Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for American playwright Tennessee Williams' A Streetcar Named Desire.
Book/Play Review
A Streetcar Named Desire, Tennessee Williams, Harper, 2006
Tennessee Williams rightfully takes his place as one of the premier playwrights in the history of the American theater. The relentless turning out of high quality pieces (and other short literary expositions) on subjects that in an earlier day before the late 1940s and early 1950s would have not found nearly so receptive an audience.
I saw the movie version of Streetcar long before I read the original play so that, of necessity, the role of Stanley Kowalski on the page evokes the powerfully strong, sexual and primitive role performed by Marlon Brando and the equally powerful performance by Vivian Leigh as the coquettish, down-on-her-heels, blatantly feminine-wiles wielding Blanche Dubois. There are however, important differences between the story line presented in the movie and in the original play version. Some of the more explicit graphically sexual scenes and latent homosexual allusions did not pass muster with the movie censors of the times. For one familiar with the story from the stage or theater it is well worth going back and reading the original play to get a feel for the tensions that remain unexplored in the other media.
A reading of the play also makes clear something is missing from the film productions and that is the sense that the characters (including Blanche's sister Stella, Stanley's wife)are sleepwalking through life with their own private illusions that prevent them each, in the final analysis, from having more than a surface understanding of the others in the claustrophobic little "home" they inhabit. Blanche will pay, and pay dearly, for not understanding Stanley better as she tries to live the illusion of a fallen, aging Southern Belle. In any case, whether on stage on the screen or on the page this is a great American classic.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
* “Workers of The World Unite, You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chains”-The Struggle For Trotsky's Fourth (Communist) International-From The Archives
Click on the headline to link to the Toward A History Of The Fourth International website for the article listed below.
Max Shachtman
The Crisis in the American Party
An Open Letter in Reply to Comrade Leon Trotsky
(March 1940)
Markin comment:
Recently, when the question of an international, a new workers international, a fifth international, was broached by the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), faintly echoing the call by Venezuelan caudillo, Hugo Chavez, I got to thinking a little bit more on the subject. Moreover, it must be something in the air (maybe caused by these global climatic changes) because I have also seen recent commentary on the need to go back to something that looks very much like Karl Marx’s one-size-fits-all First International. Of course, just what the doctor by all means, be my guest, but only if the shades of Proudhon and Bakunin can join. Boys and girls, comrades, that First International was disbanded in the wake of the demise of the Paris Commune for a reason, okay. Mixing political banners (Marxism and fifty-seven varieties of anarchism) is appropriate to a united front, not a hell-bent revolutionary International fighting, and fighting hard, for our communist future. Forward
The Second International, for those six, no seven, people who might care, is still alive and well (at least for periodic international conferences) as a mail-drop for homeless social democrats who want to maintain a fig leaf of internationalism without having to do much about it. Needless to say, one Joseph Stalin and his cohorts liquidated the Communist (Third) International in 1943, long after it turned from a revolutionary headquarters into an outpost of Soviet foreign policy. By then no revolutionary missed its demise, nor shed a tear goodbye. And of course there are always a million commentaries by groups, cults, leagues, tendencies, etc. claiming to stand in the tradition (although, rarely, the program) of the Leon Trotsky-inspired Fourth International that, logically and programmatically, is the starting point of any discussion of the modern struggle for a new communist international.
With that caveat in mind this month, the September American Labor Day month, but more importantly the month in 1938 that the ill-fated Fourth International was founded I am posting some documents around the history of that formation, and its program, the program known by the shorthand, Transitional Program. If you want to call for a fifth, sixth, seventh, what have you, revolutionary international, and you are serious about it beyond the "mail-drop" potential, then you have to look seriously into that organization's origins, and the world-class Bolshevik revolutionary who inspired it. Forward.
Max Shachtman
The Crisis in the American Party
An Open Letter in Reply to Comrade Leon Trotsky
(March 1940)
Markin comment:
Recently, when the question of an international, a new workers international, a fifth international, was broached by the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), faintly echoing the call by Venezuelan caudillo, Hugo Chavez, I got to thinking a little bit more on the subject. Moreover, it must be something in the air (maybe caused by these global climatic changes) because I have also seen recent commentary on the need to go back to something that looks very much like Karl Marx’s one-size-fits-all First International. Of course, just what the doctor by all means, be my guest, but only if the shades of Proudhon and Bakunin can join. Boys and girls, comrades, that First International was disbanded in the wake of the demise of the Paris Commune for a reason, okay. Mixing political banners (Marxism and fifty-seven varieties of anarchism) is appropriate to a united front, not a hell-bent revolutionary International fighting, and fighting hard, for our communist future. Forward
The Second International, for those six, no seven, people who might care, is still alive and well (at least for periodic international conferences) as a mail-drop for homeless social democrats who want to maintain a fig leaf of internationalism without having to do much about it. Needless to say, one Joseph Stalin and his cohorts liquidated the Communist (Third) International in 1943, long after it turned from a revolutionary headquarters into an outpost of Soviet foreign policy. By then no revolutionary missed its demise, nor shed a tear goodbye. And of course there are always a million commentaries by groups, cults, leagues, tendencies, etc. claiming to stand in the tradition (although, rarely, the program) of the Leon Trotsky-inspired Fourth International that, logically and programmatically, is the starting point of any discussion of the modern struggle for a new communist international.
With that caveat in mind this month, the September American Labor Day month, but more importantly the month in 1938 that the ill-fated Fourth International was founded I am posting some documents around the history of that formation, and its program, the program known by the shorthand, Transitional Program. If you want to call for a fifth, sixth, seventh, what have you, revolutionary international, and you are serious about it beyond the "mail-drop" potential, then you have to look seriously into that organization's origins, and the world-class Bolshevik revolutionary who inspired it. Forward.
***A Twist On The Military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy – For Gay And Lesbian Bolsheviks In The Military
Click on the headline to link to a Huffington Post entry on the Republican-led Senate defeat of an amendment to change the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy on gays and lesbians sexual orientations.
Markin comment:
The Republicans (and some Democrats, naturally) really don’t get it on the gay rights in the military issue, at least on this simple democratic issue of the right for someone’s sexual orientation not to be an issue, one way or the other, in any social setting in the first decade of the 21st century. The recent defeat of an amendment to a bill annulling that previous military policy speaks volumes. In that sense they, the august Senators, are not far removed from the punishment freaks, chattel slavery-worshippers, and other assorted denizens of the netherworld called the tea party movement. Moreover, on this issue, as far as I know from the public testimony of major members of the military general staff who were called before Congressional committees on this saw no further reason to continue the policy. After all, this late in the game, who knows who on the general staff is or is not gay? And what of it. So, what is the big issue?
But here is my little twist on the matter. Look, those of us of the anti-war left really do not want to advocate, one way or the other, for how the imperialists use their soldiers, as a general proposition. Except, of course, to get those soldiers, one way or the other, to stop fighting for the American imperial state. That said, we are seriously interested, imperial soldiers or not, that those soldiers, including gay and lesbian soldiers, get the same democratic rights as civilians. Thus we oppose this hare-brained “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. At least as far as sexual orientation goes.
Now what we really want to do is to turn all those soldiers through our communist propaganda into soldier-Bolsheviks, whatever their sexual orientation, for our side. Thus, while we do not support that “don’t ask, don’t tell policy for sexual orientation I think that today it is the beginning of wisdom if we do continue to has that policy for political orientation. After all that “democratic” military brass might get just a little nervous, and have horrid nightmares about those 1917 days, with the notion of Bolsheviks in the ranks, including gay and lesbian Bolsheviks. We will just keep that part our little secret, okay?
Markin comment:
The Republicans (and some Democrats, naturally) really don’t get it on the gay rights in the military issue, at least on this simple democratic issue of the right for someone’s sexual orientation not to be an issue, one way or the other, in any social setting in the first decade of the 21st century. The recent defeat of an amendment to a bill annulling that previous military policy speaks volumes. In that sense they, the august Senators, are not far removed from the punishment freaks, chattel slavery-worshippers, and other assorted denizens of the netherworld called the tea party movement. Moreover, on this issue, as far as I know from the public testimony of major members of the military general staff who were called before Congressional committees on this saw no further reason to continue the policy. After all, this late in the game, who knows who on the general staff is or is not gay? And what of it. So, what is the big issue?
But here is my little twist on the matter. Look, those of us of the anti-war left really do not want to advocate, one way or the other, for how the imperialists use their soldiers, as a general proposition. Except, of course, to get those soldiers, one way or the other, to stop fighting for the American imperial state. That said, we are seriously interested, imperial soldiers or not, that those soldiers, including gay and lesbian soldiers, get the same democratic rights as civilians. Thus we oppose this hare-brained “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. At least as far as sexual orientation goes.
Now what we really want to do is to turn all those soldiers through our communist propaganda into soldier-Bolsheviks, whatever their sexual orientation, for our side. Thus, while we do not support that “don’t ask, don’t tell policy for sexual orientation I think that today it is the beginning of wisdom if we do continue to has that policy for political orientation. After all that “democratic” military brass might get just a little nervous, and have horrid nightmares about those 1917 days, with the notion of Bolsheviks in the ranks, including gay and lesbian Bolsheviks. We will just keep that part our little secret, okay?
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
*All Out On October 2nd To End The Afghan And Iraq Wars And Struggle For Economic And Social Justice
Click on the headline to link to the Majority Agenda Report website for information on the aims of sponsors of the One Nation October 2, 2010 March and Rally in Washington, D.C.
Markin comment:
I have already argued in previous entries about the continuing importance of massing in Washington, D.C. on October 2nd for this event. (See, On The Question Of Organizing Anti-War Contingents For The October 2, 2010 "One Nation" Demonstrations In Washington, D.C., originally dated September 7, 2010.) Bring your own slogans and banners, but be there to really start building the long-delayed and needed divorce from one Barack Obama who has been given a pass on war issues- for no known rational reason. We anti-war militants knew, because he made it clear from the beginning what his priorities were in 2008, and he rubbed our noses in it last year. Now we need to get our priorities clear along with all the other issues. Obama- Troops Out Now!
Markin comment:
I have already argued in previous entries about the continuing importance of massing in Washington, D.C. on October 2nd for this event. (See, On The Question Of Organizing Anti-War Contingents For The October 2, 2010 "One Nation" Demonstrations In Washington, D.C., originally dated September 7, 2010.) Bring your own slogans and banners, but be there to really start building the long-delayed and needed divorce from one Barack Obama who has been given a pass on war issues- for no known rational reason. We anti-war militants knew, because he made it clear from the beginning what his priorities were in 2008, and he rubbed our noses in it last year. Now we need to get our priorities clear along with all the other issues. Obama- Troops Out Now!
* “Workers of The World Unite, You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chains”-The Struggle For Trotsky's Fourth (Communist) International-From The Archives
Click on the headline to link to the Toward A History Of The Fourth International website for the article listed below.
Leon Trotsky
In Defense of Marxism
A Petty-Bourgeois Opposition
in the Socialist Workers Party
(December 1939)
Markin comment:
Recently, when the question of an international, a new workers international, a fifth international, was broached by the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), faintly echoing the call by Venezuelan caudillo, Hugo Chavez, I got to thinking a little bit more on the subject. Moreover, it must be something in the air (maybe caused by these global climatic changes) because I have also seen recent commentary on the need to go back to something that looks very much like Karl Marx’s one-size-fits-all First International. Of course, just what the doctor by all means, be my guest, but only if the shades of Proudhon and Bakunin can join. Boys and girls, comrades, that First International was disbanded in the wake of the demise of the Paris Commune for a reason, okay. Mixing political banners (Marxism and fifty-seven varieties of anarchism) is appropriate to a united front, not a hell-bent revolutionary International fighting, and fighting hard, for our communist future. Forward
The Second International, for those six, no seven, people who might care, is still alive and well (at least for periodic international conferences) as a mail-drop for homeless social democrats who want to maintain a fig leaf of internationalism without having to do much about it. Needless to say, one Joseph Stalin and his cohorts liquidated the Communist (Third) International in 1943, long after it turned from a revolutionary headquarters into an outpost of Soviet foreign policy. By then no revolutionary missed its demise, nor shed a tear goodbye. And of course there are always a million commentaries by groups, cults, leagues, tendencies, etc. claiming to stand in the tradition (although, rarely, the program) of the Leon Trotsky-inspired Fourth International that, logically and programmatically, is the starting point of any discussion of the modern struggle for a new communist international.
With that caveat in mind this month, the September American Labor Day month, but more importantly the month in 1938 that the ill-fated Fourth International was founded I am posting some documents around the history of that formation, and its program, the program known by the shorthand, Transitional Program. If you want to call for a fifth, sixth, seventh, what have you, revolutionary international, and you are serious about it beyond the "mail-drop" potential, then you have to look seriously into that organization's origins, and the world-class Bolshevik revolutionary who inspired it. Forward.
Leon Trotsky
In Defense of Marxism
A Petty-Bourgeois Opposition
in the Socialist Workers Party
(December 1939)
Markin comment:
Recently, when the question of an international, a new workers international, a fifth international, was broached by the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), faintly echoing the call by Venezuelan caudillo, Hugo Chavez, I got to thinking a little bit more on the subject. Moreover, it must be something in the air (maybe caused by these global climatic changes) because I have also seen recent commentary on the need to go back to something that looks very much like Karl Marx’s one-size-fits-all First International. Of course, just what the doctor by all means, be my guest, but only if the shades of Proudhon and Bakunin can join. Boys and girls, comrades, that First International was disbanded in the wake of the demise of the Paris Commune for a reason, okay. Mixing political banners (Marxism and fifty-seven varieties of anarchism) is appropriate to a united front, not a hell-bent revolutionary International fighting, and fighting hard, for our communist future. Forward
The Second International, for those six, no seven, people who might care, is still alive and well (at least for periodic international conferences) as a mail-drop for homeless social democrats who want to maintain a fig leaf of internationalism without having to do much about it. Needless to say, one Joseph Stalin and his cohorts liquidated the Communist (Third) International in 1943, long after it turned from a revolutionary headquarters into an outpost of Soviet foreign policy. By then no revolutionary missed its demise, nor shed a tear goodbye. And of course there are always a million commentaries by groups, cults, leagues, tendencies, etc. claiming to stand in the tradition (although, rarely, the program) of the Leon Trotsky-inspired Fourth International that, logically and programmatically, is the starting point of any discussion of the modern struggle for a new communist international.
With that caveat in mind this month, the September American Labor Day month, but more importantly the month in 1938 that the ill-fated Fourth International was founded I am posting some documents around the history of that formation, and its program, the program known by the shorthand, Transitional Program. If you want to call for a fifth, sixth, seventh, what have you, revolutionary international, and you are serious about it beyond the "mail-drop" potential, then you have to look seriously into that organization's origins, and the world-class Bolshevik revolutionary who inspired it. Forward.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
*On The Question Of Organizing Anti-War Contingents For The October 2, 2010 "One Nation" Demonstrations In Washington, D.C.
Click on the headline to link to the Majority Agenda Report website for information on the aims of sponsors of the One Nation October 2, 2010 March and Rally in Washington, D.C.
Markin comment:
Last winter I went out of my way to argue, and argue strongly, for organizing our anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist forces as best we could for the March 20th anti-war rally in Washington, D.C. (See, On The Question Of Organizing For A Major National Anti-War Rally This Spring – A Commentary, dated January 30, 2010.) My motivation at that time was to stir up opposition to President Barack Obama’s then recent troop escalations in Afghanistan with a show of anti-war forces in the streets if for nothing else than to see who we really had on board, and to stick a thumb in Obama’s false anti-war credentialed eye. As I noted after the event the turnout was not as large, not nearly as large, as we could have used in order to create an effective battering ram against the Obama war policies. I believed, and argued so shortly after that rally to the effect, that it was still a worthwhile effort.
Now comes the inevitable fall campaign season, no, not the electoral sideshow 2010 Congressional elections but a labor-centered rally in Washington, D.C. on October 2nd being pushed by the NAACP, SEIU, AFL-CIO and the usual other suspects . (See the call to action from the Majority Agenda Project website below). As a perusal of the call indicates this is about jobs and other economic issues (all important, no question) but has no, none, nada, point on the struggle against Obama’s imperial war policies. I assume the sponsors, given their almost unanimous 2008 support to his candidacy, believed that they were being very “radical” by merely advocating the idea of a rally in Obama’s Washington during election time. Well, as the saying use to go back in the day, the 1960s day, a Maoist favorite aphorism as well, that is THEIR contradiction.
That, however, still begs the question of what leftists and other anti-war militants should do about the war issue at this rally. Or, for that matter, about whether we should be marching in this thing at all. I believe on that second point, which also will incorporate the first point, that we should attend as anti-war contingents linking the opposition to the Obama war policies with the one thousand and one other things that need fixing and that his Administration is patently incapable of fixing, even if it knew how to do so is which is very much up an open question these days.
As motivation for this position I would offer up most of the arguments that I made for participation in the March rally and will repost the pertinent sections below:
“In a recent blog entry, As The 2010 Anti-War Season Heats Up- A Note On "The Three Whales" For A Class Struggle Fight Against Obama’s Wars, dated January 19, 2010, I put forth a few ideas, particularly around the concept of forming anti-war soldiers and sailors solidarity committees, that the circle of anti-war militants that I work with locally are committed to pursuing this year as the struggle against War-monger-in-Chief Obama’s Afghan war policies takes shape. The elephant in the room that was missing in that laundry list of tasks enumerated in the entry was any notion of supporting a national mass anti-war rally in Washington, D.C. this spring, now scheduled, as usual, for the anniversary of the start of the Iraq war in 2003, March 20th. And there is a good and sufficient reason for that omission. The circle is split on an orientation toward that event. Thus, the comment that follows in favor of organizing for and building such an endeavor and putting some resources and energy into the event is my own personal take on the question, fair or foul.
Certainly, given the priorities listed in that previous blog entry mentioned above, it would be quite easy to walk away from serious organizing for, getting transportation for, making housing arrangements for, and the thousand and one details that go into providing a contingent for a national march or rally. Moreover, as has been argued in the circle by a number of militants, to do so for just one more garden variety of a seemingly endless (and fruitless) series of mass marches over the past several years. And normally I would agree with that analysis, especially once it became clear that the main strategy of those groups who call such national marches is to make such events the main, and exclusive, point of extra-parliamentary opposition to the war. Or worst, see these things as an effective political tool for “pressuring” politicians, especially “progressive” Democrats (if there are any left, as of late). Pleassee...
Hear me out on this one though. President Obama made his dramatic announcement for a major Afghan troop escalation on December 1, 2009. That, along with a less publicized build-up in February 2009, and the odd brigade deployed here or there since has meant that the troop totals-I will not even bother to count “contractors”, for the simple reason that who knows what those numbers really are. I don’t, do you? - are almost double those that ex-President Bush nearly had his head handed to him on a platter for in the notorious troop “surge” of 2007. And the response to Obama’s chest-thumping war-mongering. Nada. Or almost nothing, except a small demonstration in Washington on December 12th with the “usual cast of suspects” (Kucinich, McKinney, et. al) and a few hundred attendees and small local demonstrations around the country.
Now this might seem like a slam-dunk argument for wasting no more time on the spring rally tactic. And that argument is enticing. But, as a veteran of way too many of these demos, and as a militant who has spilled no small amount of ink arguing against the endless rally strategy on many previous occasions, I still like the idea of a spring march. First, because Obama needs to know that those on his left, particularly those who supported him in the 2008 election cycle are more than just passively angry at him for the Afghan troop escalation. And that is important even if the numbers do not match those of the Bush era. Secondly, those of us on the extra-parliamentary left need to see who those disenchanted Obamians are. If we are going to be successful we have to get our fair share of these left-liberals before they ditch politics altogether. And lastly, as the bikers and gang members say- “we have to show our colors”. Large or small we need to see what we look like. All those may not be individually, in the end, sufficient reasons but I will say this to finish up. Unless you plan to have an anti-war demonstration outside the gates of places like the military bases at Fort Bragg, Fort Hood, Fort Drum, and Fort Lewis in which case I will be more than happy to mark you present and accounted for you should be in Washington on March 20th. And ready to fight around the slogan – Obama- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal of all U.S./Allied Troops and Mercenaries from Iraq and Afghanistan!”
And on October 2nd too! More later.
***************
Published on Majority Agenda Project (http://majorityagendaproject.org/go)
Home > A Call to all sectors of our movements for justice and peace to mobilize for October 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Call to all sectors of our movements for justice and peace to mobilize for October 2
signatories [1] || what you can do [2] || transportation [3]
The NAACP, SEIU 1199, United for Peace and Justice, the AFL-CIO, Green for All, and a broad range of civil rights, labor, peace and social justice organizations around the country are calling upon us to join them on October 2 in Washington. Leading with a demand for jobs, this will be a massive demonstration to blunt the attack from the right and to unify a majority of Americans around a hopeful and inspiring vision of our nation based on social justice, mutual respect and common values.
Come to Washington DC on October 2 for an emergency mobilization of all our forces at this critical moment before the fall elections!
•Take our government back from big oil and the banks.
•Stand up for the well-being and economic security of all our families.
•Stand up against hatred, intolerance and immigrant-bashing.
•Stand up for a society that works for all of us.
•Demand the change that we voted for in 2008.
Dear Friends,
Our country is at a crossroads. Big oil, big banks, big pharmaceuticals, the military-industrial complex and big money of all types have a stranglehold on our government and our society. Their corporate agenda has led us into an unparalleled social crisis marked by economic distress, environmental danger, unsustainable military spending and endless war.
But this is also a time of opportunity for comprehensive, mutually-reinforcing and effective solutions: building a green economy cuts harmful emissions and creates millions of desperately needed jobs; national security based on international cooperation and negotiation rather than war frees up the resources needed to keep our teachers in the classroom and maintain all essential local services; sustainable economic policies protect our environment and foster grassroots economic development. All of these goals are within our grasp and are supported by a growing majority. Together they save lives, dollars and the planet that sustains us.
Yet instead of positive solutions we see the media dominance of an aggressive, energized and reactionary movement of the right fostered by Fox News and an out-of-control talk radio establishment. Intolerance, hatred and immigrant-bashing will be the big story this fall--grabbing national attention and electing extremist candidates who will ride the coattails of that mobilization to make big gains in November and beyond. Unless …
…we all come together to create a vibrant, viable grassroots mobilization built on a vision that inspires action and commitment. That galvanizes the majority for justice and fair play. That builds a movement that involves everyone in dealing effectively with the multiple crises confronting the country.
Now is the time to give visibility to effective policies that actually address our crises of employment, health care, environmental catastrophe and a deepening war in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is draining our resources, undermining out security and killing scores of people every day.
It is critical that our social movements join together with labor and major African-American and Latino organizations to make a broad-based showing of strength.
Fortunately, the NAACP in Washington and SEIU 1199 in New York have initiated “One Nation Working Together.” Exciting meetings in New York and Washington brought together the AFL-CIO, many other labor unions, United for Peace and Justice, Green For All and over one hundred other major social change organizations. They are building a mobilization that can unify the majority around a hopeful and inspiring vision of our nation based on social justice.
The signature event of One Nation is a massive march on Washington on October 2, 2010.
They have asked all of us to join them in this major effort to move us off the sidelines of the national debate and out, onto the playing field where we can participate in the fight for the future, starting with the fall elections.
This mobilization addresses only some of the key issues that deeply concern us. But without such a mobilization, all of our efforts will be set back years if the right-wing mobilization is allowed to go unchallenged.
We call on all parts of our social movements to mobilize for the October 2 demonstration and participate in the One Nation Campaign and bring your priorities to D.C.
- The Majority Agenda Project
August 4, 2010
Markin comment:
Last winter I went out of my way to argue, and argue strongly, for organizing our anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist forces as best we could for the March 20th anti-war rally in Washington, D.C. (See, On The Question Of Organizing For A Major National Anti-War Rally This Spring – A Commentary, dated January 30, 2010.) My motivation at that time was to stir up opposition to President Barack Obama’s then recent troop escalations in Afghanistan with a show of anti-war forces in the streets if for nothing else than to see who we really had on board, and to stick a thumb in Obama’s false anti-war credentialed eye. As I noted after the event the turnout was not as large, not nearly as large, as we could have used in order to create an effective battering ram against the Obama war policies. I believed, and argued so shortly after that rally to the effect, that it was still a worthwhile effort.
Now comes the inevitable fall campaign season, no, not the electoral sideshow 2010 Congressional elections but a labor-centered rally in Washington, D.C. on October 2nd being pushed by the NAACP, SEIU, AFL-CIO and the usual other suspects . (See the call to action from the Majority Agenda Project website below). As a perusal of the call indicates this is about jobs and other economic issues (all important, no question) but has no, none, nada, point on the struggle against Obama’s imperial war policies. I assume the sponsors, given their almost unanimous 2008 support to his candidacy, believed that they were being very “radical” by merely advocating the idea of a rally in Obama’s Washington during election time. Well, as the saying use to go back in the day, the 1960s day, a Maoist favorite aphorism as well, that is THEIR contradiction.
That, however, still begs the question of what leftists and other anti-war militants should do about the war issue at this rally. Or, for that matter, about whether we should be marching in this thing at all. I believe on that second point, which also will incorporate the first point, that we should attend as anti-war contingents linking the opposition to the Obama war policies with the one thousand and one other things that need fixing and that his Administration is patently incapable of fixing, even if it knew how to do so is which is very much up an open question these days.
As motivation for this position I would offer up most of the arguments that I made for participation in the March rally and will repost the pertinent sections below:
“In a recent blog entry, As The 2010 Anti-War Season Heats Up- A Note On "The Three Whales" For A Class Struggle Fight Against Obama’s Wars, dated January 19, 2010, I put forth a few ideas, particularly around the concept of forming anti-war soldiers and sailors solidarity committees, that the circle of anti-war militants that I work with locally are committed to pursuing this year as the struggle against War-monger-in-Chief Obama’s Afghan war policies takes shape. The elephant in the room that was missing in that laundry list of tasks enumerated in the entry was any notion of supporting a national mass anti-war rally in Washington, D.C. this spring, now scheduled, as usual, for the anniversary of the start of the Iraq war in 2003, March 20th. And there is a good and sufficient reason for that omission. The circle is split on an orientation toward that event. Thus, the comment that follows in favor of organizing for and building such an endeavor and putting some resources and energy into the event is my own personal take on the question, fair or foul.
Certainly, given the priorities listed in that previous blog entry mentioned above, it would be quite easy to walk away from serious organizing for, getting transportation for, making housing arrangements for, and the thousand and one details that go into providing a contingent for a national march or rally. Moreover, as has been argued in the circle by a number of militants, to do so for just one more garden variety of a seemingly endless (and fruitless) series of mass marches over the past several years. And normally I would agree with that analysis, especially once it became clear that the main strategy of those groups who call such national marches is to make such events the main, and exclusive, point of extra-parliamentary opposition to the war. Or worst, see these things as an effective political tool for “pressuring” politicians, especially “progressive” Democrats (if there are any left, as of late). Pleassee...
Hear me out on this one though. President Obama made his dramatic announcement for a major Afghan troop escalation on December 1, 2009. That, along with a less publicized build-up in February 2009, and the odd brigade deployed here or there since has meant that the troop totals-I will not even bother to count “contractors”, for the simple reason that who knows what those numbers really are. I don’t, do you? - are almost double those that ex-President Bush nearly had his head handed to him on a platter for in the notorious troop “surge” of 2007. And the response to Obama’s chest-thumping war-mongering. Nada. Or almost nothing, except a small demonstration in Washington on December 12th with the “usual cast of suspects” (Kucinich, McKinney, et. al) and a few hundred attendees and small local demonstrations around the country.
Now this might seem like a slam-dunk argument for wasting no more time on the spring rally tactic. And that argument is enticing. But, as a veteran of way too many of these demos, and as a militant who has spilled no small amount of ink arguing against the endless rally strategy on many previous occasions, I still like the idea of a spring march. First, because Obama needs to know that those on his left, particularly those who supported him in the 2008 election cycle are more than just passively angry at him for the Afghan troop escalation. And that is important even if the numbers do not match those of the Bush era. Secondly, those of us on the extra-parliamentary left need to see who those disenchanted Obamians are. If we are going to be successful we have to get our fair share of these left-liberals before they ditch politics altogether. And lastly, as the bikers and gang members say- “we have to show our colors”. Large or small we need to see what we look like. All those may not be individually, in the end, sufficient reasons but I will say this to finish up. Unless you plan to have an anti-war demonstration outside the gates of places like the military bases at Fort Bragg, Fort Hood, Fort Drum, and Fort Lewis in which case I will be more than happy to mark you present and accounted for you should be in Washington on March 20th. And ready to fight around the slogan – Obama- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal of all U.S./Allied Troops and Mercenaries from Iraq and Afghanistan!”
And on October 2nd too! More later.
***************
Published on Majority Agenda Project (http://majorityagendaproject.org/go)
Home > A Call to all sectors of our movements for justice and peace to mobilize for October 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Call to all sectors of our movements for justice and peace to mobilize for October 2
signatories [1] || what you can do [2] || transportation [3]
The NAACP, SEIU 1199, United for Peace and Justice, the AFL-CIO, Green for All, and a broad range of civil rights, labor, peace and social justice organizations around the country are calling upon us to join them on October 2 in Washington. Leading with a demand for jobs, this will be a massive demonstration to blunt the attack from the right and to unify a majority of Americans around a hopeful and inspiring vision of our nation based on social justice, mutual respect and common values.
Come to Washington DC on October 2 for an emergency mobilization of all our forces at this critical moment before the fall elections!
•Take our government back from big oil and the banks.
•Stand up for the well-being and economic security of all our families.
•Stand up against hatred, intolerance and immigrant-bashing.
•Stand up for a society that works for all of us.
•Demand the change that we voted for in 2008.
Dear Friends,
Our country is at a crossroads. Big oil, big banks, big pharmaceuticals, the military-industrial complex and big money of all types have a stranglehold on our government and our society. Their corporate agenda has led us into an unparalleled social crisis marked by economic distress, environmental danger, unsustainable military spending and endless war.
But this is also a time of opportunity for comprehensive, mutually-reinforcing and effective solutions: building a green economy cuts harmful emissions and creates millions of desperately needed jobs; national security based on international cooperation and negotiation rather than war frees up the resources needed to keep our teachers in the classroom and maintain all essential local services; sustainable economic policies protect our environment and foster grassroots economic development. All of these goals are within our grasp and are supported by a growing majority. Together they save lives, dollars and the planet that sustains us.
Yet instead of positive solutions we see the media dominance of an aggressive, energized and reactionary movement of the right fostered by Fox News and an out-of-control talk radio establishment. Intolerance, hatred and immigrant-bashing will be the big story this fall--grabbing national attention and electing extremist candidates who will ride the coattails of that mobilization to make big gains in November and beyond. Unless …
…we all come together to create a vibrant, viable grassroots mobilization built on a vision that inspires action and commitment. That galvanizes the majority for justice and fair play. That builds a movement that involves everyone in dealing effectively with the multiple crises confronting the country.
Now is the time to give visibility to effective policies that actually address our crises of employment, health care, environmental catastrophe and a deepening war in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is draining our resources, undermining out security and killing scores of people every day.
It is critical that our social movements join together with labor and major African-American and Latino organizations to make a broad-based showing of strength.
Fortunately, the NAACP in Washington and SEIU 1199 in New York have initiated “One Nation Working Together.” Exciting meetings in New York and Washington brought together the AFL-CIO, many other labor unions, United for Peace and Justice, Green For All and over one hundred other major social change organizations. They are building a mobilization that can unify the majority around a hopeful and inspiring vision of our nation based on social justice.
The signature event of One Nation is a massive march on Washington on October 2, 2010.
They have asked all of us to join them in this major effort to move us off the sidelines of the national debate and out, onto the playing field where we can participate in the fight for the future, starting with the fall elections.
This mobilization addresses only some of the key issues that deeply concern us. But without such a mobilization, all of our efforts will be set back years if the right-wing mobilization is allowed to go unchallenged.
We call on all parts of our social movements to mobilize for the October 2 demonstration and participate in the One Nation Campaign and bring your priorities to D.C.
- The Majority Agenda Project
August 4, 2010
Fragments Of Working Class Culture- On the Question Of Working-Class War Time Social-Patriotism
Markin comment:
Recently I posted in this space under my Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By series a lesser-known anti-war song by Bob Dylan from the early 1960s, John Brown. (See archives, September 15, 2010). As part of the commentary about the lyrics of the song, which I have again included below, I mentioned some of my own experiences growing up in a working class neighborhood and the pressures faced from the neighbors, and others, to conform to the unquestionably accepted social-patriotic working class war stance during the early stages of the Vietnam War. I mentioned there that the “shawlies” put considerable pressure on my parents, my mother in particular, to get me to knuckle under to the war hysteria once it was known that I was, frankly, even rather mildly opposed to the war. The shawlies were not unlike the mother in John Brown, despite the known consequences that some sons, their sons, were not going to come back, or if they did come back, as many did, would be in Brother Brown’s condition.
Someone mentioned to me that they did not know what a “shawlie” was and further that I should expand on my commentary about my own working class anti-war experiences. I intended to do this in any case but when I thought about it a bit I wanted to, additionally, suggest that there is a certain working class attitude toward war somewhat different, as bespeaks those who, one way or another, bear the brunt of the “grunt” work of war, from other classes and that requires a different kind of anti-war work from that of the campuses or in middle class towns, and for our cause, is more problematic. (We will not even discuss the rich; they did not, and do not, sent their kids to war, under any circumstances. Hell, they no longer even bother to provide the general staff officers anymore like in the old days of the WASP stranglehold on the military command posts.) Until I get a chance to write that up for now I will make some general points in aid of that proposition.
*************
Most of us have gone through over the past decade (and continue to go through), at least here in America, two major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The initial response by the vast majority of the citizenry to the Afghan war in October 2001 in the aftermath of the World Trade Center atrocities was overwhelming support for the Bush Administration to bomb them (presumably the Taliban and Al Qaeda) back to the Stone Age, or further back if possible. No questions asked. I have related on other occasions my own fears, for one of the few times in my long political career, to be out on the streets of America protesting that war. The point that I want to make here is more that this “quick war” does not serve as a fair model for how the working class quarters response to war calls by the American president, any president. Virtually the whole populace was up in arms, and to about the same degree.
Iraq (2003), and the build-up to the invasion to Iraq, is more indicative. We will leave aside the machinations and other manipulations by the Bush Administration to “prove” whatever it was they were out to prove. What is important, and I will listen to contrary evidence on this, but I think I have it pretty accurate is that in most working class areas, city or small town, the initial response was to support, and to support vocally, the invasion, whatever the rationale as an extension of the Al Qaeda hunt. And this from people, from mothers, mothers like John Brown’s who would be sending their sons and daughters off with the ubiquitous yellow ribbon.
I know the heat of that fervor from personal experience in that period, as I witnessed it closely, too closely, in at least two pro-war rallies, both in working class areas, hard working class areas (South Boston, Massachusetts and the Albany, New York triangle), as well as anecdotal evidence from others in industrial Chicago and New Jersey. In this sense, for those who either forgets or who are too young to remember and who want to get a feel for what unabashed early support for the Vietnam War looked like down at the working class base those more current examples should suffice.
And that brings us back to my own anti-war experiences with the “shawlies.”, the Irish working class mothers who sent their sons (and now daughters) off to war without so much as a flinch. In our neighborhood, although I confess I only heard it used by more recent or older immigrants, it signified that circle, council if you will, unofficial of course, of mothers, young and old, who set the moral tone, at least the public moral tone of the place. In short, the gossips, old hags, and rumor-mongers (I am being polite here) who had their own devious grapevine, and more importantly, were a constant source of information about you to your own mother. Usually nothing good either.
I actually know the term better as used in the Irish playwright Sean O’Casey’s Dublin plays set during the First World War, and signified those mothers who were receiving money from the British government for the use of their sons in that war as cannon fodder oops, soldiers. Notwithstanding that Ireland was then the prime colony of dear old “Mother England.” Those “sawflies” moreover were the first to denounce the boys (and the few girls) of the Easter, 1916 uprising for national liberation in order to keep the bloody British dole coming. So, this is clearly not a term of endearment.
However the "shawlies” are still with us. They do not have to be in Dublin or its environs, nor do they have to be Irish, for that matter. My use here, reflecting Bob Dylan’s lyrics, is of that mother (or father, sister, uncle, or brother) who in knee-jerk reaction is more than willing to give up their young relatives to the American imperial state. And the hard fact of life, and of left-wing political organizing from the Bolsheviks forward has been the struggle to break that allegiance, or as is more usually the case take advantage of war-weariness when it finally hits the working class.
As I noted previously, for the last several years at least, at many of the peace rallies that I have attended there is usually a representative speaking for Military Families For Peace or some such organization that signifies that they too have gotten “hip” on the war question. What seems to be universally true is that in this overwhelmingly working class element of the anti-war movement (probably most prominently represented several years ago by Gold Star Mother, Cindy Sheehan, in her struggles to get ex-President George W. Bush’s attention) the initial pride, patriotism, and sense of glory turned to ashes when the deal went down. The simple, ubiquitous yellow ribbon didn’t mean a damn thing beyond some superficial nod to that service.
I speak from some experience on this turning against war, although somewhat from the opposition direction. My growing-up working class neighborhood provided more than its fair share of soldiers and other military personnel for the various stages of the Vietnam War. That wall down in Washington, the VA hospitals, the half-way houses and the flophouses of this country testify to that. Although, I am sure, every mother exhibited the usual anxieties about military service for her sons during war time no one, at least publicly, called for opposition to the Vietnam War early on (and later, when it was practically de rigueur to oppose it to do so quietly without public fanfare, to those of us on the other side’s utter frustration).
When I was called to military duty and “turned commie” for opposing the war while in uniform in the process, as my own mother related to me the opinions of other neighbor mothers, this was so “abnormal” that I was officially dis-invited from many homes. That part was, in the end, probably not important for me as I was heading out the door of that neighborhood anyway, but for those left behind, in this case my parents, this scorn was very real and very hurtful. Especially, as my parents, not without some very hard internal struggles went out of their way to support their son, not politically so much as because I was their son. Kudos.
Let me end this up like I did the previous commentary. When they (today’s shawlies) come, like vultures, at you for not “supporting” the troops, or some such argument show that you are “hip” and run this song (John Brown)at them. Oh, and scream to the high heavens, Obama-Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops And Mercenaries (and whoever else they have running around) From Afghanistan And Iraq!
************
John Brown-Bob Dylan lyrics
John Brown went off to war to fight on a foreign shore
His mama sure was proud of him!
He stood straight and tall in his uniform and all
His mama’s face broke out all in a grin
“Oh son, you look so fine, I’m glad you’re a son of mine
You make me proud to know you hold a gun
Do what the captain says, lots of medals you will get
And we’ll put them on the wall when you come home”
As that old train pulled out, John’s ma began to shout
Tellin’ ev’ryone in the neighborhood:
“That’s my son that’s about to go, he’s a soldier now, you know”
She made well sure her neighbors understood
She got a letter once in a while and her face broke into a smile
As she showed them to the people from next door
And she bragged about her son with his uniform and gun
And these things you called a good old-fashioned war
Oh! Good old-fashioned war!
Then the letters ceased to come, for a long time they did not come
They ceased to come for about ten months or more
Then a letter finally came saying, “Go down and meet the train
Your son’s a-coming home from the war”
She smiled and went right down, she looked everywhere around
But she could not see her soldier son in sight
But as all the people passed, she saw her son at last
When she did she could hardly believe her eyes
Oh his face was all shot up and his hand was all blown off
And he wore a metal brace around his waist
He whispered kind of slow, in a voice she did not know
While she couldn’t even recognize his face!
Oh! Lord! Not even recognize his face
“Oh tell me, my darling son, pray tell me what they done
How is it you come to be this way?”
He tried his best to talk but his mouth could hardly move
And the mother had to turn her face away
“Don’t you remember, Ma, when I went off to war
You thought it was the best thing I could do?
I was on the battleground, you were home . . . acting proud
You wasn’t there standing in my shoes”
“Oh, and I thought when I was there, God, what am I doing here?
I’m a-tryin’ to kill somebody or die tryin’
But the thing that scared me most was when my enemy came close
And I saw that his face looked just like mine”
Oh! Lord! Just like mine!
“And I couldn’t help but think, through the thunder rolling and stink
That I was just a puppet in a play
And through the roar and smoke, this string is finally broke
And a cannonball blew my eyes away”
As he turned away to walk, his Ma was still in shock
At seein’ the metal brace that helped him stand
But as he turned to go, he called his mother close
And he dropped his medals down into her hand
Copyright © 1963, 1968 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1991, 1996 by Special Rider Music
Recently I posted in this space under my Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By series a lesser-known anti-war song by Bob Dylan from the early 1960s, John Brown. (See archives, September 15, 2010). As part of the commentary about the lyrics of the song, which I have again included below, I mentioned some of my own experiences growing up in a working class neighborhood and the pressures faced from the neighbors, and others, to conform to the unquestionably accepted social-patriotic working class war stance during the early stages of the Vietnam War. I mentioned there that the “shawlies” put considerable pressure on my parents, my mother in particular, to get me to knuckle under to the war hysteria once it was known that I was, frankly, even rather mildly opposed to the war. The shawlies were not unlike the mother in John Brown, despite the known consequences that some sons, their sons, were not going to come back, or if they did come back, as many did, would be in Brother Brown’s condition.
Someone mentioned to me that they did not know what a “shawlie” was and further that I should expand on my commentary about my own working class anti-war experiences. I intended to do this in any case but when I thought about it a bit I wanted to, additionally, suggest that there is a certain working class attitude toward war somewhat different, as bespeaks those who, one way or another, bear the brunt of the “grunt” work of war, from other classes and that requires a different kind of anti-war work from that of the campuses or in middle class towns, and for our cause, is more problematic. (We will not even discuss the rich; they did not, and do not, sent their kids to war, under any circumstances. Hell, they no longer even bother to provide the general staff officers anymore like in the old days of the WASP stranglehold on the military command posts.) Until I get a chance to write that up for now I will make some general points in aid of that proposition.
*************
Most of us have gone through over the past decade (and continue to go through), at least here in America, two major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The initial response by the vast majority of the citizenry to the Afghan war in October 2001 in the aftermath of the World Trade Center atrocities was overwhelming support for the Bush Administration to bomb them (presumably the Taliban and Al Qaeda) back to the Stone Age, or further back if possible. No questions asked. I have related on other occasions my own fears, for one of the few times in my long political career, to be out on the streets of America protesting that war. The point that I want to make here is more that this “quick war” does not serve as a fair model for how the working class quarters response to war calls by the American president, any president. Virtually the whole populace was up in arms, and to about the same degree.
Iraq (2003), and the build-up to the invasion to Iraq, is more indicative. We will leave aside the machinations and other manipulations by the Bush Administration to “prove” whatever it was they were out to prove. What is important, and I will listen to contrary evidence on this, but I think I have it pretty accurate is that in most working class areas, city or small town, the initial response was to support, and to support vocally, the invasion, whatever the rationale as an extension of the Al Qaeda hunt. And this from people, from mothers, mothers like John Brown’s who would be sending their sons and daughters off with the ubiquitous yellow ribbon.
I know the heat of that fervor from personal experience in that period, as I witnessed it closely, too closely, in at least two pro-war rallies, both in working class areas, hard working class areas (South Boston, Massachusetts and the Albany, New York triangle), as well as anecdotal evidence from others in industrial Chicago and New Jersey. In this sense, for those who either forgets or who are too young to remember and who want to get a feel for what unabashed early support for the Vietnam War looked like down at the working class base those more current examples should suffice.
And that brings us back to my own anti-war experiences with the “shawlies.”, the Irish working class mothers who sent their sons (and now daughters) off to war without so much as a flinch. In our neighborhood, although I confess I only heard it used by more recent or older immigrants, it signified that circle, council if you will, unofficial of course, of mothers, young and old, who set the moral tone, at least the public moral tone of the place. In short, the gossips, old hags, and rumor-mongers (I am being polite here) who had their own devious grapevine, and more importantly, were a constant source of information about you to your own mother. Usually nothing good either.
I actually know the term better as used in the Irish playwright Sean O’Casey’s Dublin plays set during the First World War, and signified those mothers who were receiving money from the British government for the use of their sons in that war as cannon fodder oops, soldiers. Notwithstanding that Ireland was then the prime colony of dear old “Mother England.” Those “sawflies” moreover were the first to denounce the boys (and the few girls) of the Easter, 1916 uprising for national liberation in order to keep the bloody British dole coming. So, this is clearly not a term of endearment.
However the "shawlies” are still with us. They do not have to be in Dublin or its environs, nor do they have to be Irish, for that matter. My use here, reflecting Bob Dylan’s lyrics, is of that mother (or father, sister, uncle, or brother) who in knee-jerk reaction is more than willing to give up their young relatives to the American imperial state. And the hard fact of life, and of left-wing political organizing from the Bolsheviks forward has been the struggle to break that allegiance, or as is more usually the case take advantage of war-weariness when it finally hits the working class.
As I noted previously, for the last several years at least, at many of the peace rallies that I have attended there is usually a representative speaking for Military Families For Peace or some such organization that signifies that they too have gotten “hip” on the war question. What seems to be universally true is that in this overwhelmingly working class element of the anti-war movement (probably most prominently represented several years ago by Gold Star Mother, Cindy Sheehan, in her struggles to get ex-President George W. Bush’s attention) the initial pride, patriotism, and sense of glory turned to ashes when the deal went down. The simple, ubiquitous yellow ribbon didn’t mean a damn thing beyond some superficial nod to that service.
I speak from some experience on this turning against war, although somewhat from the opposition direction. My growing-up working class neighborhood provided more than its fair share of soldiers and other military personnel for the various stages of the Vietnam War. That wall down in Washington, the VA hospitals, the half-way houses and the flophouses of this country testify to that. Although, I am sure, every mother exhibited the usual anxieties about military service for her sons during war time no one, at least publicly, called for opposition to the Vietnam War early on (and later, when it was practically de rigueur to oppose it to do so quietly without public fanfare, to those of us on the other side’s utter frustration).
When I was called to military duty and “turned commie” for opposing the war while in uniform in the process, as my own mother related to me the opinions of other neighbor mothers, this was so “abnormal” that I was officially dis-invited from many homes. That part was, in the end, probably not important for me as I was heading out the door of that neighborhood anyway, but for those left behind, in this case my parents, this scorn was very real and very hurtful. Especially, as my parents, not without some very hard internal struggles went out of their way to support their son, not politically so much as because I was their son. Kudos.
Let me end this up like I did the previous commentary. When they (today’s shawlies) come, like vultures, at you for not “supporting” the troops, or some such argument show that you are “hip” and run this song (John Brown)at them. Oh, and scream to the high heavens, Obama-Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops And Mercenaries (and whoever else they have running around) From Afghanistan And Iraq!
************
John Brown-Bob Dylan lyrics
John Brown went off to war to fight on a foreign shore
His mama sure was proud of him!
He stood straight and tall in his uniform and all
His mama’s face broke out all in a grin
“Oh son, you look so fine, I’m glad you’re a son of mine
You make me proud to know you hold a gun
Do what the captain says, lots of medals you will get
And we’ll put them on the wall when you come home”
As that old train pulled out, John’s ma began to shout
Tellin’ ev’ryone in the neighborhood:
“That’s my son that’s about to go, he’s a soldier now, you know”
She made well sure her neighbors understood
She got a letter once in a while and her face broke into a smile
As she showed them to the people from next door
And she bragged about her son with his uniform and gun
And these things you called a good old-fashioned war
Oh! Good old-fashioned war!
Then the letters ceased to come, for a long time they did not come
They ceased to come for about ten months or more
Then a letter finally came saying, “Go down and meet the train
Your son’s a-coming home from the war”
She smiled and went right down, she looked everywhere around
But she could not see her soldier son in sight
But as all the people passed, she saw her son at last
When she did she could hardly believe her eyes
Oh his face was all shot up and his hand was all blown off
And he wore a metal brace around his waist
He whispered kind of slow, in a voice she did not know
While she couldn’t even recognize his face!
Oh! Lord! Not even recognize his face
“Oh tell me, my darling son, pray tell me what they done
How is it you come to be this way?”
He tried his best to talk but his mouth could hardly move
And the mother had to turn her face away
“Don’t you remember, Ma, when I went off to war
You thought it was the best thing I could do?
I was on the battleground, you were home . . . acting proud
You wasn’t there standing in my shoes”
“Oh, and I thought when I was there, God, what am I doing here?
I’m a-tryin’ to kill somebody or die tryin’
But the thing that scared me most was when my enemy came close
And I saw that his face looked just like mine”
Oh! Lord! Just like mine!
“And I couldn’t help but think, through the thunder rolling and stink
That I was just a puppet in a play
And through the roar and smoke, this string is finally broke
And a cannonball blew my eyes away”
As he turned away to walk, his Ma was still in shock
At seein’ the metal brace that helped him stand
But as he turned to go, he called his mother close
And he dropped his medals down into her hand
Copyright © 1963, 1968 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1991, 1996 by Special Rider Music
* “Workers of The World Unite, You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chains”-The Struggle For Trotsky's Fourth (Communist) International-From The Archives
Click on the headline to link to the Toward A History Of The Fourth International website for the article listed below.
Leon Trotsky
In Defense of Marxism
Again and Once More Again
on the Nature of the USSR
(October 1939)
Markin comment:
Recently, when the question of an international, a new workers international, a fifth international, was broached by the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), faintly echoing the call by Venezuelan caudillo, Hugo Chavez, I got to thinking a little bit more on the subject. Moreover, it must be something in the air (maybe caused by these global climatic changes) because I have also seen recent commentary on the need to go back to something that looks very much like Karl Marx’s one-size-fits-all First International. Of course, just what the doctor by all means, be my guest, but only if the shades of Proudhon and Bakunin can join. Boys and girls, comrades, that First International was disbanded in the wake of the demise of the Paris Commune for a reason, okay. Mixing political banners (Marxism and fifty-seven varieties of anarchism) is appropriate to a united front, not a hell-bent revolutionary International fighting, and fighting hard, for our communist future. Forward
The Second International, for those six, no seven, people who might care, is still alive and well (at least for periodic international conferences) as a mail-drop for homeless social democrats who want to maintain a fig leaf of internationalism without having to do much about it. Needless to say, one Joseph Stalin and his cohorts liquidated the Communist (Third) International in 1943, long after it turned from a revolutionary headquarters into an outpost of Soviet foreign policy. By then no revolutionary missed its demise, nor shed a tear goodbye. And of course there are always a million commentaries by groups, cults, leagues, tendencies, etc. claiming to stand in the tradition (although, rarely, the program) of the Leon Trotsky-inspired Fourth International that, logically and programmatically, is the starting point of any discussion of the modern struggle for a new communist international.
With that caveat in mind this month, the September American Labor Day month, but more importantly the month in 1938 that the ill-fated Fourth International was founded I am posting some documents around the history of that formation, and its program, the program known by the shorthand, Transitional Program. If you want to call for a fifth, sixth, seventh, what have you, revolutionary international, and you are serious about it beyond the "mail-drop" potential, then you have to look seriously into that organization's origins, and the world-class Bolshevik revolutionary who inspired it. Forward.
Leon Trotsky
In Defense of Marxism
Again and Once More Again
on the Nature of the USSR
(October 1939)
Markin comment:
Recently, when the question of an international, a new workers international, a fifth international, was broached by the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), faintly echoing the call by Venezuelan caudillo, Hugo Chavez, I got to thinking a little bit more on the subject. Moreover, it must be something in the air (maybe caused by these global climatic changes) because I have also seen recent commentary on the need to go back to something that looks very much like Karl Marx’s one-size-fits-all First International. Of course, just what the doctor by all means, be my guest, but only if the shades of Proudhon and Bakunin can join. Boys and girls, comrades, that First International was disbanded in the wake of the demise of the Paris Commune for a reason, okay. Mixing political banners (Marxism and fifty-seven varieties of anarchism) is appropriate to a united front, not a hell-bent revolutionary International fighting, and fighting hard, for our communist future. Forward
The Second International, for those six, no seven, people who might care, is still alive and well (at least for periodic international conferences) as a mail-drop for homeless social democrats who want to maintain a fig leaf of internationalism without having to do much about it. Needless to say, one Joseph Stalin and his cohorts liquidated the Communist (Third) International in 1943, long after it turned from a revolutionary headquarters into an outpost of Soviet foreign policy. By then no revolutionary missed its demise, nor shed a tear goodbye. And of course there are always a million commentaries by groups, cults, leagues, tendencies, etc. claiming to stand in the tradition (although, rarely, the program) of the Leon Trotsky-inspired Fourth International that, logically and programmatically, is the starting point of any discussion of the modern struggle for a new communist international.
With that caveat in mind this month, the September American Labor Day month, but more importantly the month in 1938 that the ill-fated Fourth International was founded I am posting some documents around the history of that formation, and its program, the program known by the shorthand, Transitional Program. If you want to call for a fifth, sixth, seventh, what have you, revolutionary international, and you are serious about it beyond the "mail-drop" potential, then you have to look seriously into that organization's origins, and the world-class Bolshevik revolutionary who inspired it. Forward.
Monday, September 20, 2010
*All Out On October 2nd To End The Afghan And Iraq Wars And Struggle For Economic And Social Justice
Click on the headline to link to the Majority Agenda Report website for information on the aims of sponsors of the One Nation October 2, 2010 March and Rally in Washington, D.C.
Markin comment:
I have already argued in previous entries about the continuing importance of massing in Washington, D.C. on October 2nd for this event. (See, On The Question Of Organizing Anti-War Contingents For The October 2, 2010 "One Nation" Demonstrations In Washington, D.C., originally dated September 7, 2010.) Bring your own slogans and banners, but be there to really start building the long-delayed and needed divorce from one Barack Obama who has been given a pass on war issues- for no known rational reason. We anti-war militants knew, because he made it clear from the beginning what his priorities were in 2008, and he rubbed our noses in it last year. Now we need to get our priorities clear along with all the other issues. Obama- Troops Out Now!
Markin comment:
I have already argued in previous entries about the continuing importance of massing in Washington, D.C. on October 2nd for this event. (See, On The Question Of Organizing Anti-War Contingents For The October 2, 2010 "One Nation" Demonstrations In Washington, D.C., originally dated September 7, 2010.) Bring your own slogans and banners, but be there to really start building the long-delayed and needed divorce from one Barack Obama who has been given a pass on war issues- for no known rational reason. We anti-war militants knew, because he made it clear from the beginning what his priorities were in 2008, and he rubbed our noses in it last year. Now we need to get our priorities clear along with all the other issues. Obama- Troops Out Now!
* “Workers of The World Unite, You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chains”-The Struggle For Trotsky's Fourth (Communist) International-From The Archives
Click on the headline to link to the Toward A History Of The Fourth International website for the article listed below.
The USSR in War
(September 1939)
Markin comment:
Recently, when the question of an international, a new workers international, a fifth international, was broached by the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), faintly echoing the call by Venezuelan caudillo, Hugo Chavez, I got to thinking a little bit more on the subject. Moreover, it must be something in the air (maybe caused by these global climatic changes) because I have also seen recent commentary on the need to go back to something that looks very much like Karl Marx’s one-size-fits-all First International. Of course, just what the doctor by all means, be my guest, but only if the shades of Proudhon and Bakunin can join. Boys and girls, comrades, that First International was disbanded in the wake of the demise of the Paris Commune for a reason, okay. Mixing political banners (Marxism and fifty-seven varieties of anarchism) is appropriate to a united front, not a hell-bent revolutionary International fighting, and fighting hard, for our communist future. Forward
The Second International, for those six, no seven, people who might care, is still alive and well (at least for periodic international conferences) as a mail-drop for homeless social democrats who want to maintain a fig leaf of internationalism without having to do much about it. Needless to say, one Joseph Stalin and his cohorts liquidated the Communist (Third) International in 1943, long after it turned from a revolutionary headquarters into an outpost of Soviet foreign policy. By then no revolutionary missed its demise, nor shed a tear goodbye. And of course there are always a million commentaries by groups, cults, leagues, tendencies, etc. claiming to stand in the tradition (although, rarely, the program) of the Leon Trotsky-inspired Fourth International that, logically and programmatically, is the starting point of any discussion of the modern struggle for a new communist international.
With that caveat in mind this month, the September American Labor Day month, but more importantly the month in 1938 that the ill-fated Fourth International was founded I am posting some documents around the history of that formation, and its program, the program known by the shorthand, Transitional Program. If you want to call for a fifth, sixth, seventh, what have you, revolutionary international, and you are serious about it beyond the "mail-drop" potential, then you have to look seriously into that organization's origins, and the world-class Bolshevik revolutionary who inspired it. Forward.
The USSR in War
(September 1939)
Markin comment:
Recently, when the question of an international, a new workers international, a fifth international, was broached by the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), faintly echoing the call by Venezuelan caudillo, Hugo Chavez, I got to thinking a little bit more on the subject. Moreover, it must be something in the air (maybe caused by these global climatic changes) because I have also seen recent commentary on the need to go back to something that looks very much like Karl Marx’s one-size-fits-all First International. Of course, just what the doctor by all means, be my guest, but only if the shades of Proudhon and Bakunin can join. Boys and girls, comrades, that First International was disbanded in the wake of the demise of the Paris Commune for a reason, okay. Mixing political banners (Marxism and fifty-seven varieties of anarchism) is appropriate to a united front, not a hell-bent revolutionary International fighting, and fighting hard, for our communist future. Forward
The Second International, for those six, no seven, people who might care, is still alive and well (at least for periodic international conferences) as a mail-drop for homeless social democrats who want to maintain a fig leaf of internationalism without having to do much about it. Needless to say, one Joseph Stalin and his cohorts liquidated the Communist (Third) International in 1943, long after it turned from a revolutionary headquarters into an outpost of Soviet foreign policy. By then no revolutionary missed its demise, nor shed a tear goodbye. And of course there are always a million commentaries by groups, cults, leagues, tendencies, etc. claiming to stand in the tradition (although, rarely, the program) of the Leon Trotsky-inspired Fourth International that, logically and programmatically, is the starting point of any discussion of the modern struggle for a new communist international.
With that caveat in mind this month, the September American Labor Day month, but more importantly the month in 1938 that the ill-fated Fourth International was founded I am posting some documents around the history of that formation, and its program, the program known by the shorthand, Transitional Program. If you want to call for a fifth, sixth, seventh, what have you, revolutionary international, and you are serious about it beyond the "mail-drop" potential, then you have to look seriously into that organization's origins, and the world-class Bolshevik revolutionary who inspired it. Forward.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
*From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal- The Spanish Left (1930s version)in its Own Words-Counter-Theses for POUM Conference
Click on the headline to link to the Revolutionary History journal entry listed in the title.
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
**********
I have placed an earlier post, a review of Leon Trotsky's The Spanish Revolution that contains most of the points that I want to make about the POUM and their actions (and inactions).
Saturday, February 25, 2006
*The Lessons Of The Spanish Civil War- From The Pen Of Leon Trotsky
BOOK REVIEW
THE SPANISH REVOLUTION, 1931-39, LEON TROTSKY, PATHFINDER PRESS, NEW YORK, 1973
THE CRISIS OF REVOLUTIONARY LEADERSHIP
AS WE APPROACH THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BEGINNING OF THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR MILITANTS NEED TO LEARN THE LESSONS FOR THE DEFEAT OF THAT REVOLUTION.
I have been interested, as a pro-Republican partisan, in the Spanish Civil War since I was a teenager. What initially perked my interest, and remains of interest, is the passionate struggle of the Spanish working class to create its own political organization of society, its leadership of the struggle against Spanish fascism and the romance surrounding the entry of the International Brigades, particularly the American Abraham Lincoln Battalion of the 15th Brigade, into the struggle.
Underlying my interests has always been a nagging question of how that struggle could have been won by the working class. The Spanish proletariat certainly was capable of both heroic action and the ability to create organizations that reflected its own class interests i.e. the worker militias and factory committees. Of all modern working class revolutions after the Russian revolution Spain showed the most promise of success. Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky noted that the political class consciousness of the Spanish proletariat at that time was higher than that of the Russian proletariat in 1917. Yet it failed in Spain. Trotsky's writings on this period represent a provocative and thoughtful approach to an understanding of the causes of that failure. Moreover, with all proper historical proportions considered, his analysis has continuing value as the international working class struggles against the seemingly one-sided class war being waged by the international bourgeoisie today.
The Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 has been the subject of innumerable works from every possible political and military perspective possible. A fair number of such treatises, especially from those responsible for the military and political policies on the Republican side, are merely alibis for the disastrous policies that led to defeat. Trotsky's complication of articles, letters, pamphlets, etc. which make up the volume reviewed here is an exception. Trotsky was actively trying to intervene in the unfolding events in order to present a program of socialist revolution that most of the active forces on the Republican side were fighting, or believed they were fighting for. Thus, Trotsky's analysis brings a breath of fresh air to the historical debate. That in the end Trotsky could not organize the necessary cadres to carry out his program or meaningfully impact the unfolding events in Spain is one of the ultimate tragedies of that revolution. Nevertheless, Trotsky had a damn good idea of what forces were acting as a roadblock to revolution. He also had a strategic conception of the road to victory. And that most definitely was not through the Popular Front.
The central question Trotsky addresses throughout the whole period under review here was the crisis of revolutionary leadership of the proletarian forces. That premise entailed, in short, a view that the objective conditions for the success of a socialist program for society had ripened. Nevertheless, until that time, despite several revolutionary upheavals elsewhere, the international working class had not been successful anywhere except in backward Russia. Trotsky thus argued that it was necessary to focus on the question of forging the missing element of revolutionary leadership that would assure victory or at least put up a fight to the finish.
This underlying premise was the continuation of an analysis that Trotsky developed in earnest in his struggle to fight the Stalinist degeneration of the Russian Revolution in the mid-1920's. The need to learn the lessons of the Russian Revolution and to extend that revolution internationally was thus not a merely a theoretical question for Trotsky. Spain, moreover, represented a struggle where the best of the various leftist forces were in confusion about how to move forward. Those forces could have profitably heeded Trotsky's advice. I further note that the question of the crisis of revolutionary leadership still remains to be resolved by the international working class.
Trotsky's polemics in this volume are highlighted by the article ‘The Lessons of Spain-Last Warning’, his definitive assessment of the Spanish situation in the wake of the defeat of the Barcelona uprising in May 1937. Those polemics center on the failure of the Party of Marxist Unification (hereafter, POUM) to provide revolutionary leadership. That party, partially created by cadre formerly associated with Trotsky in the Spanish Left Opposition, failed on virtually every count. Those conscious mistakes included, but were not limited to, the creation of an unprincipled bloc between the former Left Oppositionists and the former Right Oppositionists (Bukharinites) of Maurin to form the POUM in 1935; political support to the Popular Front including entry into the government coalition by its leader; creation of its own small trade union federation instead of entry in the anarchist led-CNT; creation of its own militia units reflecting a hands-off attitude toward political struggle with other parties; and, fatally, an at best equivocal role in the Barcelona uprising of 1937.
Trotsky had no illusions about the roadblock to revolution of the policies carried out by the old-time Anarchist, Socialist and Communist Parties. Unfortunately the POUM did. Moreover, despite being the most honest revolutionary party in Spain it failed to keep up an intransigent struggle to push the revolution forward. The Trotsky - Andreas Nin (key leader of the POUM and former Left Oppositionist) correspondence in the Appendix makes that problem painfully clear.
The most compelling example of this failure - As a result of the failure of the Communist Party of Germany to oppose the rise of Hitler in 1933 and the subsequent decapitation and the defeat of the Austrian working class in 1934 the European workers, especially the younger workers, of the traditional Socialist Parties started to move left. Trotsky observed this situation and told his supporters to intersect that development by an entry, called the ‘French turn’, into those parties. Nin and the Spanish Left Opposition, and later the POUM failed to do that. As a result the Socialist Party youth were recruited to the Communist Party en masse. This accretion formed the basic for its expansion as a party and the key cadre of its notorious security apparatus that would, after the Barcelona uprising, suppress the more left ward organizations. For more such examples of the results of the crisis of leadership in the Spanish Revolution read this book.
Revised-June 19, 2006
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
**********
I have placed an earlier post, a review of Leon Trotsky's The Spanish Revolution that contains most of the points that I want to make about the POUM and their actions (and inactions).
Saturday, February 25, 2006
*The Lessons Of The Spanish Civil War- From The Pen Of Leon Trotsky
BOOK REVIEW
THE SPANISH REVOLUTION, 1931-39, LEON TROTSKY, PATHFINDER PRESS, NEW YORK, 1973
THE CRISIS OF REVOLUTIONARY LEADERSHIP
AS WE APPROACH THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BEGINNING OF THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR MILITANTS NEED TO LEARN THE LESSONS FOR THE DEFEAT OF THAT REVOLUTION.
I have been interested, as a pro-Republican partisan, in the Spanish Civil War since I was a teenager. What initially perked my interest, and remains of interest, is the passionate struggle of the Spanish working class to create its own political organization of society, its leadership of the struggle against Spanish fascism and the romance surrounding the entry of the International Brigades, particularly the American Abraham Lincoln Battalion of the 15th Brigade, into the struggle.
Underlying my interests has always been a nagging question of how that struggle could have been won by the working class. The Spanish proletariat certainly was capable of both heroic action and the ability to create organizations that reflected its own class interests i.e. the worker militias and factory committees. Of all modern working class revolutions after the Russian revolution Spain showed the most promise of success. Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky noted that the political class consciousness of the Spanish proletariat at that time was higher than that of the Russian proletariat in 1917. Yet it failed in Spain. Trotsky's writings on this period represent a provocative and thoughtful approach to an understanding of the causes of that failure. Moreover, with all proper historical proportions considered, his analysis has continuing value as the international working class struggles against the seemingly one-sided class war being waged by the international bourgeoisie today.
The Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 has been the subject of innumerable works from every possible political and military perspective possible. A fair number of such treatises, especially from those responsible for the military and political policies on the Republican side, are merely alibis for the disastrous policies that led to defeat. Trotsky's complication of articles, letters, pamphlets, etc. which make up the volume reviewed here is an exception. Trotsky was actively trying to intervene in the unfolding events in order to present a program of socialist revolution that most of the active forces on the Republican side were fighting, or believed they were fighting for. Thus, Trotsky's analysis brings a breath of fresh air to the historical debate. That in the end Trotsky could not organize the necessary cadres to carry out his program or meaningfully impact the unfolding events in Spain is one of the ultimate tragedies of that revolution. Nevertheless, Trotsky had a damn good idea of what forces were acting as a roadblock to revolution. He also had a strategic conception of the road to victory. And that most definitely was not through the Popular Front.
The central question Trotsky addresses throughout the whole period under review here was the crisis of revolutionary leadership of the proletarian forces. That premise entailed, in short, a view that the objective conditions for the success of a socialist program for society had ripened. Nevertheless, until that time, despite several revolutionary upheavals elsewhere, the international working class had not been successful anywhere except in backward Russia. Trotsky thus argued that it was necessary to focus on the question of forging the missing element of revolutionary leadership that would assure victory or at least put up a fight to the finish.
This underlying premise was the continuation of an analysis that Trotsky developed in earnest in his struggle to fight the Stalinist degeneration of the Russian Revolution in the mid-1920's. The need to learn the lessons of the Russian Revolution and to extend that revolution internationally was thus not a merely a theoretical question for Trotsky. Spain, moreover, represented a struggle where the best of the various leftist forces were in confusion about how to move forward. Those forces could have profitably heeded Trotsky's advice. I further note that the question of the crisis of revolutionary leadership still remains to be resolved by the international working class.
Trotsky's polemics in this volume are highlighted by the article ‘The Lessons of Spain-Last Warning’, his definitive assessment of the Spanish situation in the wake of the defeat of the Barcelona uprising in May 1937. Those polemics center on the failure of the Party of Marxist Unification (hereafter, POUM) to provide revolutionary leadership. That party, partially created by cadre formerly associated with Trotsky in the Spanish Left Opposition, failed on virtually every count. Those conscious mistakes included, but were not limited to, the creation of an unprincipled bloc between the former Left Oppositionists and the former Right Oppositionists (Bukharinites) of Maurin to form the POUM in 1935; political support to the Popular Front including entry into the government coalition by its leader; creation of its own small trade union federation instead of entry in the anarchist led-CNT; creation of its own militia units reflecting a hands-off attitude toward political struggle with other parties; and, fatally, an at best equivocal role in the Barcelona uprising of 1937.
Trotsky had no illusions about the roadblock to revolution of the policies carried out by the old-time Anarchist, Socialist and Communist Parties. Unfortunately the POUM did. Moreover, despite being the most honest revolutionary party in Spain it failed to keep up an intransigent struggle to push the revolution forward. The Trotsky - Andreas Nin (key leader of the POUM and former Left Oppositionist) correspondence in the Appendix makes that problem painfully clear.
The most compelling example of this failure - As a result of the failure of the Communist Party of Germany to oppose the rise of Hitler in 1933 and the subsequent decapitation and the defeat of the Austrian working class in 1934 the European workers, especially the younger workers, of the traditional Socialist Parties started to move left. Trotsky observed this situation and told his supporters to intersect that development by an entry, called the ‘French turn’, into those parties. Nin and the Spanish Left Opposition, and later the POUM failed to do that. As a result the Socialist Party youth were recruited to the Communist Party en masse. This accretion formed the basic for its expansion as a party and the key cadre of its notorious security apparatus that would, after the Barcelona uprising, suppress the more left ward organizations. For more such examples of the results of the crisis of leadership in the Spanish Revolution read this book.
Revised-June 19, 2006
*From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal- The Spanish Left (1930s version)in its Own Words-CNT Manifesto On The May Days (1937)
Click on the headline to link to the Revolutionary History journal entry listed in the title.
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
*From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal- The Spanish Left (1930s version)in its Own Words-POUM Policy During the May Events
Click on the headline to link to the Revolutionary History journal entry listed in the title.
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
*******
I have placed an earlier post, a review of Leon Trotsky's The Spanish Revolution that contains most of the points that I want to make about the POUM and their actions (and inactions).
Saturday, February 25, 2006
*The Lessons Of The Spanish Civil War- From The Pen Of Leon Trotsky
BOOK REVIEW
THE SPANISH REVOLUTION, 1931-39, LEON TROTSKY, PATHFINDER PRESS, NEW YORK, 1973
THE CRISIS OF REVOLUTIONARY LEADERSHIP
AS WE APPROACH THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BEGINNING OF THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR MILITANTS NEED TO LEARN THE LESSONS FOR THE DEFEAT OF THAT REVOLUTION.
I have been interested, as a pro-Republican partisan, in the Spanish Civil War since I was a teenager. What initially perked my interest, and remains of interest, is the passionate struggle of the Spanish working class to create its own political organization of society, its leadership of the struggle against Spanish fascism and the romance surrounding the entry of the International Brigades, particularly the American Abraham Lincoln Battalion of the 15th Brigade, into the struggle.
Underlying my interests has always been a nagging question of how that struggle could have been won by the working class. The Spanish proletariat certainly was capable of both heroic action and the ability to create organizations that reflected its own class interests i.e. the worker militias and factory committees. Of all modern working class revolutions after the Russian revolution Spain showed the most promise of success. Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky noted that the political class consciousness of the Spanish proletariat at that time was higher than that of the Russian proletariat in 1917. Yet it failed in Spain. Trotsky's writings on this period represent a provocative and thoughtful approach to an understanding of the causes of that failure. Moreover, with all proper historical proportions considered, his analysis has continuing value as the international working class struggles against the seemingly one-sided class war being waged by the international bourgeoisie today.
The Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 has been the subject of innumerable works from every possible political and military perspective possible. A fair number of such treatises, especially from those responsible for the military and political policies on the Republican side, are merely alibis for the disastrous policies that led to defeat. Trotsky's complication of articles, letters, pamphlets, etc. which make up the volume reviewed here is an exception. Trotsky was actively trying to intervene in the unfolding events in order to present a program of socialist revolution that most of the active forces on the Republican side were fighting, or believed they were fighting for. Thus, Trotsky's analysis brings a breath of fresh air to the historical debate. That in the end Trotsky could not organize the necessary cadres to carry out his program or meaningfully impact the unfolding events in Spain is one of the ultimate tragedies of that revolution. Nevertheless, Trotsky had a damn good idea of what forces were acting as a roadblock to revolution. He also had a strategic conception of the road to victory. And that most definitely was not through the Popular Front.
The central question Trotsky addresses throughout the whole period under review here was the crisis of revolutionary leadership of the proletarian forces. That premise entailed, in short, a view that the objective conditions for the success of a socialist program for society had ripened. Nevertheless, until that time, despite several revolutionary upheavals elsewhere, the international working class had not been successful anywhere except in backward Russia. Trotsky thus argued that it was necessary to focus on the question of forging the missing element of revolutionary leadership that would assure victory or at least put up a fight to the finish.
This underlying premise was the continuation of an analysis that Trotsky developed in earnest in his struggle to fight the Stalinist degeneration of the Russian Revolution in the mid-1920's. The need to learn the lessons of the Russian Revolution and to extend that revolution internationally was thus not a merely a theoretical question for Trotsky. Spain, moreover, represented a struggle where the best of the various leftist forces were in confusion about how to move forward. Those forces could have profitably heeded Trotsky's advice. I further note that the question of the crisis of revolutionary leadership still remains to be resolved by the international working class.
Trotsky's polemics in this volume are highlighted by the article ‘The Lessons of Spain-Last Warning’, his definitive assessment of the Spanish situation in the wake of the defeat of the Barcelona uprising in May 1937. Those polemics center on the failure of the Party of Marxist Unification (hereafter, POUM) to provide revolutionary leadership. That party, partially created by cadre formerly associated with Trotsky in the Spanish Left Opposition, failed on virtually every count. Those conscious mistakes included, but were not limited to, the creation of an unprincipled bloc between the former Left Oppositionists and the former Right Oppositionists (Bukharinites) of Maurin to form the POUM in 1935; political support to the Popular Front including entry into the government coalition by its leader; creation of its own small trade union federation instead of entry in the anarchist led-CNT; creation of its own militia units reflecting a hands-off attitude toward political struggle with other parties; and, fatally, an at best equivocal role in the Barcelona uprising of 1937.
Trotsky had no illusions about the roadblock to revolution of the policies carried out by the old-time Anarchist, Socialist and Communist Parties. Unfortunately the POUM did. Moreover, despite being the most honest revolutionary party in Spain it failed to keep up an intransigent struggle to push the revolution forward. The Trotsky - Andreas Nin (key leader of the POUM and former Left Oppositionist) correspondence in the Appendix makes that problem painfully clear.
The most compelling example of this failure - As a result of the failure of the Communist Party of Germany to oppose the rise of Hitler in 1933 and the subsequent decapitation and the defeat of the Austrian working class in 1934 the European workers, especially the younger workers, of the traditional Socialist Parties started to move left. Trotsky observed this situation and told his supporters to intersect that development by an entry, called the ‘French turn’, into those parties. Nin and the Spanish Left Opposition, and later the POUM failed to do that. As a result the Socialist Party youth were recruited to the Communist Party en masse. This accretion formed the basic for its expansion as a party and the key cadre of its notorious security apparatus that would, after the Barcelona uprising, suppress the more left ward organizations. For more such examples of the results of the crisis of leadership in the Spanish Revolution read this book.
Revised-June 19, 2006
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
*******
I have placed an earlier post, a review of Leon Trotsky's The Spanish Revolution that contains most of the points that I want to make about the POUM and their actions (and inactions).
Saturday, February 25, 2006
*The Lessons Of The Spanish Civil War- From The Pen Of Leon Trotsky
BOOK REVIEW
THE SPANISH REVOLUTION, 1931-39, LEON TROTSKY, PATHFINDER PRESS, NEW YORK, 1973
THE CRISIS OF REVOLUTIONARY LEADERSHIP
AS WE APPROACH THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BEGINNING OF THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR MILITANTS NEED TO LEARN THE LESSONS FOR THE DEFEAT OF THAT REVOLUTION.
I have been interested, as a pro-Republican partisan, in the Spanish Civil War since I was a teenager. What initially perked my interest, and remains of interest, is the passionate struggle of the Spanish working class to create its own political organization of society, its leadership of the struggle against Spanish fascism and the romance surrounding the entry of the International Brigades, particularly the American Abraham Lincoln Battalion of the 15th Brigade, into the struggle.
Underlying my interests has always been a nagging question of how that struggle could have been won by the working class. The Spanish proletariat certainly was capable of both heroic action and the ability to create organizations that reflected its own class interests i.e. the worker militias and factory committees. Of all modern working class revolutions after the Russian revolution Spain showed the most promise of success. Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky noted that the political class consciousness of the Spanish proletariat at that time was higher than that of the Russian proletariat in 1917. Yet it failed in Spain. Trotsky's writings on this period represent a provocative and thoughtful approach to an understanding of the causes of that failure. Moreover, with all proper historical proportions considered, his analysis has continuing value as the international working class struggles against the seemingly one-sided class war being waged by the international bourgeoisie today.
The Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 has been the subject of innumerable works from every possible political and military perspective possible. A fair number of such treatises, especially from those responsible for the military and political policies on the Republican side, are merely alibis for the disastrous policies that led to defeat. Trotsky's complication of articles, letters, pamphlets, etc. which make up the volume reviewed here is an exception. Trotsky was actively trying to intervene in the unfolding events in order to present a program of socialist revolution that most of the active forces on the Republican side were fighting, or believed they were fighting for. Thus, Trotsky's analysis brings a breath of fresh air to the historical debate. That in the end Trotsky could not organize the necessary cadres to carry out his program or meaningfully impact the unfolding events in Spain is one of the ultimate tragedies of that revolution. Nevertheless, Trotsky had a damn good idea of what forces were acting as a roadblock to revolution. He also had a strategic conception of the road to victory. And that most definitely was not through the Popular Front.
The central question Trotsky addresses throughout the whole period under review here was the crisis of revolutionary leadership of the proletarian forces. That premise entailed, in short, a view that the objective conditions for the success of a socialist program for society had ripened. Nevertheless, until that time, despite several revolutionary upheavals elsewhere, the international working class had not been successful anywhere except in backward Russia. Trotsky thus argued that it was necessary to focus on the question of forging the missing element of revolutionary leadership that would assure victory or at least put up a fight to the finish.
This underlying premise was the continuation of an analysis that Trotsky developed in earnest in his struggle to fight the Stalinist degeneration of the Russian Revolution in the mid-1920's. The need to learn the lessons of the Russian Revolution and to extend that revolution internationally was thus not a merely a theoretical question for Trotsky. Spain, moreover, represented a struggle where the best of the various leftist forces were in confusion about how to move forward. Those forces could have profitably heeded Trotsky's advice. I further note that the question of the crisis of revolutionary leadership still remains to be resolved by the international working class.
Trotsky's polemics in this volume are highlighted by the article ‘The Lessons of Spain-Last Warning’, his definitive assessment of the Spanish situation in the wake of the defeat of the Barcelona uprising in May 1937. Those polemics center on the failure of the Party of Marxist Unification (hereafter, POUM) to provide revolutionary leadership. That party, partially created by cadre formerly associated with Trotsky in the Spanish Left Opposition, failed on virtually every count. Those conscious mistakes included, but were not limited to, the creation of an unprincipled bloc between the former Left Oppositionists and the former Right Oppositionists (Bukharinites) of Maurin to form the POUM in 1935; political support to the Popular Front including entry into the government coalition by its leader; creation of its own small trade union federation instead of entry in the anarchist led-CNT; creation of its own militia units reflecting a hands-off attitude toward political struggle with other parties; and, fatally, an at best equivocal role in the Barcelona uprising of 1937.
Trotsky had no illusions about the roadblock to revolution of the policies carried out by the old-time Anarchist, Socialist and Communist Parties. Unfortunately the POUM did. Moreover, despite being the most honest revolutionary party in Spain it failed to keep up an intransigent struggle to push the revolution forward. The Trotsky - Andreas Nin (key leader of the POUM and former Left Oppositionist) correspondence in the Appendix makes that problem painfully clear.
The most compelling example of this failure - As a result of the failure of the Communist Party of Germany to oppose the rise of Hitler in 1933 and the subsequent decapitation and the defeat of the Austrian working class in 1934 the European workers, especially the younger workers, of the traditional Socialist Parties started to move left. Trotsky observed this situation and told his supporters to intersect that development by an entry, called the ‘French turn’, into those parties. Nin and the Spanish Left Opposition, and later the POUM failed to do that. As a result the Socialist Party youth were recruited to the Communist Party en masse. This accretion formed the basic for its expansion as a party and the key cadre of its notorious security apparatus that would, after the Barcelona uprising, suppress the more left ward organizations. For more such examples of the results of the crisis of leadership in the Spanish Revolution read this book.
Revised-June 19, 2006
*From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal- The Spanish Left (1930s version)in its Own Words-Manifesto of the POUM
Click on the headline to link to the Revolutionary History journal entry listed in the title.
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
*From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal- The Spanish Left (1930s version)in its Own Words-Eyewitness Report From Barcelona
Click on the headline to link to the Revolutionary History journal entry listed in the title.
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
**************
Markin comment:
There is no question that in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s the prime driving force was the working class of Catalonia, and within that province its capital, Barcelona, was the key hot-bed for revolutionary action. The role of Barcelona thus is somewhat analogous to that of Petrograd (later Leningrad) in the Russian revolution of 1917 and deserves special attention from those of us later revolutionaries trying to draw the lessons of the hard-bitten defeat of the Spanish revolution. All the parties of the left (Socialist Party, Communist Party, left bourgeois radicals, Catalan nationalists, Anarchists, various ostensible Trotskyists, the POUM, and non-party trade unionists) had militants there, and had myriad associated social and political organizations that drove the revolution forward in the early days before the working class surrendered its hard-fought gains to the bourgeoisie or in Russian revolutionary, Leon Trotsky’s memorable phrase, “the shadow of the bourgeoisie.”
That said, the May Days in Barcelona take added importance for those of us who believe that in the ebb and flow of revolution that the actions taken there by the various parties, or more pertinently, those actions not taken by some, particularly the POUM (and left-anarchists) sealed the fate of the revolution and the struggle against Franco. A description of the flow of the events, a fairly correct description of the events if not of the political conclusions to be drawn, in those days by a militant who was there, Hugo Oehler, is an important aid in understanding what went wrong.
Note: Hugo Oehler was noting but a pain in the butt for Jim Cannon and others in the United States who were trying to coalesce a Trotskyist party that might be able to affect events that were rapidly unrolling here in the heart of the Great Depression. Nevertheless Cannon praised Oehler as a very good and honest mass worker. That meant a lot coming from Cannon. One does not have to accept Oehler’s political conclusions to appreciate this document. Moreover, his point about trying to link up with the Friends of Durritti is an important point that every militant in Barcelona should have been pursuing to break the masses of anarchist workers from the CNT-FAI. Time ran out before these links could be made decisive. But that is a commentary for another day. Read this (and Orwell and Souchy as well) to get a flavor of what was missed in those May days.
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
**************
Markin comment:
There is no question that in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s the prime driving force was the working class of Catalonia, and within that province its capital, Barcelona, was the key hot-bed for revolutionary action. The role of Barcelona thus is somewhat analogous to that of Petrograd (later Leningrad) in the Russian revolution of 1917 and deserves special attention from those of us later revolutionaries trying to draw the lessons of the hard-bitten defeat of the Spanish revolution. All the parties of the left (Socialist Party, Communist Party, left bourgeois radicals, Catalan nationalists, Anarchists, various ostensible Trotskyists, the POUM, and non-party trade unionists) had militants there, and had myriad associated social and political organizations that drove the revolution forward in the early days before the working class surrendered its hard-fought gains to the bourgeoisie or in Russian revolutionary, Leon Trotsky’s memorable phrase, “the shadow of the bourgeoisie.”
That said, the May Days in Barcelona take added importance for those of us who believe that in the ebb and flow of revolution that the actions taken there by the various parties, or more pertinently, those actions not taken by some, particularly the POUM (and left-anarchists) sealed the fate of the revolution and the struggle against Franco. A description of the flow of the events, a fairly correct description of the events if not of the political conclusions to be drawn, in those days by a militant who was there, Hugo Oehler, is an important aid in understanding what went wrong.
Note: Hugo Oehler was noting but a pain in the butt for Jim Cannon and others in the United States who were trying to coalesce a Trotskyist party that might be able to affect events that were rapidly unrolling here in the heart of the Great Depression. Nevertheless Cannon praised Oehler as a very good and honest mass worker. That meant a lot coming from Cannon. One does not have to accept Oehler’s political conclusions to appreciate this document. Moreover, his point about trying to link up with the Friends of Durritti is an important point that every militant in Barcelona should have been pursuing to break the masses of anarchist workers from the CNT-FAI. Time ran out before these links could be made decisive. But that is a commentary for another day. Read this (and Orwell and Souchy as well) to get a flavor of what was missed in those May days.
*From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal- The Spanish Left (1930s version)in its Own Words-The Anarchists Defend Their Politics
Click on the headline to link to the Revolutionary History journal entry listed in the title.
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
*From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal- The Spanish Left (1930s version)in its Own Words-The POUM On Nationalism
Click on the headline to link to the Revolutionary History journal entry listed in the title.
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
*From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal- The Spanish Left (1930s version)in its Own Words-The Communist Party Calls for a Pro Army
Click on the headline to link to the Revolutionary History journal entry listed in the title.
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
*From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal- The Spanish Left (1930s version)in its Own Words-The Communist Party Denounces the POUM
Click on the headline to link to the Revolutionary History journal entry listed in the title.
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
Markin comment:
This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
* “Workers of The World Unite, You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chains”-The Struggle For Trotsky's Fourth (Communist) International-From The Archives
Click on the headline to link to the Toward A History Of The Fourth International website for the article listed below.
The split in the Socialist Workers Party between the majority (Leon Trotsky, James Cannon) and the minority factions (Max Schachtman, James Burnham)
Socialist Workers Party/Workers Party Split
The Second World War
By the Editors of The New International
October 1939
Markin comment:
Recently, when the question of an international, a new workers international, a fifth international, was broached by the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), faintly echoing the call by Venezuelan caudillo, Hugo Chavez, I got to thinking a little bit more on the subject. Moreover, it must be something in the air (maybe caused by these global climatic changes) because I have also seen recent commentary on the need to go back to something that looks very much like Karl Marx’s one-size-fits-all First International. Of course, just what the doctor by all means, be my guest, but only if the shades of Proudhon and Bakunin can join. Boys and girls, comrades, that First International was disbanded in the wake of the demise of the Paris Commune for a reason, okay. Mixing political banners (Marxism and fifty-seven varieties of anarchism) is appropriate to a united front, not a hell-bent revolutionary International fighting, and fighting hard, for our communist future. Forward
The Second International, for those six, no seven, people who might care, is still alive and well (at least for periodic international conferences) as a mail-drop for homeless social democrats who want to maintain a fig leaf of internationalism without having to do much about it. Needless to say, one Joseph Stalin and his cohorts liquidated the Communist (Third) International in 1943, long after it turned from a revolutionary headquarters into an outpost of Soviet foreign policy. By then no revolutionary missed its demise, nor shed a tear goodbye. And of course there are always a million commentaries by groups, cults, leagues, tendencies, etc. claiming to stand in the tradition (although, rarely, the program) of the Leon Trotsky-inspired Fourth International that, logically and programmatically, is the starting point of any discussion of the modern struggle for a new communist international.
With that caveat in mind this month, the September American Labor Day month, but more importantly the month in 1938 that the ill-fated Fourth International was founded I am posting some documents around the history of that formation, and its program, the program known by the shorthand, Transitional Program. If you want to call for a fifth, sixth, seventh, what have you, revolutionary international, and you are serious about it beyond the "mail-drop" potential, then you have to look seriously into that organization's origins, and the world-class Bolshevik revolutionary who inspired it. Forward.
The split in the Socialist Workers Party between the majority (Leon Trotsky, James Cannon) and the minority factions (Max Schachtman, James Burnham)
Socialist Workers Party/Workers Party Split
The Second World War
By the Editors of The New International
October 1939
Markin comment:
Recently, when the question of an international, a new workers international, a fifth international, was broached by the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), faintly echoing the call by Venezuelan caudillo, Hugo Chavez, I got to thinking a little bit more on the subject. Moreover, it must be something in the air (maybe caused by these global climatic changes) because I have also seen recent commentary on the need to go back to something that looks very much like Karl Marx’s one-size-fits-all First International. Of course, just what the doctor by all means, be my guest, but only if the shades of Proudhon and Bakunin can join. Boys and girls, comrades, that First International was disbanded in the wake of the demise of the Paris Commune for a reason, okay. Mixing political banners (Marxism and fifty-seven varieties of anarchism) is appropriate to a united front, not a hell-bent revolutionary International fighting, and fighting hard, for our communist future. Forward
The Second International, for those six, no seven, people who might care, is still alive and well (at least for periodic international conferences) as a mail-drop for homeless social democrats who want to maintain a fig leaf of internationalism without having to do much about it. Needless to say, one Joseph Stalin and his cohorts liquidated the Communist (Third) International in 1943, long after it turned from a revolutionary headquarters into an outpost of Soviet foreign policy. By then no revolutionary missed its demise, nor shed a tear goodbye. And of course there are always a million commentaries by groups, cults, leagues, tendencies, etc. claiming to stand in the tradition (although, rarely, the program) of the Leon Trotsky-inspired Fourth International that, logically and programmatically, is the starting point of any discussion of the modern struggle for a new communist international.
With that caveat in mind this month, the September American Labor Day month, but more importantly the month in 1938 that the ill-fated Fourth International was founded I am posting some documents around the history of that formation, and its program, the program known by the shorthand, Transitional Program. If you want to call for a fifth, sixth, seventh, what have you, revolutionary international, and you are serious about it beyond the "mail-drop" potential, then you have to look seriously into that organization's origins, and the world-class Bolshevik revolutionary who inspired it. Forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)