lifelong political perspective of a variation of the ‘bloc of four classes’ strategy handed down from the Comintern in the lead up to the Chinese Revolution of the mid-1920’s that places him in the Stalinist camp. Previously, I have called such a strategy as applied to places like China and Vietnam as 'Stalinism under the gun'. Apparently the vicissitudes of Vietnamese mountain life and geographical proximity led to more contact with the Chinese revolutionaries. Seemingly Ho was more influenced by them than the Soviets on some aspects of revolutionary rural warfare. However, a look at Ho’s political actions, especially in the post World War II period, shows a pronounced bias toward Soviet leadership in the showdown of between the Soviet Union and China for leadership of the international communist movement. That tilt was not reciprocated by the Soviets as they generally saw the Vietnamese struggle as marginal to their global interests.
One of the most contradictory phenomena that confronted the revolutionary movement in the 20th century was the fact that unlike Karl Marx’s projections the socialist revolution did not start in the Western industrialized society. It started in economically backward Russia and moved East. Moreover, it started with a small although very politicized industrial working class dependent on the good will of a vast peasantry and preceded to areas where the industrial working class was either virtually non-existent or had been militarily or politically decimated. Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnam under French colonialism represented just such a development. Hence, from the beginning of the revolutionary struggle in Vietnam it was an alliance between the revolutionary intellectuals and the peasantry that formed the basis for the national liberation front not the traditionally Bolshevik intellectual/worker combination prescribed by Lenin. This is important, because the program which will animated the peasantry, land to the tiller, is very different from the program of workers democracy. And that in a nutshell is the difference between Stalinism and Trotskyism in Vietnam. The difference between ‘socialism in one country’ and permanent revolution’ Ho won that political fight but can anyone today argue that Vietnam is on the road to socialism as either Stalinists or Trotskyists would understand the development.
ADDITIONAL NOTE: Let me make one thing clear-as a partisan of Leon Trotsky this writer has many political differences with world Stalinism. Not the least of which the blood line draw over the question of the murder of Vietnamese Trotskyists by Ho‘s forces in the post-World War II uprising against the French during the first phase of the independence struggle. Yes, we then, later during the American phase of the struggle and now defend the Vietnamese revolution against world imperialism and against internal counterrevolution but a political crime of such magnitude cannot be swept under the rug. Some day the memory of the struggles and sacrifice of the Vietnamese Trotskyist liberation fighters will receive their just recognition-in Vietnam and elsewhere.
THE BATTLE AGAINST RADICAL RECONSTRUCTION AFTER THE CIVIL WAR
BOOK REVIEW
REDEMPTION: THE LAST BATTLE, NICOLAS LEMANN, Farrar, Straus, Giroux, New York, 2006
The Reconstruction period after the defeat of the South in the American Civil is a much disputed and misunderstood period, and in earlier times dominated by historians sympathetic to the Southern cause. Moreover, many books on the subject tend to center either on the question of the federal government’s ‘benign neglect’ and eventual abandonment of the freed slaves or on the freed slaves (and their white allies, the carpetbaggers and scalawags) incapacity to govern in place of the traditional planter oligarchy of a defeated Southern nation. Mr. Lemann’s book, although correctly paying attention to those issues, takes another tact and addresses the less well-known military actions by defeated white Southerners as a key to the failure of Reconstruction. Although this book will not replace Eric Foner’s now classic Reconstruction:1863-77 as the definitive text on the period it should have a prominent place in the academic controversy over the failures of the Reconstruction period.
If, as I believe, the American Civil War of 1861-65 was a second American Revolution consolidating the gains of the first bourgeois revolution by taking the slavery question and the question of a unitary continent-wide national government off the agenda then the Reconstruction period takes on more than a tragic or ill-advised attempt to reorder the nature of government in the South. Thus, the role of the Klu Klux Klan, White Camelia and other white militia organizations in destroying the basis for universal suffrage and economic equality by military force can be defined as a political counterrevolution, and a successful one. It is the gruesome and deadly story of this fight that plays a central role in Mr. Lemann’s narrative, particularly in the key states of Mississippi and Louisiana.
Without denying the importance of the serious mistakes and ultimate capitulation of the Federal government on the question of black emancipation, without denying the important failure of the Radical Republicans to fight for their program for the South and without denying that the condition of servitude had rendered many blacks not immediately capacity of forming and running local democratic governments one comes away from a reading of this book with the conclusion that the black liberation struggle, and not for the first time, was militarily defeated in this country. What portion this military defeat of the black liberation struggle by white reactionaries played in the overall defeat of Reconstruction the reader can decide. But it played a part. Read on.
REDEMPTION: THE LAST BATTLE, NICOLAS LEMANN, Farrar, Straus, Giroux, New York, 2006
The Reconstruction period after the defeat of the South in the American Civil is a much disputed and misunderstood period, and in earlier times dominated by historians sympathetic to the Southern cause. Moreover, many books on the subject tend to center either on the question of the federal government’s ‘benign neglect’ and eventual abandonment of the freed slaves or on the freed slaves (and their white allies, the carpetbaggers and scalawags) incapacity to govern in place of the traditional planter oligarchy of a defeated Southern nation. Mr. Lemann’s book, although correctly paying attention to those issues, takes another tact and addresses the less well-known military actions by defeated white Southerners as a key to the failure of Reconstruction. Although this book will not replace Eric Foner’s now classic Reconstruction:1863-77 as the definitive text on the period it should have a prominent place in the academic controversy over the failures of the Reconstruction period.
If, as I believe, the American Civil War of 1861-65 was a second American Revolution consolidating the gains of the first bourgeois revolution by taking the slavery question and the question of a unitary continent-wide national government off the agenda then the Reconstruction period takes on more than a tragic or ill-advised attempt to reorder the nature of government in the South. Thus, the role of the Klu Klux Klan, White Camelia and other white militia organizations in destroying the basis for universal suffrage and economic equality by military force can be defined as a political counterrevolution, and a successful one. It is the gruesome and deadly story of this fight that plays a central role in Mr. Lemann’s narrative, particularly in the key states of Mississippi and Louisiana.
Without denying the importance of the serious mistakes and ultimate capitulation of the Federal government on the question of black emancipation, without denying the important failure of the Radical Republicans to fight for their program for the South and without denying that the condition of servitude had rendered many blacks not immediately capacity of forming and running local democratic governments one comes away from a reading of this book with the conclusion that the black liberation struggle, and not for the first time, was militarily defeated in this country. What portion this military defeat of the black liberation struggle by white reactionaries played in the overall defeat of Reconstruction the reader can decide. But it played a part. Read on.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
NEWS FLASH: THE MASS MEDIA FINALLY GET IT-A LITTLE. IRAQ IS DECLARED A FULL-BLOWN CIVIL WAR
NEWS FLASH: THE MASS MEDIA FINALLY GET IT- A LITTLE. IRAQ IS DECLARED A FULL-BLOWN CIVIL WAR
COMMENTARY
IT IS NOT YOUR FORBEARS’ CIVIL WAR, BUT A CIVIL WAR NEVERTHELESS. CHRIST, EVEN THE GENERALS ARE STARTING TO GET IT.
As of today, November 28, 2006, we can comfortably start calling the situation in Iraq a full-blown civil war. Why? The esteemed mass media, the blessed Fourth Estate led by NBC, has finally come out and call it so. And during the breakfast hour, no less (at least that is where I first heard it spoken that way). They will, however, win no Profiles in Courage awards for this call from this writer. While the media were waiting around for the equivalent of the Battle of Bull Run to occur so they could stroll out to the battlefield in order to signal the start of the civil war in Iraq this writer had several months ago declared this to be the case. Hell, if I really wanted to press the issue the outlines of civil war were apparent to me from the summer of 2003 when the insurgency against the American troops started. If modern war tends toward asymmetric warfare then modern civil wars should be called asymmetric civil war. In either case the results have been nasty.
I have no special knowledge about Iraq but, as noted below in a commentary I wrote in September, the situation had all the earmarks of a classic sectarian civil war that we have become all too familiar with over the last few decades. Since that time the ethnic cleansing and communal violence has only been ratcheted up to the nth degree. However, the point is not to score political points as a Cassandra but to figure out what to do about the situation. I have reposted the September commentary below as I stand by the comments there. Again- Get the Hell out of Iraq Now. Form soldier and sailor solidarity committees because, unfortunately, organizing the troops in Iraq is the key to getting out now.
ORGINALLY POSTED: SEPTEMBER 2006
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 eyewitness 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 in particular. On the other hand the political writers I have read have some kind of fundamental belief in the rightness 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 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 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, why are even thoughtful bourgeois journalists and commentators now 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 reasonable. 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!
COMMENTARY
IT IS NOT YOUR FORBEARS’ CIVIL WAR, BUT A CIVIL WAR NEVERTHELESS. CHRIST, EVEN THE GENERALS ARE STARTING TO GET IT.
As of today, November 28, 2006, we can comfortably start calling the situation in Iraq a full-blown civil war. Why? The esteemed mass media, the blessed Fourth Estate led by NBC, has finally come out and call it so. And during the breakfast hour, no less (at least that is where I first heard it spoken that way). They will, however, win no Profiles in Courage awards for this call from this writer. While the media were waiting around for the equivalent of the Battle of Bull Run to occur so they could stroll out to the battlefield in order to signal the start of the civil war in Iraq this writer had several months ago declared this to be the case. Hell, if I really wanted to press the issue the outlines of civil war were apparent to me from the summer of 2003 when the insurgency against the American troops started. If modern war tends toward asymmetric warfare then modern civil wars should be called asymmetric civil war. In either case the results have been nasty.
I have no special knowledge about Iraq but, as noted below in a commentary I wrote in September, the situation had all the earmarks of a classic sectarian civil war that we have become all too familiar with over the last few decades. Since that time the ethnic cleansing and communal violence has only been ratcheted up to the nth degree. However, the point is not to score political points as a Cassandra but to figure out what to do about the situation. I have reposted the September commentary below as I stand by the comments there. Again- Get the Hell out of Iraq Now. Form soldier and sailor solidarity committees because, unfortunately, organizing the troops in Iraq is the key to getting out now.
ORGINALLY POSTED: SEPTEMBER 2006
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 eyewitness 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 in particular. On the other hand the political writers I have read have some kind of fundamental belief in the rightness 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 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 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, why are even thoughtful bourgeois journalists and commentators now 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 reasonable. 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!
Monday, November 20, 2006
NO MILITARY DRAFT! NO WAY!
A very good case can be made for calling Sunday the worst political news day of the week. At least that seems to be true in recent weeks when the capitalist politicians start blathering on the Sunday news shows. A case in point that confirms this point is an interview on Sunday November 19, 2006 where Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel of New York, soon to be the House Ways and Means Chairman, stated that he intended to propose legislation in the next session to reestablish the military draft. Who needs this madness when we anti-war militants are calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq? Christ, and this is a liberal Democratic politician. Rangel's rationale, if it can be called that, is that reinstitution of the draft will make capitalist politicians think twice about going to war.
Hello, what planet does this man exist on? President Bush did not have to twist the arms of the likes of John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and a whole galaxy of supposedly astute politicians-Democratic and Republican- alike when he pulled down the hammer to rachet up the hysteria to go to war in Iraq. Of course those were sunnier days and everyone was a good fellow (or gal) and true. And then of course everyone assumed the war would be a walkover. Now there are not enough seats on that hell-train out of Iraq.
Despite that recent sorry history what the esteemed Congressman's proposal really means is that the lives and fortunes of the youth of America rest on the 'pacifist' whims of the Congress. Even Vietnam War draft dodger Vice President Dick Cheney would know not to base his career plans on that eventually. No thanks, Congressman.
Apparently the military chieftains do not think much of Congressman Rangel's idea either. They are very happy having their all-volunteer armed forces that, by their lights, are a much better disciplined and maneuverable force. No way do they want an average cross-section of American youth gumming up their works. They saw their army almost destroyed when uppity citizen-soldiers started questioning the Vietnam War. They are still in shock. As for the position of militant leftists we stand fully opposed to reintroduction of the draft. Hell, this is a no-brainer. As this issue comes to the fore over the coming months militant youth must rise up and shout-NO DRAFT! NO WAY!
Hello, what planet does this man exist on? President Bush did not have to twist the arms of the likes of John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and a whole galaxy of supposedly astute politicians-Democratic and Republican- alike when he pulled down the hammer to rachet up the hysteria to go to war in Iraq. Of course those were sunnier days and everyone was a good fellow (or gal) and true. And then of course everyone assumed the war would be a walkover. Now there are not enough seats on that hell-train out of Iraq.
Despite that recent sorry history what the esteemed Congressman's proposal really means is that the lives and fortunes of the youth of America rest on the 'pacifist' whims of the Congress. Even Vietnam War draft dodger Vice President Dick Cheney would know not to base his career plans on that eventually. No thanks, Congressman.
Apparently the military chieftains do not think much of Congressman Rangel's idea either. They are very happy having their all-volunteer armed forces that, by their lights, are a much better disciplined and maneuverable force. No way do they want an average cross-section of American youth gumming up their works. They saw their army almost destroyed when uppity citizen-soldiers started questioning the Vietnam War. They are still in shock. As for the position of militant leftists we stand fully opposed to reintroduction of the draft. Hell, this is a no-brainer. As this issue comes to the fore over the coming months militant youth must rise up and shout-NO DRAFT! NO WAY!
Sunday, November 19, 2006
ROTC OFF CAMPUSES! JROTC OUT OF THE HIGH SCHOOLS!
COMMENTARY
WHILE WE ARE AT IT-KEEP THE MILITARY RECRUITERS OUT TOO!
HATS OFF TO THE SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL BOARD
In the Op/Ed page of the Idea section of the Boston Sunday Globe of November 19, 2006 conservative pundit, one Jeff Jacoby, in a commentary entitled “Anti-Military Bigotry” is up in arms (figuratively, of course, since like most neo-cons of late he did not avail himself of the opportunity to partake of military service) about the decision of the San Francisco School Board to eliminate the JROTC (Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps) program from the city’s schools. The gist of Mr. Jacoby’s argument is that the decision of that Left Coast town is another unmistakable example of its anti-military and therefore unpatriotic bias, especially in a time of the great struggle his beloved President Bush is leading in the “war on terror”. Militant leftists take a rather different view of the matter. Yes, indeed we do. Hell, we commend that school board decision as an exemplary anti-war action and seek to drive ROTC and JROTC off all campuses and out of all schools.
As part of his argument Mr. Jacoby has dressed up the role of JROTC by giving a litany of its positive effects on San Francisco students as a great bonding and “community” creating activity. In short, it is on the same level as the Boy or Girl Scouts, 4-H Clubs and the like. Wrong. However one wants to dress it up ROTC and JROTC are military organizations which act as a transmission belt to recruit students for military service. The name speaks for itself. Whether those organizations do that successfully or not or provide some non-military activities are separate questions- and subordinate to their real aim. The military is not using them as a vehicle to further the brotherhood and sisterhood of humankind. Ask the Iraqis, among others, for the truth of that assertion.
It is no accident that in the 1930’s and again during the Vietnam War of the 1960’s that a major campus activity for leftists, and not only leftists, was to drive ROTC off college campuses. Why? In the final analysis, as Karl Marx and V.I. Lenin pointed out long ago, the state is “armed bodies of men (and these days, women) - the military, the police, etc.” There are many ways to create that armed body-ROTC and JROTC help that effort. If you want to stop a war there is no way around that hard political problem of curtailing the military's power to recruit. As part of the solution to this problem young militants on campuses and in high schools can form, if they have not already done so, united front committees to organize for the removal of these programs. As an elementary and concrete act of opposition to the Iraq War and ultimately of American imperialism militants have to demand-ROTC OFF CAMPUSES! JROTC OUT OF THE SCHOOLS! MILITARY RECRUITERS OUT EVERYWHERE!
WHILE WE ARE AT IT-KEEP THE MILITARY RECRUITERS OUT TOO!
HATS OFF TO THE SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL BOARD
In the Op/Ed page of the Idea section of the Boston Sunday Globe of November 19, 2006 conservative pundit, one Jeff Jacoby, in a commentary entitled “Anti-Military Bigotry” is up in arms (figuratively, of course, since like most neo-cons of late he did not avail himself of the opportunity to partake of military service) about the decision of the San Francisco School Board to eliminate the JROTC (Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps) program from the city’s schools. The gist of Mr. Jacoby’s argument is that the decision of that Left Coast town is another unmistakable example of its anti-military and therefore unpatriotic bias, especially in a time of the great struggle his beloved President Bush is leading in the “war on terror”. Militant leftists take a rather different view of the matter. Yes, indeed we do. Hell, we commend that school board decision as an exemplary anti-war action and seek to drive ROTC and JROTC off all campuses and out of all schools.
As part of his argument Mr. Jacoby has dressed up the role of JROTC by giving a litany of its positive effects on San Francisco students as a great bonding and “community” creating activity. In short, it is on the same level as the Boy or Girl Scouts, 4-H Clubs and the like. Wrong. However one wants to dress it up ROTC and JROTC are military organizations which act as a transmission belt to recruit students for military service. The name speaks for itself. Whether those organizations do that successfully or not or provide some non-military activities are separate questions- and subordinate to their real aim. The military is not using them as a vehicle to further the brotherhood and sisterhood of humankind. Ask the Iraqis, among others, for the truth of that assertion.
It is no accident that in the 1930’s and again during the Vietnam War of the 1960’s that a major campus activity for leftists, and not only leftists, was to drive ROTC off college campuses. Why? In the final analysis, as Karl Marx and V.I. Lenin pointed out long ago, the state is “armed bodies of men (and these days, women) - the military, the police, etc.” There are many ways to create that armed body-ROTC and JROTC help that effort. If you want to stop a war there is no way around that hard political problem of curtailing the military's power to recruit. As part of the solution to this problem young militants on campuses and in high schools can form, if they have not already done so, united front committees to organize for the removal of these programs. As an elementary and concrete act of opposition to the Iraq War and ultimately of American imperialism militants have to demand-ROTC OFF CAMPUSES! JROTC OUT OF THE SCHOOLS! MILITARY RECRUITERS OUT EVERYWHERE!
Saturday, November 18, 2006
THE LATEST PENTAGON IRAQ "CANNON FODDER" DEPLOYMENT PLANS
On November 17, 2006 the Pentagon announced that it will send up to 57,000 troops in five brigades to Iraq to replace units already there beginning in the first part of 2007. Presumably those troops will serve for a normal year rotation. The import of this news is that troops levels will remain the same as at present, about 140,000. Which makes me wonder-What the hell is all this noise about withdrawal and drawdown by politicans, particularly Democratic Party politicans, about? The stark reality is there will be no withdrawal soon. I am reposting a commentary I wrote on September 24, 2006 concerning this very issue. In the fast-changing political world some points made there may no longer be relevant. However I stand by the general thrust of the commentary.
UPDATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2006. Will this madness never stop. Over the weekend the Pentagon has leaked information that there are three potential strategies under discussion in a "commission" they have created to assess the situation in Iraq independently of the of the ill-starred Iraq Study Group. The three potential strategies are, predictably, a heavy increase in troops levels to gain victory, immediate withdrawal and a gradual reduction of American troops and replacement by Iraqi forces. While the Pentagon (and Senator McCain) may have appetites for troops increases in order to obtain "victory" that seems out of the question now. Immediate withdrawal is also dismissed out of hand. After all that might lead to a full-blown civil war. Hello, what the hell is occurring now? Generals, what do you need-the Battle of Bull Run- before you recognize a state of civil war?
The most probable course is a slow drawdown as the Iraqi replacement forces become better trained. In short, this is the case for withdrawal when the situation in Iraq stabilizes itself. Over the last year I have had fun poking holes in that one when anyone advances the argument. My rejoinder has been that the grandchildren of the troops already over in Iraq will be joining 'granddad and grandma' in the fighting before that event occurs. All this "commission" news boils down to is one hard fact- the troops will not be coming home this Christmas or any Christmas soon. Read on.
THE TROOPS ARE NOT COMING HOME FOR THIS CHRISTMAS OR ANY CHRISTMAS SOON!
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
ORIGINALLY POSTED: SEPTEMBER 24, 2006
This writer for a long time has resisted the facile task route 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 artificial split. Furthermore, the defining concept behind the revolutionary forces there was to resolve 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 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 murky underworld of radical Islamic politics there are no forces fighting for anything like a secular- democratic much less 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.
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 airpower 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 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 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.
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. The least 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 demonstrations campaign which are the lynchpins 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 their weak parliamentary opposition to the war. In a blog written this summer 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 committees now. Militant leftists here must support those efforts. Unfortunately today there is no other way to end the war. FORWARD.
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!
UPDATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2006. Will this madness never stop. Over the weekend the Pentagon has leaked information that there are three potential strategies under discussion in a "commission" they have created to assess the situation in Iraq independently of the of the ill-starred Iraq Study Group. The three potential strategies are, predictably, a heavy increase in troops levels to gain victory, immediate withdrawal and a gradual reduction of American troops and replacement by Iraqi forces. While the Pentagon (and Senator McCain) may have appetites for troops increases in order to obtain "victory" that seems out of the question now. Immediate withdrawal is also dismissed out of hand. After all that might lead to a full-blown civil war. Hello, what the hell is occurring now? Generals, what do you need-the Battle of Bull Run- before you recognize a state of civil war?
The most probable course is a slow drawdown as the Iraqi replacement forces become better trained. In short, this is the case for withdrawal when the situation in Iraq stabilizes itself. Over the last year I have had fun poking holes in that one when anyone advances the argument. My rejoinder has been that the grandchildren of the troops already over in Iraq will be joining 'granddad and grandma' in the fighting before that event occurs. All this "commission" news boils down to is one hard fact- the troops will not be coming home this Christmas or any Christmas soon. Read on.
THE TROOPS ARE NOT COMING HOME FOR THIS CHRISTMAS OR ANY CHRISTMAS SOON!
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
ORIGINALLY POSTED: SEPTEMBER 24, 2006
This writer for a long time has resisted the facile task route 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 artificial split. Furthermore, the defining concept behind the revolutionary forces there was to resolve 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 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 murky underworld of radical Islamic politics there are no forces fighting for anything like a secular- democratic much less 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.
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 airpower 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 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 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.
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. The least 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 demonstrations campaign which are the lynchpins 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 their weak parliamentary opposition to the war. In a blog written this summer 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 committees now. Militant leftists here must support those efforts. Unfortunately today there is no other way to end the war. FORWARD.
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!
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
FORGET GENERAL ABIZAID-FORGET IRAQ STUDY GROUPS-FRATERNIZE WITH THE RANK AND FILE TROOPS TO GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
COMMENTARY
THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SEATS ON THAT HELL-BOUND TRAIN OUT OF IRAQ-CHRIST, EVEN "HAWK" SENATOR JOHN McCAIN IS GETTING UPPITY WITH THE GENERALS
THE TIME FOR IRAQ COMMISSIONS, THE TIME FOR CONGRESSIONAL OR ELECTORAL VOTES, THE TIME FOR STREET PROTESTS IS OVER- IT IS DESPERATELY NECESSARY TO FIGHT UNDER THE SLOGAN -GET THE TROOPS THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ TODAY- FORM SOLDIER AND SAILOR SOLIDARITY FRATERNIZATION COMMITTEES NOW!
Just a little over a week after the dust has settled on the 2006-midterm elections that have been correctly interpreted as a referendum on the Iraq War the political posturing by both Democrats and Republicans in Washington and elsewhere has become hot and heavy-without moving us one inch closer to withdrawal, immediate or otherwise, from the Iraq quagmire. The latest panacea apparently is an Iraq Study Group centrally made up of refugees from the first President Bush’s regime. Aren't they the architects of the first Iraq War? Isn't that like letting the fox into the chicken house?
There have also been any number of proposals from every source under the sun -the most notable being from johnny-come-lately anti-war Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha who wants the troops redeployed-to Kuwait. Apparently everyone has a timetable proposal for withdrawal triggered to start anywhere from a few months from now onward. However, most make that timetable contingent on xyz factors about the stability of the situation in Iraq. As I have mentioned several times before in previous posts- The granddchildren of the troops currently serving in Iraq will be starting their tours of duty before that occurs.
To show just how bad the political fallout is over Iraq since the midterm electoral upheaval I note that on November 15, 2006 the Senate Armed Services Committee solicited the views of Iraq War commander General Abizaid. And they did not like what they heard. General Abizaid argued a variation of the Bush doctrine- “stay the course". No withdrawals, no timetables, no drawdowns. Nobody wanted to hear this madness. Even punitive Republican presidential candidate Arizona Senator John McCain, a feisty former Vietnam War prisoner of war, got uppity with the esteemed General on that one. Things have certainly changed rapidly since late summer. At that time this same committee had General Pace up for a grilling but they let him off the hook when he sheepishly promised to do better.
Those days are long gone now. Gone is the circumspection, gone is the deference, gone is the “wink and nod” of one good old boy (or girl) to another that had characterized previous outings. There is not enough room on that train out of Iraq from anyone with the slightest presidential or other political ambitions. Now that the unlamented Rumsfeld is gone General Abizaid apparently is the next logical target with a bullseye on his chest. Many a general in the Pentagon must be checking his or her retirement pension status these days.
After re-reading my posting on the August Senate meeting I have decided to re-post it here. I was then , and am now , trying like hell to propagandize a proposal that it is necessary to organize and fraternize with the troops in order to for them to start an orderly and timely withdrawal from Iraq- and pretty damn quick. The points made there still hold true. Read on.
THE GENERALS SIGNAL THE RETREAT-THERE IS NO LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL IN IRAQ!
FORGET TIMETABLES FOR WITHDRAWAL- CUT AND RUN NOW (JOG, TROT, CRAWL, SWIM, IF NECESSARY)
THE GENERALS AND POLITICANS HAVE ABANDONED THE RANK AND FILE SOLDIERS IN IRAQ TO THEIR FATE. BROTHER AND SISTER SOLDIERS- THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT- GET THE TROOP TRANSPORTS READY
ORIGINALLY POSTED: August 2006
I’ll keep this short and sweet. The time for discussion on Iraq is long over. Forget the Bush Administration’s lies! Forget the weapons of mass destruction! Forget staying the course, the ‘war on terrorism’, Saddam’s ugly face, the so-called ‘fight for democracy’ in the Middle East, supporting the troops or the thousand and one reasons which have surfaced over the years (yes, years) for supporting the imperialist adventure in Iraq. That is so much background noise now. Here is what counts. That is the appearance on August 3, 2006 of the senior commanding generals, the guys who run the day to day operations of the American military, with the Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld in tow, before the Senate Armed Services Committee. And you better etch the pictures from that proceeding in your minds. Hereafter anytime someone tries to raise his or her head in defense of the Iraq war (or staying there one more minute) refer them to this scene.
What the generals did not say to the committee is as important as what they said. THE WAR IS LOST. These generals are privy to much more information than they would ever publicly acknowledge so when they go, willingly or not, before a Senate Committee and announce that chaos has descended on Iraq one does not need to be Karl Marx to know how really bad the situation is there. These guys are not retired generals sniping at the boss from their consulting firms, think tanks, or vacation retreats. THESE GUYS RUN THE SHOW. These generals did not earn that fruit salad on their chests by being Pollyannas. They would rather fall on their swords than use words like 'defeat' and 'retreat'. It just does not register that the delights of ‘shock and awe’ has turned in quagmire. So be it.
They have, however, learned something over the years. For one thing, do not repeat General Westmoreland’s ‘follies’ in Vietnam by painting a rosy picture of success as the U.S. Embassy is being overrun by a bunch of seemingly crazed foreigners. That is most definitely bad for credibility. For another, these guys started their careers fighting on the ground in the boondocks of Vietnam so they KNOW what a civil war is. Vietnam was a class civil war and Iraq is a sectarian civil war but in either case they want no part of it. No way. Nevertheless, the generals are still more than willing to transfer rank and file soldiers to the hellhole of Baghdad to be used as ‘cannon fodder’ in that same civil war. Some things they do not learn.
This writer makes no bones about his long time opposition to the Iraq war in particular and American imperialism in general. Over the years I have taken my political beatings and been abused by the ‘sunshine patriots’ over this or that policy. Hey, this is politics so it comes with the territory. Besides I have enjoyed beating up on Bush & Co. when they were riding high and now that they are riding low I still enjoy beating these bums down. In fact, let me give them an extra rabbit punch for good measure. Just to make sure they stay down.
No, I will not cry over the defeat of an imperialist adventure but I feel no sense of righteousness over this. Why? While I never supported the social patriotic slogan-Support the Troops- THEY ARE NOT AND NEVER WERE OUR TROOPS. THEY OPERATE UNDER ORDERS FROM THE RULING CLASSES. THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING - there is still the unfinished business. Those troops still need to get the hell out of Iraq. Bush and the Generals have stabbed them in the back. The Democratic and Republican politicians have stabbed them in the back. We of the anti-war movement have failed them. It is up to the rank and file soldiers in Iraq now-the ball in their court. At this point the only way out is through their own efforts. What we civilians can do is form committees of soldier and sailor solidarity in order to fraternize with their efforts. More on this latter. I am preparing AN OPEN LETTER TO THE RANK AND FILE SOLDIERS IN IRAQ (see August 2006 archives) to offer some ideas on organizing themselves out of the chaos. Look for it in this space soon.
A SPECIAL NOTE ON HILLARY "HAWK" CLINTON, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK AND PUNITIVE (not putative) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN 2008. ‘Hawk” finally gets it on Iraq- a very, very, very little. Her solution. Have Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld offer his resignation. This, I assume, represents Ms. Clinton’s attempt to win this year’s Profiles in Courage Award. Christ, the Congressional pages were calling for that bastard’s resignation about a year ago. I do not care about the personal fate of Ms. Clinton or her ambitions. However, her case brings to mind the ghost of Hubert Horatio Humphrey in 1968. Enough said.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SEATS ON THAT HELL-BOUND TRAIN OUT OF IRAQ-CHRIST, EVEN "HAWK" SENATOR JOHN McCAIN IS GETTING UPPITY WITH THE GENERALS
THE TIME FOR IRAQ COMMISSIONS, THE TIME FOR CONGRESSIONAL OR ELECTORAL VOTES, THE TIME FOR STREET PROTESTS IS OVER- IT IS DESPERATELY NECESSARY TO FIGHT UNDER THE SLOGAN -GET THE TROOPS THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ TODAY- FORM SOLDIER AND SAILOR SOLIDARITY FRATERNIZATION COMMITTEES NOW!
Just a little over a week after the dust has settled on the 2006-midterm elections that have been correctly interpreted as a referendum on the Iraq War the political posturing by both Democrats and Republicans in Washington and elsewhere has become hot and heavy-without moving us one inch closer to withdrawal, immediate or otherwise, from the Iraq quagmire. The latest panacea apparently is an Iraq Study Group centrally made up of refugees from the first President Bush’s regime. Aren't they the architects of the first Iraq War? Isn't that like letting the fox into the chicken house?
There have also been any number of proposals from every source under the sun -the most notable being from johnny-come-lately anti-war Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha who wants the troops redeployed-to Kuwait. Apparently everyone has a timetable proposal for withdrawal triggered to start anywhere from a few months from now onward. However, most make that timetable contingent on xyz factors about the stability of the situation in Iraq. As I have mentioned several times before in previous posts- The granddchildren of the troops currently serving in Iraq will be starting their tours of duty before that occurs.
To show just how bad the political fallout is over Iraq since the midterm electoral upheaval I note that on November 15, 2006 the Senate Armed Services Committee solicited the views of Iraq War commander General Abizaid. And they did not like what they heard. General Abizaid argued a variation of the Bush doctrine- “stay the course". No withdrawals, no timetables, no drawdowns. Nobody wanted to hear this madness. Even punitive Republican presidential candidate Arizona Senator John McCain, a feisty former Vietnam War prisoner of war, got uppity with the esteemed General on that one. Things have certainly changed rapidly since late summer. At that time this same committee had General Pace up for a grilling but they let him off the hook when he sheepishly promised to do better.
Those days are long gone now. Gone is the circumspection, gone is the deference, gone is the “wink and nod” of one good old boy (or girl) to another that had characterized previous outings. There is not enough room on that train out of Iraq from anyone with the slightest presidential or other political ambitions. Now that the unlamented Rumsfeld is gone General Abizaid apparently is the next logical target with a bullseye on his chest. Many a general in the Pentagon must be checking his or her retirement pension status these days.
After re-reading my posting on the August Senate meeting I have decided to re-post it here. I was then , and am now , trying like hell to propagandize a proposal that it is necessary to organize and fraternize with the troops in order to for them to start an orderly and timely withdrawal from Iraq- and pretty damn quick. The points made there still hold true. Read on.
THE GENERALS SIGNAL THE RETREAT-THERE IS NO LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL IN IRAQ!
FORGET TIMETABLES FOR WITHDRAWAL- CUT AND RUN NOW (JOG, TROT, CRAWL, SWIM, IF NECESSARY)
THE GENERALS AND POLITICANS HAVE ABANDONED THE RANK AND FILE SOLDIERS IN IRAQ TO THEIR FATE. BROTHER AND SISTER SOLDIERS- THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT- GET THE TROOP TRANSPORTS READY
ORIGINALLY POSTED: August 2006
I’ll keep this short and sweet. The time for discussion on Iraq is long over. Forget the Bush Administration’s lies! Forget the weapons of mass destruction! Forget staying the course, the ‘war on terrorism’, Saddam’s ugly face, the so-called ‘fight for democracy’ in the Middle East, supporting the troops or the thousand and one reasons which have surfaced over the years (yes, years) for supporting the imperialist adventure in Iraq. That is so much background noise now. Here is what counts. That is the appearance on August 3, 2006 of the senior commanding generals, the guys who run the day to day operations of the American military, with the Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld in tow, before the Senate Armed Services Committee. And you better etch the pictures from that proceeding in your minds. Hereafter anytime someone tries to raise his or her head in defense of the Iraq war (or staying there one more minute) refer them to this scene.
What the generals did not say to the committee is as important as what they said. THE WAR IS LOST. These generals are privy to much more information than they would ever publicly acknowledge so when they go, willingly or not, before a Senate Committee and announce that chaos has descended on Iraq one does not need to be Karl Marx to know how really bad the situation is there. These guys are not retired generals sniping at the boss from their consulting firms, think tanks, or vacation retreats. THESE GUYS RUN THE SHOW. These generals did not earn that fruit salad on their chests by being Pollyannas. They would rather fall on their swords than use words like 'defeat' and 'retreat'. It just does not register that the delights of ‘shock and awe’ has turned in quagmire. So be it.
They have, however, learned something over the years. For one thing, do not repeat General Westmoreland’s ‘follies’ in Vietnam by painting a rosy picture of success as the U.S. Embassy is being overrun by a bunch of seemingly crazed foreigners. That is most definitely bad for credibility. For another, these guys started their careers fighting on the ground in the boondocks of Vietnam so they KNOW what a civil war is. Vietnam was a class civil war and Iraq is a sectarian civil war but in either case they want no part of it. No way. Nevertheless, the generals are still more than willing to transfer rank and file soldiers to the hellhole of Baghdad to be used as ‘cannon fodder’ in that same civil war. Some things they do not learn.
This writer makes no bones about his long time opposition to the Iraq war in particular and American imperialism in general. Over the years I have taken my political beatings and been abused by the ‘sunshine patriots’ over this or that policy. Hey, this is politics so it comes with the territory. Besides I have enjoyed beating up on Bush & Co. when they were riding high and now that they are riding low I still enjoy beating these bums down. In fact, let me give them an extra rabbit punch for good measure. Just to make sure they stay down.
No, I will not cry over the defeat of an imperialist adventure but I feel no sense of righteousness over this. Why? While I never supported the social patriotic slogan-Support the Troops- THEY ARE NOT AND NEVER WERE OUR TROOPS. THEY OPERATE UNDER ORDERS FROM THE RULING CLASSES. THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING - there is still the unfinished business. Those troops still need to get the hell out of Iraq. Bush and the Generals have stabbed them in the back. The Democratic and Republican politicians have stabbed them in the back. We of the anti-war movement have failed them. It is up to the rank and file soldiers in Iraq now-the ball in their court. At this point the only way out is through their own efforts. What we civilians can do is form committees of soldier and sailor solidarity in order to fraternize with their efforts. More on this latter. I am preparing AN OPEN LETTER TO THE RANK AND FILE SOLDIERS IN IRAQ (see August 2006 archives) to offer some ideas on organizing themselves out of the chaos. Look for it in this space soon.
A SPECIAL NOTE ON HILLARY "HAWK" CLINTON, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW YORK AND PUNITIVE (not putative) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN 2008. ‘Hawk” finally gets it on Iraq- a very, very, very little. Her solution. Have Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld offer his resignation. This, I assume, represents Ms. Clinton’s attempt to win this year’s Profiles in Courage Award. Christ, the Congressional pages were calling for that bastard’s resignation about a year ago. I do not care about the personal fate of Ms. Clinton or her ambitions. However, her case brings to mind the ghost of Hubert Horatio Humphrey in 1968. Enough said.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Monday, November 13, 2006
LENIN ON THE DAWN OF MODERN IMPERIALISM
BOOK REVIEW
IMPERIALISM: THE HIGHEST STAGE OF CAPITALISM, V.I. LENIN, PLUTO PRESS, UNITED KINGDOM, 1996
Over the last generation much has been made of the positive effects of the latter day ‘globalization’ of the international capitalist markets. By this, I assume, commentators mean that kids in Kansas and kids in Katmandu have access to those same pairs of Nike sneakers. Although the outlines of the development of globalization have been known for at least a century, called by less kindly souls like myself- imperialism- apparently the latest devotees of the trend just got the news.
Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin analyzed this tendency of international capitalism in 1916 in a little book called Imperialism-the Highest Stage of Capitalism reviewed here. His major premises were that the 'globalization' of the capitalist markets of his day had made the nation-state an impediment to economic growth and that the concentration of capital into fewer cartels created intolerable tensions internationally ultimately culminating in wars for the redistribution of markets. While Lenin’s analysis could benefit from a little updating, particularly on the effects of the shift of the industrial labor market away from the high cost metropolitan areas to the former colonial areas in the search for lower wage bills and higher profit margins, the increased role of state intervention in markets and the effects of technological innovations, the basis premises are still sound.
While much of the positive ‘globalization’ rhetoric mentioned above has been overblown- especially concerning its effects on the demise of the nation-state and its alledged replacement by multi-national corporations and a multicultural ethic- the chickens are now starting to come home to roost on the down side of the world political situation. Everyone and their brother and sister, multi-national corporation or local “mom and pop” shoestring operation, is scurrying back to the 'safe' confines of the nation-state. With their guns drawn. What gives?
What gives is this. The international capitalist system, which after the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the early 1990’s, lived in a self-imposed fool’s paradise believing that the contradictions of the system would flatten out on their own and that everyone had reached the best of all possible worlds. There was even some sentiment for one-world government, of course a United States-dominated one, from quarters not normally known for such flights of fancy. The events of the last several years have graphically disabused the more cutthroat capitalists, their ideologues and mouthpieces of this notion.
This retrogression to the defenses of individual nation-states reminiscent of the so-called “Dark Ages” apparently is only the vanguard of what promises to be a much more restrictive world. The ruling classes, however, seem unable to put serious efforts in other types of endeavors. Which takes us back to Lenin. He not only wrote this little book on the tendencies of international capitalism as a piece of analysis but he did it for a reason. And that reason was to demonstrate to the militant leftists of his day, during the carnage of World War I, that the hitherto for progressive nature of capitalist development had run out of steam and the socialist revolution was on the historic agenda. And then proceeded to put theory into practice by leading the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917. Today, the critics of globalization are much stronger on the effects of the process of international capitalist organization and its effects but weak, very weak, on the way to organize out of the impasse. Lenin knew what to do. Do we?
IMPERIALISM: THE HIGHEST STAGE OF CAPITALISM, V.I. LENIN, PLUTO PRESS, UNITED KINGDOM, 1996
Over the last generation much has been made of the positive effects of the latter day ‘globalization’ of the international capitalist markets. By this, I assume, commentators mean that kids in Kansas and kids in Katmandu have access to those same pairs of Nike sneakers. Although the outlines of the development of globalization have been known for at least a century, called by less kindly souls like myself- imperialism- apparently the latest devotees of the trend just got the news.
Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin analyzed this tendency of international capitalism in 1916 in a little book called Imperialism-the Highest Stage of Capitalism reviewed here. His major premises were that the 'globalization' of the capitalist markets of his day had made the nation-state an impediment to economic growth and that the concentration of capital into fewer cartels created intolerable tensions internationally ultimately culminating in wars for the redistribution of markets. While Lenin’s analysis could benefit from a little updating, particularly on the effects of the shift of the industrial labor market away from the high cost metropolitan areas to the former colonial areas in the search for lower wage bills and higher profit margins, the increased role of state intervention in markets and the effects of technological innovations, the basis premises are still sound.
While much of the positive ‘globalization’ rhetoric mentioned above has been overblown- especially concerning its effects on the demise of the nation-state and its alledged replacement by multi-national corporations and a multicultural ethic- the chickens are now starting to come home to roost on the down side of the world political situation. Everyone and their brother and sister, multi-national corporation or local “mom and pop” shoestring operation, is scurrying back to the 'safe' confines of the nation-state. With their guns drawn. What gives?
What gives is this. The international capitalist system, which after the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the early 1990’s, lived in a self-imposed fool’s paradise believing that the contradictions of the system would flatten out on their own and that everyone had reached the best of all possible worlds. There was even some sentiment for one-world government, of course a United States-dominated one, from quarters not normally known for such flights of fancy. The events of the last several years have graphically disabused the more cutthroat capitalists, their ideologues and mouthpieces of this notion.
This retrogression to the defenses of individual nation-states reminiscent of the so-called “Dark Ages” apparently is only the vanguard of what promises to be a much more restrictive world. The ruling classes, however, seem unable to put serious efforts in other types of endeavors. Which takes us back to Lenin. He not only wrote this little book on the tendencies of international capitalism as a piece of analysis but he did it for a reason. And that reason was to demonstrate to the militant leftists of his day, during the carnage of World War I, that the hitherto for progressive nature of capitalist development had run out of steam and the socialist revolution was on the historic agenda. And then proceeded to put theory into practice by leading the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917. Today, the critics of globalization are much stronger on the effects of the process of international capitalist organization and its effects but weak, very weak, on the way to organize out of the impasse. Lenin knew what to do. Do we?
Sunday, November 12, 2006
*STRIKE THE BLOW-THE LEGEND OF CAPTAIN JOHN BROWN
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for the heroic revolutionary abolitionist, John Brown.
Reclaiming John Brown for the Left
BOOK REVIEW
JOHN BROWN, ABOLITIONIST, DAVID S. REYNOLDS, ALFRED A. KNOPF, NEW YORK, 2005
From fairly early in my youth I knew the name John Brown and was swept up by the romance surrounding his exploits at Harpers Ferry. For example, I knew that the great anthem of the Civil War -The Battle Hymn of the Republic- had a prior existence as a tribute to John Brown and that Union soldiers marched to that song as they headed south. I was then, however, neither familiar with the import of his exploits for the black liberation struggle nor knew much about the specifics of the politics of the various tendencies in the struggle against slavery. I certainly knew nothing then of Brown’s (and his sons) prior military exploits in the Kansas ‘proxy’ wars against the expansion of slavery. Later study filled in some of those gaps and has only strengthened my strong bond with his memory. Know this, as I reach the age at which John Brown was executed I still retain my youthful admiration for him. In the context of the turmoil of the times he was the most courageous and audacious revolutionary in the struggle for the abolition of slavery in America. Almost 150 years after his death this writer is proud to stand in defense of the exploits of John Brown.
That said, it is with a great deal of satisfaction that I can recommend Mr. Reynolds’s book detailing the life, times and exploits of John Brown, warts and all. Originally published in hardcover in 2005, this is an important source (including helpful end notes) for updating various controversies surrounding the John Brown saga. While I may disagree with some of Mr. Reynolds’s conclusions concerning the impact of John Brown’s exploits on later black liberation struggles and to a lesser extent his position on Brown’s impact on his contemporaries, particularly the Transcendentalists, on the key point of the central place of John Brown in American leftist revolutionary history there is no dispute.
Mr. Reynolds has moreover taken pains to provide substantial detail about the ups and downs of John Brown’s posthumous reputation. Most importantly, he defends the memory of John Brown against all-comers-that is partisan history on behalf of the ‘losers’ of history at its best. He has reclaimed John Brown to his proper position as an icon for the left against the erroneous and outrageous efforts of modern day right wing religious and secular terrorists to lay any claim to his memory or his work. Below I make a few comments on some of controversies surrounding John Brown developed in Mr. Reynolds’s work.
If one understands the ongoing nature, from his early youth, of John Brown’s commitment to the active struggle against slavery, the scourge of the American Republic in the first half of the 19th century, one can only conclude that he was indeed a man on a mission. As Mr. Reynolds’s points out Brown took every opportunity to fight against slavery including early service as an agent of the Underground Railroad spiriting escaped slaves northward, participation as an extreme radical in all the key anti-slavery propaganda battles of the time as well as challenging other anti-slavery elements to be more militant and in the 1850’s, arms in hand, fighting in the ‘proxy’ wars in Kansas and, of course, the culmination of his life- the raid on Harpers Ferry. Those exploits alone render absurd a very convenient myth by those who supported slavery or turned a blind eye to it, and their latter-day apologists, about his so-called ‘madness’. This is a political man and to these eyes a very worthy one.
For those who like their political heroes ‘pure’, frankly, it is better to look elsewhere than the life of John Brown. His personal and family life as a failed rural capitalist would hardly lead one to think that this man was to become a key historical figure in any struggle, much less the great struggle against slavery. Some of his actions in Kansas (concerning the murder of some pro-slavery elements under his direction) also cloud his image. However, when the deal went down in the late 1850’s and it was apparent for all to see that there was no other way to end slavery than a fight to the death-John Brown rose to the occasion. And did not cry about it. And did not expect others to cry about it. Call him a ‘monomaniac’ if you like, but even a slight acquaintance with great historical figures shows they all have this ‘disease’- that is why they make the history books. No, the ‘madness’ argument will not do.
Whether or not John Brown knew that his military strategy for the Harpers Ferry raid would, in the short term, be defeated is a matter of dispute. Reams of paper have been spent proving the military foolhardiness of his scheme at Harper’s Ferry. Brown’s plan, however, was essentially a combination of slave revolt modeled after the maroon experiences in Haiti, Nat Turner’s earlier Virginia slave rebellion combined with rural guerrilla warfare of the ‘third world’ type that we have become more familiar with since his time. 150 years later this strategy does not look so foolhardy in an America of the 1850’s that had no real standing army, fairly weak lines of communications, virtually uninhabited mountains to flee to and the North at their backs. The execution of the plan is another matter. Brown seemingly made about every mistake in the book in that regard. However, this is missing the essential political point that militant action not continuing parliamentary maneuvering advocated by other abolitionists had become necessary. A few more fighting abolitionists, including Frederick Douglass, and better propaganda work among freedman with connections to the plantations would have greatly enhanced the chances for success at Harpers Ferry.
A point not in dispute is that Brown considered himself a true Calvinist avenging angel in the struggle against slavery and more importantly acted on that belief. In short, he was committed to bring justice to the black masses. This is why his exploits and memory stay alive after over 150 years. It is possible that if Brown did not have this, by 19th century standards as well as our own, old-fashioned Calvinist determination that he would not been capable of militant action. Certainly other anti-slavery elements never came close to his militancy, including the key Transcendentalist movement led by Emerson,Thoreau and the Concord ‘crowd’ who supported him and kept his memory alive in hard times. In their eyes he had the heroic manner of the Old Testament prophet, but they did not emulate him. Now Brown's animating spirit is not one that animates modern leftist revolutionaries and so it is hard to understand the depths of his religious convictions on his actions. It is better today to look at Brown more politically through his hero (and one of mine, as well) Oliver Cromwell-a combination of Calvinist avenger and militant warrior. Yes, I can get behind that picture of John Brown.
By all accounts Brown and his small integrated band of brothers fought bravely and coolly against great odds. Ten of Brown's men were killed including two of his sons. Five were captured, tried and executed, including Brown. These results are almost inevitable when one takes up a revolutionary struggle against the old order and one is not victorious. One need only think of, for example, the fate of the defenders of the Paris Commune in 1871. One can fault Brown on this or that tactical maneuver. Nevertheless he and the others bore themselves bravely in defeat. As we are all too painfully familiar there are defeats of the oppressed that lead nowhere. One thinks of the defeat of the German Revolution in the 1920’s. There other defeats that galvanize others into action. This is how Brown’s actions should be measured by history.
Militarily defeated at Harpers Ferry, Brown's political mission to destroy slavery by force of arms nevertheless continued to galvanize important elements in the North at the expense of the pacifistic non-resistant Garrisonian political program for struggle against slavery. Many writers on Brown who reduce his actions to that of a ‘madman’ to this day cannot believe that his road proved more appropriate to end slavery than either non-resistance or gradualism. That alone makes short shrift of such 'madman' theories. Historians and others have also willfully misinterpreted later events such as the Bolshevik strategy which led to Russian Revolution in October 1917. More recently, we saw this same incomprehension concerning the victory of the Vietnamese against overwhelming American military superiority. Needless to say, all these events continue to be revised by some historians in order to take the sting out of their proper political implications.
From a modern prospective Brown’s strategy for black liberation, even if the abolitionist goal he aspired to had been immediately successful, reached the outer limits within the confines of capitalism. Brown’s actions were meant to make black people free. Beyond that goal he had no program except the Chatham Charter which seems to have replicated the existing American constitution but with racial and gender equality as a cornerstone. Unfortunately the Civil War did not provide fundamental economic and political freedom that would have insured a running start toward that equality. That is still our fight. Moreover, the Civil War, the defeat of Radical Reconstruction, the reign of ‘Jim Crow’ and the subsequent waves of black migration to the cities have changed the character of black oppression in the U.S. from Brown’s time. Black people are now a part of "free labor," and the key to their liberation is in the integrated fight of labor in the current one-sided class war in order to establish a government of workers and their allies. Nevertheless, we can stand proudly in the revolutionary tradition of John Brown (and of his friend Frederick Douglass). We need to complete the unfinished democratic tasks of the Civil War, not by emulating Brown’s exemplary actions but to moving the multi-racial American working class to power. Finish the Civil War.
Reclaiming John Brown for the Left
BOOK REVIEW
JOHN BROWN, ABOLITIONIST, DAVID S. REYNOLDS, ALFRED A. KNOPF, NEW YORK, 2005
From fairly early in my youth I knew the name John Brown and was swept up by the romance surrounding his exploits at Harpers Ferry. For example, I knew that the great anthem of the Civil War -The Battle Hymn of the Republic- had a prior existence as a tribute to John Brown and that Union soldiers marched to that song as they headed south. I was then, however, neither familiar with the import of his exploits for the black liberation struggle nor knew much about the specifics of the politics of the various tendencies in the struggle against slavery. I certainly knew nothing then of Brown’s (and his sons) prior military exploits in the Kansas ‘proxy’ wars against the expansion of slavery. Later study filled in some of those gaps and has only strengthened my strong bond with his memory. Know this, as I reach the age at which John Brown was executed I still retain my youthful admiration for him. In the context of the turmoil of the times he was the most courageous and audacious revolutionary in the struggle for the abolition of slavery in America. Almost 150 years after his death this writer is proud to stand in defense of the exploits of John Brown.
That said, it is with a great deal of satisfaction that I can recommend Mr. Reynolds’s book detailing the life, times and exploits of John Brown, warts and all. Originally published in hardcover in 2005, this is an important source (including helpful end notes) for updating various controversies surrounding the John Brown saga. While I may disagree with some of Mr. Reynolds’s conclusions concerning the impact of John Brown’s exploits on later black liberation struggles and to a lesser extent his position on Brown’s impact on his contemporaries, particularly the Transcendentalists, on the key point of the central place of John Brown in American leftist revolutionary history there is no dispute.
Mr. Reynolds has moreover taken pains to provide substantial detail about the ups and downs of John Brown’s posthumous reputation. Most importantly, he defends the memory of John Brown against all-comers-that is partisan history on behalf of the ‘losers’ of history at its best. He has reclaimed John Brown to his proper position as an icon for the left against the erroneous and outrageous efforts of modern day right wing religious and secular terrorists to lay any claim to his memory or his work. Below I make a few comments on some of controversies surrounding John Brown developed in Mr. Reynolds’s work.
If one understands the ongoing nature, from his early youth, of John Brown’s commitment to the active struggle against slavery, the scourge of the American Republic in the first half of the 19th century, one can only conclude that he was indeed a man on a mission. As Mr. Reynolds’s points out Brown took every opportunity to fight against slavery including early service as an agent of the Underground Railroad spiriting escaped slaves northward, participation as an extreme radical in all the key anti-slavery propaganda battles of the time as well as challenging other anti-slavery elements to be more militant and in the 1850’s, arms in hand, fighting in the ‘proxy’ wars in Kansas and, of course, the culmination of his life- the raid on Harpers Ferry. Those exploits alone render absurd a very convenient myth by those who supported slavery or turned a blind eye to it, and their latter-day apologists, about his so-called ‘madness’. This is a political man and to these eyes a very worthy one.
For those who like their political heroes ‘pure’, frankly, it is better to look elsewhere than the life of John Brown. His personal and family life as a failed rural capitalist would hardly lead one to think that this man was to become a key historical figure in any struggle, much less the great struggle against slavery. Some of his actions in Kansas (concerning the murder of some pro-slavery elements under his direction) also cloud his image. However, when the deal went down in the late 1850’s and it was apparent for all to see that there was no other way to end slavery than a fight to the death-John Brown rose to the occasion. And did not cry about it. And did not expect others to cry about it. Call him a ‘monomaniac’ if you like, but even a slight acquaintance with great historical figures shows they all have this ‘disease’- that is why they make the history books. No, the ‘madness’ argument will not do.
Whether or not John Brown knew that his military strategy for the Harpers Ferry raid would, in the short term, be defeated is a matter of dispute. Reams of paper have been spent proving the military foolhardiness of his scheme at Harper’s Ferry. Brown’s plan, however, was essentially a combination of slave revolt modeled after the maroon experiences in Haiti, Nat Turner’s earlier Virginia slave rebellion combined with rural guerrilla warfare of the ‘third world’ type that we have become more familiar with since his time. 150 years later this strategy does not look so foolhardy in an America of the 1850’s that had no real standing army, fairly weak lines of communications, virtually uninhabited mountains to flee to and the North at their backs. The execution of the plan is another matter. Brown seemingly made about every mistake in the book in that regard. However, this is missing the essential political point that militant action not continuing parliamentary maneuvering advocated by other abolitionists had become necessary. A few more fighting abolitionists, including Frederick Douglass, and better propaganda work among freedman with connections to the plantations would have greatly enhanced the chances for success at Harpers Ferry.
A point not in dispute is that Brown considered himself a true Calvinist avenging angel in the struggle against slavery and more importantly acted on that belief. In short, he was committed to bring justice to the black masses. This is why his exploits and memory stay alive after over 150 years. It is possible that if Brown did not have this, by 19th century standards as well as our own, old-fashioned Calvinist determination that he would not been capable of militant action. Certainly other anti-slavery elements never came close to his militancy, including the key Transcendentalist movement led by Emerson,Thoreau and the Concord ‘crowd’ who supported him and kept his memory alive in hard times. In their eyes he had the heroic manner of the Old Testament prophet, but they did not emulate him. Now Brown's animating spirit is not one that animates modern leftist revolutionaries and so it is hard to understand the depths of his religious convictions on his actions. It is better today to look at Brown more politically through his hero (and one of mine, as well) Oliver Cromwell-a combination of Calvinist avenger and militant warrior. Yes, I can get behind that picture of John Brown.
By all accounts Brown and his small integrated band of brothers fought bravely and coolly against great odds. Ten of Brown's men were killed including two of his sons. Five were captured, tried and executed, including Brown. These results are almost inevitable when one takes up a revolutionary struggle against the old order and one is not victorious. One need only think of, for example, the fate of the defenders of the Paris Commune in 1871. One can fault Brown on this or that tactical maneuver. Nevertheless he and the others bore themselves bravely in defeat. As we are all too painfully familiar there are defeats of the oppressed that lead nowhere. One thinks of the defeat of the German Revolution in the 1920’s. There other defeats that galvanize others into action. This is how Brown’s actions should be measured by history.
Militarily defeated at Harpers Ferry, Brown's political mission to destroy slavery by force of arms nevertheless continued to galvanize important elements in the North at the expense of the pacifistic non-resistant Garrisonian political program for struggle against slavery. Many writers on Brown who reduce his actions to that of a ‘madman’ to this day cannot believe that his road proved more appropriate to end slavery than either non-resistance or gradualism. That alone makes short shrift of such 'madman' theories. Historians and others have also willfully misinterpreted later events such as the Bolshevik strategy which led to Russian Revolution in October 1917. More recently, we saw this same incomprehension concerning the victory of the Vietnamese against overwhelming American military superiority. Needless to say, all these events continue to be revised by some historians in order to take the sting out of their proper political implications.
From a modern prospective Brown’s strategy for black liberation, even if the abolitionist goal he aspired to had been immediately successful, reached the outer limits within the confines of capitalism. Brown’s actions were meant to make black people free. Beyond that goal he had no program except the Chatham Charter which seems to have replicated the existing American constitution but with racial and gender equality as a cornerstone. Unfortunately the Civil War did not provide fundamental economic and political freedom that would have insured a running start toward that equality. That is still our fight. Moreover, the Civil War, the defeat of Radical Reconstruction, the reign of ‘Jim Crow’ and the subsequent waves of black migration to the cities have changed the character of black oppression in the U.S. from Brown’s time. Black people are now a part of "free labor," and the key to their liberation is in the integrated fight of labor in the current one-sided class war in order to establish a government of workers and their allies. Nevertheless, we can stand proudly in the revolutionary tradition of John Brown (and of his friend Frederick Douglass). We need to complete the unfinished democratic tasks of the Civil War, not by emulating Brown’s exemplary actions but to moving the multi-racial American working class to power. Finish the Civil War.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES-IT'S THE WAR, STUPID!
COMMENTARY
MR BUSH HAS CASHED HIS CHECK- BUT CASSANDRA IS ON WATCH
DONALD RUMSFELD WALKS THE PLANK-IS THERE ANY REASONABLE, OR FOR THAT MATTER UNREASONABLE, LEGAL, POLITICAL, MORAL, ETHICAL OR SOCIAL ARGUMENT WHY THE SECRETARY SHOULD NOT BE IN THE DOCK WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN?
FORGET ELEPHANTS, DONKEYS AND GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
REVISED: NOVEMEBER 14, 2006
Well, the results are in from these misbegotten midterm elections and not surprisingly the Democrats have rode the whirlwind of voter disgust with the Bush Administration’s policy in Iraq, the effects of ‘real’ economy on their lives and disgust with overall political ugliness to boot these bastards out. NO leftist will cry over these election results even though we cannot share in the illusions that the Democrats in power will be qualitatively better.
Despite the fact that I enjoyed kicking these guys when they were riding high- and will give a little extra kick now when they are down- enough is enough. We can all breathe a little easier, at least for the moment, now that we will probably not have to live in constant fear of the knock at the door or have to look twice over our shoulders before we make a move. Nevertheless proceed with caution- as the 'red scare' of the 1950's and the Democratic Lyndon Johnson presidency during the Vietnam War era testify to the Democrats are just as capable as the Republicans of throwing off the niceities of democratic form when it is their interests. And leftists are among the first to pay.
But now on to mundane matters. Yes, I will confess that I lost my share of money on my various bets on the outcome of the elections. I misjudged the extend of the furor over Bush, reflected in the House races, after having seen his Administration run roughshot unopposed by man or beast, except for the thousands who took to the streets over Iraq, for six years. I was, obviously, clearly off base in my appreciation of the Senate races. In my last blog on the subject I took note that I believed that the Democrats must have been smoking “something” to make any projections of victory in those races. Obviously, I must have been having my own “problems” in that "something" direction. This crushing personal defeat only goes to show, once again, that this militant writer is so detached from run of the mill bourgeois electoral politics that he should leave making predictions about bourgeois politics alone-until next time. In any case I call on my muse Doctor Hunter S. Thompson- help, please send money- I have an irate liberal raving over how much I owe her. Notwithstanding my “errors” I feel compelled to make a few comments on what this whole election cycle means, at least in the short haul.
The first and foremost item that strikes me is how little the results will effect the war in Iraq despite the fact that many people used that as their reason for switching horses in mid-stream. Why? First and foremost, exhibit #1 is one George W. Bush and his dwindling coterie of hack supporters. He has made no bones about the fact that he intents to keep troops in Iraq under his watch and retain Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld (but see headline above, the draft of this blog was written before the 'sad' news of Mr. Rumsfeld's demise occurred). He may have to throw Donald to the wolves but make no mistake, he will keep those troops in Iraq until freezes over or his administration ends- and the rudderless Democrats will acquiesce.
That leaves the question of who these new Democrats are. We already know the old lame ones who allowed the Republicans to run roughshot over the political process with timid, if any, opposition for the past six years. The flap over Senator Kerry’s remarks about Iraq and the consequences of not 'studying' hard enough on the personal fate of the young (see October 2006 archives) and the dive even his fellow Democrats took over the issue should serve as a shocking reminder of how gutless these yahoos are. I have mentioned elsewhere that this election is no watershed of bourgeois politics like 1932 or 1960. And a look at who was elected on what program tends to confirm this view. A virtually unending string of victorious anti-abortion, anti-same-sex marriage, lukewarm Iraqi oppositionists Democrats do not make one think that we are in the opening stages of a third bourgeois revolution in America. I do believe that the Republican right has reached its highwater mark and that a slight drift left is in the making-small relief after forty years of a Republican right-wing onslaught.
What this writer sees as a result of these elections is confirmation of Republican-lite. Conservative policies with a velvet glove. That is what confronts those, mainly power-starved liberals, who thought that the “times they are a changing”. But in the flush of your victory, hear me out. I will provide a litmus test for all those who do not like my Cassandra-type warnings. On Iraq, the central question of the elections and of our times- Will you honorable Congressman or woman or esteemed Senator next year in the next Congressional session vote against the war budget? ON THE RECORD. Ah, now there is the rub. And the answer will not be pretty.
MR BUSH HAS CASHED HIS CHECK- BUT CASSANDRA IS ON WATCH
DONALD RUMSFELD WALKS THE PLANK-IS THERE ANY REASONABLE, OR FOR THAT MATTER UNREASONABLE, LEGAL, POLITICAL, MORAL, ETHICAL OR SOCIAL ARGUMENT WHY THE SECRETARY SHOULD NOT BE IN THE DOCK WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN?
FORGET ELEPHANTS, DONKEYS AND GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
REVISED: NOVEMEBER 14, 2006
Well, the results are in from these misbegotten midterm elections and not surprisingly the Democrats have rode the whirlwind of voter disgust with the Bush Administration’s policy in Iraq, the effects of ‘real’ economy on their lives and disgust with overall political ugliness to boot these bastards out. NO leftist will cry over these election results even though we cannot share in the illusions that the Democrats in power will be qualitatively better.
Despite the fact that I enjoyed kicking these guys when they were riding high- and will give a little extra kick now when they are down- enough is enough. We can all breathe a little easier, at least for the moment, now that we will probably not have to live in constant fear of the knock at the door or have to look twice over our shoulders before we make a move. Nevertheless proceed with caution- as the 'red scare' of the 1950's and the Democratic Lyndon Johnson presidency during the Vietnam War era testify to the Democrats are just as capable as the Republicans of throwing off the niceities of democratic form when it is their interests. And leftists are among the first to pay.
But now on to mundane matters. Yes, I will confess that I lost my share of money on my various bets on the outcome of the elections. I misjudged the extend of the furor over Bush, reflected in the House races, after having seen his Administration run roughshot unopposed by man or beast, except for the thousands who took to the streets over Iraq, for six years. I was, obviously, clearly off base in my appreciation of the Senate races. In my last blog on the subject I took note that I believed that the Democrats must have been smoking “something” to make any projections of victory in those races. Obviously, I must have been having my own “problems” in that "something" direction. This crushing personal defeat only goes to show, once again, that this militant writer is so detached from run of the mill bourgeois electoral politics that he should leave making predictions about bourgeois politics alone-until next time. In any case I call on my muse Doctor Hunter S. Thompson- help, please send money- I have an irate liberal raving over how much I owe her. Notwithstanding my “errors” I feel compelled to make a few comments on what this whole election cycle means, at least in the short haul.
The first and foremost item that strikes me is how little the results will effect the war in Iraq despite the fact that many people used that as their reason for switching horses in mid-stream. Why? First and foremost, exhibit #1 is one George W. Bush and his dwindling coterie of hack supporters. He has made no bones about the fact that he intents to keep troops in Iraq under his watch and retain Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld (but see headline above, the draft of this blog was written before the 'sad' news of Mr. Rumsfeld's demise occurred). He may have to throw Donald to the wolves but make no mistake, he will keep those troops in Iraq until freezes over or his administration ends- and the rudderless Democrats will acquiesce.
That leaves the question of who these new Democrats are. We already know the old lame ones who allowed the Republicans to run roughshot over the political process with timid, if any, opposition for the past six years. The flap over Senator Kerry’s remarks about Iraq and the consequences of not 'studying' hard enough on the personal fate of the young (see October 2006 archives) and the dive even his fellow Democrats took over the issue should serve as a shocking reminder of how gutless these yahoos are. I have mentioned elsewhere that this election is no watershed of bourgeois politics like 1932 or 1960. And a look at who was elected on what program tends to confirm this view. A virtually unending string of victorious anti-abortion, anti-same-sex marriage, lukewarm Iraqi oppositionists Democrats do not make one think that we are in the opening stages of a third bourgeois revolution in America. I do believe that the Republican right has reached its highwater mark and that a slight drift left is in the making-small relief after forty years of a Republican right-wing onslaught.
What this writer sees as a result of these elections is confirmation of Republican-lite. Conservative policies with a velvet glove. That is what confronts those, mainly power-starved liberals, who thought that the “times they are a changing”. But in the flush of your victory, hear me out. I will provide a litmus test for all those who do not like my Cassandra-type warnings. On Iraq, the central question of the elections and of our times- Will you honorable Congressman or woman or esteemed Senator next year in the next Congressional session vote against the war budget? ON THE RECORD. Ah, now there is the rub. And the answer will not be pretty.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
*VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL TICKET OF ASSATA SHAKUR/LYNNE STEWART IN NOVEMBER OF 2008
Click on the title to link to the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee.
COMMENTARY
BY ALL MEANS LET US HAVE A WOMAN PRESIDENT, JUST NOT 'THAT' WOMAN
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY
REVISED: NOVEMBER 15, 2006
Well the dust has finally settled on the broken down electoral campaign of 2006 and now we can get down to commenting on the endless campaign for president in 2008. And it ain’t going to be pretty. Let us face it any political system that can do no better than provide the perfecta of Bush-Clinton, their families, their near and distant relatives, their pets, etc. every four years deserves all the problems it gets. Talk about the modern day parliamentary equivalent of the War of the Roses- this nonsense has got to stop. And this writer is just the one , as always, to provide a 'constructive' alternative to the nastiness of bourgeois choices and politics. Here goes.
I am proposing an all-women presidential ticket based on a pro- working class program for 2008. No surprise there. Nor does it matter which one runs for president and which one for vice president, they can decide that between themselves. Some much for the dreaded succession crisis that worries so many capitalist commentators, right? The point is that it is certainly time for a woman to be President of the United States and it makes sense. Just not the lame capitalist politician Hillary "Hawk" Clinton. I propose instead Assata Shakur and Lynne Stewart. And I challenge any feminists, progressives, left liberals or anyone else to say that this pair, individually or together, would not more truly represent the interests of the vast majority of working people than Ms. Clinton.
For those unfamiliar with Lynne Stewart or her case the following is a note from the Partisan Defense Committee which supports the efforts to get her conviction overturned:
“On June 19, Lynne Stewart's counsel filed court papers seeking to discover if any warrantless or illegal electronic surveillance was conducted on her or anyone involved in her case. Then on July 5, Lynne's attorneys filed a Sentencing Memorandum on her behalf asking for a non-custodial sentence, i.e., one involving no jail time. As you are aware, Lynne Stewart was falsely convicted of material support for terrorism for her work representing an imprisoned client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, a direct attack on the right to an attorney and First Amendment rights for all. She is also recovering from surgery for breast cancer and subsequent radiation and hormone therapy. Currently she awaits sentencing on September 25 to be preceded by a rally at Riverside Church in New York on September 24. We say again her conviction and those of her co-defendants were an outrage. Hands Off Lynne Stewart, Mohamed Yousry and Ahmed Abdel Sattar!”
Since the above information was published in an earlier blog Ms. Stewart has received a 28 month sentence. Her co-defendant Mohamed Yoursy has received a sentence of 20 months. Her other co-defendant Ahmed Sattar has received an outrageous sentence of 24 years. For further information contact the PDC, P.O. Box 99, Canal Street Station, New York, NY 10013-0099, The Lynne Stewart Defense Fund or see my blog, dated June 13, 2006.
Assata Shakur, Tupac’s “Auntie”, is a revolutionary black fighter for justice who was convicted of murder in the 1970’s, later escaped and eventually found her way to Cuba where she now resides in political asylum. Over the past year the United States Justice Department has increased its bounty on her arrest and capture up to one million dollars. To this writer’s mind that makes her prime presidential material. It would certainly improve American relations with Cuba.
Let me motivate these candidacies a little further and address some possible objections. I will simply freshen up some of the material I used in earlier blogs to motivate a write-in vote for Lynne Stewart in the United States Senate race in New York against Hillary Clinton. Thus, as I noted there, some will say Ms. Stewart and Ms. Shaker have been convicted of serious felonies. Grow up! If we counted all the indicted felons, unindicted co-conspirators, and those waiting for or in fear of indictment hanging around Washington the Congressional pages would be the only ones left to run the government. Hell, maybe, they are? Besides, think about this- imagine the respect Ms. Stewart and Ms. Shakur would get from those federal district court and appeals court judges looking for career advancement if they had the power over their nominations. And let us not forget the presidential pardoning process, which would immediately come in handy upon their election.
Hillary “Hawk”, Assata Shakur and Lynne Stewart are all women. Moreover, Ms. Shakur is a black woman. I did not want to incur the wrath of my feminist friends by daring to propose a man for president. After all we need women to break down the doors to the historic men’s club atmosphere of the United States presidency. That is sensible enough, but as I have pointed out before in regard to Senator Clinton, she, and in this she is not alone, stands for the proposition that for all the virtues of the fight for the equality of women over the past decades women can have politics just as ugly as men. Some victory.
As always some will argue- but Hillary is a progressive and we do not want to divide the progressive forces, etc., etc. Get over it! Yes, Hillary was a “progressive”, or what passed for such at Wellesley when she got uppity in her valedictorian speech. (Does this, in any case, really count as a radical expression?) But hell, that was a long, long time ago. Since that time she has adhered to classic Clintonian Democratic Party centrism. Translation- she stays as close to the Republicans as possible without wearing an elephant on her lapel. Unfortunately for her the Republican Party these days is to the right of Genghis Khan (although that may be a slander on Mr. Khan for, as recently reported on the occasion of the 800th anniversary of his birth, the Mongolian nationalists are currently touting his progressive nature- for the times). But let’s get to the bottom line- Hillary is operating in the coin of the realm of bourgeois politics- looking, tongue out, for her main chance. Lynne and Assata has spent their lives and careers on behalf of the voiceless and unrepresented- looking to give people a fighting chance. More, much more on this issue and these candidates as the presidential campaign develops.
DISCLAIMER: FOR ALL INTERESTED PARTIES- IN ORDER NOT TO BE ACCCUSED OF GIVING MATERIAL AID TO THOSE WHO GAVE MATERIAL AID TO THOSE WHO GAVE MATERIAL AID, ETC. THIS WRITER STATES THAT THIS ENDORSEMENT OF MS. SHAKUR AND MS. STEWART IS UNSOLICITED. I DO NOT KNOW MS. SHAKUR OR MS. STEWART PERSONALLY AND HAVE NOT COMMUNICATED WITH THEM ABOUT THIS CANDIDACY. WE BREATH THE SAME POLITICAL AIR- AND BELIEVE ME THAT IS ALL TO MY BENEFIT.
COMMENTARY
BY ALL MEANS LET US HAVE A WOMAN PRESIDENT, JUST NOT 'THAT' WOMAN
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY
REVISED: NOVEMBER 15, 2006
Well the dust has finally settled on the broken down electoral campaign of 2006 and now we can get down to commenting on the endless campaign for president in 2008. And it ain’t going to be pretty. Let us face it any political system that can do no better than provide the perfecta of Bush-Clinton, their families, their near and distant relatives, their pets, etc. every four years deserves all the problems it gets. Talk about the modern day parliamentary equivalent of the War of the Roses- this nonsense has got to stop. And this writer is just the one , as always, to provide a 'constructive' alternative to the nastiness of bourgeois choices and politics. Here goes.
I am proposing an all-women presidential ticket based on a pro- working class program for 2008. No surprise there. Nor does it matter which one runs for president and which one for vice president, they can decide that between themselves. Some much for the dreaded succession crisis that worries so many capitalist commentators, right? The point is that it is certainly time for a woman to be President of the United States and it makes sense. Just not the lame capitalist politician Hillary "Hawk" Clinton. I propose instead Assata Shakur and Lynne Stewart. And I challenge any feminists, progressives, left liberals or anyone else to say that this pair, individually or together, would not more truly represent the interests of the vast majority of working people than Ms. Clinton.
For those unfamiliar with Lynne Stewart or her case the following is a note from the Partisan Defense Committee which supports the efforts to get her conviction overturned:
“On June 19, Lynne Stewart's counsel filed court papers seeking to discover if any warrantless or illegal electronic surveillance was conducted on her or anyone involved in her case. Then on July 5, Lynne's attorneys filed a Sentencing Memorandum on her behalf asking for a non-custodial sentence, i.e., one involving no jail time. As you are aware, Lynne Stewart was falsely convicted of material support for terrorism for her work representing an imprisoned client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, a direct attack on the right to an attorney and First Amendment rights for all. She is also recovering from surgery for breast cancer and subsequent radiation and hormone therapy. Currently she awaits sentencing on September 25 to be preceded by a rally at Riverside Church in New York on September 24. We say again her conviction and those of her co-defendants were an outrage. Hands Off Lynne Stewart, Mohamed Yousry and Ahmed Abdel Sattar!”
Since the above information was published in an earlier blog Ms. Stewart has received a 28 month sentence. Her co-defendant Mohamed Yoursy has received a sentence of 20 months. Her other co-defendant Ahmed Sattar has received an outrageous sentence of 24 years. For further information contact the PDC, P.O. Box 99, Canal Street Station, New York, NY 10013-0099, The Lynne Stewart Defense Fund or see my blog, dated June 13, 2006.
Assata Shakur, Tupac’s “Auntie”, is a revolutionary black fighter for justice who was convicted of murder in the 1970’s, later escaped and eventually found her way to Cuba where she now resides in political asylum. Over the past year the United States Justice Department has increased its bounty on her arrest and capture up to one million dollars. To this writer’s mind that makes her prime presidential material. It would certainly improve American relations with Cuba.
Let me motivate these candidacies a little further and address some possible objections. I will simply freshen up some of the material I used in earlier blogs to motivate a write-in vote for Lynne Stewart in the United States Senate race in New York against Hillary Clinton. Thus, as I noted there, some will say Ms. Stewart and Ms. Shaker have been convicted of serious felonies. Grow up! If we counted all the indicted felons, unindicted co-conspirators, and those waiting for or in fear of indictment hanging around Washington the Congressional pages would be the only ones left to run the government. Hell, maybe, they are? Besides, think about this- imagine the respect Ms. Stewart and Ms. Shakur would get from those federal district court and appeals court judges looking for career advancement if they had the power over their nominations. And let us not forget the presidential pardoning process, which would immediately come in handy upon their election.
Hillary “Hawk”, Assata Shakur and Lynne Stewart are all women. Moreover, Ms. Shakur is a black woman. I did not want to incur the wrath of my feminist friends by daring to propose a man for president. After all we need women to break down the doors to the historic men’s club atmosphere of the United States presidency. That is sensible enough, but as I have pointed out before in regard to Senator Clinton, she, and in this she is not alone, stands for the proposition that for all the virtues of the fight for the equality of women over the past decades women can have politics just as ugly as men. Some victory.
As always some will argue- but Hillary is a progressive and we do not want to divide the progressive forces, etc., etc. Get over it! Yes, Hillary was a “progressive”, or what passed for such at Wellesley when she got uppity in her valedictorian speech. (Does this, in any case, really count as a radical expression?) But hell, that was a long, long time ago. Since that time she has adhered to classic Clintonian Democratic Party centrism. Translation- she stays as close to the Republicans as possible without wearing an elephant on her lapel. Unfortunately for her the Republican Party these days is to the right of Genghis Khan (although that may be a slander on Mr. Khan for, as recently reported on the occasion of the 800th anniversary of his birth, the Mongolian nationalists are currently touting his progressive nature- for the times). But let’s get to the bottom line- Hillary is operating in the coin of the realm of bourgeois politics- looking, tongue out, for her main chance. Lynne and Assata has spent their lives and careers on behalf of the voiceless and unrepresented- looking to give people a fighting chance. More, much more on this issue and these candidates as the presidential campaign develops.
DISCLAIMER: FOR ALL INTERESTED PARTIES- IN ORDER NOT TO BE ACCCUSED OF GIVING MATERIAL AID TO THOSE WHO GAVE MATERIAL AID TO THOSE WHO GAVE MATERIAL AID, ETC. THIS WRITER STATES THAT THIS ENDORSEMENT OF MS. SHAKUR AND MS. STEWART IS UNSOLICITED. I DO NOT KNOW MS. SHAKUR OR MS. STEWART PERSONALLY AND HAVE NOT COMMUNICATED WITH THEM ABOUT THIS CANDIDACY. WE BREATH THE SAME POLITICAL AIR- AND BELIEVE ME THAT IS ALL TO MY BENEFIT.
*A Snapshot View Of The Leaders Of The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution-Adolph Joffe
Click on title to link to Wikipedia's entry for the 1917 Bolshevik revolutionary leader and early Soviet diplomat Adoph Joffe. He, later, was a central figure in the Russian Left Opposition led by Leon Trotsky that tried to save the gains of the Bolshevik revolution. His suicide was a political act and a spur to Trotsky's later greater opposition to Stalin's rule. His suicide note, the political parts, is must reading and posted below.
Adolph Joffe, suicide letter sent to Leon Trotsky (16th November, 1927)
I have never doubted the rightness of the road you pointed out, and as you know, I have gone with you for more than twenty years, since the days of 'permanent revolution'. But I have always believed that you lacked Lenin unbending will, his unwillingness to yield, his readiness even to remain alone on the path that he thought right in the anticipation of a future majority, of a future recognition by everyone of the rightness of his path.
Politically, you were always right, beginning with 1905, and I told you repeatedly that with my own ears I had heard Lenin admit that even in 1905, you, and not he, were right. One does not lie before his death, and now I repeat this again to you. But you have often abandoned your rightness for the sake of an overvalued agreement or compromise. This is a mistake. I repeat: politically you have always been right, and now more right than ever. Some day the party will realize it, and history will not fail to accord recognition. Then don't lose your courage if someone leaves you know, or if not as many come to you, and not as soon, as we all would like.
You are right, but the guarantee of the victory of your rightness lies in nothing but the extreme unwillingness to yield, the strictest straightforwardness, the absolute rejection of all compromise; in this very thing lay the secret of Lenin's victories. Many a time I have wanted to tell you this, but only now have I brought myself to do so, as a last farewell.
Adolph Joffe, suicide letter sent to Leon Trotsky (16th November, 1927)
I have never doubted the rightness of the road you pointed out, and as you know, I have gone with you for more than twenty years, since the days of 'permanent revolution'. But I have always believed that you lacked Lenin unbending will, his unwillingness to yield, his readiness even to remain alone on the path that he thought right in the anticipation of a future majority, of a future recognition by everyone of the rightness of his path.
Politically, you were always right, beginning with 1905, and I told you repeatedly that with my own ears I had heard Lenin admit that even in 1905, you, and not he, were right. One does not lie before his death, and now I repeat this again to you. But you have often abandoned your rightness for the sake of an overvalued agreement or compromise. This is a mistake. I repeat: politically you have always been right, and now more right than ever. Some day the party will realize it, and history will not fail to accord recognition. Then don't lose your courage if someone leaves you know, or if not as many come to you, and not as soon, as we all would like.
You are right, but the guarantee of the victory of your rightness lies in nothing but the extreme unwillingness to yield, the strictest straightforwardness, the absolute rejection of all compromise; in this very thing lay the secret of Lenin's victories. Many a time I have wanted to tell you this, but only now have I brought myself to do so, as a last farewell.
*A Snapshot View Of The Leaders Of The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution-Yevgeni Preobrazhensky
Click on title to link to Wikipedia's entry for the 1917 Bolshevik secondary revolutionary leader Yevgeni Preobrazhensky. No revolution can succeed without men and women of Preobrazhensky's caliber. As Trotsky noted, on more than one occasion, the West, for lots of reason, in his day had not produced such cadre. I believe that observation, for the most part, still holds today.
*A Snapshot View Of The Leaders Of The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution-Soviet Culture Commissar Anatol Lunacharsky
Click on title to link to "Wikipedia"'s entry for the 1917 Bolshevik revolutionary leader and agitator and later early Soviet Culture and Education commissar, Anatol Lunacharsky. No added comment is needed in this space for the work, life and deeds of this man as his "Revolutionary Silhouette" posted here today speak for that work.
*A Snapshot View Of The Leaders Of The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution-Georgy Pyatakov
Click on title to link to “Wikipedia”'s entry for the 1917 Bolshevik secondary revolutionary leader Georgy Pyatakov. No revolution can succeed without men and women of Pyatakov's caliber. As Trotsky noted, on more than one occasion, the West, for lots of reason, in his day had not produced such cadre. I believe that observation, for the most part, still holds today.
*A Snapshot View Of The Leaders Of The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution-Alexandra Kollontai
Click on title to link to the Alexandra Kollontai Internet Archives for the works of 1917 Bolshevik secondary revolutionary leader Alexandra Kollantai. No revolution can succeed without men and women of Kollontai's caliber. As Trotsky noted, on more than one occasion, the West, for lots of reason, in his day had not produced such cadre. I believe that observation, for the most part, still holds today.
*A Snapshot View Of The Leaders Of The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution-Inessa Armand
Click on title to link to Wikipedia's entry for the 1917 Bolshevik secondary revolutionary leader Inessa Armand.
Markin comment:
No revolution can succeed without men and women of Armand's caliber. As Trotsky noted, on more than one occasion, the West, for lots of reason, in his day had not produced such cadre. I believe that observation, for the most part, still holds today.
Markin comment:
No revolution can succeed without men and women of Armand's caliber. As Trotsky noted, on more than one occasion, the West, for lots of reason, in his day had not produced such cadre. I believe that observation, for the most part, still holds today.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
*Political Journalist's Corner- Louise Bryant's' Bird's Eye View Of The 1917 Russian Revolution-"Six Red Months In Russia"
Click on title to link to Louise Bryant's political journalistic analysis of the events of the early stages of the Russian revolution, including portraits of Lenin and Trotsky. For those not familiar with Ms. Bryant she was the companion of John Reed, author of the famous "Ten Day That Shook The World" and early American Communist Party leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)