BOOK REVIEW
FUGITIVE DAYS, A MEMOIR, BILL AYERS, PENGUIN, 2001
Recently in this space I reviewed the documentary Weather Underground so that it also makes sense to review the present book by Bill Ayers, one of the ‘talking heads’ in that film and a central leader of both the old Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground that split off from that movement in 1969 to go its own way. Readers should see the documentary as it gives a fairly good presentation of the events around the formation of the Underground, what they tried to accomplish and what happened to them after the demise of the anti-war movement in the early 1970’s.
To get a better understanding of what drove thousands of young American students into opposition to the American government at that time the documentary Rebels With A Cause (also reviewed in this space) is worth looking at as well. Between those two sources you will get a better understanding of what drove Professor Ayers and many others, including myself, over the edge. Professor Ayers makes many of those same points in the book. Thus, I only want to make a couple of political comments about the question of the underground here. They were also used in my review of the Weather Underground documentary and apply to Professor Ayers thoughts as well. I would also make it very clear here that unlike many other leftists, who ran for cover, in the 1970’s I called for the political defense of the Weather Underground despite my political differences with their strategy under the old leftist principle that an injury to one is an injury to all. Moreover, and be shocked if you will, the courageous, if misguided, actions of the Weather Underground require no apology today. I stand with the Professor on that count. Here are the comments.
“In a time when I, among others, are questioning where the extra-parliamentary opposition to the Iraq War is going and why it has not made more of an impact on American society it was rather refreshing to view this documentary about the seemingly forgotten Weather Underground that as things got grimmer dramatically epitomized one aspect of opposition to the Vietnam War. If opposition to the Iraq war is the political fight of my old age Vietnam was the fight of my youth and in this film brought back very strong memories of why I fought tooth and nail against it. And the people portrayed in this film, the core of the Weather Underground, while not politically kindred spirits then or now, were certainly on the same page as I was- a no holds- barred fight against the American Empire. We lost that round, and there were reasons for that, but that kind of attitude is what it takes to bring down the monster. But a revolutionary strategy is needed. That is where we parted company. ......
"One of the paradoxical things about the documentary is that the Weather Underground survivors interviewed had only a vague notion about what went wrong. This was clearly detailed in the remarks of Mark Rudd, a central leader, when he stated that the Weathermen were trying to create a communist cadre. He also stated, however, that after going underground he realized that he was out of the loop as far as being politically effective. And that is the point. There is no virtue in underground activity if it is not necessary, romantic as that may be. To the extent that any of us read history in those days it was certainly not about the origins of the Russian revolutionary movement in the 19th century. If we had we would have found that the above-mentioned fight in 1969 was also fought out by that movement. Mass action vs. individual acts, heroic or otherwise, of terror. The Weather strategy of acting as the American component of the world-wide revolutionary movement in order to bring the Empire to its knees certainly had (and still does) have a very appealing quality. However, a moral gesture did not (and will not) bring this beast down. While the Weather Underground was made up a small group of very appealing subjective revolutionaries its political/moral strategy led to a dead end. The lesson to be learned; you most definitely do need weather people to know which way the winds blow. Start with Karl Marx.”
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Monday, July 02, 2007
TO BE YOUNG WAS VERY HEAVEN, PART II
DVD REVIEW
REBELS WITH A CAUSE, DOCUMENTARY BY HELEN GARVEY, 2000
DON’T REMINISCE-ORGANIZE!
In previous reviews in this space this writer has alluded several times to the 1960’s movements for social change –the defense of the Cuban Revolution, the fight for nuclear disarmament, the centrally important black civil rights fight, the struggle against the Vietnam War and the emerging struggles for women’s and gay rights. And ultimately, for a few (too few) of us, the necessary struggle to change the social organization of American society-the fight for socialism. In short, all the signposts for that part of a political generation, my generation, which in shorthand I will call the Generation of ’68. Let us be clear, nostalgia and the ravages of time on the memory on the part of this writer aside, this was a short but intense period that he believes requires serious study.
Militant leftists today face many, if not all, of the social problems that confronted the generation of ’68. Thus, a careful viewing of this film is warranted by those who want to understand what went right and what went wrong with student movement centered on the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) of the 1960’s that held out much promise but in the end left the field to the ugly predator capitalists and their agents. Many of the points discussed in this documentary parallel those made in Professor Todd Gitlin’s seminal book: THE SIXTIES: YEARS OF HOPE, DAYS OF RAGE. I have fully reviewed that important book elsewhere. One can profit from using both sources, although Professor Gitlin is now as then a political opponent of mine.
I would make two additional comments concerning the ‘talking heads’ that are used to tell the story of the student struggles. I found that not one of interviewees mentioned the word socialism as an animating force behind their very deeply held convictions of the time. Now that is neither her nor there except that in the end the fight for socialism was dictated by those struggles not only for its positive social value but as the only way to effectively fight in the ‘belly of the beast’. That tells part of the tale. The other is that these people have ‘made it’ in capitalist society, as the final credits make clear, since that time. However, we have a little problem that the ‘monster’ is still with us. No one would surely deny that racism, the question of class, sexism and other social problems that we had just begun to address are any less pressing now. And I will not belabor the point about American militarism. That is self-evident. I would be the last to begrudge anyone from that time their memories of a time ‘when to be young was very heaven’. But I prefer the slogan – Don’t Reminisce-Organize!
REBELS WITH A CAUSE, DOCUMENTARY BY HELEN GARVEY, 2000
DON’T REMINISCE-ORGANIZE!
In previous reviews in this space this writer has alluded several times to the 1960’s movements for social change –the defense of the Cuban Revolution, the fight for nuclear disarmament, the centrally important black civil rights fight, the struggle against the Vietnam War and the emerging struggles for women’s and gay rights. And ultimately, for a few (too few) of us, the necessary struggle to change the social organization of American society-the fight for socialism. In short, all the signposts for that part of a political generation, my generation, which in shorthand I will call the Generation of ’68. Let us be clear, nostalgia and the ravages of time on the memory on the part of this writer aside, this was a short but intense period that he believes requires serious study.
Militant leftists today face many, if not all, of the social problems that confronted the generation of ’68. Thus, a careful viewing of this film is warranted by those who want to understand what went right and what went wrong with student movement centered on the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) of the 1960’s that held out much promise but in the end left the field to the ugly predator capitalists and their agents. Many of the points discussed in this documentary parallel those made in Professor Todd Gitlin’s seminal book: THE SIXTIES: YEARS OF HOPE, DAYS OF RAGE. I have fully reviewed that important book elsewhere. One can profit from using both sources, although Professor Gitlin is now as then a political opponent of mine.
I would make two additional comments concerning the ‘talking heads’ that are used to tell the story of the student struggles. I found that not one of interviewees mentioned the word socialism as an animating force behind their very deeply held convictions of the time. Now that is neither her nor there except that in the end the fight for socialism was dictated by those struggles not only for its positive social value but as the only way to effectively fight in the ‘belly of the beast’. That tells part of the tale. The other is that these people have ‘made it’ in capitalist society, as the final credits make clear, since that time. However, we have a little problem that the ‘monster’ is still with us. No one would surely deny that racism, the question of class, sexism and other social problems that we had just begun to address are any less pressing now. And I will not belabor the point about American militarism. That is self-evident. I would be the last to begrudge anyone from that time their memories of a time ‘when to be young was very heaven’. But I prefer the slogan – Don’t Reminisce-Organize!
V.I. Lenin-Voice Of The World Socialist Revolution
DVD REVIEW
LENIN-VOICE OF THE REVOLUTION, A&E PRODUCTION, 2005
Every militant who wants to fight for socialism, or put the fight for socialism back on the front burner, needs to come to terms with the legacy of Vladimir Lenin and his impact on 20th century revolutionary thought. Every radical who believes that society can be changed by just a few adjustments needs to address this question as well in order to understand the limits of such a position. Thus, it is necessary for any politically literate person of this new generation to go through the arguments both politically and organizationally associated with Lenin’s name. Before delving into his works a review of his life and times would help to orient those unfamiliar with the period. Obviously the best way to do this is read one of the many biographies about him. There is not dearth of such biographies although they overwhelmingly tend to be hostile. But so be it. For those who prefer a quick snapshot view of his life this documentary, although much, much too simply is an adequate sketch of the highlights of his life. It is worth an hour of your time, in any case.
The film goes through Lenin's early childhood, the key role that the execution of older brother Alexander for an assassination attempt on the Czar played in driving him to revolution, his early involvement in the revolutionary socialist movement, his imprisonment and various internal and external exiles, his role in the 1905 Revolution, his role in the 1917 Revolution, his consolidation of power through the Bolshevik Party and his untimely death in 1924. An added feature, as usual in these kinds of films, is the use of ‘talking heads’ who periodically explain what it all meant. I would caution those who are unfamiliar with the history of the anti-Bolshevik movement that three of the commentators, Adam Ulam, Richard Daniels and Robert Conquest were ‘stars’ of that movement at the height of the anti-Soviet Cold War. I would also add that nothing presented in this biography, despite the alleged additional materials available with the ‘opening’ of the Soviet files, that has not been familiar for a long time.
*************
Thursday, June 28, 2007
*From The Archives Of "Women And Revolution"-In Defense of Homosexual Rights: The Marxist Tradition
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for "Communism and homosexuality".
Markin comment:
The following is an article from the Summer 1988 issue of "Women and Revolution" that may have some historical interest for old "new leftists", perhaps, and well as for younger militants interested in various cultural and social questions that intersect the class struggle. Or for those just interested in a Marxist position on a series of social questions that are thrust upon us by the vagaries of bourgeois society. I will be posting more such articles from the back issues of "Women and Revolution" during Women's History Month and periodically throughout the year.
In Defense of Homosexual Rights: The Marxist Tradition
Defense of democratic rights for homosexuals is part of the historic tradition of Marxism. In the 1860s, the prominent lawyer J.B. von Schweitzer was tried, found guilty and disbarred for homosexual activities in Mannheim, Germany. The socialist pioneer Ferdinand Lassalle aided von Schweitzer, encouraging him to join Lassalle's Universal German Workingmen's Association in 1863. After Lassalle's death, von Schweitzer was elected the head of the group, one of the organizations that merged to form the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). The SPD itself waged a long struggle in the late 19th century against Paragraph 175 of the German penal code, which made homosexual acts (for males) a crime. August Bebel and other SPD members in the Reichstag attacked the law, while the SPD's party paper Vorwarts reported on the struggle against state persecution of homosexuals.
In 1895 one of the most infamous anti-homosexual outbursts of the period targeted Oscar Wilde, one of the leading literary lights of England (where homosexuality had been punishable by death until 1861). Wilde had some socialist views of his own: his essay, "The Soul of Man Under Socialism," was smuggled into Russia by young radicals. When the Marquess of Queensberry called him a sodomist, Wilde sued for libel. Queensberry had Wilde successfully prosecuted and sent to prison for being involved with Queensberry's son. The Second International took up Wilde's defense. In the most prestigious publication of the German Social Democracy, "Die Neue Zeit", Eduard Bernstein, later known as a revisionist but then speaking as a very decent Marxist, argued that there was nothing sick about homosexuality, that Wilde had committed no crime, that every socialist should defend him and that the people who put him on trial were the criminals.
Upon coming to power in 1917 in Russia, the Bolshevik Party began immediately to undercut the old bourgeois prejudices and social institutions responsible for the oppression of both women and homosexuals— centrally the institution of the family. They sought to create social alternatives to relieve the crushing burden of women's drudgery in the family, and abolished all legal impediments to women's equality, while also abolishing all laws against homosexual acts. Stalin's successful political counterrevolution rehabilitated the reactionary ideology of bourgeois society, glorifying the family unit. In 1934 a law making homosexual acts punishable by imprisonment was introduced, and mass arrests of homosexuals took place. While defending the socialized property forms of the USSR against capitalist attack, we Trotskyists fight for political revolution in the USSR to restore the liberating program and goals of the early Bolsheviks, including getting the state out of private sexual life. As Grigorii Batkis, director of the Moscow Institute of Social Hygiene, pointed out in "The Sexual Revolution in Russia," published in the USSR in 1923:
"Soviet legislation bases itself on the following principle:
'It declares the absolute non-interference of the state and society into sexual matters so long as nobody isinjured and no one's interests are encroached upon
"Concerning homosexuality, sodomy, and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offenses against public morality—Soviet legislation treats these exactly the same as so-called 'natural' intercourse. All forms of sexual intercourse are private matters." [emphasis in original]
—quoted in John Lauritsen and David Thorstad, The Early Homosexual Rights Movement 1864-1935
Markin comment:
The following is an article from the Summer 1988 issue of "Women and Revolution" that may have some historical interest for old "new leftists", perhaps, and well as for younger militants interested in various cultural and social questions that intersect the class struggle. Or for those just interested in a Marxist position on a series of social questions that are thrust upon us by the vagaries of bourgeois society. I will be posting more such articles from the back issues of "Women and Revolution" during Women's History Month and periodically throughout the year.
In Defense of Homosexual Rights: The Marxist Tradition
Defense of democratic rights for homosexuals is part of the historic tradition of Marxism. In the 1860s, the prominent lawyer J.B. von Schweitzer was tried, found guilty and disbarred for homosexual activities in Mannheim, Germany. The socialist pioneer Ferdinand Lassalle aided von Schweitzer, encouraging him to join Lassalle's Universal German Workingmen's Association in 1863. After Lassalle's death, von Schweitzer was elected the head of the group, one of the organizations that merged to form the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). The SPD itself waged a long struggle in the late 19th century against Paragraph 175 of the German penal code, which made homosexual acts (for males) a crime. August Bebel and other SPD members in the Reichstag attacked the law, while the SPD's party paper Vorwarts reported on the struggle against state persecution of homosexuals.
In 1895 one of the most infamous anti-homosexual outbursts of the period targeted Oscar Wilde, one of the leading literary lights of England (where homosexuality had been punishable by death until 1861). Wilde had some socialist views of his own: his essay, "The Soul of Man Under Socialism," was smuggled into Russia by young radicals. When the Marquess of Queensberry called him a sodomist, Wilde sued for libel. Queensberry had Wilde successfully prosecuted and sent to prison for being involved with Queensberry's son. The Second International took up Wilde's defense. In the most prestigious publication of the German Social Democracy, "Die Neue Zeit", Eduard Bernstein, later known as a revisionist but then speaking as a very decent Marxist, argued that there was nothing sick about homosexuality, that Wilde had committed no crime, that every socialist should defend him and that the people who put him on trial were the criminals.
Upon coming to power in 1917 in Russia, the Bolshevik Party began immediately to undercut the old bourgeois prejudices and social institutions responsible for the oppression of both women and homosexuals— centrally the institution of the family. They sought to create social alternatives to relieve the crushing burden of women's drudgery in the family, and abolished all legal impediments to women's equality, while also abolishing all laws against homosexual acts. Stalin's successful political counterrevolution rehabilitated the reactionary ideology of bourgeois society, glorifying the family unit. In 1934 a law making homosexual acts punishable by imprisonment was introduced, and mass arrests of homosexuals took place. While defending the socialized property forms of the USSR against capitalist attack, we Trotskyists fight for political revolution in the USSR to restore the liberating program and goals of the early Bolsheviks, including getting the state out of private sexual life. As Grigorii Batkis, director of the Moscow Institute of Social Hygiene, pointed out in "The Sexual Revolution in Russia," published in the USSR in 1923:
"Soviet legislation bases itself on the following principle:
'It declares the absolute non-interference of the state and society into sexual matters so long as nobody isinjured and no one's interests are encroached upon
"Concerning homosexuality, sodomy, and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offenses against public morality—Soviet legislation treats these exactly the same as so-called 'natural' intercourse. All forms of sexual intercourse are private matters." [emphasis in original]
—quoted in John Lauritsen and David Thorstad, The Early Homosexual Rights Movement 1864-1935
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
THE U.S.S. BUSH IS SINKING
COMMENTARY
THE RATS ARE BEGINNING TO ABANDON SHIP
About five years ago, in the summer of 2002, I went to my first anti-Iraq war demonstration in downtown Boston. At that time, if you remember, we were fighting for no attack on Iraq. It is hard to believe, but not really surprising, that five years later we are still in the quagmire and prospects of getting out any time soon look pretty dim. As witnessed by the numerous commentaries that I have made at this site concerning the dead-end strategy used by the mainstream anti-war movement of reliance on parliamentary maneuvering, mainly by the opposition Democrats, I have, in any case, held out little faith in that way of ending the war. I stand by that position. However, today’s bit of political wisdom revolves around a very, very belated if tepid Republican parliamentary opposition to continuing the war.
Over the past couple of days two key Republican United States Senators, Richard Lugar and George Voinivich, have made it very clear they are not going down with the Bush ship. These guys are not marginal renegades but the heart of the Republican parliamentary establishment. Moreover, at the most practical political level- survival- their decisions make perfect sense. As anyone east of the Oval Office knows by now this whole military ‘surge’ strategy cooked up by the Bushies as a last gasp effort to gain ‘victory’ is in shambles. Christ, the latest American governmental reports on the readiness of Iraqi troops and police to take charge are like some chamber of horrors. According to the accounts nobody here has any clue about how many Iraqis are ready and where all the money went. Assuming they ever wanted to know.
But let us be blunt-on hard military grounds what is required in Iraq is probably another couple of hundred thousand more American troops for five to ten years. I won’t quibble over the numbers or the time frame but is any rational politician ready to go down the line with Bush on that ship. Hell, no. He is gone in January 2009 and will leave the Iraq mess to his successor so few aspiring American politicians want to go down in history as Bush’s poodle at this stage. This is where the senators’ ‘every person for him or herself’ throwing in of the towel comes from.
I have long argued that the parliamentary Democrats have been at least a year, if not more, behind the curve on Iraq. The Republicans, as witnessed by this spring’s fiasco over the war appropriation budget, are at least two years behind. However in neither case are the participants any more committed to immediate withdrawal, meaning literally starting to pull out today, than previously. Thus, the new Republican opposition, like the tamed Democrats, is in no hurry to just stop the damn war in its tracks. But we are. Organize those anti-war soldier and sailor solidarity committees in order to call for the troops to lead the way out of Iraq. Pronto.
THE RATS ARE BEGINNING TO ABANDON SHIP
About five years ago, in the summer of 2002, I went to my first anti-Iraq war demonstration in downtown Boston. At that time, if you remember, we were fighting for no attack on Iraq. It is hard to believe, but not really surprising, that five years later we are still in the quagmire and prospects of getting out any time soon look pretty dim. As witnessed by the numerous commentaries that I have made at this site concerning the dead-end strategy used by the mainstream anti-war movement of reliance on parliamentary maneuvering, mainly by the opposition Democrats, I have, in any case, held out little faith in that way of ending the war. I stand by that position. However, today’s bit of political wisdom revolves around a very, very belated if tepid Republican parliamentary opposition to continuing the war.
Over the past couple of days two key Republican United States Senators, Richard Lugar and George Voinivich, have made it very clear they are not going down with the Bush ship. These guys are not marginal renegades but the heart of the Republican parliamentary establishment. Moreover, at the most practical political level- survival- their decisions make perfect sense. As anyone east of the Oval Office knows by now this whole military ‘surge’ strategy cooked up by the Bushies as a last gasp effort to gain ‘victory’ is in shambles. Christ, the latest American governmental reports on the readiness of Iraqi troops and police to take charge are like some chamber of horrors. According to the accounts nobody here has any clue about how many Iraqis are ready and where all the money went. Assuming they ever wanted to know.
But let us be blunt-on hard military grounds what is required in Iraq is probably another couple of hundred thousand more American troops for five to ten years. I won’t quibble over the numbers or the time frame but is any rational politician ready to go down the line with Bush on that ship. Hell, no. He is gone in January 2009 and will leave the Iraq mess to his successor so few aspiring American politicians want to go down in history as Bush’s poodle at this stage. This is where the senators’ ‘every person for him or herself’ throwing in of the towel comes from.
I have long argued that the parliamentary Democrats have been at least a year, if not more, behind the curve on Iraq. The Republicans, as witnessed by this spring’s fiasco over the war appropriation budget, are at least two years behind. However in neither case are the participants any more committed to immediate withdrawal, meaning literally starting to pull out today, than previously. Thus, the new Republican opposition, like the tamed Democrats, is in no hurry to just stop the damn war in its tracks. But we are. Organize those anti-war soldier and sailor solidarity committees in order to call for the troops to lead the way out of Iraq. Pronto.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
YOU DO NEED A WEATHERMAN (PERSON) TO KNOW WHICH WAY THE WIND BLOWS
DVD REVIEW
THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND, 2003
In a time when I, among others, are questioning where the extra-parliamentary opposition to the Iraq War is going and why it has not made more of an impact on American society it was rather refreshing to view this documentary about the seemingly forgotten Weather Underground that as things got grimmer dramatically epitomized one aspect of opposition to the Vietnam War. If opposition to the Iraq war is the political fight of my old age Vietnam was the fight of my youth and in this film brought back very strong memories of why I fought tooth and nail against it. And the people portrayed in this film, the core of the Weather Underground, while not politically kindred spirits then or now, were certainly on the same page as I was- a no holds- barred fight against the American Empire. We lost that round, and there were reasons for that, but that kind of attitude is what it takes to bring down the monster. But a revolutionary strategy is needed. That is where we parted company.
One of the political highlights of the film is centered on the 1969 Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) Convention that was a watershed in the student anti-war protest movement. That was the genesis of the Weathermen but it was also the genesis of the Progressive Labor Party-led faction that wanted to bring the anti-war message to the working class by linking up the student movement with the fight against capitalism. In short, to get to those who were, or were to be, the rank and file soldiers in Vietnam or who worked in the factories. In either case the point that was missed , as the Old Left had argued all along and which we had previously dismissed out of hand, was that it was the masses of working people who were central to ‘bringing the war home’ and the fight against capitalism. That task still confronts us today.
One of the paradoxical things about this film is that the Weather Underground survivors interviewed had only a vague notion about what went wrong. This was clearly detailed in the remarks of Mark Rudd, a central leader, when he stated that the Weathermen were trying to create a communist cadre. He also stated, however, that after going underground he realized that he was out of the loop as far as being politically effective. And that is the point. There is no virtue in underground activity if it is not necessary, romantic as that may be. To the extent that any of us read history in those days it was certainly not about the origins of the Russian revolutionary movement in the 19th century. If we had we would have found that the above-mentioned fight in 1969 was also fought out by that movement. Mass action vs. individual acts, heroic or otherwise, of terror. The Weather strategy of acting as the American component of the world-wide revolutionary movement in order to bring the Empire to its knees certainly had (and still does) have a very appealing quality. However, a moral gesture did not (and will not) bring this beast down. While the Weather Underground was made up a small group of very appealing subjective revolutionaries its political/moral strategy led to a dead end. The lesson to be learned; you most definitely do need weather people to know which way the winds blow. Start with Karl Marx.
THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND, 2003
In a time when I, among others, are questioning where the extra-parliamentary opposition to the Iraq War is going and why it has not made more of an impact on American society it was rather refreshing to view this documentary about the seemingly forgotten Weather Underground that as things got grimmer dramatically epitomized one aspect of opposition to the Vietnam War. If opposition to the Iraq war is the political fight of my old age Vietnam was the fight of my youth and in this film brought back very strong memories of why I fought tooth and nail against it. And the people portrayed in this film, the core of the Weather Underground, while not politically kindred spirits then or now, were certainly on the same page as I was- a no holds- barred fight against the American Empire. We lost that round, and there were reasons for that, but that kind of attitude is what it takes to bring down the monster. But a revolutionary strategy is needed. That is where we parted company.
One of the political highlights of the film is centered on the 1969 Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) Convention that was a watershed in the student anti-war protest movement. That was the genesis of the Weathermen but it was also the genesis of the Progressive Labor Party-led faction that wanted to bring the anti-war message to the working class by linking up the student movement with the fight against capitalism. In short, to get to those who were, or were to be, the rank and file soldiers in Vietnam or who worked in the factories. In either case the point that was missed , as the Old Left had argued all along and which we had previously dismissed out of hand, was that it was the masses of working people who were central to ‘bringing the war home’ and the fight against capitalism. That task still confronts us today.
One of the paradoxical things about this film is that the Weather Underground survivors interviewed had only a vague notion about what went wrong. This was clearly detailed in the remarks of Mark Rudd, a central leader, when he stated that the Weathermen were trying to create a communist cadre. He also stated, however, that after going underground he realized that he was out of the loop as far as being politically effective. And that is the point. There is no virtue in underground activity if it is not necessary, romantic as that may be. To the extent that any of us read history in those days it was certainly not about the origins of the Russian revolutionary movement in the 19th century. If we had we would have found that the above-mentioned fight in 1969 was also fought out by that movement. Mass action vs. individual acts, heroic or otherwise, of terror. The Weather strategy of acting as the American component of the world-wide revolutionary movement in order to bring the Empire to its knees certainly had (and still does) have a very appealing quality. However, a moral gesture did not (and will not) bring this beast down. While the Weather Underground was made up a small group of very appealing subjective revolutionaries its political/moral strategy led to a dead end. The lesson to be learned; you most definitely do need weather people to know which way the winds blow. Start with Karl Marx.
Friday, June 22, 2007
*POLITICAL POTPOURRI- In The Dog Days Of The Class Struggle
Click on title to link to the Partisan Defense Committee Web site.
OF THIS AND THAT IN THE ‘HEART OF THE BEAST’
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Well the summer political doldrums are upon us. Sure there has been political news. You know in Palestine, in Lebanon and for that matter even in Washington, D.C. The problem is rather that over the past couple of weeks there has not been any news that I can get a handle on for a full treatment. In lieu of that there are snippets of issues that we should be paying attention to. Here goes.
ONCE AGAIN ON IRAQ
One would hardly know that Iraq war, the central issue of the day, was around anymore. Oh sure, the daily casualty rates of the American troops, the number of Iraqi bodies found as a result of sectarian violence dumped somewhere, the latest car bombing and the ‘success’ or ‘failure of the latest surge get attention. What I am talking about, however, is the fight for immediate unconditional withdrawal from Iraq. Every since the anti-war Democratic parliamentary opposition folded its tent over the war appropriations bill a few weeks ago the steam has gone out of the issue. Just at a time when it is desperately necessary to fight the political air is gone.
Readers of this space know that I have never placed much faith in that parliamentary strategy- depending on the half-hearted Democrats. But others in the anti-war movement have and this is what they have to show for it. Even the courageous anti-warrior Cindy Sheehan has called it a day in disgust. More on this issue latter as this ungodly military ‘surge’ strategy plays itself out. My preliminary assessment (not in accord with General Petreaus’s, I am sure) is that strategy is a failure. Unless one favors keeping American troops in Iraq for the next generation, that is. And at higher levels, to boot. In the meantime those anti-war soldier and sailor solidarity committees to co-ordinate the withdrawal with the rank and file troops that I have been propagandizing for over the past year look more and more like the solution. Right?
A RESPITE ON IRAN?
Rummy’s gone as Secretary of War. Wolfowitz is off with his girlfriend somewhere. “Scooter” is in the caboose. Other neo-cons have decamped from Washington like the plague had descended. Thus, at least temporarily, one of the unintended consequences of the Iraq debacle is that the pressure to militarily strike Iran and stymie its nuclear development capacity is off. A recent interesting article points out that Secretary of State Rice, previously frozen out, is now in the cat bird’s seat on Iran policy. Yes, there are ominous rumblings from the last bastion of hawkishness in Vice President Cheney’s office but is anyone going to put their head in a noose this late in the Bush Administration. Hell no, not when there are cushy private sector or think tank jobs to fight for. We will take the respite, but as always, keep vigilant. In any case if Seymour Hersh’s analysis from a New Yorker article of last year is any clue we still have not heard the last of this whatever party wins the next election. One of the central arguments that Democrats have put forth in opposition to the Iraq War is that Iran was the real enemy. Remember this. Stay tuned.
IN DEFENSE OF JOHN McCAIN
What? A long time leftist coming to the defense of one of the most right-wing politicians in American life? Well, yes. Why? Recently Senator McCain, a leading Republican presidential contender, was in New York for one of those endless fund-raisers that are central to any bourgeois candidacy these days. Hell, one cannot even run for town selectman these days without breaking the bank. As the Senator entered the event he was confronted with signs calling him a traitor- by fellow Republicans no less. What gives? What gives is that some on the rabid right are ready to lynch him over his co-sponsorship of the latest immigration legislation. Make no mistake, this legislation is not supportable by leftists either. Moreover, I am diametrically opposed to Senator McCain’s support for the ‘surge’ strategy in Iraq. I stood with the victims of his bombing missions in Vietnam. I fight for a workers party. In short, we are on different political planets. No, political universes. Call me old-fashioned, if you like, but following George Orwell’s dicta it is very useful to call things by their right political name and act accordingly. John McCain a traitor? Hell, no. John McCain is probably one of the most devoted defenders of the American Empire. That is where we fight him politically.
ON MITT ROMNEY’S POLYGAMOUS FORBEARS
Former Massachusetts Governor and current Republican hopeful Mitt Romney has recently been the subject of scurrilous and serrepitious attacks by his Republican brethren concerning his Mormon religious affiliations. Part of this is due to the old time Mormon tradition of the now officially outlawed polygamous marriages. As probably the leading candidate on the ‘family values’ issue Romney has been at great pains to disassociate himself from that little ‘skeleton’ in the family closet. Hell, as I have written elsewhere that is the only thing that makes him interesting. I would have liked to meet his great-grandfather and his great-grandmothers. A biography of Joseph Smith, the Mormon founder, is on my summer reading list. As for those attacks on his Mormonism apparently the day is not past when religion and religious affiliation does not play a part in politics. Anyone who thought otherwise has had his or her head in the sand. Let us face it we are holding on to a barely secular republic these days.
ON MAYOR BLOOMBERG AND AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDACY
Recently Republican New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that he was leaving that party and becoming an independent. Immediately, speculation ran rampart that he was about to embark on an independent presidential campaign. For now the billionaire Bloomberg has denied any such intentions. However, anyone other than a political novice knows that making such a political move does not come out of the blue and we will probably hear more about this in the future as 2008 approaches. But Bloomberg’s non-candidacy is not what interests me. What does is the seemingly unanimous commentary that an independent bourgeois candidacy is doomed to failure. In short, that the two current parties have a lock on mass politics. As a partisan of the fight for a workers party -a real independent party- I, of course, take exception to that premise. According to the talking heads there have been no lack of ‘third’ party options, both conservative and liberal, that in the end at most turned the presidential results to one party or the other but failed to take power themselves. Well, brothers and sisters, we have a different idea don’t we. Nevertheless it is interesting that, given full fields in both the Democratic and Republican parties, there is even any talk that a ‘third’ party run would be in play. Pending further events those who would be attracted to such a political solution are some of the people that we want to talk to about a workers party. Enough for now.
VICTORY FOR GAY MARRIAGE IN MASACHUSETTS
As is well known heterosexual marriage is on its last legs in Massachusetts. Or so opponents of gay marriage would have us believe. Why? In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared, that as a matter of state contitutional law, the prohibition of marriage between people of the same sex could no longer be state law. Since then various right wing political and religious forces, particularly the Roman Catholic Church in heavily Catholic Massachusetts, have attempted every political ploy in the book to get this question on the ballot and let the ‘people’ decide. Part of that process is that the legislature, or in effect a part of it, has to sign off on this. Under the law if 50 legislators agree that ANY proposition should be on the ballot the deal is done and it is placed on the ballot. Thus the recent victory for gay marriage was predicated on an old-fashioned political arm-twisting by pro-gay marriage forces to keep the number under 50. Kudos. Workers party legislators would also be in the thick of such arm-twisting on this issue. Hell that is half the fun of politics. A word of caution though. The anti-gay marriage forces are defeated for now in Massachusetts but this issue will come up in next year’s presidential campaign. Moreover, do not believe for a minute that the yahoos in Massachusetts have given up the struggle to overturn this basic democratic right.
SOME SURPRISING STATISTICS
America is the most advanced capitalist economy on the planet, right? America is the cutting edge technological leader in making things easier and less time-consuming, right? Witness to that premise is the work of this computer I am using. Okay, but how about these facts gleaned from a recent article on the decline in workers benefits. The average American employee gets 9 days vacation a year. The majority of American workers gets no sick pay and in a substantial number of cases are subject to firing for taking sick time. We know the health insurance numbers, as well. The article also went on to compare the United States numbers with other advanced capitalist societies. The comparison was not good. What is the basis for these differences? Under no circumstances were the other work forces given their superior benefits out of the goodness of their bosses’ hearts. Important class struggles in the past, or the threat of class struggles, are the key factor in the difference. So when European workers come here for a month’s vacation in August remember that fact. These numbers are prima facie evidence for a workers party here. Right?
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!
OF THIS AND THAT IN THE ‘HEART OF THE BEAST’
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Well the summer political doldrums are upon us. Sure there has been political news. You know in Palestine, in Lebanon and for that matter even in Washington, D.C. The problem is rather that over the past couple of weeks there has not been any news that I can get a handle on for a full treatment. In lieu of that there are snippets of issues that we should be paying attention to. Here goes.
ONCE AGAIN ON IRAQ
One would hardly know that Iraq war, the central issue of the day, was around anymore. Oh sure, the daily casualty rates of the American troops, the number of Iraqi bodies found as a result of sectarian violence dumped somewhere, the latest car bombing and the ‘success’ or ‘failure of the latest surge get attention. What I am talking about, however, is the fight for immediate unconditional withdrawal from Iraq. Every since the anti-war Democratic parliamentary opposition folded its tent over the war appropriations bill a few weeks ago the steam has gone out of the issue. Just at a time when it is desperately necessary to fight the political air is gone.
Readers of this space know that I have never placed much faith in that parliamentary strategy- depending on the half-hearted Democrats. But others in the anti-war movement have and this is what they have to show for it. Even the courageous anti-warrior Cindy Sheehan has called it a day in disgust. More on this issue latter as this ungodly military ‘surge’ strategy plays itself out. My preliminary assessment (not in accord with General Petreaus’s, I am sure) is that strategy is a failure. Unless one favors keeping American troops in Iraq for the next generation, that is. And at higher levels, to boot. In the meantime those anti-war soldier and sailor solidarity committees to co-ordinate the withdrawal with the rank and file troops that I have been propagandizing for over the past year look more and more like the solution. Right?
A RESPITE ON IRAN?
Rummy’s gone as Secretary of War. Wolfowitz is off with his girlfriend somewhere. “Scooter” is in the caboose. Other neo-cons have decamped from Washington like the plague had descended. Thus, at least temporarily, one of the unintended consequences of the Iraq debacle is that the pressure to militarily strike Iran and stymie its nuclear development capacity is off. A recent interesting article points out that Secretary of State Rice, previously frozen out, is now in the cat bird’s seat on Iran policy. Yes, there are ominous rumblings from the last bastion of hawkishness in Vice President Cheney’s office but is anyone going to put their head in a noose this late in the Bush Administration. Hell no, not when there are cushy private sector or think tank jobs to fight for. We will take the respite, but as always, keep vigilant. In any case if Seymour Hersh’s analysis from a New Yorker article of last year is any clue we still have not heard the last of this whatever party wins the next election. One of the central arguments that Democrats have put forth in opposition to the Iraq War is that Iran was the real enemy. Remember this. Stay tuned.
IN DEFENSE OF JOHN McCAIN
What? A long time leftist coming to the defense of one of the most right-wing politicians in American life? Well, yes. Why? Recently Senator McCain, a leading Republican presidential contender, was in New York for one of those endless fund-raisers that are central to any bourgeois candidacy these days. Hell, one cannot even run for town selectman these days without breaking the bank. As the Senator entered the event he was confronted with signs calling him a traitor- by fellow Republicans no less. What gives? What gives is that some on the rabid right are ready to lynch him over his co-sponsorship of the latest immigration legislation. Make no mistake, this legislation is not supportable by leftists either. Moreover, I am diametrically opposed to Senator McCain’s support for the ‘surge’ strategy in Iraq. I stood with the victims of his bombing missions in Vietnam. I fight for a workers party. In short, we are on different political planets. No, political universes. Call me old-fashioned, if you like, but following George Orwell’s dicta it is very useful to call things by their right political name and act accordingly. John McCain a traitor? Hell, no. John McCain is probably one of the most devoted defenders of the American Empire. That is where we fight him politically.
ON MITT ROMNEY’S POLYGAMOUS FORBEARS
Former Massachusetts Governor and current Republican hopeful Mitt Romney has recently been the subject of scurrilous and serrepitious attacks by his Republican brethren concerning his Mormon religious affiliations. Part of this is due to the old time Mormon tradition of the now officially outlawed polygamous marriages. As probably the leading candidate on the ‘family values’ issue Romney has been at great pains to disassociate himself from that little ‘skeleton’ in the family closet. Hell, as I have written elsewhere that is the only thing that makes him interesting. I would have liked to meet his great-grandfather and his great-grandmothers. A biography of Joseph Smith, the Mormon founder, is on my summer reading list. As for those attacks on his Mormonism apparently the day is not past when religion and religious affiliation does not play a part in politics. Anyone who thought otherwise has had his or her head in the sand. Let us face it we are holding on to a barely secular republic these days.
ON MAYOR BLOOMBERG AND AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDACY
Recently Republican New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that he was leaving that party and becoming an independent. Immediately, speculation ran rampart that he was about to embark on an independent presidential campaign. For now the billionaire Bloomberg has denied any such intentions. However, anyone other than a political novice knows that making such a political move does not come out of the blue and we will probably hear more about this in the future as 2008 approaches. But Bloomberg’s non-candidacy is not what interests me. What does is the seemingly unanimous commentary that an independent bourgeois candidacy is doomed to failure. In short, that the two current parties have a lock on mass politics. As a partisan of the fight for a workers party -a real independent party- I, of course, take exception to that premise. According to the talking heads there have been no lack of ‘third’ party options, both conservative and liberal, that in the end at most turned the presidential results to one party or the other but failed to take power themselves. Well, brothers and sisters, we have a different idea don’t we. Nevertheless it is interesting that, given full fields in both the Democratic and Republican parties, there is even any talk that a ‘third’ party run would be in play. Pending further events those who would be attracted to such a political solution are some of the people that we want to talk to about a workers party. Enough for now.
VICTORY FOR GAY MARRIAGE IN MASACHUSETTS
As is well known heterosexual marriage is on its last legs in Massachusetts. Or so opponents of gay marriage would have us believe. Why? In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared, that as a matter of state contitutional law, the prohibition of marriage between people of the same sex could no longer be state law. Since then various right wing political and religious forces, particularly the Roman Catholic Church in heavily Catholic Massachusetts, have attempted every political ploy in the book to get this question on the ballot and let the ‘people’ decide. Part of that process is that the legislature, or in effect a part of it, has to sign off on this. Under the law if 50 legislators agree that ANY proposition should be on the ballot the deal is done and it is placed on the ballot. Thus the recent victory for gay marriage was predicated on an old-fashioned political arm-twisting by pro-gay marriage forces to keep the number under 50. Kudos. Workers party legislators would also be in the thick of such arm-twisting on this issue. Hell that is half the fun of politics. A word of caution though. The anti-gay marriage forces are defeated for now in Massachusetts but this issue will come up in next year’s presidential campaign. Moreover, do not believe for a minute that the yahoos in Massachusetts have given up the struggle to overturn this basic democratic right.
SOME SURPRISING STATISTICS
America is the most advanced capitalist economy on the planet, right? America is the cutting edge technological leader in making things easier and less time-consuming, right? Witness to that premise is the work of this computer I am using. Okay, but how about these facts gleaned from a recent article on the decline in workers benefits. The average American employee gets 9 days vacation a year. The majority of American workers gets no sick pay and in a substantial number of cases are subject to firing for taking sick time. We know the health insurance numbers, as well. The article also went on to compare the United States numbers with other advanced capitalist societies. The comparison was not good. What is the basis for these differences? Under no circumstances were the other work forces given their superior benefits out of the goodness of their bosses’ hearts. Important class struggles in the past, or the threat of class struggles, are the key factor in the difference. So when European workers come here for a month’s vacation in August remember that fact. These numbers are prima facie evidence for a workers party here. Right?
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!
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
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 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.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
*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.
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.
Monday, June 11, 2007
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 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
Sunday, June 10, 2007
"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."
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."
Saturday, June 09, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, June 08, 2007
*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.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
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!
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!
Monday, June 04, 2007
*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!
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!
Friday, June 01, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
*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/
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)