An Uncounted Causality Of War- The Never-Ending Vietnam War Story On The Anniversary Of The Fall Of Ho Chi Minh City 1975 (Then Saigon)

As The Burns-Novick Vietnam War Documentary AirsAn Uncounted Causality Of War- The Never-Ending Vietnam War Story



Markin comment:

THERE IS NO WALL IN WASHINGTON-BUT, MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE



This space is usually devoted to ‘high’ politics and the personal is usually limited to some experience of mine that has a direct political point. Sometimes, however, a story is so compelling and makes the point in such a poignant manner that no political palaver is necessary. Let me tell the tale.

Recently I returned, while on some unrelated business, to the neighborhood where I grew up. The neighborhood is one of those old working class neighborhoods where the houses are small, cramped and seedy, the leavings of those who have moved on to bigger and better things. The neighborhood nevertheless reflected the desire of the working poor in the 1950's, my parents and others, to own their own homes and not be shunted off to decrepit apartments or dilapidated housing projects, the fate of those just below them on the social ladder. While there I happened upon an old neighbor who recognized me despite the fact that I had not seen her for at least thirty years. Since she had grown up and lived there continuously, taking over the family house, I inquired about the fate of various people that I had grown up with. She, as is usually the case in such circumstances, had a wealth of information but one story in particular cut me to the quick. I asked about a boy named Kenny who was a couple of years younger than I was but who I was very close to until my teenage years. Kenny used to tag along with my crowd until, as teenagers will do, we made it clear that he was no longer welcome being ‘too young’ to hang around with us older boys. Sound familiar?

The long and the short of it is that he found other friends of his own age to hang with, one in particular, from down the street named Jimmy. I had only a nodding acquaintance with both thereafter. As happened more often than not during the 1960’s in working class neighborhoods all over the country, especially with kids who were not academically inclined, when Jimmy came of age he faced the draft or the alternative of ‘volunteering’ for military service. He enlisted. Kenny for a number of valid medical reasons was 4-F (unqualified for military service). Of course, you know what is coming. Jimmy was sent to Vietnam where he was killed in 1968 at the age of 20. His name is one of the 58,000 plus that are etched on that Vietnam Memorial Wall in Washington. His story ends there. Unfortunately, Kenny’s just begins.

Kenny took Jimmy’s death hard. Harder than one can even imagine. The early details are rather sketchy but they may have involved drug use. The overt manifestations were acts of petty crime and then anti-social acts like pulling fire alarms and walking naked down the street. At some point he was diagnosed as schizophrenic. I make no pretense of having adequate knowledge about the causes of mental illnesses but someone I trust has told me that such a traumatic event as Jimmy’s death can trigger the condition in young adults. In any case, the institutionalizations inevitably began. And later the halfway houses and all the other forms of control for those who cannot survive on the mean streets of the world on their own. Apparently, with drugs and therapy, there were periods of calm but for over three decades poor Kenny struggled with his inner demons. In the end the demons won and he died a few years ago while in a mental hospital.

Certainly not a happy story. Perhaps, aside from the specific details, not even an unusual one in modern times. Nevertheless I now count Kenny as one of the uncounted casualties of war. Along with those physically wounded soldiers who can back from Vietnam service unable to cope with their own demons and sought solace in drugs and alcohol. And those who for other reasons could no adjust and found themselves on the streets, in the half way shelters or the V. A. hospitals. And also those grieving parents and other loved ones whose lives were shattered and broken by the lost of their children. There is no wall in Washington for them. But, maybe there should be. As for poor Kenny from the old neighborhood. Rest in Peace.

*From The Archives Of "Women And Revolution"-Down with the Reactionary Anti-Porn Crusade!

Click on the headline to link to a Website featuring the paintings, nude and non-nude of the great artist, Titian. Close your eyes if you are offended by the nudes. Okay.

Markin comment:

The following is an article from the Spring 1985 issue of "Women and Revolution" that may have some historical interest for old "new leftists", perhaps, and well as for younger militants interested in various cultural and social questions that intersect the class struggle. Or for those just interested in a Marxist position on a series of social questions that are thrust upon us by the vagaries of bourgeois society. I will be posting more such articles from the back issues of "Women and Revolution" during Women's History Month and periodically throughout the year.

**********

Down with the Reactionary Anti-Porn Crusade!
Granddaughters of Carry Nation in Bed with Jerry Falwell

Reprinted from Young Spartacus No. 123, December 1984/January 1985

MADISON— Formerly a hotbed of campus protest, the University of Wisconsin-Madison's "radical" reputation has given way in large part to smug, "me generation" liberalism. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), scabs on the anti-Vietnam War movement, carry a lot of weight in city and county government. With prudery that suits Madison's Protestant environs, "alternative" lifestylism has been institutionalized. You will live a wholesome life. Some manifestations are just plain silly: Madison was declared a "nuclear-free zone" and sandwiches come with beansprouts whether you order them or not. Some are absolutely infuriating: liquor stores close, at 9:00 p.m. and you can't buy cigarettes anywhere on the huge UW campus.

The latest target for moral uplift of the community is pornography—Penthouse and Playboy have been pulled from the Student Union newsstand on the dubious grounds of "low circulation." DSAer Kathleen Nichols, a Dane County supervisor, is proposing legislation modeled on Andrea Dworkin's Minneapolis ordinance to make pornography a civil rights violation. Material in which "people" are "reduced to body parts," "presented in postures of sexual submission" or "presented as whores by nature" would be outlawed (Badger-Herald, 8 November 1984)! Under this law, you can't consent to buy, sell, photograph or pose for pornographic pictures. As the Badger-Herald commented, "Groups normally in solidarity, such as pseudo-feminists and homosexuals, are at odds. Groups normally in opposition, such as pseudo-feminists and the local fundamentalist ministers, support the ordinance." Talk about obscene!

We print below a slightly edited version of the Spartacus Youth League statement submitted to the Madison Isthmus and UW Daily Cardinal. It appeared in a shortened version in the Isthmus (16 November 1984) while the Cardinal has refused to publish it.

Contrary to prevailing liberal opinion, Madison is part of Reagan's USA, albeit with a twist. Witness the New Right's drive to "clean up America." It's going strong in Madison. There's legislation to ban dirty pictures. On 19 October 1984, demonstrators picketed at a State Street porno store; someone stenciled "Burn Me Down" on the wall—and they mean it. Rampaging fundamentalists? Nope. This particular anti-sex crusade is led by Madison's "alternative" to the Army of God— the "radical" feminists.
Finding Robin Morgan in bed with Jerry Falwell may surprise some who thought feminism had something to do with women's liberation. After all, the '60s feminists posed as right-on revolutionaries. They rejected "male-defined" sex roles, denounced "family values" as scams to keep women isolated, dependent, condemned to domestic servitude. They worried about racism and poor people. But the feminists never opposed the oppressive capitalist system itself: their "program" consists of escapist lifestylism, "consciousness raising," "women's" vegetarian co-ops. That's why the feminist "movement" didn't move. It remained confined to rarefied microcosms like Madison, lily-white and middle-class.

What's left of the "movement" no longer even worries about real human oppression. While the feminists are busy trying to stamp out fishnet stockings and high heels, genuine assaults on women's rights go unanswered. Legalized abortion is seriously threatened; abortion clinics get firebombed, their patients harassed, but you don't hear a peep from the feminists. Then there's the case of Patricia Ridge—a single, black, working mother. Last year her five-year-old son was shot pointblank in her bedroom in a Los Angeles-area housing project by a white cop. The cop got off, but a grand jury tried to charge her with everything from child neglect to Murder Two. The Marxist Spartacist League came to her defense. But the organized feminists did nothing. For them, "women's oppression" equals nude photos: they're blind to real class and race oppression facing working-class and black women.

This "Take Back the Night" crusade is a slice of middle America at its worst—about as progressive as forbidding sex education. It dovetails with the current incitement of every backward, sexist, racist, jingoistic prejudice of American society in preparation for war against the USSR. The Democrats and Republicans have been humming "Onward Christian Soldiers" since Cold War II began under born-again Jimmy Carter; with Reagan the crusade has reached new lows. They both want a "prepared" society with social relations straight out of "Leave It To Beaver." No "extramarital" sex, no porn, no abortion, no gays.

The feminists even share Cold War/Moral Majority terminology (e.g., "Porn is the new terrorism"). And there's a certain ideological congruence. The feminists basically buy the Moral Majority's "me Tarzan, you Jane" view of human sexuality: women are gentle nurturers, children are "innocent" and asexual, while men are sexual aggressors. That's what "Pornography is the theory, rape is the practice" boils down to: men are barely controlled rapists—all it takes is a little leg to set 'em off. In that case, why stop with censoring Penthouse? According to Annie Laurie Gaylor, editor of the Feminist Connection, Rubens and Titian can go too: they painted women ravished by swans! (Perhaps when Gaylor leaves the Connection, she can get a job at the Elvehjem Museum chiseling the genitals off classical statues.)

Then there's the touchy question of First Amendment rights. With the exception of the rabid crackpot Andrea Dworkin, most feminists try to squeak past it by making a snooty differentiation between pornography and "erotica." It works like this. "Erotica" is printed on expensive paper with "tasteful" hand-drawn illustrations; "pornography" goes for $2.50, with tacky overexposed photos. As the saying goes, "perversion" is what you aren't into.

As Marxists, the Spartacist League and Spartacus Youth League oppose all attempts at puritanical censorship, whether launched by outright reactionaries or feminist ayatollahs. You can't legislate sexuality. We defend the right of consenting individuals in any combination of age, race, sex, in any number, to engage in the sexual activity of their choice—or look at the photos of their choice—without state intervention.

Pornography is not violence: it's fantasy. Rape is a form of violent criminal assault. Among other things, we advocate the repeal of gun control laws: women should have the right to carry arms and use them in self-defense. To argue that "porn is rape" or, like Robin Morgan, that any sex not initiated by a woman is rape, is—aside from being pretty damned presumptuous— to trivialize and confuse the issue. Capitalist society— its forced poverty, rigid family structure, hypocritical straitjacket morality—breeds the poisonous frustrations that explode in violence. The liberation of women requires getting rid of the repressive constraints imposed on women by the nuclear family, thus creating the possibility of new relationships based on social equality—free from compulsion and stultifying "moral" restrictions. In short, women's liberation requires socialist revolution.

While the feminist anti-porn crusaders rely on candlelight vigils, their Reaganite allies have access to systematic state repression and vigilante terror. And Reagan has launched a full-scale attack on democratic rights. Political opposition becomes "terrorism." Cop/ media hysteria about child abuse at daycare centers carries the message that the only safe place for kids is locked up at home with a non-working mom. If your sexual preference doesn't suit Jerry Falwell, you could be locked up for life.

That's no idle threat. The campaign for "decency" has been viciously anti-gay from the start. Vanessa Williams lost her crown not least because those photos were of lesbian sex. Boston-area photographer George Jacobs got 20 years for the "crime" of having consensual sex with his 14-year-old roommate. Jacobs was tested to determine if he was a "sexually dangerous person" and could have been put away in a mental hospital permanently. The cops and press went wild over NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), an organization for the defense of civil rights of "men and boys involved in consensual sexual and other relationships with each other." NAMBLA members were beaten, framed and sent to psychiatric institutions. And that's nothing compared with the Justice Department's plan to research "behavior modification, chemical treatments, physiological stud¬ies of those suspected of psychosexual dysfunction—as evidenced by...their divorces or homosexuality" (Village Voice, 7 August 1984)!

The reactionary nature of anti-porn legislation masquerading as protection of "civil rights" is spelled out in a new law pending in Suffolk County, New York. The bill is identical to Dworkin's Minneapolis anti-porn law, minus feminist verbiage. It's sponsored by groups like the National Federation for Decency (an actual organization!) explicitly to "wipe out sodomy" and, according-to one supporter, "pornography [that] could cause social decay leading to a possible communist takeover"!

It's not like the feminists can't smell this anti-gay stench; far from it. Kathleen Nichols, lesbian activist member of the "Democratic" Socialists of America, is the Dane County supervisor behind the Madison censorship. This bigot told OUT! magazine that if the ordinance closes adult bookstores where gay men meet, all the better to stop AIDS because "that kind of anonymous sexual congress has resulted in 5500 cases of AIDS" (OUT!, September 1984). For this anti-democratic liberal, male gay sex is a health hazard. This is vile anti-gay bigotry. Do lesbians active in the anti-porn movement believe that once they outlaw everyone else's sexual practices, their own will be protected? They're on mighty thin ice. Check out Khomeini's Iran: no porn there—and they stone homosexuals to death.

Pornography reflects, and only reflects, some human behavior. In this violent, irrational society, those reflections sometimes aren't pretty: but you can't change society by changing its images on a screen. "Positive images" won't materially advance the cause of women's equality any more than those movies with Sidney Poitier as the black neurosurgeon changed the harsh reality of racist oppression. Socialist revolution alone can create the economic basis to replace the nuclear family and liberate women. We don't pretend to know what human relations in socialist society will be like. But we assume that, liberated from the artificial constraints currently imposed on human expression, sexuality under socialism will be more free, more open, more tolerant, more rich and more diverse. May the day come soon.

Carla Norris
for the Spartacus Youth League

THE FIRST SPORTING PROPOSITION OF THE 2008 ELECTION SEASON

COMMENTARY

CHOICES- DEMOCRATS- SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS-REPUBLICANS- JUST THE DWARFS- SO HERE'S A BETTING PROPOSITION INSTEAD

FORGET REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND GREENS! BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!


One of the few pleasures that someone like myself gets out of covering this ultimately dreary and meaningless 2008 presidential election cycle is the chance to make a few friendly wagers on various propositions. In the wake of last week’s political activities here is some background for my first betting proposition of the season.


Last week, the week of April 23, 2007, all of the announced Democratic Party presidential candidates met for what today passes as debate at South Carolina
State College. Make no mistake-the 2008 presidential election is strictly the Democrats to lose after the debacle of the Bush years. Under those terms the Democratic Party nomination very much means something this time. So what happened in South Carolina? Everyone made ‘nice’ (with the exception of anti-warrior/relic former Senator Mike Gravel). If President Bush and the Congressional leadership are doing a minuet over the Iraq War budget the Democratic candidates were doing a waltz. Nobody apparently stumbled but no one took any lead on anything, especially on Iraq. The leading candidates are all waiting to take over the war from Bush in 2009. That, my friends, is almost two years way. So much for the courage of the parliamentary opposition. These are not good times for anyone with a bold vision in American politics, except those who favor more jails, more bombs and more debt. Off the performances down South it looks to me like Hillary at 5/2 against the field. That is not for betting purposes. Yet.

And the Republicans? Rudy Guiliani apparently has too many wives. Mitt Romney has too few. (I would definitely have given the founder of Mormonism Joseph Smith, Mitt’s co-religionist, a careful look based on his politics in the 1840’s as a Free-Soiler. Even Mitt’s great-grandfather seems interesting with his five wives- now that is displaying executive ability. Poor Mitt is, however, just a poor cookie-cutter copy of what passes today for a standard brand Republican). And the latest official entry into the race, John McCain, is a toothless old hag. Anyone who in 2007 makes defense of the Iraq quagmire a central theme of his or her campaign truly suffers from a “ Manchurian Candidate” complex (meaning the original film version, not the more recent one starring Denzel Washington). Even the lackluster Democratic field looks like the Founding Fathers (oophs, Founders) compared to these guys. So what are the Republicans to do against the seeming Democratic lock on 2008? Well, how about Jeb Bush? Madness, you say. Hear me out, please.

After the mid-term 2006 elections I wrote, rather off-handedly I thought at the time, that the idea of a Hillary Clinton run at the presidency was too depressing to contemplate. I stated that any bourgeois republic that could do no better than to come up with a perennial Bush/Clinton dynastic quinella deserved all the trouble it got. And it does. However, since we are going to get Hillary anyway we might as well take Jeb Bush in the bargain. What the hell, the Republican strategy in 2008 has got to be to win the Southern states as usual, try to hold their own in the non- coastal West and fight it out in the Midwest. Old Jeb fits that strategy to a tee. He is suppose to be brighter than his brother (not a particularly hard thing to do) and ran Florida no worst than any previous governor. If the Republicans are going to have to run off of the decrepit Bush legacy anyway they might as well get the real thing. I think a Hillary/Jeb confrontation in 2008 is about 20-1 against now. Any takers?

IT IS TIME TO GET NASTY IN THE FIGHT AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR

COMMENTARY

WHILE BUSH AND THE DEMOCRATS DO THE MINUET-IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ-THAT MEANS NOW.

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!

At the price of beating the reader over the head once again this writer finds the need to comment on these recent acts of parliamentary hubris between the Bush Administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress. This past week, the week of April 25, 2007, both branches of Congress passed their joint compromise version of the supplementary Iraq war budget by slim margins. Next week Bush promises to veto that bill because it contains timetables for troop draw down. The Congress, at this point, does not have enough votes to override that veto. So on the parliamentary level it is back to square one. Remember two things. First, the Congress voted FOR continued funding for the war against all reason. That includes all the leading Congressional presidential contenders, notably Hillary and Obama the “Charma”. Second, this war will get funded one way or the other. No one in Washington with any weight is committed to any other course. The net effect of these acts of parliamentary cretinism is that this war will continue on course until at least 2009. That is the nut of the matter.

Anyone who was gullible enough, or idealistic enough, to believe that there would be a swift end to the conflict should by now be thoroughly disabused of the notion that, well-intentioned or not, the Democrats would get this thing over with soon. Moreover, even in the narrow confines of military strategy Iraq commander General Petreus spent the week backing off a timetable for when the public should see results from this summer to the fall. Additionally, the daily news out of Iraq gets grimmer each week the ‘surge’ continues. It does not take a hardened communist, although that does not hurt, to realize that such would be the outcome. I have been playing the role of Cassandra on this war for the past few years. Now it is time to get nasty with those people. This war, if it is to be finished, will take the efforts of those willing to go out into the streets, go into the factories and offices, go into the schools and, most importantly, link up with the rank and file soldiers fighting this war to do that. So let us get to it. The time for parliamentary niceties and waiting for good new is long past over.


On another note. Just when it seemed that every one is abandoning the ship Titanic, I mean the ship Bush , I read an article in the Sunday April 29, 2007 Boston Globe by Op/Ed columnist Jeff Jacoby defending the Bush ‘surge’ and taking the Democratic Congress to task for not taking the fight against ‘war on terror’ in Iraq seriously. Moreover, Mr. Jacoby does a rather crude job of linking up the Democrats and Al Qaeda.

Where has this guy been for the last several years? Former top Bush strategist Matthew Dowd has written off his former bosses as fools. Former CIA Director George Tenet, of ‘slam dunk’ fate, self-servingly questions whether Bush can tie his own shoes. But the intrepid Mr. Jacoby counts himself among the approximately seven ‘true believers’ who still think that while things are tough ‘victory’ is possible in Iraq.

The only part of Mr. Jacoby’s commentary that I can agree with is that Al Qaeda is happy with the American quagmire in Iraq. But not for his reasons. One of the main fallacies of American policy makers and their hangers-on, like Mr. Jacoby, is that Al Qaeda and its network condition their policy on American moves. Sure, they take advantage of stupidities like Iraq but it is apparent that they pretty much keep to their own counsel and are immune to the niceties of American rationalism, such as it is. Thus, to premise continuing a massive troop presence in Iraq on keeping Al Qaeda out is wishful thinking. Make no mistake these ‘guys’ are the enemy but bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age is not the way to defeat them.

How then, Mister Smart Guy Markin? I have written elsewhere that Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to every one of us that seeks a democratic secular world, to speak nothing of a socialist one. The options in that fight objectively are fairly narrow. Know this- a workers government would, of necessity, have a fight to the death with these forces, particularly in the Middle East. Not like that ultimately half-hearted fight the Soviets waged in Afghanistan. In the end that only whetted the appetites of Bin Laden and his followers. No question. But it looks to me like diligent police work would be more effective. On the level of police work, while not conceding any political points to that fundamentalist monarchy, the news out of Saudi Arabia this week points in the right direction. The Saudis were able to foil various plots against their regime by what appears to be good police work. And if that fails? Believe me, if a workers government needed to take military action to root these buggers out then that strategy would be placed squarely on the agenda. Know this also-under our own worker-controlled government we would have not problem getting workers councils to fund that kind of war.

IN THE TIME OF THE "MUGWUMPS"

BOOK REVIEW

THE AGE OF REFORM: FROM BRYAN TO FDR, RICHARD HOFSTADTER, Knopf, New York, 1972

At one time I used to believe that the Progressive Era in America, roughly from 1900- 1920, was the real source of post World War II ideas of social progress such as Truman’s Fair Deal, Kennedy’s New Frontier and Johnson’s Great Society. Previously I had placed those ideas on the doorstep of Franklin Roosevelt. Ah, but those were the silly days of my youth when I believed that the Democratic Party could be pushed to the left and made the equivalent of a European social-democratic organization responsible to its working class base.

I now believe that the progressive period is decisive but for a different reason, that is, its role in sucking up the leftist political landscape and preventing a hard core working class-centered socialist party from crystallizing in this country. For those, like myself, who look hard for antecedents, this is important to an understanding of why today, in face of incredible provocations by the two major political parties, we have no independent class party of the working people. Thus, a look at the period becomes essential for understanding the malaise that we find ourselves today. A good place to start, and I would emphasize the word start since the book originally took form in the 1950's, is Professor Hofstadter’s book on the period. While one does not have to be sympathetic to his generally pro-Progressive tilt this little book, complete with important footnoted source references, gives a very good outline of the personalities, issues and sociological trends that broke the back of fight for an independent mass socialist party in the period.

Ironically in Europe, in the period under discussion, large, well-organized class-conscious labor parties some of them, like the Bolsheviks in Russia even revolutionary were rearing there heads. Although a relatively small, loosely organized, and programmatically amorphous Socialist Party did emerge in the United States at this time it was definitely (and occasionally, by choice) subordinated to the Progressive movement. Unless one is eternally committed to the political strategy of the ‘popular front’, that is multi-class organizations based on the lowest common denominator policies in order to achieve social change this was a very badly missed opportunity by socialists.


Hofstadter makes the interesting, and basically true, point that the whirlwind Populist movement that sprang out of the farms of the American prairie in the early 1890’s and embraced Free Silver and Bryan in 1896 was fundamentally hostile to the urban classes and particularly to the working class. I have argued elsewhere that the working class had no interest in the inflationary silver coinage issue. Moreover the populist movement, except in the South where it had the potential of driving a wedge against the rampant race segregation there, was the last gasp effort of the small capitalist family farmer in the face of the victory of mass industrialization and the rise of finance capital. I would however, argue that as late as 1896 it was still possible that the bedeviled populist movement could have been an auxiliary to an urban-based workers party. With the rise of the middle class Progressive movement such a possibility was derailed.

The rise of the Progressive movement is the strongest part of this book. Hofstadter having staked out his own personal political philosophy under the aegis of that movement has many interesting things to say about it. The fundamental driving force behind this movement was the fact of ruthless industrialization and the reaction to it by those who either had previously benefited from society, the classic “Mugwumps”, or were being driven under by ‘ the captains of industry’. Particularly well done are the analyses of the rise of the professoriat, the increase in the number of cities and their size and with it the creation of new political organizations, the change in the status of the clergy and the free professions, immigration (that round of it, anyway) and the changing mores which broke down the prevailing ideology.

While one may, as this writer does, disagree with the depth of the positive effects that the various pieces of legislation that the Progressives were able to get passed one can nevertheless see that a different class axis would have been necessary in order to make fundamental changes. Thus, although Hofstatder will not be you last place to look in understanding the evolution, such as it is, of American society for this crucial period in working class history it certainly should be your first stop.

ON REVOLUTIONARIES RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

COMMENTARY

The main bourgeois electoral political action of 2007 in the Western world has thus far been the French presidential elections. After the just completed first round the Gaullist and Socialist Party candidates are headed into the final round on May 6th. Recently, in a commentary on the workers movement and public campaign funding (see April 2007 archive), I used the example of the French presidential campaign in discussing the erroneous policy of ‘far left’ groups in France, like the Revolutionary Communist League (English translation) and Worker’s Struggle (also English translation), of accepting campaign funds from the state. My position was that as a matter of integrity, the nature of our tasks and security this policy was unprincipled for revolutionaries. That stirred up some controversy; or rather I should say a 'tempest in a teapot', not so much around the question of accepting funds as the question of whether those organizations in France should have even fielded presidential candidates. Thus, the question is starkly posed. Can leftists in principle run for executive office in the bourgeois state and therefore take political responsibility for the administration of its policy? The following comments represent my take on this issue; however, they are by no means my final thinking on the matter.

Those of us who consider themselves Marxists owe two debts of gratitude to Vladimir Lenin. First, for leading the modern fight against parliamentary abstensionism, mainly a fight against anarchist and syndicalism tendencies in the worker’s movement to deny any importance to bourgeois elections as a means of getting out the socialist message. His classic polemic against those tendencies in ‘Left-Wing' Communism-An Infantile Disorder’ gives short shrift to such notions.

Secondly, we owe Lenin for his sorely needed updating of the Marxist conception of the state and the need to replace the current bourgeois state with a workers state with its own institutions. His classic statement of the case in State and Revolution gives short shrift to the notion that a victorious worker’s revolution can take over the current state apparatus with just a little ‘fine tuning’.

Why do we need to invoke the tremendous authority of Lenin on what is a seemingly simple question of whether a revolutionary organization should or should not run for an executive office of the bourgeois state? On the basis of State and Revolution to pose the question would appear to give the answer. However, unlike other questions this one is not one where to pose the question gives the answer. Let us set the parameters of the debate. Nobody, or at least I hope nobody, believes in 2007 that running in elections will lead to socialism. I would also hope that nobody believes that we can simply take over the current state apparatus as is and go from there. I would further hope that no one, in some kind of anarchist funk, would fail to draw a distinction between administering the executive power of the capitalist state and using the legislative branch as a forum in order to be ‘ tribunes of the people’. Finally, for now and the foreseeable future no one should assume that this question is much more than a theoretical one. Otherwise something is desperately wrong with one's organizational priorities and one's grasp of political reality.

So now that I have safety guarded all those parameters, What is the big deal? And that is pretty much where I stand on the issue. Historically, revolutionaries have used bourgeois election periods to run on their programs and get a hearing in quarters they might not reach outside of the electoral process. In terms of executive offices, a revolutionary organization, like the Socialist Workers Party in the old days, ran for executive office with the proviso that if elected they would not serve. And that seems to me to continue to be the right policy. Those who want to carry out a policy of total refusal to participate in executive office campaigns, like the presidency, today have got to make a better argument for that decision than they have thus far.

HEROIC SOVIET SPIES OR BRITISH DUPES?

HEROIC RUSSIAN SPIES OR BRITISH DUPES?

BOOK REVIEW

DECEIVING THE DECEIVERS: Kim Philby, Donald Maclean and Guy Burgess, S.J. Hamrick, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2004.

I like a James Bond spy thriller, replete with the latest technology, as well as the next guy. Le Carre’s Cold War-inspired George Smiley series. Even better. So when I expected to get the real ‘scoop’ on the actions of the Kim Philby-led Ring of Five in England that performed heroic spy service for the Soviet Union I found instead mostly skimpy historical conjecture by Mr. Hamrick. The central premise of his book that the Ring of Five was led by the rings in their noses by Western intelligence made me long for one of Mr. le Carre’s books. Apparently the only virtue of the opening of Cold War archives has been not to bring some clarity about the period but to create a cottage industry of conjecture and coincidence that rivals the Lee Harvey Oswald industry. Interestingly, the New York Review of Books (April 26, 2007) in its review of Mr. Hamrick’s book brought in the big guns. The review by Phillip Knightley, who actually has done some heavy work sorting out the Philby case, politely, too politely, dismisses the claims as so much smoke. No disagreement there from these quarters.

Intelligence gathering, as we are painfully aware in light of the Iraq fiasco, is a very inexact science. So mistakes, honest mistakes unlike the fudged Iraq intelligence, are part of the price for increased knowledge about what your enemy is up to. This writer makes no bones about his admiration for Kim Philby and the others who came over to the side of communism, as they saw it. That they were traitors to their English upper class upbringing, to boot, only increases their appeal. One can argue all one wants to about whether the information they provided to the Soviets was good, tainted, ignored or thrown in the waste paper basket. The question for history is did they subjectively aim to aid the cause of socialism. And did they come to regret their youthful decisions. From all the evidence, especially in the case of Philby, they did not. Until someone comes up with the ‘smoking gun’ that the Ring of Five’s work was all a sham socialists should still honor their memories. And that of Richard Sorge in Japan. Also Leopold Trepper and his “Red Orchestra” in Europe during the German Occupation. And, dare I say it, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in the United States.

IN THE TIME OF THE VIETNAMESE NATIONAL LIBERATION STRUGGLE

BOOK REVIEW

APRIL 30TH MARKS THE 32ND ANNIVERSARY OF THE MILITARY VICTORY OF THE NORTH VIETNAMESE ARMY/ SOUTH VIETNAMESE NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY


VIETNAM –A HISTORY, STANLEY KARNOW, PENQUIN BOOKS, NEW YORK, 1983 (Reviewed April 20, 2007)

As the current Bush Administration-directed quagmire continues in Iraq it is rather timely to look at the previously bout of American imperialist madness in Vietnam if only in order to demonstrate the similar mindsets, then and now, of the American political establishment and their hangers-on. This book, unintentionally I am sure, is a prima facie argument, against those who see Iraq (or saw Vietnam) as merely an erroneous policy of the American government that can be ‘fixed’ by a change to a more rational imperialist policy guided by a different elite. Undeniably there are many differences between the current war and the struggle in Vietnam. Not the least of which is that in Vietnam there was a Communist-led insurgency that leftists throughout the world could identify with and were duty-bound to support. No such situation exists in Iraq today where, seemingly, from the little we know about the murky politics of the parties there militant leftists can support individual anti-imperialist actions as they occur but stand away, way away from the religious sectarian struggle for different versions of a fundamentalist Islamic state that the various parties are apparently fighting for.

Stanley Karnow’s well-informed study of the long history of struggle in Vietnam against outsiders, near and far, is a more than adequate primer about the history and the political issues, from the American side at least, as they came to a head in Vietnam in the early 1960’s. This work was produced in conjunction with a Public Broadcasting System documentary in 1983 so that if one wants to take the time to get a better grasp of the situation as it unfolded the combination of the literary and visual presentations will make one an ‘armchair expert’ on the subject. A glossary of by now unfamiliar names of secondary players and chronology of events is helpful as are some very good photographs that lead into each chapter

This book is the work of a long time journalist who covered Southeast Asia from the 1950’s until at least the early 1980’s when he went back after the war was over and interviewed various survivors from both sides as well as key political players. Although over twenty years has passed since the book’s publication it appears to me that he has covered all the essential elements of the dispute as well as the wrangling, again mainly on the American side , of policy makers big and small. While everyone should look at more recent material that material appears to me to be essentially more specialized analysis of the general themes presented in Karnow’s book. Or are the inevitably self-serving memoirs by those, like former Secretary of War Robert McNamara, looking to refurbish their images for the historical record. Karnow’s book has the added virtue of having been written just long enough after the end of the war that memories, faulty as they are in any case, were still fresh but with enough time in between for some introspection.

The first part of Karnow’s book deals with the long history of the Vietnamese as a people in their various provincial enclaves, or as a national entity, to be independent of the many other powers in the region, particularly China, who wanted to subjugate them. The book also pays detailed attention to the fight among the European colonial powers for dominance in the region culminating in the decisive victory for control by France in the 1800’s. That domination by a Western imperialist power, ultimately defeated by the same Communist and nationalist forces that were to defeat the Americans and their South Vietnamese allies, sets the stage for the huge role that the United States would come to play from the time of the French defeat in 1954 until their own defeat a couple of decades later. This section is important to read because the premises of the French about their adversary became, in almost cookie-cutter fashion, the same premises that drove American policy. And to similar ends.


The bulk of the book and the central story line, however, is a study of the hubris of American imperialist policy-makers in attempting to define their powers, prerogatives and interests in the post-World War II period. The sub-title of the book, which the current inhabitants of the Bush Administration obviously have not read and in any case would willfully misunderstand, is how not to subordinate primary interests to momentary secondary interests in the scramble to preserve the Empire.

Apparently, common sense and simple rationality are in short supply when one goes inside the Washington Beltway. Taking into account the differences in personality among the three main villains of the piece- Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon- the similarities of response and need to defend some sense of honor, American honor, are amazingly similar, individual rhetoric aside. There thus can be little wonder the North Vietnamese went about their business of revolution and independence pretty much according to their plans and with little regard to ‘subtleties’ in American diplomacy. But, read the book and judge for yourselves. Do not be surprised if something feels awfully, awfully familiar.

THE SUPREMES RUN AMOK

COMMENTARY

DEFEND ABORTION RIGHTS-DEFEND ABORTION CLINICS-FREE ABORTION ON DEMAND!

No leftist has, or should have any illusions, particularly these days with the current composition of the United States Supreme Court, that any of our hard fought constitutional safeguards are safe from attack. The constitutionally-sanctioned right to privacy took a rather big hit on April 18, 2007 when the people in black, or I should say men in black, voted 5-4 to uphold a federally-enacted ban against so-called ‘partial-birth’ abortions passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by one George W. Bush. While we have long seen the Fourth Amendment right to security from unwarranted searches and seizures become emasculated by these closet Nazis this is the first time that the new rightist majority has taken direct aim at the right to abortion. It was not pretty and the future looks equally bleak.

In the case of the previously mentioned Fourth Amendment, however, the esteemed justices at least had the defense, as I have noted elsewhere, that they were unaware that such constitutional safeguards existed. I have it on good authority that Justice Thomas did not even know that such an amendment existed. Jusstice Scalia is aware of the amendment but believes that it only applies to writs of general assistance that were actually signed by George III or one of his royal agents. Apparently their expensive law educations did not include courses on such trivial matters. But on the question of abortion the two new Bush-appointed Supremes- Roberts and Alito- were placed on the court for no other reason than to take dead aim at the landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision. And they came through.

Well so much for the obvious. What is not quite so obvious and what should concern leftists who understand the need to desperately defend abortion rights is the response of the major women’s rights group the bourgeois National Organization for Women (NOW). According to a statement issued by NOW in response to the Supreme Court decision the way to beat back this latest challenge to abortion rights for all women is to elect a Congress and a President, presumably Democratic, that will overturn the federally-mandated ban. Jesus, have these people lost all political imagination. A little primer on the subject would reveal that one of the key factors in the Roe Court’s decision resulted from the pressure from the streets that women and their allies organized. That lesson apparently has been lost in the mist of time. Nevertheless we have not forgotten that tactic and we better be prepared to use it again. And while we are at it we had better dust off our old slogans. DEFEND ABORTION RIGHTS! DEFEND ABORTION CLINICS! DEFEND ABORTION ON DEMAND!

RUMBLINGS IN THE EMPIRE

COMMENTARY

FROM THE HEART OF THE BEAST

THE MILITARY STRATEGY IN IRAQ IS WORKING?

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!

Can we all, please, take time out from the new growth sport of bashing the singularly unattractive Don Imus and return to the central issue of the day-the bloody war in Iraq. While there has been much gnashing of teeth over Imus as the media falls all over itself on one side or the other for one of its fallen comrades some genuinely weird things have happened on the Iraq front here in America and there, as well. Here’s some commentary in a nutshell about the week of April 9th 2007.

• Secretary of War Robert Gates announces an immediate, all-inclusive extension of tours of duty in Iraq. The rationale given is that now the troops will know for sure how long they really have to stay rather than the old policy of surprise extensions. That policy naturally will go over well with the troops and their families, especially those close to coming home. I would think that it would also be a lovely recruitment tool to drum up a few inductees knowing that if deployed they will have to spend 15 months in that hellhole. Moreover, the real upshot of all this news is that the Pentagon, at least, is planning for a very, very long stay in Iraq, win or lose. If there was ever a time when we should be pushing hard for those anti-war soldier and sailor solidarity committees that I have been propagandizing for over the last year it is now. Let us do it.


• After several weeks in operation now it is clear that the much-touted Bush Administration military strategy to secure Baghdad is working. No, this is not a typo. It is working for the insurgents, sectarians and others who one way or another oppose the United States presence in Iraq. How? While the military strategy is to tamp down the situation in Baghdad those oppositional forces have stood down or moved out of Baghdad. The sectarian civil war has been moved, at least temporarily, to the suburbs. Speaking from a strictly military viewpoint it is obvious that many, many thousands more troops would be needed for the current military strategy to even get to square one. If I recall a member of the Army General Staff was booted into oblivion for even attempting to make such an evaluation before the war started. What is more important, however, is the arrogance behind the strategy. That is a belief that the various Iraqi oppositionists would stay in place to be wiped out by the American forces. As demonstrated in Vietnam and is again apparent here the military has vastly underestimated the enemy. And is reaping the windfall for its errors. I guess the millions of dollars that it takes to educate each West Point graduate do not buy what they use to. Oh, well.



• In something out of Catch-22, the satirical book by Joseph Heller about the misadventures of some soldiers and the inanities of the military bureaucracy in World War II, a military spokesperson this week used an anti-American demonstration led by Al-Sadr and his Madhi Army in civilian guise calling for an end to the American presence as apparently the latest rationale for the Iraq War. With no sense of irony he pointed out that four years ago such a demonstration under the Saddam regime would not have been permitted. So, in the final analysis, the reason for the war is to allow potential insurgents against the American presence to yell their lungs out for the U.S. to get the hell of their country.

• While on the subject of Al-Sadr it is apparent that he is starting to feel his oats with this successful mobilization mentioned above. From this geographical and political distance I make no presence to predict what the radical Shiite cleric is up to. But Sadr has powerful Shiite friends in Iran. He seems to be tiring of being the water boy for the current puppet government in Iraq. He has what is seemingly a reasonably disciplined force and he has been bloodied by the Americans when he was in a weaker military position. Most importantly, he has a mass base in Sadr City and its environs that will soon tire of having their doors kicked down by every ugly American who passes by. This situation bears watching.

• I have on more than one occasion mentioned that politics many times is a matter of timing. With a look in the direction of American presidential electoral politics I note that, beyond any rational calculation, Arizona Senator John McCain this week went out of his way in a speech at the Virginia Military Institute to not only support the Bush doctrine in Iraq but take credit for initiating it. Has anyone else noticed that when ANYONE, including President Bush, defends the war it is done in some isolated military outpost or other pro-military gathering like the VFW? I would hope they are afraid to go any other place. But I digress. Why any candidate, even a war supporter, in the year 2007 would go out of his or her way to claim credit for this disaster is beyond me. Perhaps, there is some truth to that ‘Manchurian Candidate’ charge due to McCain’s years as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War. But wait, maybe McCain is just a sincere patriot for the American Way? On a recent trip to a Baghdad market he stated that he saw some real progress there toward the secure democratic solution that he fervently desires. Of course, he was escorted by half the American troop ‘surge’ on his journey. Obama the “Charma” had some well earned fun commenting on that one. Let me just say this. I recently went down to my local farmers’ market and I found no need for a military escort. That is a democratic norm in my book. McCain, however, is presumably privy to more inside ‘dope’ than I am so I will just let Obama have the day on that one.

• Finally, I cannot resist saying a little something about one Don Imus. I cannot say that I have ever listened to his radio show although I have heard plenty of others that are as bilious as his appears to have been. I cannot say that I have any interest in basketball, collegiate or professional, except to note that the Rutgers women’s basketball team was something of a rag to riches story that everyone can appreciate. I, however, can make a couple of observations. If the words used by Imus on the public airwaves are indicative then you can imagine how deeply racist and sexist the talk is around the water cooler. That itself would come as no surprise. However, reportedly, his audience of an estimated two million listeners is at its core composed of young and affluence listeners. An advertiser's dream, to be sure. A nightmare for those of us trying to reach the youth in our fight for socialism. Every time one of these ‘incidents’ occurs there is much discussion about the aberrant behavior of the individual involved. True enough. But, underneath that commonplace is a hard fact. This is a deeply racially segregated society with enough sexism to drive the sane crazy. The hard truth is that until we change the material social basis for every day existence these ‘incidents’ will continue unabated. That fight continues. In the meantime-Rutgers women’s basketball team well done, on and off the court.

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!

*From The Pages Of "Workers Vanguard"- Hands Off Iran!- A Guest Commentary

Click on the headline to link to a "Workers Vanguard" article on Iran, dated April 13, 2007.

FOR FULL CITIZEN RIGHTS FOR ALL IMMIGRANTS

COMMENTARY

ALL OUT ON MAY DAY IN SUPPORT OF IMMIGRANT RIGHTS- A VERY APPROPRIATE WAY TO CELEBRATE THIS INTERNATIONAL WORKERS HOLIDAY

MAY DAY IN BOSTON-RALLY, BOSTON COMMON, 4:00 PM

And while we are at it let us fight to make May Day the recognized labor holiday here in America as it is in most of the world.

Over the past couple of months the desperate struggle of both legal and illegal immigrants in this country to stay here has reached epic proportions, highlighted by the dramatic and ruthless actions of the Immigration Service against mainly women factory workers in New Bedford, Massachusetts. If one needed visually to capture the domestic side of the arrogance the American imperialists have exhibited in Iraq that event did so in a nutshell. More importantly, the lesson militant workers should take from New Bedford and elsewhere is that, hell, we could be next and it could be almost anyone who gets in the crosshairs of some governmental agency. What in the old days we used to kiddingly laugh off as ‘paranoia’ when someone talked about Big Brother watching us seemingly comes closer to the truth as events unfold in the ‘belly of the beast’.

The American government, its Republican and Democratic agents alike, has targeted the most vulnerable part of the working class, the ‘illegal’ immigrants, in their efforts to tighten up the ‘security’ of their capitalist system. However, working people native born or otherwise, have no objective reason to fear so-called ‘illegal’ immigrants. These hard working, woefully underpaid and inadequately serviced workers take on the jobs, let us face it, that American born and raised workers of all colors have learned turn their noses up at. Such are the ‘benefits’ of living under the number one imperialist power. Thus, the simple, decent minimally democratic call for full citizenship rights for all immigrants in the headline above is one that trade unionists in particular should raise and support.

Despite the reasonableness of this demand bourgeois politicians in both camps and their labor bureaucracy hangers-on in the AFL-CIO and Change to Win toy around with all kinds of propositions from the now internationally fashionable one of walling the borders to various ‘guest worker’ (really indentured service) programs. What is needed, although it is not being seriously raised at this time, is a full amnesty program for all immigrants who are here. Militants should wholeheartedly support such a demand. We should be propagandizing for such an amnesty at union meetings and among our fellow workers.

In the meantime May Day (May 1st) is just around the corner and everyone should answer the call put out by many organizations in support of immigrant rights by going out to the various demonstrations and meetings in your area. Last year on May Day 2006 there were tremulous demonstrations, particularly in the West, driven by the huge Hispanic populations there in support of doing something. Unfortunately, since that time not much has been done except the inevitable roundups and deportations. The government has its policy. We have seen what that looks like. We best have ours. FULL CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS NOW FOR ALL WHO HAVE MADE IT HERE.

*A BLACK VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS-The Life And Times Of Paul Robeson

Click on title to link to Wikipedia's entry for Paul Robeson.

BOOK REVIEW

ROBESON, MARTIN B. DUBERMAN, Adoph Knopf, New York, 1988

The great black singer, actor and political figure Paul Robeson as presented in Mr. Duberman’s comprehensive biography is a prime example of what the black scholar W.E.B. Dubois called the "talented tenth", that is, those who would lead the black race out of bondage. That essentially elitist concept has since Dubois’ time thankfully fallen out of favor. Despite my severe political disagreements with Robeson's later Stalinist politics, his life deserves careful study. Moreover, Robeson’s life can and should be viewed as a struggle against that earlier personalist concept outlined by Dubois in favor of a latter more communal class- based effort to use his great authority for social change. Under either standard he has earned his proper place as an important figure in the black liberation struggle. A previous generation of Trotskyists could certainly have used his talents to advantage.

Without seeming to do Robeson an injustice it is fair to roughly compartmentalize his life into the two categories described above, although one can find traces of both throughout his career. I would argue that one cannot understand his life without this compartmentalization for that approximates his own conception of how he changed from the view that his personal success would act as a catalyst for black advancement to his latter view that he needed to use the authority won by his stellar career as a wedge to fight for his political positions in the black liberation struggle. This internal struggle both informs the book and divides it into it proper components.

Obviously this reviewer seeks to highlight the lessons of Robeson’s latter political career as a spokesperson for many causes associated with the Communist Party, the Soviet Union and with the black liberation struggle. However, it is also necessary to acknowledge that other cultural component as a professional entertainer made Paul Robeson undoubtedly the most well-known American black figure of the first half of the 20th century.


Apparently Mr. Duberman attempted in his research for the book to compile every bit of known data about Robeson and to interview every source possible. These sources are cited and footnoted at the back of the book and almost form a book in themselves. This is one of the most comprehensive biographies I have read lately that, at the same time, does not suffer excessively from the author’s heavy-handed take on the quirks of his subject’s life. In a sense it is also a general social history of the American and English theater in the period from about 1920 to 1960, for its seems that Robeson acted or sang with most of the important figures of the time from Eugene O’Neill at the beginning to Tony Richardson at the end of his career. There is more than enough material on his career, including the usual gossip, to fill the many pages of this book.

And what of the personal Robeson that emerged with a splash in the early 1920’s? That he was an outstanding athlete and student only begins to tell the story. After that there are the attempts at law school, the struggle to become a stage actor under O’Neill’s tutelage and the development of his talents as a singer. But not just any kind of singer. Robeson's was an attempt to sing the songs of his people, black people, as they came out of slavery and out of the black church in America. Interestingly, latter when he tried to move beyond that material to other forms of musical expression he was not nearly so successful.

Of course no biography of a man as a charismatic and physically attractive as Robeson is complete without a little romance. The life-long, if trying (on both sides), up and down romance with his wife Essie- the proverbial ‘brains’ of the operation gets more than its fair share of space here. As does the more ambivalent one of Robeson’s ‘womanizing’- among others, seemingly every important female actress or hanger-on in the cultural field who crossed his path, white or black, was at his call. That in the end, his own intensely private personality pushed them away symbolized the lesser place these conquests held in his life’s scheme.

Nagging at Robeson, a very proud man, throughout his career were the petty (and some not so petty) discriminations he faced both professionally and socially despite his acclaim. Understanding that he could not run away from his blackness and that personal self-fulfillment had its limits he turned, I would say, naturally to politics. Characteristically, he charged full speed ahead and began in the 1930’s a life-long association with the American Communist Party and Soviet-style socialism.


By far the more interesting aspect of Paul Robeson’s career is the part where he, beginning in the mid-1930’s, became a left-wing political advocate very closely associated with the American Communist Party. Mr. Duberman makes an extremely well-formed analysis of the events in Mr. Robeson’s career that made him eager to break out of the cultural straight jacket of the entertainment industry and use his authority derived there as a ‘bully’ pulpit in order to express his political beliefs. As a result Robeson faced the same kind of questioning then, as politicized entertainers do today, when the combination of politics and cultural expression attack the main stream. Bruce Springsteen today could have been speaking for Robeson when asked why he mixed politics and music. Springsteen replied -Do you want to leave politics to the likes of Anne Coulter, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove? I would add that politics is far too important to be left to the hacks. Enough said

Although Mr. Robeson was never a disciplined member of the American Communist Party (as much as the FBI and others doggedly tried to portray him as one) he nevertheless toed the party line, at least publicly, through thick and thin from Spain to the Hitler-Stalin Pact through the World War II Western Alliance and its no strike pledge to the post-war Cold War. Know this then, Mr. Robeson was a stalwart in defense of Soviet Stalinism, socialism as he saw, and thus a direct opponent of my political forbears. A river of blood stands between us, not the least the murder of Leon Trotsky by a Stalinist agent in 1940.

Yes, anyone who defended Republican Spain in the 1930’s is a kindred spirit. Yes, the defense of the Soviet Union was a central concern, not the least for Trostsky himself. However, Mr. Robeson, an intelligent man by any measure and no simple toady, never critically assessed his general defense of the Soviet Union as it was under Stalin and his epigones. Apparently Khrushchev’s revelations about Stalin’s murderous policies were not a reason for a serious reevaluation of his political position. Robeson’s 1956 defense of the Soviet actions in Hungary says volumes about his politics, as does his attitude during the ‘red scare’ of period in denying political defense help to the American Trotskyists.

That said, it is nevertheless true, despite great personal harm to his professional career epitomized by his passport troubles making him literally a prisoner in his own country, that he stood by the Communist Party as it was taking a beating from the American government. That at a time when many fellow travellers were slinking away from the party or turning governmental informer. This dual quality I believe catches the central contradiction in Robeson's life. The manic desire for black liberation in America and elsewhere and his desire to commit his powerful personality to it along with a rather studied lack of attention to political theory. And political program. Nevertheless read this book for more insights into one of the most important men of the first half of the 20th century.

*HUE AND CRY OVER SLAVERY- The Struggle For Righting Historic Wrongs

Click on the headline to link to a Website entry concerning the question of black reparations.

COMMENTARY

NO POST-DATED APOLOGIES REQUIRED, THANK YOU- THE VICTORIES OF THE UNION ARMIES IN THE CIVIL WAR HAVE SPOKEN FOR US

Earlier this year the Virginia legislature passed a formal resolution ‘apologizing’ for its history of slavery. A few days ago the North Carolina Senate passed the same kind of resolution. Reportedly, other states of the former Confederacy are considering similar actions. What gives? Apparently these elective bodies have succumbed to the same fits and starts of non-actionable ‘collective guilt’ noted in other situations such as President Clinton’s apology to Native Americans and the German apology to Jews for the Holocaust. Of course, these anti-slavery resolutions are toothless. Of course, they come much too late to do those who were actually affected any good. More importantly, in the case of the descendants of the slaves no real benefits accrue or are proposed to alleviate today’s very real wage slavery for the vast majority of blacks. Thus, we should accept such apologies for what they are worth and move on.

I have stated more than once that politics is many times a matter of timing. I would be, for example, much more impressed by the force of these anti-slavery resolutions if the various legislatures had enacted them in say, 1957. Or 1927. Or better yet, 1877. Certainly not 2007. Moreover, in 2007 I much prefer to stand by actions against slavery like Captain John Brown’s at Harpers Ferry. Or the big fights by the Union armies at Gettysburg or Vicksburg. Or the brave black Massachusetts 54th Regiment before Fort Wagner. Or Grant’s merciless pounding of Lee’s remnants in the above-mentioned Virginia or pursuing General Johnstone’s forces down into the also mentioned North Carolina. For those not so militarily-inclined the codification by post-Civil War Radical Republican-dominated Congresses against slavery and for the expansion of civil rights in the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution as a result of those victories will do as well. Enough said.

ON CAMPAIGN FINANCES AND PUBLIC FUNDING

COMMENTARY

THE COIN OF THE REALM IN BOURGEOIS POLITICS IS MONEY-THAT IS FOR DAMN SURE

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!

Clinton- $26 million. Obama the “Charma” -$25 million. Mitt “Flip-Flop” Romney- $20 million. John Edwards- $14 million. And so on. Those are the sums raised thus far that have been recently announced by their respective presidential campaigns. And all, apparently, without working up a sweat. There is no doubt that those sums will soon be dwarfed as the campaigns really get going. One cannot avoid the conclusion that in bourgeois electoral politics money is the coin of the realm. Hell, they rub that fact in our faces. And for what? Weak or non-existence programs that will do very, very little to change the lives of average working Americans. But that is a tale for another day. Today I want to comment on the campaign finance policy of those of us interested in building a workers party that fights for socialism and our relationship to public campaign funding. Seemingly, however, we are the only ones that even have an interest in the issue as most of the bourgeois candidates have laughed that idea off as a bad joke.

In the interest of full disclosure, even though not mandated by federal regulations, I can announce, not without sorrow, that our campaign coffers in the fight for a workers party are in terminal condition. Well, that is politics and goes with the territory of left-wing politics. So be it. However, I will gaze into the future here. If we ever have the political ear of those that we want to have listen to us –the working poor, women, blacks and other minorities, gays, and lesbians, legal and illegal immigrants, etc.- and run workers party candidates we will NOT accept publicly funded (read governmentally-regulated) matching funds. Why not?

In Europe, in France and Germany among others, socialist and far left candidates have, as a matter of course, taken their versions of public campaign funds for electoral purposes from their respective governments. This is flat-out wrong. As a matter of strategy why would those of us who seek to replace the current forms of government subject ourselves to the supposed largesse of the state? Moreover, face all the strings that such a course entails for our integrity and security. No, we will find our own sources of finance from those small, individual heartfelt contributions by those interested in our message. Frankly, there is no other way.

While we are on the subject of gazing into the future I hope that we will also be able to find the ‘techies’ and financial ‘wizards’ that will know how to milk the Internet and other sources for the possibilities that such technologies have opened up in the personal computer age. While ideas, not money, are the coin of our realm it nevertheless is true that we, as always, will also need our ‘angels’ to fight for what humankind needs. In fact this commentary can serve as an open appeal to those enamored of the Internet as a source of campaign finances to stop wasting their time and talents on bourgeois electoral politics and come join us. Enough said.

A MODEST PROPOSAL-RECRUIT, RUN INDEPENDENT LABOR CANDIDATES IN THE 2008 ELECTIONS

IN THIS TIME OF THE ‘GREAT FEAR’ WE NEED CANDIDATES TO FIGHT FOR A WORKERS GOVERNMENT.

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!

I originally planned to repost the blog below in the summer of 2007. However, two trends have forced me to republish earlier than I planned. The first is the fact that the whole 2008 bourgeois electoral process has gone into warp speed. Yes, yes I know that thinking about electoral politics, or any politics, in the spring of 2007 is only for political junkies and other misbegotten types. I confess to that sin and some day I will turn myself into the appropriate 12 step program. Nevertheless the campaign season goes full throttle. Thus if we are to have any effect on the 2008 campaign on behalf of our fight for socialism we better get in harness now.

The second trend revolves around the periodic publication of, and commentary on, the not so startling, by now, fact that the wealth distribution gap between the very, very rich and the merely rich here in America and the rest of us has over the last few years once again become wider, the widest since the 1920’s. In response a number of political commentators, especially liberal commentators, have bemoaned this condition noting that part of the problem is the very real ‘class struggle’ by the rich and their minions to beat down wages and benefits. One of the better commentators on this subject the Boston Globe Op/Ed writer Robert Kuttner, who is almost always worth reading to gauge the pulse of the Eastern liberal part of the Democratic Party, recently placed the blame on the fight against unionization by the corporations and their political hangers-on. So far, no argument there.

Where we part company is over his exclusive and eternal strategy of relying on the political ‘goodwill’ of the ‘friends of labor’ in the Democratic Party to make capitalism fairer. He further argues that this is where labor has found its earlier successes. No, one thousand times no. Despite Kuttner’s obviously truncated reading of labor history (if at all) the way unions were organized, particularly in the 1930’s the heyday of militant action, usually meant hard-fought factory and street actions over and against those so-called ‘friends of labor’. This is the simply truth that we must get out and have labor militant candidates shout to the rooftops. LET OUR CAMPAIGN BEGIN.


A MODEST PROPOSAL-RECRUIT, RUN INDEPENDENT LABOR MILITANTS IN FOR THE 2006 ELECTIONS.

Updated April 2007. In the summer of 2006 I wrote a commentary about writing in workers party candidates based on a program for the fall 2006 elections. With the hoopla already starting for the 2008 election cycle I repost that commentary below with that same intention of getting thoughtful leftist to use the 2008 campaign to further our propaganda needs.

All “anti-parliamentarian”, “anti-state”, “non-political” anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist brothers and sisters need read no further. This writer does not want to sully the purity of your politics with the taint of parliamentary electoral politics. Although I might remind you, as we remember the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, that your political ancestors in Spain were more than willing to support the state and enter the government when they got the chance- the bourgeois state and the bourgeois government. But, we can fight that issue out later. We will, hopefully, see you latter on the barricades.

As for other militants- here is my modest proposal. Either recruit fellow labor militants or present yourselves as candidates to run for public office, especially for Congress, during the 2006 election cycle. Why? Even a quick glance at the news of the day is calculated to send the most hardened politico screaming into the night. The quagmire in Iraq, immigration walls, flag-burning amendments, anti same-sex marriage amendments, the threat to separation of church state raised by those who would impose a fundamentalist Christian theocracy on the rest of us, and the attacks on the hard fought gains of the Enlightenment posed by bogus theories such as ‘intelligent design’. And that is just an average day. Therefore, this election cycle provides militants, at a time when the dwindling electorate is focused on politics, a forum to raise our program and our ideas. We use this as a tool, like leaflets, petitions, meetings, demonstrations, etc. to get our message across. Why should the Donkeys, Elephants, and Greens have a monopoly on the public square?

I mentioned in the last paragraph the idea of program. Let us face it if we do not have a program to run on then it makes no sense for militants to run for public office. Given the political climate our task at this time is to fight an exemplary propaganda campaign. Our program is our banner in that fight. The Democrats and Republicans DO NOT RUN on a program. The sum of their campaigns is to promise not to steal from the public treasury (or at least not too much), beat their husbands or wives or grossly compromise themselves in any manner. On second thought, given today’s political climate, they may not promise not to beat their husbands or wives. You get the point. Damn, even the weakest neophyte labor militant can make a better presentation before working people that that. In any case, this writer presents a five point program that labor militants can run on (you knew this was coming, right?). As point five makes clear this is not a ‘minimum’ program but a program based on our need to fight for power.

1. FIGHT FOR THE IMMEDIATE AND UNCONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL OF U.S. TROOPS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST NOW (OR BETTER YET, YESTERDAY)! U.S. HANDS OFF THE WORLD! VOTE NO ON THE WAR BUDGET! The quagmire in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East (Palestine, Iran) is the fault line of American politics today. Every bourgeois politician has to have his or her feet put to the fire on this one. Not on some flimsy ‘sense of the Congress’ softball motion for withdrawal next, year, in two years, or (my favorite) when the situation is stable. Moreover, on the parliamentary level the only real vote that matters is the vote on the war budget. All the rest is fluff. Militants should make a point of trying to enter Congressional contests where there are so-called anti-war Democrats or Republicans (an oxymoron, I believe) running to make that programmatic contrast vivid.

But, one might argue, that would split the ‘progressive’ forces. Grow up, please! That argument has grown stale since it was first put forth in the ‘popular front’ days of the 1930’s. If you want to end the war in Iraq fight for this position on the war budget. Otherwise the same people (ya, those progressive Democrats) who unanimously voted for the last war budget get a free ride on the cheap. Senator Hillary “Hawk” Clinton desperately needs to be opposed by labor militants. Closet Republican, Democratic Senator Lieberman of Connecticut should not take his richly deserved beating on the war issue from a dissident Democrat. By rights this is our issue. Let us take it back.

2. FIGHT FOR A LIVING WAGE AND WORKING CONDITIONS-UNIVERSAL FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL. It is a ‘no-brainer’ that no individual, much less families, can live on the minimum wage of $5/hr. (or proposed $7/hr). What planet do these politicians live on? We need an immediate fight for a living wage, full employment and decent working conditions. We need universal free health care for all. End of story. The organized labor movement must get off its knees and fight to organize Wal-Mart and the South. A boycott of Wal-Mart is not enough. A successful organizing drive will, like in the 1930’s, go a long way to turning the conditions of labor around.

3. FIGHT THE ATTACKS ON THE ENLIGHTENMENT. Down with the Death Penalty! Full Citizenship Rights for all immigrants who make it here! Stop the Deportations! For the Separation of Church and State! Defend Abortion Rights! Down with ant-same sex marriage legislation! Full public funding of education! Stop the ‘war on drugs’, basically a war on blacks and minority youth-decriminalize drugs! Defend political prisoners! This list of demands hardly exhausts the “culture war” issues we defend. It is hard to believe that in the year 2006, over 200 years after the American and the French Revolutions we are fighting desperately to preserve many of the same principles that militants fought for in those revolutions. But, so be it.

4. FIGHT FOR A WORKERS PARTY. The Donkeys, Elephants and Greens have had their chance. Now is the time to fight for our own party and for the interests of our own class, the working class. Any campaigns by independent labor militants must highlight this point. And any campaigns can also become the nucleus of a workers party network until we get strong enough to form at least a small party. None of these other parties, and I mean none, are working in the interests of working people and their allies. The following great lesson of politic today must be hammered home. Break with the Democrats, Republicans and Greens!

5. FIGHT FOR A WORKERS AND XYZ GOVERNMENT. THIS IS THE DEMAND THAT SEPARATES THE MILITANTS FROM THE FAINT-HEARTED REFORMISTS. We need our own form of government. In the old days the bourgeois republic was a progressive form of government. Not so any more. That form of government ran out of steam about one hundred years ago. We need a Workers Republic. We need a government based on workers councils with a ministry (I do not dare say commissariat in case any stray anarchists are still reading this) responsible to it. Let us face it if we really want to get any of the good and necessary things listed above accomplished we are not going to get it with the current form of government.

Why the XYZ part? What does that mean? No, it is not part of an algebra lesson. What it reflects is that while society is made up mainly of workers (of one sort or another) there are other classes (and parts of classes) in society that we seek as allies and could benefit from a workers government. Examples- small independent contractors, intellectuals, the dwindling number of small farmers, and some professionals like dentists. Ya, I like the idea of a workers and dentists government. The point is you have got to fight for it.

Obviously any campaign based on this program will be an exemplary propaganda campaign for the foreseeable future. But we have to start now. Continuing to support or not challenging the bourgeois parties does us no good now. That is for sure. While bourgeois electoral laws do not favor independent candidacies at this late date write-in campaigns are possible. ROLL UP YOUR SHEEVES! GET THOSE PETITIONS SIGNED! PRINT OUT THE LEAFLETS! PAINT THOSE BANNERS! GET READY TO SHAKE HANDS AND KISS BABIES.


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

THE CLASS WAR IS NOT OVER

DVD REVIEW

LA GUERRA EST FINIE, ALAN RESNAIS, 1966

At first glance the story line in this French film, sub-titled in English, set in the mid-1960’s about the trials, tribulations, frustrations and sexual adventures (this is a commercial film, after all) of an exiled underground Spanish Communist Party functionary still working to defeat the Franco regime in Spain would seem a little dated. However, two things retrieve it from that fate.

First, despite the victory of Franco in 1939 those who fought the Civil War on the Republican side most definitely had some important unfinished business. Thus, the exploration, even if only cinematically, of the dangers and pitfalls of the necessary underground work in the fight against reactionary regimes still rings true as a lesson for latter day struggles. Secondly, an exploration of the wear and tear on committed cadre still fighting the good fight under much more trying circumstances than we currently face should help those who are trying to fight against today’s ‘monsters’.

An interesting sidelight of the film is the counter-position of the strategies of the old guard Spanish Communist underground leadership committed to patient, if unrewarding, work to gain a hearing from the masses and what turned out to be the Spanish “New Left” of the 1960’s that was looking for more demonstrative means of igniting those same masses. Thus the issue presented in the film of the classical general strike proposed by the old guard versus what amounted to urban guerilla warfare, including spectacular individual acts of terrorism, once again was played out on the Spanish left. Who won the argument? Well the class war still goes on so to pose the question is to give the answer. That in the end General Franco died in his bed in the mid-1970’s is, however, something no militant should have been, or should be, happy about.

*RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE FIGHT AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR

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

COMMENTARY

NOT ONE PENNY, NOT ONE SOLDIER FOR THESE WARS!

OUT NOW! GET THE TROOP TRANSPORTS READY, WARM UP THE PLANE ENGINES!

The Congress of late has been acting fast and furiously on their conception of a satisfactory withdrawal policy from Iraq. As of March 31, 2007, however, the action has been all show and no substance as President Bush has vowed to veto any war budget that ‘curtails’ his ability to keep the war going until the end of his presidency (and beyond). Thus, we are in a waiting period until the various parliamentary maneuvers are played out. In any case none of this maneuvering means a withdrawal any time soon. And, to boot, the war WILL be funded through next year one way or another. Franz Kafka would have had a field day writing one of his truculent novels on this mess. For now, here are some thoughts on the latest developments. The first note was originally written just after the House voted on the war budget on March 23, 2007.

ON THE HOUSE WAR BUDGET VOTE-THE DEMOCRATS OFFICIALLY OWN THE IRAQ WAR
NOT ONE PENNY, NOT ONE SOLDIER FOR THESE WARS!

On Friday March 23, 2007 the United States House of Representatives by a narrow vote of 218 to 212 voted FOR a 124 billion dollar war budget for funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, among other things. That is more than the Bush Administration requested. However, attached to this budget was a binding (finally, something other than smoke and mirrors)resolution for withdrawal of troops from Iraq no later than August 31, 2008, President Bush in response stated unequivocally that he would veto this budget due to the withdrawal resolution and the fact the war budget was more than he wanted what with the 'pork' and all. Who would have thought?

Militants call for a straight no vote to any capitalist war budget. That is a given. However, some comment is required here. Clearly a war budget that was patched together with little goodies for its members by the Democratic House leadership in order to get a majority vote is not supportable. Nor is a budget that is passed on the basis that the President is going to veto it anyway, but everyone gets to look good for the folks back home. That is cynical but hardly unusual in bourgeois politics. What I find important -out of this jumble- is the amount of pressure that the House leadership felt was on it to carry out its mandate from the mid-term elections about doing something to get the hell out of Iraq. Unfortunately this is not the road out of Iraq. Increasing the war budget and then leaving it up to President Bush to veto the damn thing smacks of parliamentary cretinism. Forget the Democrats (on this one the Republicans are not even on the radar),

A semi-kudo to Democratic presidential candidate Ohio Congressman Dennis
Kucinich for voting against this charade. At least he had the forthrightness to state
that if you wanted to end the war you needed to vote against the measure. That he
is a voice in the wilderness and is in the wrong party is a fact of life. That his
candidacy is thus not politically supportable by militants does not negate the fact
that he is right on this one, NOT ONE PENNY, NOT ONE SOLDIER FOR THE WAR!
UNITED STATES OUT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN! BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT
FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!

AND FOR THE SENATE-NOW THE DEMOCRATS REALLY OWN THIS WAR

On March 27, 2007 the United States Senate by a margin of 50-48 voted FOR its own version of the war budget only this time adding a non-binding resolution to withdraw troops by March 31, 2008. Apparently not be outdone in parliamentary cretinism by the House this ‘non-binding’ resolution has so many contingent exceptions that, given the political and military realities in Iraq, the exceptions in this case really will swallow up the rule. Now the ‘battle’ between the House and Senate versions and the upcoming fight between the legislative and executive branches will begin in earnest. However, as stated above in discussing the House vote the cold, hard reality on the ground is that this war continues, despite all reason, through 2008 at the least. Nice work, guys and gals. More on this latter. For now, however, one comment will suffice about the Senate vote-where were all those ‘hard-line’ anti-war Senators like the Honorable Barack Obama on this vote. Apparently Senator John Forbes Kerry is not the only ‘flip-flop’ artist in the Democratic ranks. As least Congressman Kucinich got it right on this one. Already this 2008 election cycle is looking very, very dreary.

A RAY OF HOPE?

The real news this week was in Washington but not on the Hill. It seems that the Building and Construction Trades Union had its annual convention in D.C. this year. Naturally, in the never-ending presidential political cycle all the bourgeois politicians, particularly the Democratic presidential contenders, showed up looking for support and or money, or both. The upshot of all this is that this war is so unpopular down at the base of society that even fringe candidate Ohio Congressman Kucinich got a rousing cheer when he called for immediate withdrawal. The only ‘loser’ was the hapless Republican House minority leader who was booed roundly for even pretending to defend the Bush Administration policy on Iraq.

For those who may not know, this union represents members whose sons and daughters and other relatives are the rank and file soldiers and sailors who are fighting this war. These unionists are the people who a few years ago were falling all over themselves to slap those yellow SUPPORT THE TROOPS stickers on their SUV’s and pickup trucks. And for those who forgot, or are too young to remember, an earlier generation of these unionists (in some cases, their biological fathers) were the die-hard ‘hard hats’ who supported Richard Nixon’s Vietnam War policy long after it was fashionable to do so. The point for militants today is to take this hatred of the war at the base and do something about it. As I have repeatedly mentioned, get those anti-war soldier and sailor solidarity committees going. You want a place to start-talk to those building trades unionists. Believe me you will now get a hearing when you talk about revving up the troop transports and warming up the planes to get the hell out of Iraq. Enough said.

IN THE TIME OF THE ALGERIAN NATIONAL LIBERATION STRUGGLES

DVD REVIEW

BATTLE OF ALGIERS, 1967

I first saw the French film, subtitled in English, of the fictionized account of the Battle of Algiers in the early 1970’s when I, along with other like-minded political types, were under the influence of the vanguard role that ‘third world’ national liberation struggles against the imperialist heartland played in world politics. Moreover we were under the strong influence of Frantz Fanon’s concept of the ‘cleansing’ nature of such struggles on the revolutionary organization and the population, especially compared to the ‘bought off’ workers in the West. Much water has passed over the dam since then but it is still fair to say that the Algerian struggle for independence against the hated French occupiers was still an important liberation struggle to support if not for the same reasons as in those days.

After a recent viewing of the film what is surprising is that with due regard to differences in time, geography, political conditions and other factors the drama of this film could reflect today’s reality in Baghdad, including some similarities in the Islamic political programs of the insurgents. Most of the scenes in the film took place in 1957 as the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) initiated various actions including supportable acts of individual terror against military targets and insupportable acts against civilian targets, a general strike that the French frantically tried to break and on-going urban guerilla warfare against the occupying forces.

Some of the issues raised in film that were capable of making my blood pressure rise then still do so today. The foreign occupation’s indifference or hostility to the ‘natives’ and their political wishes. The endless arbitrary searching of houses and persons by the occupiers in order to pacify the population, the old 'destroy to save' theory of counter-insurgency. The escalation of military tactics by both sides as the body counts rise. The ready and refined use of torture by the French occupiers. Moreover, a point not appreciated by this writer at his first viewing was that when the seasoned (from Indo-China service ) professional French Army ratcheted up the ante they were able to destroy, for a time, the urban guerilla infrastructure. But in the end they had to leave, just as the Americans had to leave Vietnam and will have to leave Baghdad. Yes, this all seems very, very familiar.

A point about one of the central characters, Ali. The above-mentioned theorist Fanon in Wretched of the Earth, his most famous work that chronicles the Algerian struggle, highlights the key role in revolutionary struggle of what is commonly called the 'dregs' of society, the criminals, the footloose, etc., in short those with nothing to lose. Marxists use the term lumpenproletariat. Ali as a self-professed and convicted con artist is just such a character. According to Fanon’s theory if revolutionary forces can recruit enough Alis then a real revolutionary organization can be formed. Naturally that assumes that an Ali, at least as he is transformed into hardened revolutionary in the film, is a true prototype of this kind of recruit rather than an exception. A quick glance at revolutionary history, however, belies that notion. More frequently this layer of society provides the shock troops of the counterrevolution. Moreover, this is a very unstable base on which to form an organization. There was an extremely good reason that the Paris Commune inscribed ‘Death to Thieves’ on its banners. The Black Panthers here in America also learned the hard way the difficulties of recruiting (and, more importantly, holding) that layer as they attempted to draw the lessons of the Algerian experience.

*From The Pages Of "Workers Vanguard"-'Down With The Racist Purge Of The Universities"

Click on the title to link to an on line copy of the "Workers Vanguard" article on the subject mentioned in the headline.