THE END OF THE AMERICAN FRONTIER-THE MISFITS, CLARK GABLE, MARILYN MONROE, MONTGOMERGY CLIFT, 1961

DVD REVIEW

THE MISFITS, CLARK GABLE, MARILYN MONROE, MONTGOMERGY CLIFT, 1961

What is not to like about a movie set in the modern American West where civilization is fast taking the starch out of the independent-minded cowboys and their hangers-on who are trying to hold on for dear life. They had obviously not read Harvard Professor Turner's thesis about the end of the American frontier. The code of the old West and its values is losing its effect by the day to the ethos of the modern capitalist farmer and rancher. Larry McMurtry in his book and subsequent film The Last Picture Show as well as others have also taken up this theme but none have done it better on film than The Misfits.

Add a screenplay by the legendary playwright Arthur Miller. Further add the strong performances, aided by the black and white format, of a grizzled Clark Gable, the ill-fated Marilyn Monroe and the troubled Montgomery Clift supported by Thelma Ritter and Eli Wallach and you have a very good film indeed. I have read that Miller’s screenplay was written especially for Monroe, his then wife. If so that explains why this story about castoffs, drifters and non-conformists looking for some emotional relief in the new West that has passed them by had such a powerful effect on me. Monroe as the beautiful but hard luck and misunderstood object of affection seemingly was playing herself here. And to great effect. Watch it.

THE DEATH OF EVERYMAN

PLAY/BOOK REVIEW

THE DEATH OF A SALESMAN, ARTHUR MILLER

Arthur Miller had a good ear for the foibles and traumas of the ordinary people of the old middle class put up against the wall in a world that was dramatically changing after World War II. The time of the man in the gray flannel suit and the victory of corporate culture that destroyed the old independent professions was not the main character of the piece Willie Loman’s time. In this play, seemingly only about the trials and tribulations of Everyman Willie Loman a used up salesman at the end of his career, the underlying tension is that he cannot keep up with those changes required by modern capitalist technique and therefore has to be discarded. In a recent review of the book The Disposable American, that is essentially a study of today’s used up Willie Lomans, I noted that the author had caught the desperation of that layer of working people that had gotten waylaid by globalization. Seemingly Willie is their voice-the voice of shame, individual impotency and sense of lost and betrayal but also a certain pridefulness. Unfortunately, Willie Loman and today's Willies are disturbingly clueless about the forces that have done them in.

This occupational demise naturally has a fallout effect on Willie’s personal life as well. He does not understand what has happened to destroy the integrity of his dysfunctional nuclear family. The old standards that had guided him do not stand up in the new suburban-dominated world where he must try to survive. Obviously there is some dramatic tension between him and his sons who have in their own way nothing but contempt for the old man, his old ways, his illusions and his duplicity. But also, as is always the case with rebellious children, love, at least their conception of it, as well. That this love is not good enough to save Willie in the end is one of the lessons to be learned from the play. That is where the need for political solutions begin. But enough. Read the play and see the Lee J. Cobb version of the movie. Cobb IS Willie Loman.

IN THE SEASON OF THE WITCH

PLAY/BOOK REVIEW

THE CRUCIBLE, ARTHUR MILLER

This play, based on the infamous Salem witch trials of the 1690’s that New England still has not lived down, was written by Arthur Miller in an earlier period in American history, the 1950’s, when hysteria over the alleged internal “Communist menace” dovetailed with the opening of the coldest part of the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The dramatic tension of the play cannot be understood except as a parable on that then current atmosphere. Miller draws parallels with the earlier period of hysteria, in this case the irrational hysteria over witches in the isolated, inward-looking Puritan community of Salem, Massachusetts. The comparisons in reaction to the witches and ‘reds under the bed’ are startling as far as the response of the societies and individuals in those communities were concerned.

Obviously in the play one needs a hero, even if it is the flawed and ‘fallen’ John Proctor who will stand up, in the final analysis, even unto death for his principles. We will always find a few, even if reluctant, fighters to stand against the herd. In fact we depend on that occurrence. What is more compelling, and frightening, is the reaction of the ‘honest’ town folk. Then, as in the case of the Cold War hysteria, those ‘good’ folk turned the other way, joined actively in on the action or in some way justified the trials. As we are again in a period when the new hysteria is over Islamic fundamentalists and their motives this play remains an extremely powerful cautionary tale. Read the play and/or watch a movie version of it.

ON BEING GOD'S ENGLISHMEN

BOOK REVIEW

THE BIBLE AND THE 17TH CENTURY ENGLISH REVOLUTION, CHRISTOPHER HILL, PENQUIN,NEW YORK, 1993


Although both the parliamentary and royalist sides in the English Revolution, the major revolutionary event of the 17th century, quoted the Bible, particularly the newer English versions, for every purpose from an account of the fall to the virtues of primitive communism that revolution cannot be properly understood except as a secular revolution. The first truly secular revolution of modern times. So why would the pre-eminent historian of the English Revolution, the late Christopher Hill, write a whole book about the influence of the Bible in that revolutionary period?

As been noted by more than one commentator there is sometimes a disconnect between the ideas in the air at any particular time and the way those ideas get fought out in political struggle. In this case secular ideas, or what would have passed as such to us, such as the questions of the divinity of the monarch, of social, political and economic redistribution and the nature of the new society (the second coming) were expressed in familiar religious terms. That being the case there is no better guide to understanding the significance of the mass of biblical literary articles produced in the period than Professor Hill. The only objection one can have is that he overloads his argument for the importance of the Bible in the social discourse of the times with more examples than necessary and with a certain redundancy and overlap in the subjects he looks at such as the importance of the garden (of Eden), the wilderness and the hedge in Biblical narrative, the concept of England as a chosen nation and the English as a chosen people and of the decisive weight of the Old Testament as a source of inspiration (and vengeance). However, this is only a minor objection.

In this expansive book Mr. Hill connects the wide spread use of the Bible with the revolution in printing bringing its message to the masses; the effects of the Protestant Reformation on individual responsibility for bible study and leading a moral life; various interpretations of Adam’s fall, the consequences of that fall and the possibilities for redemption; the theology of the divine right of kings and the concept of the man of blood exemplified by Charles I; the role of the priesthood of all believers that foreshadow a very modern concept of the validity of individual religious expression; radical interpretations of equality and primitive communism, particularly the work of Gerrard Winstanley ; the Puritan ethic and many more subjects of interests. Here Hill also uses his usual cast of characters that one has met in his other works including, Oliver Cromwell, Edmund Sexby, Hugh Peters, John Bunyan, the above-mentioned Gerrard Winstanley, Abiezer Coppe, the Levelers, the Ranters, the Quakers and the Fifth Monarchists. And seemingly threading through the whole narrative, John Milton. Take note and read on.

*LABOR AND THE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR

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

COMMENTARY

‘HOT CARGO’ MILITARY SUPPLIES TO IRAQ

Over the past year or so I have been propagandizing for the creation of anti-war soldiers and sailors solidarity committees as a practical organizational vehicle for implementing the Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Iraq slogan. I have dealt in an earlier post with the fact that I have taken flak in some quarters for a ‘military deviation’ on anti-war strategy. This charge comes mainly from people who have advocated, and continue to advocate for, the manifestly dead-end strategies of reliance on parliamentary procedures or organizing ever more mass peaceful protest in the streets. I will not re-fight that issue here.

However there is, on reflection, a kernel of truth to the ‘military deviation’ argument of my opponents. I have always conceptualized the committees as a stopgap measure to reach our political goal of immediate withdrawal in the face of the obvious lack of class struggle by working people in America in the present period. In better political times we would be calling not for action by the troops to end the war but for labor strikes and other militant actions by the working class to slow the war machine down. We will know that we are in a very different political time when the labor movement strikes not only for its necessary wage and benefits packages but also against the Iraq war. Today, however, that is the music of the future.

Or is it? I bring to your attention the following. In mid-May a group of anti-Iraq war protesters organized as an ad hoc Port Action Committee demonstrated in front of the ship terminals in Oakland, California and asked the longshoremen there not cross their lines. In response the longshoremen honored the line and no ships were unloaded that day. Bravo. The ships in port at the time were not, however, loading or unloading military cargo. Moreover, the longshoremen did not themselves initiate the action. Nevertheless this exemplary labor action is just a taste of what working people could do to bring this damn war to an end. I note that the West Coast-based International Longshoreman’s Union has a long history of respecting picket lines for political purposes and has been a haven for left-wing political activities since the days of the San Francisco General Strike in 1934. This event points to the way we have to be thinking strategically these days. Linking up labor’s untapped power to slow down the war machine with the political fight in the barracks to end the war. That is the ticket.

An appropriate call today by militant unionists in the affected unions is the call to ‘hot cargo’ military shipments to Iraq and Afghanistan. That call is particularly important in the East Coast and Gulf Coast ports that do the bulk of the maritime transport to the Middle East. And as this call is raised other militant unionists and their unions must be ready stand in solidarity. Raising this tactic should, moreover, finally get me out from under the ‘military deviation’ charge. Right? LABOR ‘HOT CARGO’ MILITARY SHIPMENTS TO IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

VICTORY TO THE QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS TEACHERS

COMMENTARY


I must apologize at the outset for not having posted a solidarity statement with the Quincy, Massachusetts Education Association (QEA) before today, June 11, 2007, the second day of their walkout. This is doubly egregious as I was born in Quincy-the City of Presidents (John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams). The Quincy teachers walked out on Friday June 8, 2007 after taking a vote. From the news that I had heard I believed that their action was a one day affair, a fairly familiar way to deal with stalled contract negotiations. However these brothers and sisters are for real and seem determined to make their point and get a just contract. This in the face of a state Labor Relations Board decision that their walkout is illegal and the determination of the Quincy School Committee to seek a court injunction to force the teachers back to work.

The major issue, and a recurring stumbling block to many of today’s labor contracts, is health benefits. That is the surface issue at least but the reality is wages. The favorite ploy for the government (and private employers, as well) is to grant some seemingly reasonable wage increase and then off-set it with an increase in employee contributions to their health insurance plans. The net effect is that over the life of a contract the teachers will either stand still or go backwards in their real standards of living. Make no mistake this is an important fight and is being watched by teachers unions (and school committees) throughout the state of Massachusetts where this same issue is in dispute in many contract negotiations. Let us be clear-teachers do not make nearly enough in comparison with other highly skill professions. In a just world teachers, the transmitters of learning and culture to the young generations, would be held in higher esteem and compensated accordingly. And would have much more say in educational decisions, along with parents, students and other school employees. However until that day-Victory to the Quincy, Massachusetts School Teachers

"I'D RATHER BE THE DEVIL THAN BE THAT WOMAN'S MAN"

COMMENTARY

BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY

Leave it to legendary blues man Skip James to come up with just the right phrase to capture my feelings after having just read part of an ‘unauthorized’ biography of Senator Hillary Clinton. Believe me even that much was tough going and I refuse to go further. No, not because of the nasty details of the Clintons’ lives ‘exposed’ but because I knew all of this before as did almost any political neophyte. These people, the Clintons, have been part of the political landscape so long it seems really improbably that there is much we haven't had our noses rub in already. Between, snoops, special prosecutors and impeachment interrogators what is left?

The ‘highlight’ of the current expose is thus suppose to be the ‘pact with the devil’ that Bill and Hillary made that they would support eight year presidencies for each other. First for Bill, and then (now) for Hillary. I do not know what they call it in bourgeois circles but in the workers movement we call it a united front- that is a temporary agreement over a certain issue or goal. What is the big deal? That such a non-starter is seen as some kind of conspiracy to take over the republic tells more about the authors than about the Clintons. I repost a comment that I made in an earlier post dealing with the presidential campaign. I think it rather sums up the real point that eludes of all these biographies and exercises in conspiracy theory.

"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 a pretty sight. And once again, as with the Republicans, we are in trouble."

IN THE TIME OF THE BEAST?

COMMENTARY

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE TO GO INTO THE WATER-

NOW, MORE THAN EVER, BUILD A WORKERS PARTY

Seemingly every year about this time just as I am about to go into hibernation from political strife for the summer some crazy thing happens to disrupt my cozy get away. This year I have been waylaid by of all things political debates. What? Political debates in June 2007? Apparently the presidential campaign process has truly gone into warp speed with all the manipulations around the primary and caucus schedules by the various states. Not only that but both Democrats and Republicans felt that it was necessary to unburden their souls before July 4th so here I am stuck in commentary land. And for what? The Democratic debate on Sunday June 3rd, running out of New Hampshire, ran head to head with a New York Yankees/Boston Red Sox game so I was probably one of about seven people watching it here. The Republican debate, also running out of New Hampshire, on Tuesday June 5th proved to me that I am not the only political junkie that needs to get to a rehab clinic very quickly. But here is my first piece of wisdom for the summer doldrums. Any party that schedules or allows itself to be scheduled for a debate in June a year and a half before the elections deserves all the problems it gets.

Oh yes, and the debates? From an advocate of a workers party one would expect an obligatory ‘there is not a dime’s worth of different between the Democrats and Republicans’. I will not disappoint you in that regard except to say with inflation there is not a quarter’s worth of difference. There is however, noticeably, a very sharp difference in styles and the audiences that the various candidates are pitching their arguments to. The Democrats, after six years of the Bush follies, are clearly in the cat bird’s seat and pitch to the centrist majority so that they need not go to extremes on immigration, Iraq, jobs, education, abortion and other social issues and, most decidedly, on religion. The Republicans on the other hand not only have to distance themselves from the Bush fiascos but must pay lip service to the prejudices of the right-wing religious fundamentalist base that provides the voting cattle in key primary and caucus states. Thus we are treated to the spectacle of presidential candidates in a secular republic in 2007, not 1927 or 1877, raising their hands in the negative when asked whether they believed in evolution. Damn, I am embarrassed to even watch such a spectacle. Save that action for the revival tents, please.

But back to that quarter’s worth of difference question. What working people and their allies desperately need now and need politicians to focus in on are the following:On Iraq and Afghanistan-Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal. On religion-Complete separation of church and state. On immigration-Full citizenship rights for all who make it here. On abortion- Free abortion on demand. On health care- Free quality healthcare for all. On education- Free quality education for all who want it. On marriage and other individual personal issues- Government out of the bedrooms. On working conditions- Organize Wal-Mart and the South. On wages- A living wage for all. This list is hardly exhaustive, merely an outline of a fighting program of pressing needs, but you get the drift. Did any candidate of either party come close to even understanding such needs? To pose the question is to give the answer. The long and short of it is this-build a workers party.

*From The Marxist Archives- The Trotskyist Opposition To World War II

Click on the title to link to a "Workers Vanguard" article, dated June 8, 2007, concerning Trotskyist revolutionary opposition to World War II.

THE VOICE OF LABOR?

THE VOICE OF LABOR?

COMMENTARY

ORGANIZE WAL-MART, ORGANIZE THE SOUTH-THE FIGHT FOR THE UNIONS IS IN THE FACTORIES NOT IN THE CONGRESS

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

In the normal course of current socialist propaganda tasks left-wing militants today do not find themselves spending much time commenting on particular pronouncements of the labor bureaucracy. Our task is to win militants to a fighting working class program and to a great extent the labor bureaucracy is used as a generic foil, no more. When things heat up in the class struggle that will obviously be a different story and we will be directly contesting the authority of that stratum of the labor movement. Nevertheless every once in a while it is good to see exactly what they are thinking and what ‘strategy’ they have for the labor movement. Recently John Sweeney, head of the AFL-CIO, authored an Op/Ed article in which he very clearly showed why labor is in such dire straits in America.

The basic point of his article-Freedom to Unionize- was the not very profound idea that the blood-thirsty capitalists who run today’s businesses are out to nip any union organizing efforts in the bud, through fear, intimidation and dismissal. Who would have though? Left out of that equation is the miserable record of organized labor, his bailiwick, in fighting that decline. But such is politics. What is important here is not the enumeration of the sins of the past but a solution to the problem.

Mr. Sweeny does not propose to organize Wal-Mart that would go a long way to reversing the decline in union membership. He does not advocate organizing the South that is a magnet for runaway shops that stay in this country. He does not call for an international labor campaign to unionize those 'off shore' runaways. He most certainly does not call for an end to organized labor’s long term love affair and financial support of the bourgeois parties, particularly the Democrats. No in the face of the devastation of the organized labor movement and the ravishing of real working class standards of living over the past thirty years he proposes that labor support Massachusetts Democratic Senator Kennedy’s Employee’s Free Choice Act. This proposal would create another capitalist bureaucratic agency that would ‘insure’ labor’s right to form unions and be free of employer harassment. Would that it were so simple.

Every labor militant knows, or should know, that we use every agency available, even governmental agencies, in order to pursue the class struggle against the capitalists. What we most emphatically do not do is call for more governmental labor-controlling agencies like this unlikely scheme. That is not our program for militant struggle and has not been so since back in the 1930’s in the heyday of such agencies as the National Labor Relations Board, etc. However, that is not Mr. Sweeney’s main sin. In no place, not even as a passing nod, does Mr. Sweeney even pay lip service to the idea of organized labor struggling in the factories and workplaces for its demands. In that sense Mr. Sweeney is the true modern day voice of the labor bureaucracy. What every labor militant should say is Brother Sweeney move on over. ORGANIZE WAL-MART! ORGANIZE THE SOUTH! BREAK WITH DEMOCRATS - BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!

*VICTORY TO THE SOUTH AFRICAN PUBLIC WORKERS

Click on title to link to "Workers Vanguard" article on the aftermath of the South Africa Public Service Workers Strike.

COMMENTARY

BREAK WITH THE AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS-FOR A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM

In the 1990’s if there was any country in the world where the fight for socialism was placed on the immediate agenda, and had a fair chance of success, it was in South Africa. This at a time when virtually everyone in the West was gloating over the “death of communism”. The white-dominated apartheid regime was ripe for overthrow. It had been in important areas internationally isolated. The fight to free Nelson Mandela, the central figure in the black liberation struggle, had intensified. The black-centered opposition of the African National Congress (ANC), the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the well-organized and militant trade unions united in the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) had the capacity to make changes. The masses of black militants were subjectively in favor a socialist society, as they understood it. What happened? As has been the case more than a few times in history the revolutionary developments were derailed not in the least by the bourgeois program of the ANC, the class collaborationist, two stage theory of the Stalinist SACP and the capitulation of the trade union leadership. In any case, that long ago promise remains in the future. South Africa exhibited, and exhibits today, a classic case of what the Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky outlined as the theory of permanent revolution and the crisis of revolutionary leadership.

As is well known, the case of South African black (and mixed population) liberation was an international cause at least as far back as the 1960’s when the civil rights movement in the United States acted as a catalyst for extending the fight for equality on an international level. As is also well known this fight in South Africa was taken off the front burner once the democratic issues, not the class issues, were resolved in the 1990's. All of this brings us to the obvious situation today where the disappointed masses are fighting the so-called “progressive” ANC that has become in essence a ‘black front’ for the white capitalist regime that still dominates the economy. So much for past socialist rhetoric. Today the masses of South African public workers are in a struggle against that ANC government over what is seemingly a simple matter. They are looking for a 12 percent increase in their already inadequate wage package. The government is hedging at 6 percent. The masses of public workers in South Africa are grossly underpaid (as elsewhere). What this struggle means, in this the largest walkout against the government since apartheid was abolished, is that some class contradictions are now coming to the fore more clearly than in the past. More on this as the situation develops. BREAK WITH THE ANC! Victory to the South African Public Workers!

AMAZING GRACE

DVD REVIEW

AMAZING GRACE,2007

A movie about the ending of the slave trade and the eventual ending of slavery in Britain is a worthy subject in this year of the celebration of the 200th anniversary of its abolition. One should note that this was done, unlike in the United States, by mainly democratic means rather than civil war. Would that all our victories could be won in such a manner but history is replete with many more examples of the necessity for bloody social struggles to get what we need, win or lose.

The core of this film is however a little disquieting as to its fidelity to historic facts or at least the way they are presented on the screen. In my youth I believed that Wilberforce’s parliamentary fight was the key to abolition. While it is impossible to ignore his contribution to the struggle against slavery time and more study have revealed many other factors, not the least the push from below by the working class and other oppressed strata of British society, in contributing to that result. Based solely on the film one would never get the impression that those efforts from below counted and once again we are treated to that timeworn premise that the ‘great man’ was decisive.

Commercial films are not obliged by their nature to be paragons of historical correctness. An informative article in a recent New York Review of Books (June 14, 2007) discusses in greater detail the historical problems than I wish to do here. While I encourage everyone to see this film (if for not other reason that the magnificent perform by Albert Finney) one should use that as a starting point to investigate the other details about this great struggle to end a heinous crime against blacks and against humanity.

*GOOD BYE, CINDY SHEEHAN

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

COMMENTARY

THE TIME FOR PARLIAMENTARY MANEUVERING ON IRAQ IS LONG PAST OVER-BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS!

BUILD ANTI-WAR SOLDIERS AND SAILORS SOLIDARITY COMMITTEES NOW!

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

A few days ago the courageous anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq, announced that she was ‘retiring’ as the most visible ‘icon’ of the anti-war struggle. The reason she gave was that the failure of the Democrat-led parliamentary struggle over the Iraq war budget left her in despair over the their inability to end the war. In the final analysis whatever personal motivations initially drove her to opposition, and they were strong, were not enough to overcome the hard reality that the Democrats collectively were not serious about ending the war. Hell, in retrospect, why would anyone in her position who looked at the numbers in January have thought that the ‘new’ Democratically-controlled Congress, even if they had wanted to, had the votes or the fortitude to override a determined Bush Administration that they still feared.

Case in point. Long time anti-war Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Michael Capuano recently was quoted, after the Democrats waved the white flag on the Iraq War budget, as saying that the anti-war parliamentary forces must reach out to the wavering Republicans in order to end the war. Now remember he is supposedly one of the good guys on the war issue. Under that ‘reach out and touch someone’ strategy our grandchildren will be fighting in Iraq. No wonder Cindy threw her hands up in despair. And there is the rub.

Call this writer cynical. Call this writer a damn know-it-all. Call this writer an ultra-left fanatic if you will. But know this- the strategy of the mainstream anti-war movement of relying on a Democrat-led parliamentary opposition to the Iraq War, an opposition moreover that conveniently hid (and still hides) behind support for the troops, if not the policy, was doomed from the start. This understanding is not the result of looking into a crystal ball but, for one thing, a look at the history of the Vietnam War anti-war movement. The Democrats never stopped voting for the war appropriations until 1975 when the North Vietnamese were starting down Highway One for Ho Chi Minh City (then Saigon). Even they knew it was over then. A careful look at that history will also show that the real anti-war movement formed outside and in opposition to the Democrats starting in the summer of 1968. In short, if you want to end this war, as an act of elementary political hygiene the first order of business- BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS!

Hell, breaking with the Democrats is only the beginning of political wisdom though. That is not enough of a program to end this war. Short of a revolutionary upheaval like in the Russia of 1917, which given the current political constellation in America appears unlikely, the only effective to end the war is to get to the troops who are fighting, or are about to fight, the damn thing. For over a year now I have been fighting for an orientation in that direction. This is no substitute for the long term fight for a workers party to run a workers government but every day the need to form anti-war soldiers and sailors solidarity committees to link up with the troops becomes more urgent. As I have stated before when the troops in Iraq start to support the slogan “Support the Troops-Hell, No” then we know the end of the war will be near. Cindy, are you listening?


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!

FOR MORE POLITICAL COMMENTARY AND BOOKS REVIEWS CHECK MY BLOG AT- Http://markinbookreview.blogspot.com/

AMERICAN DISPOSABLE

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.

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.

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!

*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.

*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.

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.

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!