Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for the great American writer, Ernest Hemingway.
BOOK REVIEW
THE FIFTH COLUMN AND 49 OTHER STORIES, ERNEST HEMNGWAY, P.F. COLLIER&SON, NEW YORK, 1950
I have written reviews of many of Ernest Hemingway’s major novels elsewhere in this space. I have reviewed his major novel on the Spanish Civil War For Whom the Bells Toll, as well. Here I review a short play of his concerning that same event. This play is the main item of interest for me in an anthology that also includes his first 49 short stories. I will make a few minor comments on them at the end. However, here I wish to address the main issue that drives the play The Fifth Column. I believe that this is fitting in the year of the 70th anniversary of the Barcelona Uprising-the last chance to save the Spanish Revolution.
The main action here concerns the actions, manners, and love life of a seemingly irresolute character, Phillip, in reality a committed communist who has found himself wrapped up intensely in the struggle to fight against Franco’s counter-revolution. His role is to ferret out the fifth columnists that have infiltrated into Madrid for intelligence/sabotage purposes on behalf of the Franco forces in the bloody civil war that was shaking Republican Spain. The term ‘fifth column’ comes from the notion that not only the traditional four columns of the military are at work but a fifth column of sympathizers who are trying to destabilize the Republic. What to do about them is the central question of this, or any, civil war. At the time there was some controversy that swirled around Hemingway for presenting the solution of summary executions of these agents as the correct way of dealing with this menace. I have questioned some of Hemingway’s political judgments on Spain elsewhere, particularly concerning the role of the International Brigades, but he is right on here. Needless to say, as almost always with Hemingway, a little love interest is thrown into the mix to spice things up. However, in the end, despite the criminal Stalinist takeover of the Spanish security apparatus and its counter-revolutionary role in gutting the revolutionary promise there this play presents a question all militants need to be aware of.
As for the other works included here there are many classics such as "The Snows of Kilimanjaro", "The Killers", many of the other youthful Nick Adams stories, stories on bullfighting, a few on the never-ending problems of love and its heartbreaks, and some sketches that were included in "A Farewell to Arms". Well worth your time. As always Hemingway wields his sparse and functional language to make his points. Again, as always read this man. But what you really need to read here is "The Fifth Column". Okay.
Monday, July 23, 2007
CHOCKY AR LA (OUR TIME WILL COME)
BOOK REVIEW
THREE PLAYS: JUNO AND THE PAYCOCK, THE SHADOW OF A GUNMAN’ THE PLOUGH AND THE STARS, SEAN O’CASY, ST. MARTIN’S PRESS, NEW YORK, 1981
The history of Ireland is replete with ‘times of troubles’, no question about that. The particular ‘ time of troubles’ that the master Anglo- Irish socialist playwright Sean O’Casey takes on in these three classic and best known of his plays is the time from the Easter Uprising in 1916 to the time of the lesser known Civil War battles between Free Staters and die-hard Republicans in 1921-22. Needless to say they were all classified as tragedies by O’Casey. What qualified O’Casey to do much more than provide yeoman’s cultural service to this period? Well, for one he helped organize the famous James Connolly-led Irish Citizen’s Army that took part in the heroic Easter Uprising in 1916. For another, O’Casey was a true son of the Dublin tenements where the action of the three plays takes place. He KNEW the ‘shawlie’ environment and the language of despair, duplicity and treachery that is the lot of the desperately poor. Finally, as an Anglo- Irishman he had that very fine ear for the English language that we have come to cherish from the long line of Irish poets and playwrights who have graced our culture. That said, please read about this period in Irish history but also please read these plays if you want to put that history in proper perspective- in short, to understand why the hell the British had to go. Below are capsule summaries of the three plays.
Juno and the Paycock- the Boyles, the central characters in this play, have benefited from the creation of the Free State but at a cost, namely the incapacity of their son. Their daughter has seemingly better prospects, but that will remain to be seen. The device that holds this play together is the hope of good fortune that allegedly is coming under the terms of a relative of Captain Boyle’s will. The ebb and flow of events around that fortune drives the drama as does the fickleness of the tenement crowd who gather to ‘benefit’ from it. There is also a very lively and, from this distance, seemingly stereotyped camaraderie between the Captain and his ‘boyo’ Joxer.
The Shadow of a Gunman- the gun has always played, and continues to play, an important part in the Irish liberation struggle. That premise was no different in 1920 than it is today. Whether the gun alone, in the absence of a socialist political program, can create the Workers Republic that O’Casey strove for is a separate question. What is interesting here is what happens, literally, when by mistake and misdirection, a couple of free-floating Irish males of indeterminate character and politics are assumed to be gunmen but are not. It is not giving anything in the play away to state that the real heroine of this action is a woman, Minnie, who in her own patriotic republican way takes the situation as good coin. The Minnies of this world may not lead the revolution but you sure as hell cannot have one without them (and their preparedness to sacrifice).
The Plough and the Stars- There was a time when to even say the words 'plough and stars' brought a little tear to this reviewer’s eye. Well he is a big boy now but the question posed here between duty to the liberation struggle in 1916 and its consequences on the one hand and, for lack of a better word, romance on the other is still one to br reckoned with. That it had such tragic consequences for the young tenement couple Jack and Nora only underlines the problem of love and war in real life, as on the stage.
THREE PLAYS: JUNO AND THE PAYCOCK, THE SHADOW OF A GUNMAN’ THE PLOUGH AND THE STARS, SEAN O’CASY, ST. MARTIN’S PRESS, NEW YORK, 1981
The history of Ireland is replete with ‘times of troubles’, no question about that. The particular ‘ time of troubles’ that the master Anglo- Irish socialist playwright Sean O’Casey takes on in these three classic and best known of his plays is the time from the Easter Uprising in 1916 to the time of the lesser known Civil War battles between Free Staters and die-hard Republicans in 1921-22. Needless to say they were all classified as tragedies by O’Casey. What qualified O’Casey to do much more than provide yeoman’s cultural service to this period? Well, for one he helped organize the famous James Connolly-led Irish Citizen’s Army that took part in the heroic Easter Uprising in 1916. For another, O’Casey was a true son of the Dublin tenements where the action of the three plays takes place. He KNEW the ‘shawlie’ environment and the language of despair, duplicity and treachery that is the lot of the desperately poor. Finally, as an Anglo- Irishman he had that very fine ear for the English language that we have come to cherish from the long line of Irish poets and playwrights who have graced our culture. That said, please read about this period in Irish history but also please read these plays if you want to put that history in proper perspective- in short, to understand why the hell the British had to go. Below are capsule summaries of the three plays.
Juno and the Paycock- the Boyles, the central characters in this play, have benefited from the creation of the Free State but at a cost, namely the incapacity of their son. Their daughter has seemingly better prospects, but that will remain to be seen. The device that holds this play together is the hope of good fortune that allegedly is coming under the terms of a relative of Captain Boyle’s will. The ebb and flow of events around that fortune drives the drama as does the fickleness of the tenement crowd who gather to ‘benefit’ from it. There is also a very lively and, from this distance, seemingly stereotyped camaraderie between the Captain and his ‘boyo’ Joxer.
The Shadow of a Gunman- the gun has always played, and continues to play, an important part in the Irish liberation struggle. That premise was no different in 1920 than it is today. Whether the gun alone, in the absence of a socialist political program, can create the Workers Republic that O’Casey strove for is a separate question. What is interesting here is what happens, literally, when by mistake and misdirection, a couple of free-floating Irish males of indeterminate character and politics are assumed to be gunmen but are not. It is not giving anything in the play away to state that the real heroine of this action is a woman, Minnie, who in her own patriotic republican way takes the situation as good coin. The Minnies of this world may not lead the revolution but you sure as hell cannot have one without them (and their preparedness to sacrifice).
The Plough and the Stars- There was a time when to even say the words 'plough and stars' brought a little tear to this reviewer’s eye. Well he is a big boy now but the question posed here between duty to the liberation struggle in 1916 and its consequences on the one hand and, for lack of a better word, romance on the other is still one to br reckoned with. That it had such tragic consequences for the young tenement couple Jack and Nora only underlines the problem of love and war in real life, as on the stage.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
*PLAN B IN IRAQ-A NEW SURGE?
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
IMMEDIATE UNCONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN!
BUILD ANTI-WAR SOLDIERS AND SAILORS SOLIDARITY COMMITTEES –REV UP THE TROOP TRANSPORTS NOW!
If one has paid virtually daily attention to the news from and about Iraq over the last five years then one knows, as I do, that some weeks bring unrelentingly bad news. And the others are worst. This past week, the week of July 16, 2007, was one of those worst weeks. No, not because of any dramatic increase in casualty rates or horrific bombings but because there are unmistakable signals in the air from the American political/military establishment that the next step in Iraq is another troop ‘surge’ that in their language will finally stabilize the situation there. This is the famous Plan B that the Bush Administration is apparently taking under serious consideration and had previously scoffed at as unnecessary. And from their perspective why not.
This administration is already doomed to go down in history as a failure even by bourgeois standards. The Bush poll ratings can hardly get worst. Moreover, it is getting to be time in the now lame duck Bush presidency to spruce up his image for his place in history. So with nothing in particular to lost why not roll the dice one more time hoping that more troops, that is more American troops , will get the job done. Know this- the Bush cabal is committed, come hell or high water, to staying in Iraq at current or greater military levels until January 20, 2009. Make no mistake there. The real question is what are we going to do about it? The ball is in our court now. The headlines above indicate the slogans that I have propagandized for over the last year. (See also, August 2006 archives) They still retain their full force today. Below are a few comments on this week's developments.
As everyone knows by now the United States House of Representatives voted basically along party lines in favor of a resolution calling for quick withdrawal from Iraq. Over in the United States Senate that same basic resolution was defeated by pajama-clad Republican senators holding their party line. Okay, boys and girls fun’s fun but aside from the pajama party this so-called Democratic ‘pressure’ strategy on the Bush administration by repeated votes that cannot be overridden is getting a little tiresome. The Democrats were swept in last November, in part at least, on a wave of anti-war sentiment. I submit the parliamentary maneuvering of the past couple of months as prima facie evidence that the parliamentary road to ending the war is a bust. Seemingly the American people agree, at some level, in that a recent poll has place Congress’s approval rating at some 20 something percent, lower than Bush’s rating if that is possible. Even a political novice can recognize now that some other forces need to come into play to end this damn war. Those soldier and sailor committees cited above are desperately necessary right now. The slogan, not Bring the Troops Home but Troops Out Now-Rev Up the Troop Transports Now.
The most ominous news of the week concerns the maneuvering over the so-called report by General Petreaus in mid-September evaluating the military situation then as a result of the additional troops provided over the past period. Every bourgeois politician and his or her brother has been waiting breathlessly for this report in order to bail out, or at least decide what his or her political chances are for 2008. This is especially true since the interim report to the interim report issued in mid- July had to be ‘sexed-up’ to make it look like any progress was being made at all. But hold on. Now senior military commanders are hedging their bets and are arguing for ‘postponing’ the day of reckoning. Moreover, a less senior commander on the ground is blowing smoke about the summer of 2008 being the real target date when Iraqi troops will be ‘ready’ to take over. Christ, will this madness never end. Worst and this is from the top- the soon to be ignobly retired Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Marine General Peter Pace has signaled that there are ‘contingency’ plans afoot in case the situation in Iraq warrants another little ‘surge’. Take that statement seriously. Leading American military generals who have spent over thirty years in military service and who would rather fall on their swords than make a false bureaucratic move do not telegraph such news without a nod from their civilian superiors. Pay very careful attention over the next couple of months to who in the military is saying what about the military situation in Iraq. That is where the fight over the outlines of Plan B will come from.
Finally, there has been something of a resurgence of neo-conservative chatter about surrender and treason if America leaves the Iraqis in the lurch anytime soon. This sentiment has been expressed by my local nemesis Boston Globe Op/Ed contributor Jeff Jacoby. His argument is that somehow the decisive battle against Islamic fundamentalism is to be fought and decided in Iraq. Pulling out now ipso facto automatically means a victory for Al Qaeda. I have commented previously that such a stance would keep the American presence long enough so that his young sons and seemingly now his grandchildren would get a chance to fight there. The reality, however, is that these neo-cons are not prepared to shed their blood or their kin’s but are more than happy to let some other mother’s son or daughter die there. That question aside there is a core point that these neo-cons bring up that we of the left need to address.
Everyone from the lowliest neo-con to the most radical socialist revolutionary understands, or should understand, that we are in a life and death struggle against Islamic fundamentalism. Even from our staunch anti-imperialist prospective we, if and when we come to power, would have to address this question of politically, and if necessary, militarily defeating that movement. The distinction we need to draw is that we would do it differently. It seems to me, as the current British terrorist cases tend to bear out, that extensive police/intelligence work would be our first avenue. In the end, however, we will fight them arms in hand, if necessary. This thought is not etched in stone and bears both more study and additional comment. In the meantime- U.S. Troops Out of Iraq. Enough said.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
COMMENTARY
IMMEDIATE UNCONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN!
BUILD ANTI-WAR SOLDIERS AND SAILORS SOLIDARITY COMMITTEES –REV UP THE TROOP TRANSPORTS NOW!
If one has paid virtually daily attention to the news from and about Iraq over the last five years then one knows, as I do, that some weeks bring unrelentingly bad news. And the others are worst. This past week, the week of July 16, 2007, was one of those worst weeks. No, not because of any dramatic increase in casualty rates or horrific bombings but because there are unmistakable signals in the air from the American political/military establishment that the next step in Iraq is another troop ‘surge’ that in their language will finally stabilize the situation there. This is the famous Plan B that the Bush Administration is apparently taking under serious consideration and had previously scoffed at as unnecessary. And from their perspective why not.
This administration is already doomed to go down in history as a failure even by bourgeois standards. The Bush poll ratings can hardly get worst. Moreover, it is getting to be time in the now lame duck Bush presidency to spruce up his image for his place in history. So with nothing in particular to lost why not roll the dice one more time hoping that more troops, that is more American troops , will get the job done. Know this- the Bush cabal is committed, come hell or high water, to staying in Iraq at current or greater military levels until January 20, 2009. Make no mistake there. The real question is what are we going to do about it? The ball is in our court now. The headlines above indicate the slogans that I have propagandized for over the last year. (See also, August 2006 archives) They still retain their full force today. Below are a few comments on this week's developments.
As everyone knows by now the United States House of Representatives voted basically along party lines in favor of a resolution calling for quick withdrawal from Iraq. Over in the United States Senate that same basic resolution was defeated by pajama-clad Republican senators holding their party line. Okay, boys and girls fun’s fun but aside from the pajama party this so-called Democratic ‘pressure’ strategy on the Bush administration by repeated votes that cannot be overridden is getting a little tiresome. The Democrats were swept in last November, in part at least, on a wave of anti-war sentiment. I submit the parliamentary maneuvering of the past couple of months as prima facie evidence that the parliamentary road to ending the war is a bust. Seemingly the American people agree, at some level, in that a recent poll has place Congress’s approval rating at some 20 something percent, lower than Bush’s rating if that is possible. Even a political novice can recognize now that some other forces need to come into play to end this damn war. Those soldier and sailor committees cited above are desperately necessary right now. The slogan, not Bring the Troops Home but Troops Out Now-Rev Up the Troop Transports Now.
The most ominous news of the week concerns the maneuvering over the so-called report by General Petreaus in mid-September evaluating the military situation then as a result of the additional troops provided over the past period. Every bourgeois politician and his or her brother has been waiting breathlessly for this report in order to bail out, or at least decide what his or her political chances are for 2008. This is especially true since the interim report to the interim report issued in mid- July had to be ‘sexed-up’ to make it look like any progress was being made at all. But hold on. Now senior military commanders are hedging their bets and are arguing for ‘postponing’ the day of reckoning. Moreover, a less senior commander on the ground is blowing smoke about the summer of 2008 being the real target date when Iraqi troops will be ‘ready’ to take over. Christ, will this madness never end. Worst and this is from the top- the soon to be ignobly retired Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Marine General Peter Pace has signaled that there are ‘contingency’ plans afoot in case the situation in Iraq warrants another little ‘surge’. Take that statement seriously. Leading American military generals who have spent over thirty years in military service and who would rather fall on their swords than make a false bureaucratic move do not telegraph such news without a nod from their civilian superiors. Pay very careful attention over the next couple of months to who in the military is saying what about the military situation in Iraq. That is where the fight over the outlines of Plan B will come from.
Finally, there has been something of a resurgence of neo-conservative chatter about surrender and treason if America leaves the Iraqis in the lurch anytime soon. This sentiment has been expressed by my local nemesis Boston Globe Op/Ed contributor Jeff Jacoby. His argument is that somehow the decisive battle against Islamic fundamentalism is to be fought and decided in Iraq. Pulling out now ipso facto automatically means a victory for Al Qaeda. I have commented previously that such a stance would keep the American presence long enough so that his young sons and seemingly now his grandchildren would get a chance to fight there. The reality, however, is that these neo-cons are not prepared to shed their blood or their kin’s but are more than happy to let some other mother’s son or daughter die there. That question aside there is a core point that these neo-cons bring up that we of the left need to address.
Everyone from the lowliest neo-con to the most radical socialist revolutionary understands, or should understand, that we are in a life and death struggle against Islamic fundamentalism. Even from our staunch anti-imperialist prospective we, if and when we come to power, would have to address this question of politically, and if necessary, militarily defeating that movement. The distinction we need to draw is that we would do it differently. It seems to me, as the current British terrorist cases tend to bear out, that extensive police/intelligence work would be our first avenue. In the end, however, we will fight them arms in hand, if necessary. This thought is not etched in stone and bears both more study and additional comment. In the meantime- U.S. Troops Out of Iraq. Enough said.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Saturday, July 21, 2007
THE 'CLASS WAR' DEMOCRATS
COMMENTARY
ON THE DEMOCRATIC ‘ANTI-POVERTY’ CAMPAIGN
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
This week, the week of July 16, 2007, we have seen the spectacle of Democratic presidential candidates former North Carolina Senator and 2004 Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards and Illinois Senator Barack Obama squaring off to see who is the ‘better’ advocate of ‘class war’ in defense of the downtrodden, or in the parlance of polite society, the “have-nots”. Of course, in response the leading Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has also chimed in on this theme. What is unusual about all of these doings is that the central electoral strategy of the Democrats for at least the past thirty years has been to deny that the class struggle, despite all the evident of relative decline in the standard of living of the working class to the contrary, even existed. The Democrats were content to struggle along with their version of “trickle down’ theory by arguing that a ‘robust’ economy would help float ‘all boats’. Well, we knew, and now know differently and there is no satisfaction in these quarters that these bourgeois politicians have taken up the issue, for the moment. Why?
Their ‘solutions’ are more of the same. Tinker a little with the system to ‘redistribute’ the wealth (a very little from what I have read of these plans) by tax schemes or public works but to keep the system fundamentally as is. Even with the best of intentions this is a plan for failure for working people, especially the marginal working poor. Not only is it necessary to throw much more money at the problem than any bourgeois candidate would dream of doing but the whole thrust is wrong. The culture of poverty, of being poor and without resources to compete in a ‘rich’ society, not only requires money to get out from under but a whole different way of looking at life. In short, to be empowered. This is not our society. We live in it yes but we do not control it. The way to get empowered is through a workers government. This, dear reader, is the hard reality.
That is the crux of the matter and something none of these well-educated, well fed parliamentary types have a clue about. Even the patently reformist Chicago social activist and community organizing guru Saul Alinsky, whom Hillary admiringly wrote her senior thesis on while at Wellesley and whom Obama admired, knew that much. Moreover what I do not hear about from these born-again ‘class-warriors’ is any talk about the necessary first step in raising the ‘boats’ of the poor-unionization. I have hammered away elsewhere on the importance of organizing the South and the desperate need to organize Wal-Mart. That, rather than 'make work' and easily evaded tax schemes would go a long way toward breaking this cycle of poverty.
One final point on John Edwards. Much has been made of the fact that Edwards is the son of a Southern mill worker. Also he more than other candidates has taken this ‘two Americas’ concept as his theme both in 2004 and now. Yes, John Edwards is a son of the working class. However, his career is a very good case study in why those of us who propagandize for a workers party have been stymied for so long. In the normal course of events if there had been in place even a small viable mass workers party Mr. Edwards in his youth might very well have been attracted to such a formation. In the absence of such a formation he saw his main chance as the Democratic Party. Such are the ways of politics. However, until we can break this vicious cycle our work will continue to be that of unceasing propaganda for a workers party and a workers government. Be assured though that in the end we will get our share of real class war fighters.
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!
ON THE DEMOCRATIC ‘ANTI-POVERTY’ CAMPAIGN
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
This week, the week of July 16, 2007, we have seen the spectacle of Democratic presidential candidates former North Carolina Senator and 2004 Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards and Illinois Senator Barack Obama squaring off to see who is the ‘better’ advocate of ‘class war’ in defense of the downtrodden, or in the parlance of polite society, the “have-nots”. Of course, in response the leading Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has also chimed in on this theme. What is unusual about all of these doings is that the central electoral strategy of the Democrats for at least the past thirty years has been to deny that the class struggle, despite all the evident of relative decline in the standard of living of the working class to the contrary, even existed. The Democrats were content to struggle along with their version of “trickle down’ theory by arguing that a ‘robust’ economy would help float ‘all boats’. Well, we knew, and now know differently and there is no satisfaction in these quarters that these bourgeois politicians have taken up the issue, for the moment. Why?
Their ‘solutions’ are more of the same. Tinker a little with the system to ‘redistribute’ the wealth (a very little from what I have read of these plans) by tax schemes or public works but to keep the system fundamentally as is. Even with the best of intentions this is a plan for failure for working people, especially the marginal working poor. Not only is it necessary to throw much more money at the problem than any bourgeois candidate would dream of doing but the whole thrust is wrong. The culture of poverty, of being poor and without resources to compete in a ‘rich’ society, not only requires money to get out from under but a whole different way of looking at life. In short, to be empowered. This is not our society. We live in it yes but we do not control it. The way to get empowered is through a workers government. This, dear reader, is the hard reality.
That is the crux of the matter and something none of these well-educated, well fed parliamentary types have a clue about. Even the patently reformist Chicago social activist and community organizing guru Saul Alinsky, whom Hillary admiringly wrote her senior thesis on while at Wellesley and whom Obama admired, knew that much. Moreover what I do not hear about from these born-again ‘class-warriors’ is any talk about the necessary first step in raising the ‘boats’ of the poor-unionization. I have hammered away elsewhere on the importance of organizing the South and the desperate need to organize Wal-Mart. That, rather than 'make work' and easily evaded tax schemes would go a long way toward breaking this cycle of poverty.
One final point on John Edwards. Much has been made of the fact that Edwards is the son of a Southern mill worker. Also he more than other candidates has taken this ‘two Americas’ concept as his theme both in 2004 and now. Yes, John Edwards is a son of the working class. However, his career is a very good case study in why those of us who propagandize for a workers party have been stymied for so long. In the normal course of events if there had been in place even a small viable mass workers party Mr. Edwards in his youth might very well have been attracted to such a formation. In the absence of such a formation he saw his main chance as the Democratic Party. Such are the ways of politics. However, until we can break this vicious cycle our work will continue to be that of unceasing propaganda for a workers party and a workers government. Be assured though that in the end we will get our share of real class war fighters.
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!
ON THE FRENCH SOCIALIST PARTY
ON THE FRENCH SOCIALIST PARTY
COMMENTARY
In the wake of his victory in the recent French presidential elections the conservative administration of President Sarkozy has successfully co-opted a number of opponent Socialist party functionaries onto his team. As a result they, for the most part, have been expelled. However their defections point to turmoil about the future of that party. Let us be clear- the modern post World II rabidly anti-communist French Socialist party has been an almost purely electoral operation somewhat akin to the Democratic Party in the United States. Its connection to the working class as a leftist organization has been centered on the white collar professional workers, students, teachers and the French version of the American AFL-CIO labor bureaucracy. As such it has been solely committed, at best, to a parliamentary perspective of taking the rough edges off the administration of the capitalist system. The recent election campaign of the Socialist candidate Royal exemplified that approach.
Historically the industrial working class was, and to a very minor extent still is, loyal to the Stalinist Communist party. With the demise of the Soviet Union, and even before that with its Euro-communist strategy, that party has fallen on hard times. Nevertheless both parties have lived and died by their dependence on the ‘popular front’ concept of parliamentary political struggle. For those unfamiliar with the concept the popular front is an explicit and conscious agreement presented by working class parties to bourgeois formations under a minimum program. Almost universally it is a parliamentary tactic and almost universally as well it has acted as a break on class struggle, if not worse as Chile in the 1970’s graphically demonstrated. Today, as if to symbolize the inadequacy of that strategy both ostensibly socialist organizations are now in decline. Yet the working class of France, including its somewhat strategic immigrant sector, is in dire need of a party that represents its historic interests and fights the class struggle on its behalf.
This, it seems to me, represents an excellent time to regroup the militant forces of the left in France around a class struggle program. Historically the far-left, the so-called ‘ultras’ (essentially the various ostensibly Trotskyist tendencies, the dissident left Stalinists, anarchists and at one time the Maoists) have played around the fringes of parliamentary politics. In the end, however, these groups have bought into the popular front strategy of the major left wing parties. Nowhere was this more evident that in the second round of the 2002 presidential elections where the choice was between the conservative reactionary Chirac and the virulently reactionary LePen. The ‘far left’ fell all over itself in calling for a vote for Chirac under the assumption that LePen represented an incipient fascist takeover of the democratic republic. The ‘popular front’ proved then to be very broad indeed. Now, with the situation in France very fluid as leftists wait for the Sarkozy government to drop the other shoe, is the time to break out of this never-ending parliamentary cycle and create, at first, a propaganda group or small mass party, committed explicitly to the fight for an alternative socialist system. The first step, but only the first step, is to place in mothballs that old ‘popular front’ strategy that has been central to French leftist politics since the French Revolution. As I have pointed out elsewhere in review of a history of the French Revolution by Georges LeFebvre the popular front between the bourgeois elements like Robespierre and the sans-culottes in that revolution at that time made sense. Today, no. More on this latter as I get a better grip on what is happening specifically with French far left groupings. Remember this though- in the end if the Socialist party is not politically defeated by the left it will rear its ugly head again. And as under the Socialists Mitterrand and Josplin in the recent past it will not be pretty.
Enough said.
COMMENTARY
In the wake of his victory in the recent French presidential elections the conservative administration of President Sarkozy has successfully co-opted a number of opponent Socialist party functionaries onto his team. As a result they, for the most part, have been expelled. However their defections point to turmoil about the future of that party. Let us be clear- the modern post World II rabidly anti-communist French Socialist party has been an almost purely electoral operation somewhat akin to the Democratic Party in the United States. Its connection to the working class as a leftist organization has been centered on the white collar professional workers, students, teachers and the French version of the American AFL-CIO labor bureaucracy. As such it has been solely committed, at best, to a parliamentary perspective of taking the rough edges off the administration of the capitalist system. The recent election campaign of the Socialist candidate Royal exemplified that approach.
Historically the industrial working class was, and to a very minor extent still is, loyal to the Stalinist Communist party. With the demise of the Soviet Union, and even before that with its Euro-communist strategy, that party has fallen on hard times. Nevertheless both parties have lived and died by their dependence on the ‘popular front’ concept of parliamentary political struggle. For those unfamiliar with the concept the popular front is an explicit and conscious agreement presented by working class parties to bourgeois formations under a minimum program. Almost universally it is a parliamentary tactic and almost universally as well it has acted as a break on class struggle, if not worse as Chile in the 1970’s graphically demonstrated. Today, as if to symbolize the inadequacy of that strategy both ostensibly socialist organizations are now in decline. Yet the working class of France, including its somewhat strategic immigrant sector, is in dire need of a party that represents its historic interests and fights the class struggle on its behalf.
This, it seems to me, represents an excellent time to regroup the militant forces of the left in France around a class struggle program. Historically the far-left, the so-called ‘ultras’ (essentially the various ostensibly Trotskyist tendencies, the dissident left Stalinists, anarchists and at one time the Maoists) have played around the fringes of parliamentary politics. In the end, however, these groups have bought into the popular front strategy of the major left wing parties. Nowhere was this more evident that in the second round of the 2002 presidential elections where the choice was between the conservative reactionary Chirac and the virulently reactionary LePen. The ‘far left’ fell all over itself in calling for a vote for Chirac under the assumption that LePen represented an incipient fascist takeover of the democratic republic. The ‘popular front’ proved then to be very broad indeed. Now, with the situation in France very fluid as leftists wait for the Sarkozy government to drop the other shoe, is the time to break out of this never-ending parliamentary cycle and create, at first, a propaganda group or small mass party, committed explicitly to the fight for an alternative socialist system. The first step, but only the first step, is to place in mothballs that old ‘popular front’ strategy that has been central to French leftist politics since the French Revolution. As I have pointed out elsewhere in review of a history of the French Revolution by Georges LeFebvre the popular front between the bourgeois elements like Robespierre and the sans-culottes in that revolution at that time made sense. Today, no. More on this latter as I get a better grip on what is happening specifically with French far left groupings. Remember this though- in the end if the Socialist party is not politically defeated by the left it will rear its ugly head again. And as under the Socialists Mitterrand and Josplin in the recent past it will not be pretty.
Enough said.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
SUMMER RERUNS, SUMMER SOLDIERS, SUMMER BLOCKBUSTERS
COMMENTARY
There is an old saying that no news is good news. Whatever the validity of that statement is there is no denying that it is hard to get a focus what to make of latest political news as summer bears down on us. However, here are a few comments –
SHEEEE’S BACK
In May I commented on the decision of courageous anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan to ‘resign’ as the face of the anti-war movement noting that her frustration at the Democratic failure to reverse the direction of the war ‘as advertised’ in the 2006 midterm Congressional elections had driven her to despair. Apparently now she is back and ‘on the low’ is traveling and preparing, if necessary, to oppose herself as a congressional candidate to House Speaker Pelosi in the 2008 elections. The dilemma of Ms. Sheehan graphically illustrates the tremendous political problems associated with the long time dependence on the ‘good’ offices of the Democratic Party, the other party of capitalism, in order to bring about social change. Or in the case of Iraq to even stop the imperialist madness. Militants should not only redouble their efforts to change things but also take a harder look at ways to defeat this Democratic behemoth. That is where the political fight is in America.
WAITING FOR GODOT
Part of Ms. Sheehan’s dilemma stems for the chronic inability to break out from the parliamentary cretinism that we have been confronted with as the solution to the Iraq question. Right now, as Republican office holders, with the apparent bizarre exception of Arizona Senator McCain, are fleeing the U.S.S. Bush like rats from a sinking ship the Democrats are trying to cobble yet another resolution to ‘redeploy’ the troops out of Iraq. But hold on, Dems- we still have the July 15th interim report of the interim report to wait on to see if the situation in Iraq has improved. Of course, that is just the icing on the cake. Everyone is really waiting (delaying) until General Petraeus’ report in September. Hear this now- forget these bogus reports- this Bush Administration will see enough ‘light’ in these documents to continue the current strategy until January 20, 2009. My suggestion to Ms. Sheehan and others is that they get on board and fight for a workers party. That is a great lesson to be learned from all of this.
REQUIEM FOR A SUMMER SOLDIER
We have just passed the celebration of the 4th of July and the usual patriotic hoopla. Readers of this space know of my great, if rather belated, admiration for the winter soldiers at Valley Forge and elsewhere who kept the democratic faith through think and thin. As if to mock such devotion there has been a recent spate of conservative commentary on old time notions of patriotism expressed by ritual display of the flag. Locally this has been expressed in a commentary in the Sunday Boston Globe of July 8, 2007 by Op/Ed contributor Jeff Jacoby. Mr. Jacoby and I have locked horns before but here apparently he is in a lather about the lack of flags displayed in his neighborhood. The inference to be drawn is that those who do not display the flag are not patriotic. Of course, Mr. Jacoby is well known locally as one of the last of about seven supporters in Massachusetts of the current Iraq War. He, on more than one occasion, has expressed his willingness to let some other father’s son or daughter fight on his behalf in this worthless cause. On the other hand he apparently is more than happy to wave the flag in the front of his house. Forget this flag thing, here is the ‘skinny’- until further notice we stand on this idea- yes we love this country- no, we do not love this government. Enough said
THE CLASH OF THE TITANS
Of course no commentary by this writer would be complete without at least a little swipe at that other party of capitalism, the Democrats. If there is one thing that has become apparent this summer it is that the real battle for the Democratic presidential nomination is down to the intergenerational fight between Hillary and Obama ‘The Charma'. In recognition of this the first ‘blood’ was drawn in Iowa last week. Hillary with her man Bill in tow barnstormed through Iowa spreading the Old Gospel news that the good old days of the Bill Clinton Administration were pretty good. Well yes, Bill you were probably better than George Bush. I would not, however, deem that as high praise under the circumstances since George W. Bush makes Millard Fillmore, another accidental president, look good by comparison. As the campaign progresses the “golden age” of the Clintons will be discussed further here. Obama is the new kid on the block and strictly a New Gospel guy and in a not so veiled way has declared that the Emperor (or currently the Empress) has no clothes. Stay tuned to see how this fight develops. It will not be pretty, especially if the race gets closer than it is now. Yes, youth must be served but these ‘guys’ are already old news.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
There is an old saying that no news is good news. Whatever the validity of that statement is there is no denying that it is hard to get a focus what to make of latest political news as summer bears down on us. However, here are a few comments –
SHEEEE’S BACK
In May I commented on the decision of courageous anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan to ‘resign’ as the face of the anti-war movement noting that her frustration at the Democratic failure to reverse the direction of the war ‘as advertised’ in the 2006 midterm Congressional elections had driven her to despair. Apparently now she is back and ‘on the low’ is traveling and preparing, if necessary, to oppose herself as a congressional candidate to House Speaker Pelosi in the 2008 elections. The dilemma of Ms. Sheehan graphically illustrates the tremendous political problems associated with the long time dependence on the ‘good’ offices of the Democratic Party, the other party of capitalism, in order to bring about social change. Or in the case of Iraq to even stop the imperialist madness. Militants should not only redouble their efforts to change things but also take a harder look at ways to defeat this Democratic behemoth. That is where the political fight is in America.
WAITING FOR GODOT
Part of Ms. Sheehan’s dilemma stems for the chronic inability to break out from the parliamentary cretinism that we have been confronted with as the solution to the Iraq question. Right now, as Republican office holders, with the apparent bizarre exception of Arizona Senator McCain, are fleeing the U.S.S. Bush like rats from a sinking ship the Democrats are trying to cobble yet another resolution to ‘redeploy’ the troops out of Iraq. But hold on, Dems- we still have the July 15th interim report of the interim report to wait on to see if the situation in Iraq has improved. Of course, that is just the icing on the cake. Everyone is really waiting (delaying) until General Petraeus’ report in September. Hear this now- forget these bogus reports- this Bush Administration will see enough ‘light’ in these documents to continue the current strategy until January 20, 2009. My suggestion to Ms. Sheehan and others is that they get on board and fight for a workers party. That is a great lesson to be learned from all of this.
REQUIEM FOR A SUMMER SOLDIER
We have just passed the celebration of the 4th of July and the usual patriotic hoopla. Readers of this space know of my great, if rather belated, admiration for the winter soldiers at Valley Forge and elsewhere who kept the democratic faith through think and thin. As if to mock such devotion there has been a recent spate of conservative commentary on old time notions of patriotism expressed by ritual display of the flag. Locally this has been expressed in a commentary in the Sunday Boston Globe of July 8, 2007 by Op/Ed contributor Jeff Jacoby. Mr. Jacoby and I have locked horns before but here apparently he is in a lather about the lack of flags displayed in his neighborhood. The inference to be drawn is that those who do not display the flag are not patriotic. Of course, Mr. Jacoby is well known locally as one of the last of about seven supporters in Massachusetts of the current Iraq War. He, on more than one occasion, has expressed his willingness to let some other father’s son or daughter fight on his behalf in this worthless cause. On the other hand he apparently is more than happy to wave the flag in the front of his house. Forget this flag thing, here is the ‘skinny’- until further notice we stand on this idea- yes we love this country- no, we do not love this government. Enough said
THE CLASH OF THE TITANS
Of course no commentary by this writer would be complete without at least a little swipe at that other party of capitalism, the Democrats. If there is one thing that has become apparent this summer it is that the real battle for the Democratic presidential nomination is down to the intergenerational fight between Hillary and Obama ‘The Charma'. In recognition of this the first ‘blood’ was drawn in Iowa last week. Hillary with her man Bill in tow barnstormed through Iowa spreading the Old Gospel news that the good old days of the Bill Clinton Administration were pretty good. Well yes, Bill you were probably better than George Bush. I would not, however, deem that as high praise under the circumstances since George W. Bush makes Millard Fillmore, another accidental president, look good by comparison. As the campaign progresses the “golden age” of the Clintons will be discussed further here. Obama is the new kid on the block and strictly a New Gospel guy and in a not so veiled way has declared that the Emperor (or currently the Empress) has no clothes. Stay tuned to see how this fight develops. It will not be pretty, especially if the race gets closer than it is now. Yes, youth must be served but these ‘guys’ are already old news.
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!
Friday, July 06, 2007
AN ANNIVERSARY OF SORTS
COMMENTARY
This summer marks the 35th year of my commitment to Marxism. Those who have been reading my commentaries for a while know that I try to commemorate, and comment on, important anniversaries in our common working class and leftist history like those of the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti or the start of the Paris Commune. Those same readers also know that I have been rather short with bourgeois politicians like John Kerry who have a habit of commemorating every little political action they have taken. The winner for me was Kerry’s very public celebration at historic Fanueil Hall in Boston in 2006 of the 35th anniversary of his anti-war testimony before Congress in 1971. Christ, I still chuckle over the absurdity of that one. But hear me out on this. I want no pat on the back but to just make a comment about why, despite the current historic trend away from socialist solutions to the world’s problems, I still proudly carry the title communist.
I once remarked in a review of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto that the third section of that document where he polemicized against the various other liberal and so-called socialist groups of his day that in my search for political solutions in my early days I had probably held virtually every position that he argued against. And believe me, dear reader, that is no exaggeration-except maybe I did not advocate for feudal socialism. But the rest, liberalism, both tactical and principled versions of pacifism, anarchism, guerilla warfare, well you get the drift. This is probably why when I headed, reluctantly I might add, to Marxism it stuck. And that is the main idea I am trying to get at in this piece. That is the power of Marxism as a tool for looking at and changing the world. The only other point I would add is that over the past thirty-five years nothing in politics, our few victories and our many, too many defeats at the hands of the capitalists, has made me regret that I took the road back to my working class roots. I have made many a political mistake in my life, that is for sure. But this is not one of them. LONG LIVE THE WORLD SOCIALIST REVOLUTION!!!
This summer marks the 35th year of my commitment to Marxism. Those who have been reading my commentaries for a while know that I try to commemorate, and comment on, important anniversaries in our common working class and leftist history like those of the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti or the start of the Paris Commune. Those same readers also know that I have been rather short with bourgeois politicians like John Kerry who have a habit of commemorating every little political action they have taken. The winner for me was Kerry’s very public celebration at historic Fanueil Hall in Boston in 2006 of the 35th anniversary of his anti-war testimony before Congress in 1971. Christ, I still chuckle over the absurdity of that one. But hear me out on this. I want no pat on the back but to just make a comment about why, despite the current historic trend away from socialist solutions to the world’s problems, I still proudly carry the title communist.
I once remarked in a review of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto that the third section of that document where he polemicized against the various other liberal and so-called socialist groups of his day that in my search for political solutions in my early days I had probably held virtually every position that he argued against. And believe me, dear reader, that is no exaggeration-except maybe I did not advocate for feudal socialism. But the rest, liberalism, both tactical and principled versions of pacifism, anarchism, guerilla warfare, well you get the drift. This is probably why when I headed, reluctantly I might add, to Marxism it stuck. And that is the main idea I am trying to get at in this piece. That is the power of Marxism as a tool for looking at and changing the world. The only other point I would add is that over the past thirty-five years nothing in politics, our few victories and our many, too many defeats at the hands of the capitalists, has made me regret that I took the road back to my working class roots. I have made many a political mistake in my life, that is for sure. But this is not one of them. LONG LIVE THE WORLD SOCIALIST REVOLUTION!!!
*GEORGE BUSH-NOW THAT SCOOTER HAS GOTTEN HIS COMMUTATION HOW ABOUT LEONARD PELTIER?
Click on title to link to the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee web site.
COMMENTARY
FREE LEONARD PELTIER!
By now everyone in the civilized world knows that President George W. Bush has commuted the 30 month federal sentence of his Vice President’s man, Scooter Libby. Apparently the thought that one of the boys who helped pull off the disinformation debacle in the lead up to the Iraq war would actually serve time was too much for Bush to bear. That has led me to think that while the man is in one of his thoughtful moods that this would be an excellent time to bring up the case of Leonard Peltier the Native American leader wrongly convicted almost thirty years ago for his part in the action at the infamous Pine Ridge Reservation. If there is a crying case of injustice that needs correction it is Peltier’s case. However, we being realistic know what El Presidente would say to a pardon request for brother Peltier. After all his name is not Scooter or Biff or Muffy or Buffy or any one of THEIR tribal names but only the righteous symbol of the fate of the Native American in this unjust capitalist system.
For those unfamiliar with the current (or at least my knowledge of it) status of Leonard Peltier’s case check my April 2006 archives. Or Google the Partisan Defense Committee or Free Leonard Peltier Committee. FREE LEONARD PELTIER!
COMMENTARY
FREE LEONARD PELTIER!
By now everyone in the civilized world knows that President George W. Bush has commuted the 30 month federal sentence of his Vice President’s man, Scooter Libby. Apparently the thought that one of the boys who helped pull off the disinformation debacle in the lead up to the Iraq war would actually serve time was too much for Bush to bear. That has led me to think that while the man is in one of his thoughtful moods that this would be an excellent time to bring up the case of Leonard Peltier the Native American leader wrongly convicted almost thirty years ago for his part in the action at the infamous Pine Ridge Reservation. If there is a crying case of injustice that needs correction it is Peltier’s case. However, we being realistic know what El Presidente would say to a pardon request for brother Peltier. After all his name is not Scooter or Biff or Muffy or Buffy or any one of THEIR tribal names but only the righteous symbol of the fate of the Native American in this unjust capitalist system.
For those unfamiliar with the current (or at least my knowledge of it) status of Leonard Peltier’s case check my April 2006 archives. Or Google the Partisan Defense Committee or Free Leonard Peltier Committee. FREE LEONARD PELTIER!
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
*WHEN DID THE 1960'S END?-The Anti-Vietnam War Events Of May Day 1971
Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for background on the anti-Vietnam War actions of May Day 1971.
Markin comment:
I have recently been reviewing books and documentaries about radical developments in the 1960’s. They included reviews of the Weather Underground, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the memoirs of Bill Ayers, a central figure in that movement. Throughout this work one thing that I noticed was that the various interviewees had different takes on when that period ended. Although in the end the periodization of history is a convenient journalistic or academic convention in the case of the 1960’s it may produce a useful political guide line.
It is almost universally the case that there is agreement on when the 1960’s started. That is with the inauguration of Democratic President John F. Kennedy and his call to social activism. While there is no agreement on what that course of action might entail political figures as diverse as liberals Bill Clinton and John Kerry on to radicals like Mark Rudd, Bill Ayers and this writer agree that this event and its immediate aftermath figured in their politicization.
What is not clear is when it ended. For those committed to parliamentary action it seems to have been the assassination of Robert Kennedy and the events around the Democratic Convention in 1968 that led to the election of one Richard Milhous Nixon as President of the United States. For mainstream black activists its seems to have been the assassination of Martin Luther King that same year ending the dream that pacifist resistance could eradicate racial injustice. For mainstream SDSers apparently it was the split up of that student organization in 1969. For the Black Panthers, the deaths of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark proving for all to see who wanted to see that the American government was really out to get militant blacks off the streets. For those who thought that the counterculture might be the revolution the bloody Rolling Stone’s concert at Altamont in California in 1969 seems to have signaled the end. For the Weather Underground the 1970 New York townhouse explosion and death of their comrades was the signpost. Since everyone can play this game here is my take.
I can name the day and event exactly when my 1960’s ended. The day- May Day 1971 in Washington D.C. The event- a massive attempt by thousands, including myself, to shut down the government over the Vietnam War. We proceeded under the slogan- IF THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT SHUT DOWN THE WAR-WE WILL SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT. At that time I was a radical but hardly a communist. However, the endless mass marches and small local individual acts of resistance seemed to me to be leading to a dead end. But the war nevertheless continued on its savagely endless way. In any case, that day we formed up in collectives with appropriate gear to take over the streets of Washington and try to get to various government buildings. While none of us believed that this would be an easy task we definitely believed that it was doable. Needless to say the Nixon government and its agents were infinitely better prepared and determined to sweep us from the streets-by any means necessary. The long and short of it was that we were swept off the streets in fairly short order, taking many, many arrests.
I walked away from that event with my eyes finally opened about what it would take to made fundamental societal changes. On reflection, on that day we were somewhat like those naïve marchers in St. Petersburg, Russia that were bloodily suppressed by the Czarist forces at the start of the revolution there in January 1905. Nevertheless, in my case, from that point on I vowed that a lot more than a few thousand convinced radicals and revolutionaries working in an ad hoc manner were going to have to come together if we were to succeed against a determined and ruthless enemy. Not a pretty thought but hard reality nevertheless. Enough said.
Markin comment:
I have recently been reviewing books and documentaries about radical developments in the 1960’s. They included reviews of the Weather Underground, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the memoirs of Bill Ayers, a central figure in that movement. Throughout this work one thing that I noticed was that the various interviewees had different takes on when that period ended. Although in the end the periodization of history is a convenient journalistic or academic convention in the case of the 1960’s it may produce a useful political guide line.
It is almost universally the case that there is agreement on when the 1960’s started. That is with the inauguration of Democratic President John F. Kennedy and his call to social activism. While there is no agreement on what that course of action might entail political figures as diverse as liberals Bill Clinton and John Kerry on to radicals like Mark Rudd, Bill Ayers and this writer agree that this event and its immediate aftermath figured in their politicization.
What is not clear is when it ended. For those committed to parliamentary action it seems to have been the assassination of Robert Kennedy and the events around the Democratic Convention in 1968 that led to the election of one Richard Milhous Nixon as President of the United States. For mainstream black activists its seems to have been the assassination of Martin Luther King that same year ending the dream that pacifist resistance could eradicate racial injustice. For mainstream SDSers apparently it was the split up of that student organization in 1969. For the Black Panthers, the deaths of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark proving for all to see who wanted to see that the American government was really out to get militant blacks off the streets. For those who thought that the counterculture might be the revolution the bloody Rolling Stone’s concert at Altamont in California in 1969 seems to have signaled the end. For the Weather Underground the 1970 New York townhouse explosion and death of their comrades was the signpost. Since everyone can play this game here is my take.
I can name the day and event exactly when my 1960’s ended. The day- May Day 1971 in Washington D.C. The event- a massive attempt by thousands, including myself, to shut down the government over the Vietnam War. We proceeded under the slogan- IF THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT SHUT DOWN THE WAR-WE WILL SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT. At that time I was a radical but hardly a communist. However, the endless mass marches and small local individual acts of resistance seemed to me to be leading to a dead end. But the war nevertheless continued on its savagely endless way. In any case, that day we formed up in collectives with appropriate gear to take over the streets of Washington and try to get to various government buildings. While none of us believed that this would be an easy task we definitely believed that it was doable. Needless to say the Nixon government and its agents were infinitely better prepared and determined to sweep us from the streets-by any means necessary. The long and short of it was that we were swept off the streets in fairly short order, taking many, many arrests.
I walked away from that event with my eyes finally opened about what it would take to made fundamental societal changes. On reflection, on that day we were somewhat like those naïve marchers in St. Petersburg, Russia that were bloodily suppressed by the Czarist forces at the start of the revolution there in January 1905. Nevertheless, in my case, from that point on I vowed that a lot more than a few thousand convinced radicals and revolutionaries working in an ad hoc manner were going to have to come together if we were to succeed against a determined and ruthless enemy. Not a pretty thought but hard reality nevertheless. Enough said.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
YOU NEED A WEATHERMAN (PERSON) TO KNOW WHICH WAY THE WIND BLOWS, PART II
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.”
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.”
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)