BOOK REVIEW
THE DISPOSABLE AMERICAN:LAYOFFS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES,LOUIS UCHITELLE, VINTAGE, NEW YORK, 2006
I have just finished re-reading David Halberstam’s The Fifties as part of an attempt to better understand that period as the foundation of many social, political and economic and cultural post-war trends that continue, or have been expanded on, today. The book under review, to its credit, puts forth an analysis that undermines one critical part of the ‘myth’ of the Fifties that can be put in shorthand as the proposition that ‘a rising tide lifts all ships’. That is, given the tremendous advantage the American capitalist economy had after its World War II victory combined with a certain ameliorative changes in corporate and labor culture would insure that things would keep getting better and better. As long as one did not challenge the capitalist basis on which this system was built. Today, after the victory of that unchallenged assumption, the chickens have come home to roost. The classic case for what amounted to class collaboration was the ‘partnership between the Walter Reuther-led United Auto Workers and Detroit’s Big Three automakers in the immediate post-World War II period. The recent purchase of one of the Big Three, Chrysler, by a private equity company that will inevitably entail another massive round of layoffs was greeted without a peep by the Auto Workers Union
Thus, clearly those days of so-called ‘social contract’ derived capitalism, whether illusionary at the time or not, are over and have been for a while. The most compelling data centers on the seemingly never-ending fact that while those who manage the capitalist empire has vastly increased their wealth and position the mass of Americans has either been spinning their wheels or going under. This book is an ‘up close and personal’ look at those who did not make it for one reason or another but mainly because they were caught up in the vise of a dramatic changeover in corporate culture which can be paraphrased bluntly as the ‘survival of the fittest’.
One thing that is clear from all the interviews, unfortunately, is that few working people, and this book is really about working people, have a political clue about what has happened to them and why. Or, moreover, what to do about it. The amount of self-doubt, personal guilt and bafflement expressed in the book shows more clearly than any current theoretical Marxist treatise that I have read why this runaway capitalist system is still in place. Still, if these interviews emphasize that the task to change things may be daunting it nevertheless needs to be done. While the author offers no particular remedy for this growing economic inequality he does perform a service by laying out the problem. It is our task to break the logjam. And given the dominant corporate culture and its ruthless workings the fight will not be pretty.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
ON BEING AN IMPERIALIST STATE
BOOK REVIEW
NEMESIS:THE LAST DAYS OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC, CHALMERS JOHNSON, METROPOLITAN,2006
Over the past several years there have been a rash of books on the subject of the United States as a dominant imperialist power continuing in the tradition of the Roman and British Empires. In fact this subject has become something of a cottage industry if a google search is any indication. These inquiries have noticeably mushroomed in the wake of the presumptions about preemptive war of the current George Bush Administration, particularly concerning the quagmire in Iraq. The thrust of most of the current analysis, and this premise applies as well to the present book, has been centered on whether and to what extend American imperialism is merely a governmental policy question.
This implies that prior to the Bush debacle America was apparently not a classic imperialist power. Not so. One can clearly trace the main imperialist policy of ‘creating spheres of influence’ at least since the bloody Spanish-American War in the 1890’s. Moreover, Leninists have argued, and I agree, that the central thrust of modern imperialism is driven by the need for expanding markets under the international capitalist system. Policy, to a great extent, merely reflects those underlying demands. Notwithstanding my political and analytical differences with the author it is always good to find a solid analysis of the current state of American imperialism by a non-Marxist source. Chalmers Johnson has written such a book and all of those who seek to do something about getting rid of the imperialist system should pay attention to his arguments, if not to his “solutions”.
Johnson lays out, as befits the nature of the subject, a comparison between the current of American imperialism and the previous ‘high’ imperialist regimes in Rome and Britain. While comparison with previous imperial systems is interesting it does not distinguish enough one salient fact that makes the current situation exceptional. American imperialism makes the old Roman and British systems seem like punk bush league operations by almost every measure, militarily, economically, socially and culturally.
Johnson cogently notes the massive and deep expansion of American military presence in most of the countries of the world in the post-World War II, and particularly the post-Soviet period. This is a manifestation of the old classic idea that trade follows the flag. Mr. Johnson provides many interesting other pieces of information here and one should mass the information for further use. As for Johnson’s political conclusions they are rather timid and refer back to a classical liberal program of curbing the excesses of the imperial system rather than getting rid of it. This is in line with the by now old timeworn idea of a mythical American Republic of Virtue, a capitalist republic that is. Obviously that is where militant leftists part company with Mr. Johnson. Nevertheless this is a book one needs to read to be armed with the latest information in the struggle against American imperialism. No doubt about it.
NEMESIS:THE LAST DAYS OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC, CHALMERS JOHNSON, METROPOLITAN,2006
Over the past several years there have been a rash of books on the subject of the United States as a dominant imperialist power continuing in the tradition of the Roman and British Empires. In fact this subject has become something of a cottage industry if a google search is any indication. These inquiries have noticeably mushroomed in the wake of the presumptions about preemptive war of the current George Bush Administration, particularly concerning the quagmire in Iraq. The thrust of most of the current analysis, and this premise applies as well to the present book, has been centered on whether and to what extend American imperialism is merely a governmental policy question.
This implies that prior to the Bush debacle America was apparently not a classic imperialist power. Not so. One can clearly trace the main imperialist policy of ‘creating spheres of influence’ at least since the bloody Spanish-American War in the 1890’s. Moreover, Leninists have argued, and I agree, that the central thrust of modern imperialism is driven by the need for expanding markets under the international capitalist system. Policy, to a great extent, merely reflects those underlying demands. Notwithstanding my political and analytical differences with the author it is always good to find a solid analysis of the current state of American imperialism by a non-Marxist source. Chalmers Johnson has written such a book and all of those who seek to do something about getting rid of the imperialist system should pay attention to his arguments, if not to his “solutions”.
Johnson lays out, as befits the nature of the subject, a comparison between the current of American imperialism and the previous ‘high’ imperialist regimes in Rome and Britain. While comparison with previous imperial systems is interesting it does not distinguish enough one salient fact that makes the current situation exceptional. American imperialism makes the old Roman and British systems seem like punk bush league operations by almost every measure, militarily, economically, socially and culturally.
Johnson cogently notes the massive and deep expansion of American military presence in most of the countries of the world in the post-World War II, and particularly the post-Soviet period. This is a manifestation of the old classic idea that trade follows the flag. Mr. Johnson provides many interesting other pieces of information here and one should mass the information for further use. As for Johnson’s political conclusions they are rather timid and refer back to a classical liberal program of curbing the excesses of the imperial system rather than getting rid of it. This is in line with the by now old timeworn idea of a mythical American Republic of Virtue, a capitalist republic that is. Obviously that is where militant leftists part company with Mr. Johnson. Nevertheless this is a book one needs to read to be armed with the latest information in the struggle against American imperialism. No doubt about it.
Monday, May 28, 2007
REFLECTIONS ON MEMORIAL DAY
COMMENTARY
HONOR THE FALLEN-GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ-AND BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!
This has not been a good week for the parliamentary anti-war forces, mainly Democrats. They, despite their bluster, have hoisted the white flag over any effective parliamentary opposition to the Bush Administration’s fervent desire to keep the Iraq War going until the end of time- George Bush’s time. There has been much gnashing of teeth over this by those in the anti-war movement, like MoveOn.org, whose whole strategy was based on hoodwinking the Democrats into ending the war by doing something serious on the question of the Iraq war budget. Those of us who understand that this fight, if it is to be successful, must ultimately be won in the streets and elsewhere now have a tiny opening to get our point of view across. In any case, on this Memorial Day when it is appropriate to honor the fallen even if we cannot honor the cause they fell for, we can reemphasize our demand. Immediate Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan! Break with the Democrats! Build a Workers Party Now!
With that last slogan in mind it is also time to turn to the presidential election campaigns. As I have noted elsewhere the tempo of the campaigns has shifted dramatically now that most of the important primaries and caucuses are being pushed up to the early part of 2008. Usually on Memorial Day of the year before the elections we are treated to not much of anything but internal campaign maneuverings but this year the outlines of the campaign season are already becoming clear. Nothing that I see on the political horizon makes me think that we are in for anything but a brutal no-holds barred fight that will have even the most hardened political junkie screaming in his or her sleep before Christmas. To wit.
I have previously commented on the recent Republican debate in South Carolina that the field of ten (for now) did nothing to make me change my view that the 2008 presidential election is the Democrats to lose. Apparently the Republicans think so themselves as the field may get larger with the addition of ex-Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. Thompson, currently an actor on the television series Law and Order,
has been hemming and hawing but will probably test the waters. By all accounts he is a viable candidate. Jesus, when you get down to actors (remember the late, unlamented Ronald Reagan) you know your party is in trouble. And we are too.
Not to be outdone the Democrats have had some tempests in teapots themselves. A couple of “unauthorized” campaign biographies have come out on one ex-First Lady and current New York Senator Hillary Clinton. I have only read reviews on the books but seemingly they are as the Clinton campaign has argued they are- old news, or no news. The only important point to note is that it is obvious that Ms. Clinton has that same “fire in the belly” to be president that commentators, including myself, have noticed about the more successful candidates in presidential contests. Hillary is still 5/2 against the field in my book and now we are getting a better understanding of why. It is not pretty. And once again, as with the Republicans, we are in trouble.
Bourgeois candidates and their staffs tend to have short memories-and justifiably so with all the blather they put out. They are not long on the memory of past campaigns-except when they have an ax to grind. Long time Democratic “strategist” Robert Schrum is set to tell all about his role in the ill-fated 2004 Kerry campaign. Of course, he will put himself in the role of misunderstood ‘political genius’ whose advice was disregarded by Kerry and staff-to their sorrow. Let us get this straight though-this is the man who has been a key advisor and loser in eight Democratic presidential campaigns. Thus the best advice anyone could get from him is DON’T HIRE ME. If he comes to your door give him the boot. Or send him to the Whigs.
Finally, something that is really interesting in this misbegotten campaign season-a little sporting proposition. Although Hillary has the inside track I note that, like the Republicans, the Democrats have a field that does not jump out at you. One of the consequences, perhaps unintended, of the recent biographies on Ms. Clinton is that she is revealed as very much an establishment figure. I have long argued that Hillary and her parliamentary sisters stand for the proposition, despite the obvious gains of the women’s liberation movement, that bourgeois women candidates can be just as venal as the men. That said, this field is weak. And that brings up my sporting proposition. There is an elephant in the Democratic field (no pun intended). That “elephant” has a name- Al Gore. In an earlier blog I made a sporting proposition on a Jeb Bush candidacy. I now introduce one for Mr. Gore. Hell, he actually won the 2000 election. He is available. He has an Oscar. And more importantly, he (several years too late) has some kind of gravitas. As I noted above Hillary is 5/2 against the field. I would put the odds on Mr. Gore at about 15-1 against. Any takers?
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!
HONOR THE FALLEN-GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ-AND BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!
This has not been a good week for the parliamentary anti-war forces, mainly Democrats. They, despite their bluster, have hoisted the white flag over any effective parliamentary opposition to the Bush Administration’s fervent desire to keep the Iraq War going until the end of time- George Bush’s time. There has been much gnashing of teeth over this by those in the anti-war movement, like MoveOn.org, whose whole strategy was based on hoodwinking the Democrats into ending the war by doing something serious on the question of the Iraq war budget. Those of us who understand that this fight, if it is to be successful, must ultimately be won in the streets and elsewhere now have a tiny opening to get our point of view across. In any case, on this Memorial Day when it is appropriate to honor the fallen even if we cannot honor the cause they fell for, we can reemphasize our demand. Immediate Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan! Break with the Democrats! Build a Workers Party Now!
With that last slogan in mind it is also time to turn to the presidential election campaigns. As I have noted elsewhere the tempo of the campaigns has shifted dramatically now that most of the important primaries and caucuses are being pushed up to the early part of 2008. Usually on Memorial Day of the year before the elections we are treated to not much of anything but internal campaign maneuverings but this year the outlines of the campaign season are already becoming clear. Nothing that I see on the political horizon makes me think that we are in for anything but a brutal no-holds barred fight that will have even the most hardened political junkie screaming in his or her sleep before Christmas. To wit.
I have previously commented on the recent Republican debate in South Carolina that the field of ten (for now) did nothing to make me change my view that the 2008 presidential election is the Democrats to lose. Apparently the Republicans think so themselves as the field may get larger with the addition of ex-Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. Thompson, currently an actor on the television series Law and Order,
has been hemming and hawing but will probably test the waters. By all accounts he is a viable candidate. Jesus, when you get down to actors (remember the late, unlamented Ronald Reagan) you know your party is in trouble. And we are too.
Not to be outdone the Democrats have had some tempests in teapots themselves. A couple of “unauthorized” campaign biographies have come out on one ex-First Lady and current New York Senator Hillary Clinton. I have only read reviews on the books but seemingly they are as the Clinton campaign has argued they are- old news, or no news. The only important point to note is that it is obvious that Ms. Clinton has that same “fire in the belly” to be president that commentators, including myself, have noticed about the more successful candidates in presidential contests. Hillary is still 5/2 against the field in my book and now we are getting a better understanding of why. It is not pretty. And once again, as with the Republicans, we are in trouble.
Bourgeois candidates and their staffs tend to have short memories-and justifiably so with all the blather they put out. They are not long on the memory of past campaigns-except when they have an ax to grind. Long time Democratic “strategist” Robert Schrum is set to tell all about his role in the ill-fated 2004 Kerry campaign. Of course, he will put himself in the role of misunderstood ‘political genius’ whose advice was disregarded by Kerry and staff-to their sorrow. Let us get this straight though-this is the man who has been a key advisor and loser in eight Democratic presidential campaigns. Thus the best advice anyone could get from him is DON’T HIRE ME. If he comes to your door give him the boot. Or send him to the Whigs.
Finally, something that is really interesting in this misbegotten campaign season-a little sporting proposition. Although Hillary has the inside track I note that, like the Republicans, the Democrats have a field that does not jump out at you. One of the consequences, perhaps unintended, of the recent biographies on Ms. Clinton is that she is revealed as very much an establishment figure. I have long argued that Hillary and her parliamentary sisters stand for the proposition, despite the obvious gains of the women’s liberation movement, that bourgeois women candidates can be just as venal as the men. That said, this field is weak. And that brings up my sporting proposition. There is an elephant in the Democratic field (no pun intended). That “elephant” has a name- Al Gore. In an earlier blog I made a sporting proposition on a Jeb Bush candidacy. I now introduce one for Mr. Gore. Hell, he actually won the 2000 election. He is available. He has an Oscar. And more importantly, he (several years too late) has some kind of gravitas. As I noted above Hillary is 5/2 against the field. I would put the odds on Mr. Gore at about 15-1 against. Any takers?
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!
Saturday, May 26, 2007
*FOR A MORATORIUM ON HOME FORECLOSURES- And A Note On The Housing Question From Friedrich Engels
Click on the headline to link to the "Marx-Engels Internet Archives" for an online copy of Friedrich Engels' "On The Housing Question."
COMMENTARY
NEW HOMEOWNERS NEED SOME RELIEF NOW!
There has bee a recent spike in home foreclosures, particularly in New England, due to several factors including predatory borrowing practices by banks and other lending institutions and housing price declines as a result of oversupply. A call for a foreclosure moratorium as featured in the headline would, however, seem unlikely as a cause for action and comment by a left-wing propagandist. Traditionally the left-wing position on home ownership has been, as spelled out by Frederich Engels, Karl Marx’s close collaborator, don’t do it. The rationale behind that position, not an unreasonable political one, was that the struggle to make house payments in an uncertain capitalist economic environment sapped the political energies of the working class and therefore tended to make workers and their families more conservative.
A later practical example of this was cited by American Socialist Workers Party leader James P. Cannon in the early 1950’s during a faction fight involving a significant section of that party's trade union cadre when he noted that their revolutionary edge had been blunted by concerns over keeping their homes. From another political perspective, also from the 1950’s, Bill Levitt, the capitalist developer and builder of the hugely successful suburban tract houses of the period known as Levittowns, noted that no one who owned his own home was likely to become a communist. Those points are all well and good but, as the Russian Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin pointed out, the task of socialists is to act as ‘tribunes of the people’. And damn, on this one it is the ‘people’ who are being squeezed out.
One of the great enduring myths of American capitalist society is that with a little bit of effort every person can own their own home. Moreover, that condition is one of the prerequisites for having ‘made it’ in America. The long and short of it is that many layers of society have in the past, are now, and will probably in the future desire to have their own homes. Using this notion as a wedge banking institutions has created a huge number of ways to ‘own’ a home as long a one was willing, knowingly or not, to pay extra for this privilege. Gone are the days when a family saved for a certain time to make a reasonable down payment and bought a house based on reasonable expectations of being able to pay off the mortgage, or upgrade, etc. So be it.
Although I have not been privy to all the data concerning who is being foreclosed on, I have observed where the foreclosure auctions are taking place and it is not in the wealthy neighborhoods and towns in my area. The net seems to be dragging those first-time minority and working class buyers who with just the slightest downward shift in economic conditions are pushed to the wall. That, dear reader, is why this is an issue for socialists. While we definitely have our own ideas about how housing will be distributed under socialism-and it will not look like today’s absurdly inequitable distribution- these people need relief now. Is this a revolutionary demand? Hell, no. Is it a just demand? Hell, yes. STOP THE FORECLOSURES.
COMMENTARY
NEW HOMEOWNERS NEED SOME RELIEF NOW!
There has bee a recent spike in home foreclosures, particularly in New England, due to several factors including predatory borrowing practices by banks and other lending institutions and housing price declines as a result of oversupply. A call for a foreclosure moratorium as featured in the headline would, however, seem unlikely as a cause for action and comment by a left-wing propagandist. Traditionally the left-wing position on home ownership has been, as spelled out by Frederich Engels, Karl Marx’s close collaborator, don’t do it. The rationale behind that position, not an unreasonable political one, was that the struggle to make house payments in an uncertain capitalist economic environment sapped the political energies of the working class and therefore tended to make workers and their families more conservative.
A later practical example of this was cited by American Socialist Workers Party leader James P. Cannon in the early 1950’s during a faction fight involving a significant section of that party's trade union cadre when he noted that their revolutionary edge had been blunted by concerns over keeping their homes. From another political perspective, also from the 1950’s, Bill Levitt, the capitalist developer and builder of the hugely successful suburban tract houses of the period known as Levittowns, noted that no one who owned his own home was likely to become a communist. Those points are all well and good but, as the Russian Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin pointed out, the task of socialists is to act as ‘tribunes of the people’. And damn, on this one it is the ‘people’ who are being squeezed out.
One of the great enduring myths of American capitalist society is that with a little bit of effort every person can own their own home. Moreover, that condition is one of the prerequisites for having ‘made it’ in America. The long and short of it is that many layers of society have in the past, are now, and will probably in the future desire to have their own homes. Using this notion as a wedge banking institutions has created a huge number of ways to ‘own’ a home as long a one was willing, knowingly or not, to pay extra for this privilege. Gone are the days when a family saved for a certain time to make a reasonable down payment and bought a house based on reasonable expectations of being able to pay off the mortgage, or upgrade, etc. So be it.
Although I have not been privy to all the data concerning who is being foreclosed on, I have observed where the foreclosure auctions are taking place and it is not in the wealthy neighborhoods and towns in my area. The net seems to be dragging those first-time minority and working class buyers who with just the slightest downward shift in economic conditions are pushed to the wall. That, dear reader, is why this is an issue for socialists. While we definitely have our own ideas about how housing will be distributed under socialism-and it will not look like today’s absurdly inequitable distribution- these people need relief now. Is this a revolutionary demand? Hell, no. Is it a just demand? Hell, yes. STOP THE FORECLOSURES.
Friday, May 25, 2007
*In The Time Of The Great Fear- David Halberstam's "The Fifties"
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for the American writer, David Halberatam, most famous for his revealing look at the underside of American foreign policy in Vietnam, "The Best and the Brightest.
BOOK REVIEW
THE FIFTIES, DAVID HALBERSTAM
Although I am a member of the Generation of ’68, a political characterization, I am also by accident of birth a child of the Fifties. In some recollections of that period, including the present book, those times appear almost as a ‘golden age’. For those who were either too young to remember fully some of the early events of the Fifties or those who were not born at that time this book is a nice overview of the various political, social, economic, technological and cultural events of the period.
In a sense Mr. Halberstam has tried to accomplish too much under one cover, despite the book's several hundred page length. He has taken a panoramic view of the whole event- filled decade and with few exceptions given only a surface skimming of events, personalities and the impact that they had on the times. Notwithstanding that limitation, which can be addressed by reading other material on particular topics suggested by each chapter this is a solid journalistic piece of work. For an analysis of the meaning of the times or their place in the overall scheme of American history one can look elsewhere.
One thing is clear from Mr. Halberstam’s sweep of the decade and that is that many of the trends just coming to the surface then are still recognizable today. He tackles the vast changes in mass consumption brought on by the end of World War II that include the rise of the automobile, the suburbanization of America and the revolution in communications headlined by the use of television. This in turn triggered new mass service industries like airlines, hotels and fast food joints. These were also times of changes in cultural appreciations from an earlier more Victorian (at least on the surface) time and so on. Remarkably what has not changed despite massive changes in the forms of political packaging is the shallowness of political discourse. The banalities of the Eisenhower-Nixon years can easily compete with the banalities of today’s Bush era. The maturation of the age of the information super-highway since then has not brought a concurrent rise in political maturity.
Those of us who were alive during the period have our own take on the Fifties. I would make two points here that underscore what the Fifties mean to me. First, a lot of hoopla has been made over that generation that survived the Great Depression and fought World War II, my parents’ generation. In some cases they have been called the ‘greatest generation’. That is pure bunk. They sold their birthright to a more just society for a mess of pottage. However the Fifties was their time, the time that they came to maturity, and one cannot understand why they did or did not do better without and understanding of the period. Secondly, for my family, the saga that Mr. Halberstam presents was not our 1950’s. The promised abundance never reached down to my family, a family of the marginally working poor. In some ways the picture he presents is of a different society from the one I grew up in. There is no reason now to cry over it but those are the facts and that helps explain why my political trajectory took the course that it ultimately did.
BOOK REVIEW
THE FIFTIES, DAVID HALBERSTAM
Although I am a member of the Generation of ’68, a political characterization, I am also by accident of birth a child of the Fifties. In some recollections of that period, including the present book, those times appear almost as a ‘golden age’. For those who were either too young to remember fully some of the early events of the Fifties or those who were not born at that time this book is a nice overview of the various political, social, economic, technological and cultural events of the period.
In a sense Mr. Halberstam has tried to accomplish too much under one cover, despite the book's several hundred page length. He has taken a panoramic view of the whole event- filled decade and with few exceptions given only a surface skimming of events, personalities and the impact that they had on the times. Notwithstanding that limitation, which can be addressed by reading other material on particular topics suggested by each chapter this is a solid journalistic piece of work. For an analysis of the meaning of the times or their place in the overall scheme of American history one can look elsewhere.
One thing is clear from Mr. Halberstam’s sweep of the decade and that is that many of the trends just coming to the surface then are still recognizable today. He tackles the vast changes in mass consumption brought on by the end of World War II that include the rise of the automobile, the suburbanization of America and the revolution in communications headlined by the use of television. This in turn triggered new mass service industries like airlines, hotels and fast food joints. These were also times of changes in cultural appreciations from an earlier more Victorian (at least on the surface) time and so on. Remarkably what has not changed despite massive changes in the forms of political packaging is the shallowness of political discourse. The banalities of the Eisenhower-Nixon years can easily compete with the banalities of today’s Bush era. The maturation of the age of the information super-highway since then has not brought a concurrent rise in political maturity.
Those of us who were alive during the period have our own take on the Fifties. I would make two points here that underscore what the Fifties mean to me. First, a lot of hoopla has been made over that generation that survived the Great Depression and fought World War II, my parents’ generation. In some cases they have been called the ‘greatest generation’. That is pure bunk. They sold their birthright to a more just society for a mess of pottage. However the Fifties was their time, the time that they came to maturity, and one cannot understand why they did or did not do better without and understanding of the period. Secondly, for my family, the saga that Mr. Halberstam presents was not our 1950’s. The promised abundance never reached down to my family, a family of the marginally working poor. In some ways the picture he presents is of a different society from the one I grew up in. There is no reason now to cry over it but those are the facts and that helps explain why my political trajectory took the course that it ultimately did.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
HO HUM-THE DEMOCRATS FOLD ON IRAQ
COMMENTARY
DON’T MOURN-BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS!
ORGANIZE ANTI-WAR RANK AND FILE TROOP SOLIDARITY COMMITTEES
Well, as I have predicted since the first parliamentary moves were made in January, not without some bitterness, the Democrats in Congress have folded on the Iraq War budget by withdrawing their timetable conditions on the approval of appropriations. Now there are only some vague benchmarks which have to be hurdled. Of course the person who has to certify those benchmarks is none other than President Bush. One does not have to be a wizard to know that approval of those benchmarks will a no-brainer. Nor does it take a Marxist view of the world, although that certainly helps, to have seen the Congressional collapse coming.
The whole logic of the strategy was misguided, to say the least. Hiding behind a social patriotic 'support the troops' rationale there was never ever any question that the Iraq war budget was not going to be funded. Except for a few isolated left Democrats the question of not funding was not on the table. The net effect of all of this manuevering is that it is definitely no longer possible to separate out President Bush and his coterie as solely responsible for this war. This is now also a Democratic-sponored war, as it really always has been. Only now it is signed, sealed and delivered. If this war is ever to be ended it is necessary to break with the Democrats now. No more anti-war platforms for Democrats! No more political strategies based on popular fronts with Democrats.
Once again, for those who have been depending politically on the Democrats to save their hides on Iraq , it is necessary to bring the bitter truth home. That truth has been self-evident for at least a year now. This damn war is not going to be ended by parliamentary means. The fight to end the war now has to be brought to the factories, the schools, the offices and from there to the streets. Above all there is a desperate need to get to the military bases and get to the rank and file troops. That today, dear readers, is merely the beginning of wisdom.
DON’T MOURN-BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS!
ORGANIZE ANTI-WAR RANK AND FILE TROOP SOLIDARITY COMMITTEES
Well, as I have predicted since the first parliamentary moves were made in January, not without some bitterness, the Democrats in Congress have folded on the Iraq War budget by withdrawing their timetable conditions on the approval of appropriations. Now there are only some vague benchmarks which have to be hurdled. Of course the person who has to certify those benchmarks is none other than President Bush. One does not have to be a wizard to know that approval of those benchmarks will a no-brainer. Nor does it take a Marxist view of the world, although that certainly helps, to have seen the Congressional collapse coming.
The whole logic of the strategy was misguided, to say the least. Hiding behind a social patriotic 'support the troops' rationale there was never ever any question that the Iraq war budget was not going to be funded. Except for a few isolated left Democrats the question of not funding was not on the table. The net effect of all of this manuevering is that it is definitely no longer possible to separate out President Bush and his coterie as solely responsible for this war. This is now also a Democratic-sponored war, as it really always has been. Only now it is signed, sealed and delivered. If this war is ever to be ended it is necessary to break with the Democrats now. No more anti-war platforms for Democrats! No more political strategies based on popular fronts with Democrats.
Once again, for those who have been depending politically on the Democrats to save their hides on Iraq , it is necessary to bring the bitter truth home. That truth has been self-evident for at least a year now. This damn war is not going to be ended by parliamentary means. The fight to end the war now has to be brought to the factories, the schools, the offices and from there to the streets. Above all there is a desperate need to get to the military bases and get to the rank and file troops. That today, dear readers, is merely the beginning of wisdom.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
IN DEFENSE OF MITT ROMNEY'S GREAT-GRANDFATHER-AND GREAT GRANDMOTHERS
COMMENTARY
FIVE WIVES AT THE SAME TIME SHOW REAL EXECUTIVE ABILITY-RIGHT?
In a recent interview on CBS's Sixty Minutes Republican presidential hopeful ex- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a professed Mormon, declared that he thought that the fact that his great-grandfather took (or was ordered to take) five wives was ‘terrible’. As the fiercely persecuted Mormons settled in Utah apparently the numerical balance between men and women was off and polygamy was therefore encouraged. Naturally, being a male-dominated religious variant of Christianity that necessary was couched in theological terms, as well. The practice was officially banned by that denomination in 1890. However, the practice, as witnessed by some recent court cases in the West, still flourishes in some areas amount Old Style Mormons.
One can see that for someone who is running on a ‘family values’ platform highlighted by support for the proposition that marriage is between one man-one woman and is touting personal fidelity to one wife and one set of children in order to grab the brass ring of the presidency that such a family history may in fact be 'terrible'. But step back a minute Mitt, aside from being very disrespectful to your family line, what is the harm of having five, or for that matter, ten wives? Or a woman having ten husbands? As long a there is effective consent among and between the parties whose business is it anyway? And why be ashamed of that ‘skeleton’ in the family closet?
We socialists are not as squeamish as brother Romney appears to be about either the details of his family history or about how people arrange their personal lives. There has been a great hue and cry lately in the West over some Old Style Mormon instances of polygamy, including the usual allegations of coercion. Coercion or forcing “shot gun” weddings, singly or in multiples, is not what we mean by effective consent. However, absent coercion it is not the state’s business to interfere. We may have a different take than Mormons on what we think personal relationships will look like under socialism once the nuclear family (or what today stands for that proposition) recedes into the background as the basis unit of society but for now the variety of human experiences in interpersonal relationships is way beyond the scope of what the state needs to interfere in.
I, personally, want to learn more about old Great-Grandpa Romney and Joseph Smith-the founder of Mormonism and a Free Soiler candidate for office before he was murdered in the 1840’s. On the face of it those individuals seem, unlike Mitt, interesting personalities. Certainly everyone must concede that old Great-Grandfather Romney seems more interesting than his progeny. And had to have more real executive ability than latter monogamous Romneys. Hell, I had my hands full when, back in the days, I had two girlfriends at one time. Hands Off the Old Style Mormons! Government Out of the Bedrooms!
COMMENTARY
FIVE WIVES AT THE SAME TIME SHOW REAL EXECUTIVE ABILITY-RIGHT?
In a recent interview on CBS's Sixty Minutes Republican presidential hopeful ex- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a professed Mormon, declared that he thought that the fact that his great-grandfather took (or was ordered to take) five wives was ‘terrible’. As the fiercely persecuted Mormons settled in Utah apparently the numerical balance between men and women was off and polygamy was therefore encouraged. Naturally, being a male-dominated religious variant of Christianity that necessary was couched in theological terms, as well. The practice was officially banned by that denomination in 1890. However, the practice, as witnessed by some recent court cases in the West, still flourishes in some areas amount Old Style Mormons.
One can see that for someone who is running on a ‘family values’ platform highlighted by support for the proposition that marraige is between one man-one woman and is touting personal fidelity to one wife and children in order to grab the brass ring of the presidency that such a family history may in fact be 'terrible'. But step back a minute Mitt, aside from being very disrespectful to your family line, what is the harm of having five, or for that matter, ten wives? Or a woman having ten husbands? As long a there is effective consent among and between the parties whose business is it anyway? And why be ashamed of that ‘skeleton’ in the family closet?
We socialists are not as squeamish as brother Romney appears to be about either the details of his family history or about how people arrange their personal lives. There has been a great hue and cry lately in the West over some Old Style Mormon instances of polygamy, including the usual allegations of coercion. Coercion or forcing “shot gun” weddings, singly or in multiples, is not what we mean by effective consent. However, absent coercion it is not the state’s business to interfere. We may have a different take than Mormons on what we think personal relationships will look like under socialism once the nuclear family (or what today stands for that proposition) recedes into the background as the basis unit of society but for now the variety of human experiences in interpersonal relationships is way beyond the scope of what the state needs to interfere in.
I, personally, want to learn more about old Great-Grandpa Romney and Joseph Smith-the founder of Mormonism and a Free Soiler candidate for office before he was murdered in the 1840’s. On the face of it those individuals seem, unlike Mitt, interesting personalities. Certainly everyone must concede that old Great-Grandfather Romney seems more interesting than his progeny. And had to have more real executive ability than latter monogamous Romneys. Hell, I had my hands full when, back in the days, I had two girlfriends at one time. Hands Off the Old Style Mormons! Government Out of the Bedrooms!
FIVE WIVES AT THE SAME TIME SHOW REAL EXECUTIVE ABILITY-RIGHT?
In a recent interview on CBS's Sixty Minutes Republican presidential hopeful ex- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a professed Mormon, declared that he thought that the fact that his great-grandfather took (or was ordered to take) five wives was ‘terrible’. As the fiercely persecuted Mormons settled in Utah apparently the numerical balance between men and women was off and polygamy was therefore encouraged. Naturally, being a male-dominated religious variant of Christianity that necessary was couched in theological terms, as well. The practice was officially banned by that denomination in 1890. However, the practice, as witnessed by some recent court cases in the West, still flourishes in some areas amount Old Style Mormons.
One can see that for someone who is running on a ‘family values’ platform highlighted by support for the proposition that marriage is between one man-one woman and is touting personal fidelity to one wife and one set of children in order to grab the brass ring of the presidency that such a family history may in fact be 'terrible'. But step back a minute Mitt, aside from being very disrespectful to your family line, what is the harm of having five, or for that matter, ten wives? Or a woman having ten husbands? As long a there is effective consent among and between the parties whose business is it anyway? And why be ashamed of that ‘skeleton’ in the family closet?
We socialists are not as squeamish as brother Romney appears to be about either the details of his family history or about how people arrange their personal lives. There has been a great hue and cry lately in the West over some Old Style Mormon instances of polygamy, including the usual allegations of coercion. Coercion or forcing “shot gun” weddings, singly or in multiples, is not what we mean by effective consent. However, absent coercion it is not the state’s business to interfere. We may have a different take than Mormons on what we think personal relationships will look like under socialism once the nuclear family (or what today stands for that proposition) recedes into the background as the basis unit of society but for now the variety of human experiences in interpersonal relationships is way beyond the scope of what the state needs to interfere in.
I, personally, want to learn more about old Great-Grandpa Romney and Joseph Smith-the founder of Mormonism and a Free Soiler candidate for office before he was murdered in the 1840’s. On the face of it those individuals seem, unlike Mitt, interesting personalities. Certainly everyone must concede that old Great-Grandfather Romney seems more interesting than his progeny. And had to have more real executive ability than latter monogamous Romneys. Hell, I had my hands full when, back in the days, I had two girlfriends at one time. Hands Off the Old Style Mormons! Government Out of the Bedrooms!
COMMENTARY
FIVE WIVES AT THE SAME TIME SHOW REAL EXECUTIVE ABILITY-RIGHT?
In a recent interview on CBS's Sixty Minutes Republican presidential hopeful ex- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a professed Mormon, declared that he thought that the fact that his great-grandfather took (or was ordered to take) five wives was ‘terrible’. As the fiercely persecuted Mormons settled in Utah apparently the numerical balance between men and women was off and polygamy was therefore encouraged. Naturally, being a male-dominated religious variant of Christianity that necessary was couched in theological terms, as well. The practice was officially banned by that denomination in 1890. However, the practice, as witnessed by some recent court cases in the West, still flourishes in some areas amount Old Style Mormons.
One can see that for someone who is running on a ‘family values’ platform highlighted by support for the proposition that marraige is between one man-one woman and is touting personal fidelity to one wife and children in order to grab the brass ring of the presidency that such a family history may in fact be 'terrible'. But step back a minute Mitt, aside from being very disrespectful to your family line, what is the harm of having five, or for that matter, ten wives? Or a woman having ten husbands? As long a there is effective consent among and between the parties whose business is it anyway? And why be ashamed of that ‘skeleton’ in the family closet?
We socialists are not as squeamish as brother Romney appears to be about either the details of his family history or about how people arrange their personal lives. There has been a great hue and cry lately in the West over some Old Style Mormon instances of polygamy, including the usual allegations of coercion. Coercion or forcing “shot gun” weddings, singly or in multiples, is not what we mean by effective consent. However, absent coercion it is not the state’s business to interfere. We may have a different take than Mormons on what we think personal relationships will look like under socialism once the nuclear family (or what today stands for that proposition) recedes into the background as the basis unit of society but for now the variety of human experiences in interpersonal relationships is way beyond the scope of what the state needs to interfere in.
I, personally, want to learn more about old Great-Grandpa Romney and Joseph Smith-the founder of Mormonism and a Free Soiler candidate for office before he was murdered in the 1840’s. On the face of it those individuals seem, unlike Mitt, interesting personalities. Certainly everyone must concede that old Great-Grandfather Romney seems more interesting than his progeny. And had to have more real executive ability than latter monogamous Romneys. Hell, I had my hands full when, back in the days, I had two girlfriends at one time. Hands Off the Old Style Mormons! Government Out of the Bedrooms!
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
The Age Of Andrew Jackson-A Plebeian VIew
BOOK REVIEW
LIBERTY AND POWER, HARRY L. WATSON, THE NOON DIAL PRESS, NEW YORK, 1990
The central story line of the Jacksonian period economically, socially and politically was the fight over the establishment, continuation and rechartering of the Bank of the United States which despite its name was a privately owned corporation headed by the notorious Nicholas Biddle. In short the story was, as almost always under capitalism, about the money. Hard money, paper money, metallic money, federal money, state money, no money. It is all there. As confusing and, frankly, somewhat trivial as the issues may seem to the 21st century mind the various fights determined the path of capitalist formation for the rest of the 19th century. One does not have to be a partisan of any particular monetary policy to know that if the Biddle-led forces had won then capital formation in the United States would have taken a very different turn. Thus, the essential Jacksonian victory on the bank question is one that militants today can give a retroactive endorsement. This is the story the author tries to bring to life. I believe that Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s Age of Jackson is still the definitive general work on the period but if you need a shorter overview this book will suffice.
Although control of the money was the underlying premise for the political fights of the day they also represented some very different appreciations of what American society should look like. Watson goes to great pains to highlight the various factions within each of the coalescing parties that would come to form the Democratic and Republican two-party system that we are familiar with today. Watson does a better job on the formation of the party system than Schlesinger. The fights outlined had different implications for differing sections of the country. In that regard the names Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay and their various congressional devotees can generally stand to represent the various sectional interests. One might also note that names that became familiar in the immediate pre-Civil War period, like Abraham Lincoln, James Buchanan, John Bell, Gideon Welles, William Seward, etc. started to receive political notice as secondary figures during this period.
One should also note that this was a period of political realignment and that the political situation was fluid enough that with changing political winds the various leading personalities were as likely to change sides as not. Readers should pick up the trail that is only alluded to here on the importance on the third party Liberty and Free Soil Parties. Despite that lapse dealing with the various political manifestations of the period is the strongest part of Mr. Watson's book.
LIBERTY AND POWER, HARRY L. WATSON, THE NOON DIAL PRESS, NEW YORK, 1990
The central story line of the Jacksonian period economically, socially and politically was the fight over the establishment, continuation and rechartering of the Bank of the United States which despite its name was a privately owned corporation headed by the notorious Nicholas Biddle. In short the story was, as almost always under capitalism, about the money. Hard money, paper money, metallic money, federal money, state money, no money. It is all there. As confusing and, frankly, somewhat trivial as the issues may seem to the 21st century mind the various fights determined the path of capitalist formation for the rest of the 19th century. One does not have to be a partisan of any particular monetary policy to know that if the Biddle-led forces had won then capital formation in the United States would have taken a very different turn. Thus, the essential Jacksonian victory on the bank question is one that militants today can give a retroactive endorsement. This is the story the author tries to bring to life. I believe that Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s Age of Jackson is still the definitive general work on the period but if you need a shorter overview this book will suffice.
Although control of the money was the underlying premise for the political fights of the day they also represented some very different appreciations of what American society should look like. Watson goes to great pains to highlight the various factions within each of the coalescing parties that would come to form the Democratic and Republican two-party system that we are familiar with today. Watson does a better job on the formation of the party system than Schlesinger. The fights outlined had different implications for differing sections of the country. In that regard the names Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay and their various congressional devotees can generally stand to represent the various sectional interests. One might also note that names that became familiar in the immediate pre-Civil War period, like Abraham Lincoln, James Buchanan, John Bell, Gideon Welles, William Seward, etc. started to receive political notice as secondary figures during this period.
One should also note that this was a period of political realignment and that the political situation was fluid enough that with changing political winds the various leading personalities were as likely to change sides as not. Readers should pick up the trail that is only alluded to here on the importance on the third party Liberty and Free Soil Parties. Despite that lapse dealing with the various political manifestations of the period is the strongest part of Mr. Watson's book.
Monday, May 21, 2007
BUT WHO WILL BRING IN THE CROPS?
COMMENTARY
FULL CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS FOR ALL WHO MAKE IT HERE!
FORGET REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND GREENS! BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!
Apparently Congress is getting ready to pass an immigration reform bill that contains many provisions in it that are, frankly, bizarre from a militant leftist point of view. Let us be clear at the start. We do not support this bill. We are not in the business of advising capitalist society about how to better rationalize its immigration policies. Over the last year or so I have argued that we call for and support a general amnesty but that is far removed from the nuts and bolts of this legislation. To the extent that this bill triggers a general amnesty we support that, and that alone. The rest of it is an immigrant’s nightmare. Hell, I think the ‘choice’ of my forbears to come on the ‘famine’ ships from Ireland and sneak ashore made more sense. Today, if I were an immigrant from Mexico I would rather take my chances of coming over through the desert than get caught up in the bureaucratic red tape and cost of becoming a ‘second class’ citizen under the provisions of this program.
One comment about the pending legislation sticks in my mind as it really epitomizes the thinking behind these ‘reforms’. One unnamed immigrant, on hearing that the legislation would favor those who had skills or education, noted that there was no lack of ‘native’ Americans with such qualifications. What he and his like do is bring in the crops and other dirty and dangerous tasks that ‘native’ Americans no longer will do. Thus, he is in need of legal protection far more the those middle class types the legislation is tilted toward. Simply put, those types are not coming here. And that unnamed immigrant's statement makes sense. Virtually no one who has anything going for themselves in their own country voluntarily leaves home and hearth to go elsewhere except under extreme conditions. Those twelve million ‘illegal’ immigrants speak to the desperate plight of many in Mexico and other places in Latin America in the wake the impact of NAFTA- type treaties. Thus, at the end of the day our call is still the same. Full Citizenship Rights for All Who Make It Here.
FULL CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS FOR ALL WHO MAKE IT HERE!
FORGET REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND GREENS! BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!
Apparently Congress is getting ready to pass an immigration reform bill that contains many provisions in it that are, frankly, bizarre from a militant leftist point of view. Let us be clear at the start. We do not support this bill. We are not in the business of advising capitalist society about how to better rationalize its immigration policies. Over the last year or so I have argued that we call for and support a general amnesty but that is far removed from the nuts and bolts of this legislation. To the extent that this bill triggers a general amnesty we support that, and that alone. The rest of it is an immigrant’s nightmare. Hell, I think the ‘choice’ of my forbears to come on the ‘famine’ ships from Ireland and sneak ashore made more sense. Today, if I were an immigrant from Mexico I would rather take my chances of coming over through the desert than get caught up in the bureaucratic red tape and cost of becoming a ‘second class’ citizen under the provisions of this program.
One comment about the pending legislation sticks in my mind as it really epitomizes the thinking behind these ‘reforms’. One unnamed immigrant, on hearing that the legislation would favor those who had skills or education, noted that there was no lack of ‘native’ Americans with such qualifications. What he and his like do is bring in the crops and other dirty and dangerous tasks that ‘native’ Americans no longer will do. Thus, he is in need of legal protection far more the those middle class types the legislation is tilted toward. Simply put, those types are not coming here. And that unnamed immigrant's statement makes sense. Virtually no one who has anything going for themselves in their own country voluntarily leaves home and hearth to go elsewhere except under extreme conditions. Those twelve million ‘illegal’ immigrants speak to the desperate plight of many in Mexico and other places in Latin America in the wake the impact of NAFTA- type treaties. Thus, at the end of the day our call is still the same. Full Citizenship Rights for All Who Make It Here.
THE GOOD OL' BOYS OF THE GOP-OUCH!
COMMENTARY
WHERE ARE THE WHIGS WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
FORGET REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND GREENS! BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!
Forgive me, dear reader, for not stopping everything to immediately comment on the recent Republican presidential ‘debate’ in South Carolina. Frankly this cattle call production of Republican hopefuls was even more dismal than that of their Democratic counterparts earlier, if that is possible. Fortunately I have been spending my time not commenting on the debate reading a book on the Age of Jackson. Interestingly, all the essentials of the party (two party, that is) system were established during this period. Although the historic interest of this period for militants today centers on the Liberty and Free Soil parties the Whigs, the forerunners of today’s Republican Party, look positively revolutionary in comparison with their pale progeny down south last week. When the deal went down in the 1850’s over the question of the expansion of slavery into the territories and other questions the Whigs went ‘belly up’ but for a while they expressed a rational political program in a period of progressive capitalist expansion in America. Today’s Republicans apparently live in a bubble. And here is why.
On the central question of the day-Iraq, Iraq and again Iraq- with the exception of libertarian Congressman Paul from Texas all the Republicans are going down the line, one way or the other, with the Bush Administration strategy for ‘victory’ and the indefinite American occupation in Iraq. If the 2008 presidential campaign and election hinges on this question, as I believe it will, these guys are doomed. And no tears will be shed in these quarters over it. Even a cursory glance at the daily newspaper confronts one with the reality that things continue to deteriorate in that benighted country. And, Republican hopefuls please note, they ain’t getting better.
Particularly interesting is Senator McCain’s slow death rattle attempt to ‘revive’ his campaign by being more Bush than Bush on this question. Know this- whichever bourgeois candidate ‘wins’ the presidency he or she will have the albatross on Iraq hanging around their necks. McCain’s plight may be explained by his “Manchurian Candidate” term as a POW in Vietnam. But what excuse do the draft-dodgers like Guiliani and Romney have for their toadyism.
More generally on the question of the ‘war on terrorism’ former Massachusetts Governor Mitt “Flip-Flop” Romney has really outdone himself with his support for ‘doubling’ the torture chambers at Guantanamo. They say that every real presidential candidate has to have ‘fire in the belly’ in order to debase him or herself enough to win this ‘prize’. Apparently Mr. Romney is in such ‘heat’ to get the nomination that he is willing to say anything, anywhere, anytime in order to appease the hard-core conservative base of the Republican Party that takes such pronouncements as red meat.
Old Mitt makes his weak-kneed father George seem like the height of rationality in contrast. While even moderate conservatives are cringing over the treatment at “Gitmo”, if for no other reason than to protect America’s image in the world, he is blithely calling for more torture. I would not want to be a member of his political staff if this sadistic fool ever gets within a few hundred delegates of the nomination. Presumably then the Mittster will come out in defense of drawing and quartering.
As if to add insult to injury, with the somewhat honorable exception of Rudy Guiliani, the Republican field fell all over itself on the ‘family values’ issues that in reality comes down to the question of abortion. The deal is already in the process of being done in the Supreme Court against a women’s right to choose (to speak nothing of our historic demand for free abortion on demand) but the candidates just wanted to let the base know that a return to the days of back alley abortions (for those who are unconnected or poor, that is) is just fine with them.
Overall the tenor of the ‘debate’ was what one expected from men who genuinely do not have a clue about what is going on for the average American worker or the average international one either. That is par for the course. As most commentators have mentioned the 2008 Presidential election is the Democrats’ to lose. This Republican field does nothing to negate that prediction. One would almost (a very long almost) wish the Democrats fair weather except that when the deal really goes down there is no essential difference between the parties. They almost all vote early and often, if they are a position to, for the Iraq war budgets. What else is new? Damn, those long forgotten Whigs look pretty good today.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
WHERE ARE THE WHIGS WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
FORGET REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND GREENS! BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!
Forgive me, dear reader, for not stopping everything to immediately comment on the recent Republican presidential ‘debate’ in South Carolina. Frankly this cattle call production of Republican hopefuls was even more dismal than that of their Democratic counterparts earlier, if that is possible. Fortunately I have been spending my time not commenting on the debate reading a book on the Age of Jackson. Interestingly, all the essentials of the party (two party, that is) system were established during this period. Although the historic interest of this period for militants today centers on the Liberty and Free Soil parties the Whigs, the forerunners of today’s Republican Party, look positively revolutionary in comparison with their pale progeny down south last week. When the deal went down in the 1850’s over the question of the expansion of slavery into the territories and other questions the Whigs went ‘belly up’ but for a while they expressed a rational political program in a period of progressive capitalist expansion in America. Today’s Republicans apparently live in a bubble. And here is why.
On the central question of the day-Iraq, Iraq and again Iraq- with the exception of libertarian Congressman Paul from Texas all the Republicans are going down the line, one way or the other, with the Bush Administration strategy for ‘victory’ and the indefinite American occupation in Iraq. If the 2008 presidential campaign and election hinges on this question, as I believe it will, these guys are doomed. And no tears will be shed in these quarters over it. Even a cursory glance at the daily newspaper confronts one with the reality that things continue to deteriorate in that benighted country. And, Republican hopefuls please note, they ain’t getting better.
Particularly interesting is Senator McCain’s slow death rattle attempt to ‘revive’ his campaign by being more Bush than Bush on this question. Know this- whichever bourgeois candidate ‘wins’ the presidency he or she will have the albatross on Iraq hanging around their necks. McCain’s plight may be explained by his “Manchurian Candidate” term as a POW in Vietnam. But what excuse do the draft-dodgers like Guiliani and Romney have for their toadyism.
More generally on the question of the ‘war on terrorism’ former Massachusetts Governor Mitt “Flip-Flop” Romney has really outdone himself with his support for ‘doubling’ the torture chambers at Guantanamo. They say that every real presidential candidate has to have ‘fire in the belly’ in order to debase him or herself enough to win this ‘prize’. Apparently Mr. Romney is in such ‘heat’ to get the nomination that he is willing to say anything, anywhere, anytime in order to appease the hard-core conservative base of the Republican Party that takes such pronouncements as red meat.
Old Mitt makes his weak-kneed father George seem like the height of rationality in contrast. While even moderate conservatives are cringing over the treatment at “Gitmo”, if for no other reason than to protect America’s image in the world, he is blithely calling for more torture. I would not want to be a member of his political staff if this sadistic fool ever gets within a few hundred delegates of the nomination. Presumably then the Mittster will come out in defense of drawing and quartering.
As if to add insult to injury, with the somewhat honorable exception of Rudy Guiliani, the Republican field fell all over itself on the ‘family values’ issues that in reality comes down to the question of abortion. The deal is already in the process of being done in the Supreme Court against a women’s right to choose (to speak nothing of our historic demand for free abortion on demand) but the candidates just wanted to let the base know that a return to the days of back alley abortions (for those who are unconnected or poor, that is) is just fine with them.
Overall the tenor of the ‘debate’ was what one expected from men who genuinely do not have a clue about what is going on for the average American worker or the average international one either. That is par for the course. As most commentators have mentioned the 2008 Presidential election is the Democrats’ to lose. This Republican field does nothing to negate that prediction. One would almost (a very long almost) wish the Democrats fair weather except that when the deal really goes down there is no essential difference between the parties. They almost all vote early and often, if they are a position to, for the Iraq war budgets. What else is new? Damn, those long forgotten Whigs look pretty good today.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Friday, May 18, 2007
THE UNITED STATES IS.........
BOOK REVIEW
LIBERTY AND UNION, DAVID HERBERT DONALD,LITTLE, BROWN AND CO., BOSTON, 1978
For better or worst, and I think for the better, the bloody American Civil War of 1861-65 was a key turning point in the creation of a unitary American state. The successful completion of the twin tasks of eliminating slavery and the creation of a transcontinental state based on a single capitalist economy, a common communications network and common cultural aspirations by any standard represented the type of progress that a historical materialist can salute. Thus, in order to better understand the political tasks that are before us today and make sense of the promise that those long ago results produced it is necessary to study in some detail the trends that led up to the Civil War, what the conflict itself resolved and those trends that were accelerated by the Union victory. For those not familiar with, or who have forgotten some of the details of those events, Professor Donald’s book is a little refresher course that will steer you into further study of the issues.
Professor Donald’s main thesis is that as trying as the Civil War experience was the results of that clarifying act, with the usual fits and starts, allowed for a more normal democratic discourse and thereafter placed the military option for the resolution of political problems in the shade. In defense of that argument he does a more than adequate analysis of the political, social and economic trends in the North, South and critically the West that prefigured the crisis of 1860 when all hell broke loose. Of decisive importance was the fate of slavery in the territories that were critical to creating a national state but also were critical to the survival of slavery. The resolution, or rather lack of resolution of that issue acted as the catalyst to break the sections apart.
As for the war itself the professor makes an interesting point about how the political, military and diplomatic strategies for both North and South ran on parallel courses. And that makes sense in a situation where the leaderships learned from a common experience. One should also note that while, in hindsight, the Northern victory seemed almost inevitable as late as 1964 that was certainly not the case. A decisive military breakthrough by Lee could have turned the political winds toward defeatism in the North around quite quickly.
Professor Donald’s post-war analysis is the weakest part of his book. Although he has done a good job of setting up the key political, economic and social trends of the period there is a just a little too much of a sense historical inevitability of the leading role of the United States and the exemplar of its institutions for my taste. Although he recognizes that blacks were continually aggrieved during Reconstruction and after; that Native Americans were essentially exterminated in the interests of white settlers; that the working class took a serious beating from the ‘robber barons’; that the family farmers were beginning to go under; that no serious national culture developed he nevertheless, on balance, believes that political stabilization and economic growth were the main results of the Civil War. In short, on balance, a classic liberal interpretation of post-Civil War history. The reader will therefore have to dig deeper to understand the real impact on of the Civil War on the American psyche. But here is a place to start.
LIBERTY AND UNION, DAVID HERBERT DONALD,LITTLE, BROWN AND CO., BOSTON, 1978
For better or worst, and I think for the better, the bloody American Civil War of 1861-65 was a key turning point in the creation of a unitary American state. The successful completion of the twin tasks of eliminating slavery and the creation of a transcontinental state based on a single capitalist economy, a common communications network and common cultural aspirations by any standard represented the type of progress that a historical materialist can salute. Thus, in order to better understand the political tasks that are before us today and make sense of the promise that those long ago results produced it is necessary to study in some detail the trends that led up to the Civil War, what the conflict itself resolved and those trends that were accelerated by the Union victory. For those not familiar with, or who have forgotten some of the details of those events, Professor Donald’s book is a little refresher course that will steer you into further study of the issues.
Professor Donald’s main thesis is that as trying as the Civil War experience was the results of that clarifying act, with the usual fits and starts, allowed for a more normal democratic discourse and thereafter placed the military option for the resolution of political problems in the shade. In defense of that argument he does a more than adequate analysis of the political, social and economic trends in the North, South and critically the West that prefigured the crisis of 1860 when all hell broke loose. Of decisive importance was the fate of slavery in the territories that were critical to creating a national state but also were critical to the survival of slavery. The resolution, or rather lack of resolution of that issue acted as the catalyst to break the sections apart.
As for the war itself the professor makes an interesting point about how the political, military and diplomatic strategies for both North and South ran on parallel courses. And that makes sense in a situation where the leaderships learned from a common experience. One should also note that while, in hindsight, the Northern victory seemed almost inevitable as late as 1964 that was certainly not the case. A decisive military breakthrough by Lee could have turned the political winds toward defeatism in the North around quite quickly.
Professor Donald’s post-war analysis is the weakest part of his book. Although he has done a good job of setting up the key political, economic and social trends of the period there is a just a little too much of a sense historical inevitability of the leading role of the United States and the exemplar of its institutions for my taste. Although he recognizes that blacks were continually aggrieved during Reconstruction and after; that Native Americans were essentially exterminated in the interests of white settlers; that the working class took a serious beating from the ‘robber barons’; that the family farmers were beginning to go under; that no serious national culture developed he nevertheless, on balance, believes that political stabilization and economic growth were the main results of the Civil War. In short, on balance, a classic liberal interpretation of post-Civil War history. The reader will therefore have to dig deeper to understand the real impact on of the Civil War on the American psyche. But here is a place to start.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
*ON FURTHER OIL NATIONALIZATIONS IN VENEZUELA
Click on title to link to the Leon Trotsky Internet Archive's copy of his classic 1938 exposition, The Mexican Oil Expropriations", defending what more recently have been called "third world" nations and their rights to exploit their own natural resources and to expropriate those controlled by the colonial (and neo-colonial)powers, if necessary.
COMMENTARY
HANDS OFF VENEZUELA!
Word comes this week, the week of May 1, 2007, that Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has ordered the nationalization of its oil industry, or at least a dramatic increase in the state’s percentage of the oil revenues. The situation is a little murky because the international oil cartel that runs the Venezuelan oil industry still retains an undetermined share of revenue. Although there have been no lack of nationalizations by capitalist states over the last century usually done to either placate a restless working class or, more frequently, to bail out a bankrupt industry such as the coal industry in Britain after World War II nationalizations, per se, are not the road to socialism. The key to that socialist road historically, unfortunately based on only one chemically pure workers’ revolution- the the early days of the Russian, has been workers’ control of production as expressed through workers’ councils.
nationalizations, particularly by colonial and semi- colonial nations trying to assert their rights over their own natural resources. (The Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, while calling for the defense of Mexico’s nationalization of its oil industry in the late 1930’s, wrote the definite leftist argument on our attitude toward such developments, see Leon Trotsky Internet Archives-1938) Thus any attempt by the imperialist powers, particularly in this case, the United States or its agents, to militarily or otherwise take those resources back must be opposed. One should also note that in the case of Venezuela such a defense may become operative more quickly than one might expect as many indigenous capitalists have either fled, taken their money out of the country or are hoarding in order to create some kind of crisis situation. The imperialists have stopped investing, as well. More, probably much more, on this later. Meanwhile HANDS OFF VENEZUELA. DEFEND THE OIL NATIONALIZATIONS!
COMMENTARY
HANDS OFF VENEZUELA!
Word comes this week, the week of May 1, 2007, that Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has ordered the nationalization of its oil industry, or at least a dramatic increase in the state’s percentage of the oil revenues. The situation is a little murky because the international oil cartel that runs the Venezuelan oil industry still retains an undetermined share of revenue. Although there have been no lack of nationalizations by capitalist states over the last century usually done to either placate a restless working class or, more frequently, to bail out a bankrupt industry such as the coal industry in Britain after World War II nationalizations, per se, are not the road to socialism. The key to that socialist road historically, unfortunately based on only one chemically pure workers’ revolution- the the early days of the Russian, has been workers’ control of production as expressed through workers’ councils.
nationalizations, particularly by colonial and semi- colonial nations trying to assert their rights over their own natural resources. (The Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, while calling for the defense of Mexico’s nationalization of its oil industry in the late 1930’s, wrote the definite leftist argument on our attitude toward such developments, see Leon Trotsky Internet Archives-1938) Thus any attempt by the imperialist powers, particularly in this case, the United States or its agents, to militarily or otherwise take those resources back must be opposed. One should also note that in the case of Venezuela such a defense may become operative more quickly than one might expect as many indigenous capitalists have either fled, taken their money out of the country or are hoarding in order to create some kind of crisis situation. The imperialists have stopped investing, as well. More, probably much more, on this later. Meanwhile HANDS OFF VENEZUELA. DEFEND THE OIL NATIONALIZATIONS!
Monday, May 14, 2007
ON POLITCAL TRENDS AMONG AMERICAN YOUTH
COMMENTARY
WELL, BACK IN MY DAY WE………
Although a number of my political efforts these days are linked to appealing to the youth to learn the lessons of our history, working class history, I make no bones about feelings of trepidation when I take up the subject of youth, their hopes and their aspirations. That said, I recently read an interesting review article based on polls taken of youth (18-24) and their political aspirations. The major conclusion of the article was that today’s youth are trending (the poll’s expression, not mine) to vote Democratic in greater numbers than previous youth generations. A couple of minor conclusions were that youth have more potential impact on politics today than my generation, the generation of 1968, and that the current more technologically savvy generation was not reachable by traditional methods of communication and thus political organizations needed to catch up with the wave. Fair enough. Let me make some observations.
The generation of 1968 made every mistake in the political book. And that ain’t no lie. In our defense I will add that we were in uncharted waters facing such legitimate political monsters as Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace who were fully capable of using all of the methods of political repression. Nevertheless we tried non-violent protest in the civil rights movement under Martin Luther King. We tried peaceful protest against Vietnam under Dr. Spock and others. We tried parliamentary politics under Bobby Kennedy and Gene McCarthy. We tried to drop out with Ken Kesey, Timothy Leary and other counter-cultural heroes. We tried to make music the revolution. When things started to get grim in 1967 we tried to ‘raise’ the Pentagon. When things got grimmer still we tried to act as a second front for the Vietnamese National Liberation Front. When they got really grim we were ready to declare revolutionary war on America. Ah, those were the days. We were, however, for a number of reasons, politically defeated. A defeat from which we still have not recovered.
Obviously, every political generation will find its own means of expressing itself in a world that it has not made. Also fair enough. However, after a few years of opposition to this Iraq war I find that the current ‘youth’ generation seems much more politically passive and lacking in political imagination than the poll mentioned above would indicate. One of the most striking points about the survey is the apparent faith that today’s youth have in letting governmental agencies and officials resolve certain questions. By this I assume that Mr. Bush or his successor, probably Hillary Clinton at this point, is duly appointed to resolve the conflict in Iraq and such other questions as the on-going genocide in Dhafur.
In my day, while we had more than our share of illusions in the good graces of the government we were much more ready to face it down than rely on it. As a case in point, someone like Hillary Clinton (nee Rodham) who may have passed for a ‘radical’ at sedate 1960’s Wellesley would not even have gotten, nor should she have gotten, a hearing from the more thoughtful radical political types in the Boston area of the time. The time of waving the Vietnamese National Liberation Front flag at the front of anti-war marches was not Hillary’s time. Her time, if it is now, is the time of many, many defeats for progressive movements and a time of youth ‘trending’ Democratic. To put the situation in perspective I would argue that the political development of today’s youth was about what my generation’s was in 1962. Plenty of spunk, a desire to serve humanity, and plenty of illusions and faith in the ‘fairness’ of the democratic process. But, which way will they jump?
Seemingly each generation develops their own tribal language, fashions and other such cultural gradients to distinguish it from the OTHER. Once again fair enough. The survey mentioned above made an express point that today’s youth cannot be reached by traditionally methods of communication and/or advertising. And that makes sense about a generation nurtured on iPods, e-mails, chat rooms and cell phones. In short, today’s youth are light years ahead of my generation on the information super-highway. Or are they?
No one can reasonably deny that the Internet has a great potential as an aid to political development and organization. However, it is no substitute for face-to-face polemics and argument to develop strategy and to clarify political positions. From my own personal experience I find that one can spent so much time on the Internet that there is little time to get out and do the necessary political spade work. Multiply that by ubiquitous cell phone and iPod use and where is there time for organizing real people in real time. And that brings us back to that point I made above about the political passivity of this generation. If the revolution will not be televised it will also certainly not spring forth from a laptop. More on this later.
WELL, BACK IN MY DAY WE………
Although a number of my political efforts these days are linked to appealing to the youth to learn the lessons of our history, working class history, I make no bones about feelings of trepidation when I take up the subject of youth, their hopes and their aspirations. That said, I recently read an interesting review article based on polls taken of youth (18-24) and their political aspirations. The major conclusion of the article was that today’s youth are trending (the poll’s expression, not mine) to vote Democratic in greater numbers than previous youth generations. A couple of minor conclusions were that youth have more potential impact on politics today than my generation, the generation of 1968, and that the current more technologically savvy generation was not reachable by traditional methods of communication and thus political organizations needed to catch up with the wave. Fair enough. Let me make some observations.
The generation of 1968 made every mistake in the political book. And that ain’t no lie. In our defense I will add that we were in uncharted waters facing such legitimate political monsters as Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace who were fully capable of using all of the methods of political repression. Nevertheless we tried non-violent protest in the civil rights movement under Martin Luther King. We tried peaceful protest against Vietnam under Dr. Spock and others. We tried parliamentary politics under Bobby Kennedy and Gene McCarthy. We tried to drop out with Ken Kesey, Timothy Leary and other counter-cultural heroes. We tried to make music the revolution. When things started to get grim in 1967 we tried to ‘raise’ the Pentagon. When things got grimmer still we tried to act as a second front for the Vietnamese National Liberation Front. When they got really grim we were ready to declare revolutionary war on America. Ah, those were the days. We were, however, for a number of reasons, politically defeated. A defeat from which we still have not recovered.
Obviously, every political generation will find its own means of expressing itself in a world that it has not made. Also fair enough. However, after a few years of opposition to this Iraq war I find that the current ‘youth’ generation seems much more politically passive and lacking in political imagination than the poll mentioned above would indicate. One of the most striking points about the survey is the apparent faith that today’s youth have in letting governmental agencies and officials resolve certain questions. By this I assume that Mr. Bush or his successor, probably Hillary Clinton at this point, is duly appointed to resolve the conflict in Iraq and such other questions as the on-going genocide in Dhafur.
In my day, while we had more than our share of illusions in the good graces of the government we were much more ready to face it down than rely on it. As a case in point, someone like Hillary Clinton (nee Rodham) who may have passed for a ‘radical’ at sedate 1960’s Wellesley would not even have gotten, nor should she have gotten, a hearing from the more thoughtful radical political types in the Boston area of the time. The time of waving the Vietnamese National Liberation Front flag at the front of anti-war marches was not Hillary’s time. Her time, if it is now, is the time of many, many defeats for progressive movements and a time of youth ‘trending’ Democratic. To put the situation in perspective I would argue that the political development of today’s youth was about what my generation’s was in 1962. Plenty of spunk, a desire to serve humanity, and plenty of illusions and faith in the ‘fairness’ of the democratic process. But, which way will they jump?
Seemingly each generation develops their own tribal language, fashions and other such cultural gradients to distinguish it from the OTHER. Once again fair enough. The survey mentioned above made an express point that today’s youth cannot be reached by traditionally methods of communication and/or advertising. And that makes sense about a generation nurtured on iPods, e-mails, chat rooms and cell phones. In short, today’s youth are light years ahead of my generation on the information super-highway. Or are they?
No one can reasonably deny that the Internet has a great potential as an aid to political development and organization. However, it is no substitute for face-to-face polemics and argument to develop strategy and to clarify political positions. From my own personal experience I find that one can spent so much time on the Internet that there is little time to get out and do the necessary political spade work. Multiply that by ubiquitous cell phone and iPod use and where is there time for organizing real people in real time. And that brings us back to that point I made above about the political passivity of this generation. If the revolution will not be televised it will also certainly not spring forth from a laptop. More on this later.
*KEEP IRAQ FRONT AND CENTER BUT KEEP AN EYE ON AFGHANISTAN
Click on title to link to Wikipedia's entry for the Soviet Union's entry into Afghanistan in 1979. I provide this link for informational purposes only I do not assume to guarantee the politcal or literary correctness of the article.
COMMENTARY
IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF U.S/ALLIED TROOPS FROM IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN!
With the recent flurry of activity by Congress in Washington over the Iraq and Afghanistan war budgets and the ‘surge’ strategy in Iraq Afghanistan has fallen below the newspaper fold. That is a mistake. In one of the ironies of history Afghanistan was the pivotal start of the whole ‘war of civilizations’ going back to the fight by the Soviet Union in the 1980’s that was fought, at least partially, to bring Afghanistan into the 20th century (or maybe even the 19th). If the Soviet Union had waged more than a half-hearted fight then world history might have looked significantly difference today. The Islamic fundamentalist forces, notably those committed to Bin Laden and an Al Qaeda strategy, got their first taste of blood there. And they liked it.
The current political situation in that benighted country is that the Karzai government’s writ does not extend outside of Kabul and that the U.S./NATO presence there is the only thing propping up that government. And this is the rub. There has been a recent spate of articles on the fighting in Afghanistan centered on the allied forces indiscriminate bombing of various outlining villages and the killing of innocent civilians. While not now a matter of widespread public knowledge the American strategy in Afghanistan is essentially the same as in Iraq. In order to defeat the Taliban (and other) insurgencies those allied forces have relied on the old tried and true imperialist method of bringing overwhelming military force and then letting “God” separate out the innocent from the guilty. Of course, this nice little strategy has its blow back effect as previously disinterested Afghans have now begun, on their own, to fight against the imperialist presence. One village that was bombed by the United States during the past week did just that. One can expect more to come.
American imperialism, for public consumption, will bring out the candy bars and soap to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the local populace but when the deal goes down the bomb is the persuader of choice. So much for all those vaunted pacification programs. In justification for the aerial bombing policy one of the Allied ground commanders stated that without the use of such power hundreds of thousands of additional ground troops would be necessary. Nobody in the political and military establishment in Washington, or anywhere else, wants to, at this point, get into that hornet’s nest. The long and the short of it is that while we keep the fight against the war in Iraq on the front burner we had better bring the demand for immediate withdrawal in Afghanistan up to the front as well. In fact, United States Hands Off The World!
COMMENTARY
IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF U.S/ALLIED TROOPS FROM IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN!
With the recent flurry of activity by Congress in Washington over the Iraq and Afghanistan war budgets and the ‘surge’ strategy in Iraq Afghanistan has fallen below the newspaper fold. That is a mistake. In one of the ironies of history Afghanistan was the pivotal start of the whole ‘war of civilizations’ going back to the fight by the Soviet Union in the 1980’s that was fought, at least partially, to bring Afghanistan into the 20th century (or maybe even the 19th). If the Soviet Union had waged more than a half-hearted fight then world history might have looked significantly difference today. The Islamic fundamentalist forces, notably those committed to Bin Laden and an Al Qaeda strategy, got their first taste of blood there. And they liked it.
The current political situation in that benighted country is that the Karzai government’s writ does not extend outside of Kabul and that the U.S./NATO presence there is the only thing propping up that government. And this is the rub. There has been a recent spate of articles on the fighting in Afghanistan centered on the allied forces indiscriminate bombing of various outlining villages and the killing of innocent civilians. While not now a matter of widespread public knowledge the American strategy in Afghanistan is essentially the same as in Iraq. In order to defeat the Taliban (and other) insurgencies those allied forces have relied on the old tried and true imperialist method of bringing overwhelming military force and then letting “God” separate out the innocent from the guilty. Of course, this nice little strategy has its blow back effect as previously disinterested Afghans have now begun, on their own, to fight against the imperialist presence. One village that was bombed by the United States during the past week did just that. One can expect more to come.
American imperialism, for public consumption, will bring out the candy bars and soap to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the local populace but when the deal goes down the bomb is the persuader of choice. So much for all those vaunted pacification programs. In justification for the aerial bombing policy one of the Allied ground commanders stated that without the use of such power hundreds of thousands of additional ground troops would be necessary. Nobody in the political and military establishment in Washington, or anywhere else, wants to, at this point, get into that hornet’s nest. The long and the short of it is that while we keep the fight against the war in Iraq on the front burner we had better bring the demand for immediate withdrawal in Afghanistan up to the front as well. In fact, United States Hands Off The World!
Saturday, May 12, 2007
*Goodbye Tony Blair, But With No Tears-Build A Militant Labor Party In The Britsh Isles-Now!
Click on title to link to Wikipedia's entry for the histroy of the Labor Party in Britain.
COMMENTARY
BUSH LOSES HIS POODLE, BUT HE STILL HAS A BULLDOG FOR A FRIEND
BUILD A MILITANT WORKERS PARTY IN THE BRITISH ISLES
The face of bourgeois politics in Europe has changed over the last year. However, there is no need for leftist militants internationally to rejoice. Although there have been changes in governmental control in a number of countries including France, Northern Ireland and presently in Great Britain no picture has emerged that, except for the general opposition to the United States-led Iraqi War, links any of these developments to an increase in social struggles. On the contrary, except perhaps for the far-left in France, the opposite appears to be the case. Obviously, the situation in France is the most worrisome for leftists and the situation in Northern Ireland appears almost tragic against the original IRA/Sinn Fein struggle to get the British out. Today, however, I want to focus on the recent resignation announcement of one Anthony Blair, British Prime Minister-President George Bush’s pet poodle but also seemingly the last major international political player who unequivocally went down the line with American imperialist policy on Iraq.
Mr. Blair made no bones about his desire of turning the tepid reformist Labor Party into a mini-version of the United States Democratic Party. He carried this transformation out with Mr. Gordon Brown the heir presumptive to the leadership of the British Labor Party and probable next Prime Minister. In this endeavor they were, sad to say, successful. New Labor is dependent on the trade unions but that is less so than in the past. It is clear that in Britain a new workers party is necessary. That means that militants there must put themselves in a position to split the left-wing of New Labor and create a new party based on a socialist program. That means it is necessary to be in that New Labor Party even if one has to hold one's nose in doing so.
To state the task is easy. To do it is obviously much harder given the British labor movement’s seeming undying commitment to the traditions of the old Labor Party. But damn there is no other way forward. One last point that should shame all militant leftists. After ten years Mr. Blair is going to be able to resign. For his criminal role in Iraq as Mr. Bush’s publicity agent and spear carrier Mr. Blair should have, for starters, been booted out on a vote of no confidence by Parliament long ago. Real justice still waits to be served.
COMMENTARY
BUSH LOSES HIS POODLE, BUT HE STILL HAS A BULLDOG FOR A FRIEND
BUILD A MILITANT WORKERS PARTY IN THE BRITISH ISLES
The face of bourgeois politics in Europe has changed over the last year. However, there is no need for leftist militants internationally to rejoice. Although there have been changes in governmental control in a number of countries including France, Northern Ireland and presently in Great Britain no picture has emerged that, except for the general opposition to the United States-led Iraqi War, links any of these developments to an increase in social struggles. On the contrary, except perhaps for the far-left in France, the opposite appears to be the case. Obviously, the situation in France is the most worrisome for leftists and the situation in Northern Ireland appears almost tragic against the original IRA/Sinn Fein struggle to get the British out. Today, however, I want to focus on the recent resignation announcement of one Anthony Blair, British Prime Minister-President George Bush’s pet poodle but also seemingly the last major international political player who unequivocally went down the line with American imperialist policy on Iraq.
Mr. Blair made no bones about his desire of turning the tepid reformist Labor Party into a mini-version of the United States Democratic Party. He carried this transformation out with Mr. Gordon Brown the heir presumptive to the leadership of the British Labor Party and probable next Prime Minister. In this endeavor they were, sad to say, successful. New Labor is dependent on the trade unions but that is less so than in the past. It is clear that in Britain a new workers party is necessary. That means that militants there must put themselves in a position to split the left-wing of New Labor and create a new party based on a socialist program. That means it is necessary to be in that New Labor Party even if one has to hold one's nose in doing so.
To state the task is easy. To do it is obviously much harder given the British labor movement’s seeming undying commitment to the traditions of the old Labor Party. But damn there is no other way forward. One last point that should shame all militant leftists. After ten years Mr. Blair is going to be able to resign. For his criminal role in Iraq as Mr. Bush’s publicity agent and spear carrier Mr. Blair should have, for starters, been booted out on a vote of no confidence by Parliament long ago. Real justice still waits to be served.
*JOIN PDC CONTINGENTS ON MAY 17TH TO FREE MUMIA NOW!
Click on the title to link to the Partisan Defense Committee Web site
THIS INFORMATION IS PASSED ON FROM THE PARTISAN DEFENSE COMMITTEE. MUMIA'S CASE IS AT A CRITICAL POINT. ALL ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS SHOULD REDOUBLE THEIR EFFORTS TO FREE THIS INNOCENT MAN. BE AT THE LOCATIONS INDICATED, IF YOU CAN. DOWN WITH THE DEATH PENALTY!
Join PDC Contingents—Philadelphia and San Francisco, May 17!
For Class-Struggle Defense to Free Mumia Now!
On May 17 in Philadelphia the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in what could well be the final legal appeal in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Shot and arrested on 9 December 1981, Mumia Abu-Jamal—a talented journalist known as the "voice of the voiceless," a former Black Panther, a supporter of the MOVE organization and an outspoken opponent of racist oppression—was framed and falsely convicted for the mur¬der of police officer Daniel Faulkner. Any ruling by the Third Circuit, which could come within weeks or months, will likely be appealed to the reactionary U.S. Supreme Court.
Mumia is the victim of the forces of racist capitalist "law and order," who see in him a voice of defiant opposition to the oppression of black people that is a cornerstone of American capitalism. In the last week, the Fraternal Order of Police (F.O.P.) harassed and made threats of terror that forced a change of venue for a birthday celebration for Mumia in Philadelphia on April 24, as well as of a hip-hop event for Mumia in New York City on April 15. The state's determination to carry out his execution is a warning to ail who challenge cop repression, to workers who stand up for their rights on picket lines, to those who protest U.S. imperialist depredations in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.
From the unions to the campuses, all out to support Mumia's fight on the day of oral arguments! The kind of pressure that will have an impact on the courts is the social power of the multiracial labor movement demanding that this innocent man be freed now. It is with this understanding that we are mobilizing Partisan Defense Committee contingents for the May 17 rallies which are called by Mumia supporters, including, in Philadelphia, International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal and the New York Coalition to Free Mumia and, in San Francisco, the Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal. Join the PDC's contingent under the slogans: "Mumia Abu-Jamal Is Innocent—For Class-Struggle Defense to Free Him Now! There Is No Justice in the Capitalist Courts! Abolish the Racist Death Penalty!"
In August of 1995, Mumia won a stay of execution based on worldwide protests, crucially involving the labor movement. From 1995 through 1999, new evidence was revealed in his case that further blew the state's frame-up to bits. All the evidence proving Mumia's innocence, including the testimony of William Singletary and Veronica Jones who saw the shooter run away, was rejected by the courts. Around this same time a number of reformist socialist organizations such as Workers World Party, Socialist Action, the International Socialist Organization and the Revolutionary Communist Party (and their front groups), raised the call for a "new trial" for Mumia. Instead of mobilizing to free Mumia as an innocent man and victim of a political and racist frame-up, these groups mobilized on the basis that Mumia could get a new and fair hearing in federal court, leading to a new and fair trial in the same Philadelphia courts that sent him to death row. These fake socialists promote illusions that Mumia can get justice from the same capitalist state that killed some 38 Panthers under its murderous COINTELPRO operations, and that massacred eleven black people, including women and children, in the 1985 fire-bombing of MOVE's Osage Avenue home in Philadelphia.
Many of these so-called socialist organizations now raise "freedom for Mumia" in conjunction with calls for a "new trial." However, their politics remain in the framework of reliance on the bourgeois state. Behind the attempts to misdirect the struggle for Mumia to a call for a "new trial" is a political program premised on reliance on the capitalist state—a program directly counterposed to a mobilization of working-class power for his freedom. This political program of tying the masses to their class enemies and pushing faith in the capitalist state demobilized millions who once filled the streets in support of Mumia.
Mumia's case lays bare the workings of the capitalist state. His frame-up conviction was not the act of one "rogue" cop or prosecutor or judge, but that of an entire system that cannot be reformed. Mumia's innocence has been attested to by mountains of evidence, including the sworn confession of Arnold Beverly that he, not Mumia, killed Faulkner. Arnold Beverly stated that he was hired to kill Faulkner, whose interference with prostitution, gambling and payoffs made him a problem for the mob and corrupt cops. More than five years ago, Mumia's attorney submitted this confession to the courts, but to the racists in black robes, a court of law is no place for evidence of the innocence of this fighter for the oppressed.
The frame-up of Mumia Abu-Jamal symbolizes what the racist death penalty in the U.S. is all about: a legacy of chattel slavery, the lynch rope made legal. We oppose the death penalty on principle—we do not accord the state the right to say who lives and who dies. With the execution in December 2005 of Stanley Tookie Williams, over substantial popular opposition, the ruling class sent a signal that they are deadly serious that Mumia will soon be another victim of the barbaric death penalty.
In the international fight to save Sacco and Vanzetti, James P. Cannon of the International Labor Defense pointed out, as the rulers geared up in 1927 for the legal lynching of the two anarchist workers: "It is, of course, absolutely right to exhaust every legal possibility and technicality in the fight, provided—that the workers have no illusions." He emphasized: "We must appeal at the same time to the laboring masses of America and the whole world who are the highest court of all." This is the class-struggle defense strategy that the Partisan Defense Committee stands on.
The worldwide movement for Mumia must be revived on the basis that Mumia is an innocent man who must be freed now, that his conviction is a racist, political frame-up, that there is no justice in the capitalist courts. The capitalist state and its courts are not neutral institutions but organs of repression against the working class and the oppressed. Mumia's freedom will not be won through reliance on the rigged "justice" system or on capitalist politicians, whether Democratic, Republican or Green.
The PDC, a class-struggle legal and social defense organization associated with the Marxist Spartacist League, fights to mobilize the social power of the multiracial labor movement— those who create the wealth of this society and who can shut it down. That is why our contingents in Philadelphia and the Bay Area on May 17 are based on the need for class-struggle defense to free Mumia and the understanding that the capitalist state serves the interests of the racist ruling class. Labor must be mobilized independently of the very forces of the capitalist state that framed up this innocent man! The road to victory in Mumia's case begins with the understanding that the class enemy is determined to carry out his execution. The multiracial working class has every interest in fighting against that outcome, which would further bolster the machinery of capitalist state violence whose ultimate target is the working class.
We are building contingents in Philadelphia and the Bay Area as a step toward the labor-centered, mass united-front mobilizations needed to free Mumia. Such mobilizations must send the court the message: We will not let Mumia die or rot another day in prison! Free Mumia Now!
—Partisan Defense Committee, 26 April 2007
THIS INFORMATION IS PASSED ON FROM THE PARTISAN DEFENSE COMMITTEE. MUMIA'S CASE IS AT A CRITICAL POINT. ALL ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS SHOULD REDOUBLE THEIR EFFORTS TO FREE THIS INNOCENT MAN. BE AT THE LOCATIONS INDICATED, IF YOU CAN. DOWN WITH THE DEATH PENALTY!
Join PDC Contingents—Philadelphia and San Francisco, May 17!
For Class-Struggle Defense to Free Mumia Now!
On May 17 in Philadelphia the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in what could well be the final legal appeal in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Shot and arrested on 9 December 1981, Mumia Abu-Jamal—a talented journalist known as the "voice of the voiceless," a former Black Panther, a supporter of the MOVE organization and an outspoken opponent of racist oppression—was framed and falsely convicted for the mur¬der of police officer Daniel Faulkner. Any ruling by the Third Circuit, which could come within weeks or months, will likely be appealed to the reactionary U.S. Supreme Court.
Mumia is the victim of the forces of racist capitalist "law and order," who see in him a voice of defiant opposition to the oppression of black people that is a cornerstone of American capitalism. In the last week, the Fraternal Order of Police (F.O.P.) harassed and made threats of terror that forced a change of venue for a birthday celebration for Mumia in Philadelphia on April 24, as well as of a hip-hop event for Mumia in New York City on April 15. The state's determination to carry out his execution is a warning to ail who challenge cop repression, to workers who stand up for their rights on picket lines, to those who protest U.S. imperialist depredations in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.
From the unions to the campuses, all out to support Mumia's fight on the day of oral arguments! The kind of pressure that will have an impact on the courts is the social power of the multiracial labor movement demanding that this innocent man be freed now. It is with this understanding that we are mobilizing Partisan Defense Committee contingents for the May 17 rallies which are called by Mumia supporters, including, in Philadelphia, International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal and the New York Coalition to Free Mumia and, in San Francisco, the Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal. Join the PDC's contingent under the slogans: "Mumia Abu-Jamal Is Innocent—For Class-Struggle Defense to Free Him Now! There Is No Justice in the Capitalist Courts! Abolish the Racist Death Penalty!"
In August of 1995, Mumia won a stay of execution based on worldwide protests, crucially involving the labor movement. From 1995 through 1999, new evidence was revealed in his case that further blew the state's frame-up to bits. All the evidence proving Mumia's innocence, including the testimony of William Singletary and Veronica Jones who saw the shooter run away, was rejected by the courts. Around this same time a number of reformist socialist organizations such as Workers World Party, Socialist Action, the International Socialist Organization and the Revolutionary Communist Party (and their front groups), raised the call for a "new trial" for Mumia. Instead of mobilizing to free Mumia as an innocent man and victim of a political and racist frame-up, these groups mobilized on the basis that Mumia could get a new and fair hearing in federal court, leading to a new and fair trial in the same Philadelphia courts that sent him to death row. These fake socialists promote illusions that Mumia can get justice from the same capitalist state that killed some 38 Panthers under its murderous COINTELPRO operations, and that massacred eleven black people, including women and children, in the 1985 fire-bombing of MOVE's Osage Avenue home in Philadelphia.
Many of these so-called socialist organizations now raise "freedom for Mumia" in conjunction with calls for a "new trial." However, their politics remain in the framework of reliance on the bourgeois state. Behind the attempts to misdirect the struggle for Mumia to a call for a "new trial" is a political program premised on reliance on the capitalist state—a program directly counterposed to a mobilization of working-class power for his freedom. This political program of tying the masses to their class enemies and pushing faith in the capitalist state demobilized millions who once filled the streets in support of Mumia.
Mumia's case lays bare the workings of the capitalist state. His frame-up conviction was not the act of one "rogue" cop or prosecutor or judge, but that of an entire system that cannot be reformed. Mumia's innocence has been attested to by mountains of evidence, including the sworn confession of Arnold Beverly that he, not Mumia, killed Faulkner. Arnold Beverly stated that he was hired to kill Faulkner, whose interference with prostitution, gambling and payoffs made him a problem for the mob and corrupt cops. More than five years ago, Mumia's attorney submitted this confession to the courts, but to the racists in black robes, a court of law is no place for evidence of the innocence of this fighter for the oppressed.
The frame-up of Mumia Abu-Jamal symbolizes what the racist death penalty in the U.S. is all about: a legacy of chattel slavery, the lynch rope made legal. We oppose the death penalty on principle—we do not accord the state the right to say who lives and who dies. With the execution in December 2005 of Stanley Tookie Williams, over substantial popular opposition, the ruling class sent a signal that they are deadly serious that Mumia will soon be another victim of the barbaric death penalty.
In the international fight to save Sacco and Vanzetti, James P. Cannon of the International Labor Defense pointed out, as the rulers geared up in 1927 for the legal lynching of the two anarchist workers: "It is, of course, absolutely right to exhaust every legal possibility and technicality in the fight, provided—that the workers have no illusions." He emphasized: "We must appeal at the same time to the laboring masses of America and the whole world who are the highest court of all." This is the class-struggle defense strategy that the Partisan Defense Committee stands on.
The worldwide movement for Mumia must be revived on the basis that Mumia is an innocent man who must be freed now, that his conviction is a racist, political frame-up, that there is no justice in the capitalist courts. The capitalist state and its courts are not neutral institutions but organs of repression against the working class and the oppressed. Mumia's freedom will not be won through reliance on the rigged "justice" system or on capitalist politicians, whether Democratic, Republican or Green.
The PDC, a class-struggle legal and social defense organization associated with the Marxist Spartacist League, fights to mobilize the social power of the multiracial labor movement— those who create the wealth of this society and who can shut it down. That is why our contingents in Philadelphia and the Bay Area on May 17 are based on the need for class-struggle defense to free Mumia and the understanding that the capitalist state serves the interests of the racist ruling class. Labor must be mobilized independently of the very forces of the capitalist state that framed up this innocent man! The road to victory in Mumia's case begins with the understanding that the class enemy is determined to carry out his execution. The multiracial working class has every interest in fighting against that outcome, which would further bolster the machinery of capitalist state violence whose ultimate target is the working class.
We are building contingents in Philadelphia and the Bay Area as a step toward the labor-centered, mass united-front mobilizations needed to free Mumia. Such mobilizations must send the court the message: We will not let Mumia die or rot another day in prison! Free Mumia Now!
—Partisan Defense Committee, 26 April 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
*For Class Struggle Defense To Free Mumia- A Guest Commentary
Click on the headline to link to an article about the need for class struggle defense in the death penalty case of black journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal.
*From The Partisan Defense Committee- Labor: Defend Immigrant Rights- A Guest Commentary
Click on the title to link to the article described in the headline from the Partisan Defense Committee.
'DEMOCRACY' IN IRAQ
AT LEAST SOME IRAQIS HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR
COMMMENTARY
Apparently the ‘dark Prince'Vice President Cheney has a bull’s eye on his head. Every time he has moved out of the confines of Washington D.C. some angry group is taking dead aim militarily at him. A couple of months ago it was on a ‘surprise’ visit to Afghanistan. This week it is in the heavily guarded Green Zone of Baghdad. Clearly it does no pay to apply for a job on his staff, or the American Embassy in Baghdad for that matter. That is life in the fast lane, however, and such inconveniences come with the territory. But, that is no what has drawn my attention today. It is rather the purposes of Mr. Cheney’s mission.
The Bush Administration has staked it political head on ‘success’ for the current military 'surge' operation and its consequent stabilizing effect on the Iraqi puppet government. Congress has, weakly, challenged that strategy by attempting to tie timetables and/or benchmarks to the war budget funding. Fair enough. Enter Mr. Cheney. His current trip to Baghdad is to push on the Iraqis the need to make good on those benchmarks so the money can keep flowing for the American troops. But here is the kicker.
While in America the parliamentary political temperature has heated up dramatically with all parties ready to bring out the big guns in Iraq the parliamentarians are discussing a two-month summer recess. In short, no action on those beloved American benchmarks. All this writer can say is turnabout is fair play. The Americans wanted a ‘democracy’ in Iraq and in emulation of their patrons in Washington the Iraqis have apparently learned one lesson quite well. Enough said.
COMMMENTARY
Apparently the ‘dark Prince'Vice President Cheney has a bull’s eye on his head. Every time he has moved out of the confines of Washington D.C. some angry group is taking dead aim militarily at him. A couple of months ago it was on a ‘surprise’ visit to Afghanistan. This week it is in the heavily guarded Green Zone of Baghdad. Clearly it does no pay to apply for a job on his staff, or the American Embassy in Baghdad for that matter. That is life in the fast lane, however, and such inconveniences come with the territory. But, that is no what has drawn my attention today. It is rather the purposes of Mr. Cheney’s mission.
The Bush Administration has staked it political head on ‘success’ for the current military 'surge' operation and its consequent stabilizing effect on the Iraqi puppet government. Congress has, weakly, challenged that strategy by attempting to tie timetables and/or benchmarks to the war budget funding. Fair enough. Enter Mr. Cheney. His current trip to Baghdad is to push on the Iraqis the need to make good on those benchmarks so the money can keep flowing for the American troops. But here is the kicker.
While in America the parliamentary political temperature has heated up dramatically with all parties ready to bring out the big guns in Iraq the parliamentarians are discussing a two-month summer recess. In short, no action on those beloved American benchmarks. All this writer can say is turnabout is fair play. The Americans wanted a ‘democracy’ in Iraq and in emulation of their patrons in Washington the Iraqis have apparently learned one lesson quite well. Enough said.
DOWN WITH "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" LEGISLATION
REPEAL THE “DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL” LEGISLATION
COMMENTARY
FIGHT DISCRIMINATION WHEREVER IT IS FOUND
A recent newspaper article highlighted the fact that a previously discharged sailor who while on active duty had openly admitted to his superior that he was gay was recalled by the Navy due to his specialized skills and the stretched out military due to the strain of Iraq and Afghanistan. Under Clinton-era legislation a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was the ‘compromise’ reached with the military brass so that gays and lesbians could serve without the military services having to recognize sexual orientation. That policy was de facto discriminatory then and it is now and should be repealed. Recently soon to be retired Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Martin Meehan has introduced legislation to repeal the ban. Militants support such a repeal.
Over the past few years I have made many commentaries in opposition to the Iraq War and by implication the negative role of military personnel in that war. As a general proposition militant leftists are opposed to the imperialist military. We are not, however, indifferent to the fate and the rights of individual service personnel. We fight all manifestations of any form of discrimination, including that based on sexual orientation, wherever it is found. Thus, we opposed and continue to oppose the convenient policy (for the military brass) that allows the military to discriminate in situations where it would be prohibited in civilian life. This is particularly true when ‘outing’ subjects one to a discharge from military service and therefore could have repercussions over a lifetime. Simply put- DOWN WITH THE “DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL” LEGISLATION! REPEAL IT NOW!
COMMENTARY
FIGHT DISCRIMINATION WHEREVER IT IS FOUND
A recent newspaper article highlighted the fact that a previously discharged sailor who while on active duty had openly admitted to his superior that he was gay was recalled by the Navy due to his specialized skills and the stretched out military due to the strain of Iraq and Afghanistan. Under Clinton-era legislation a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was the ‘compromise’ reached with the military brass so that gays and lesbians could serve without the military services having to recognize sexual orientation. That policy was de facto discriminatory then and it is now and should be repealed. Recently soon to be retired Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Martin Meehan has introduced legislation to repeal the ban. Militants support such a repeal.
Over the past few years I have made many commentaries in opposition to the Iraq War and by implication the negative role of military personnel in that war. As a general proposition militant leftists are opposed to the imperialist military. We are not, however, indifferent to the fate and the rights of individual service personnel. We fight all manifestations of any form of discrimination, including that based on sexual orientation, wherever it is found. Thus, we opposed and continue to oppose the convenient policy (for the military brass) that allows the military to discriminate in situations where it would be prohibited in civilian life. This is particularly true when ‘outing’ subjects one to a discharge from military service and therefore could have repercussions over a lifetime. Simply put- DOWN WITH THE “DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL” LEGISLATION! REPEAL IT NOW!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)