Markin comment:
Every Month Is Labor History MonthThis post is part of an on-going series under the following general title: Labor’s Untold Story- Reclaiming Our Labor History In Order To Fight Another Day-And Win!
Other Septembers in this series I have concentrated on various sometimes now obscure leaders and rank and file militants in the international working class movement, especially those who made contributions here in America like "Big Bill" Haywood and Eugene V. Debs. This year, given the pressing need for clarity around the labor party question in America(algebraically expressed in our movement as the struggle for a workers party that fights for a workers government) I have gone back to the sources-Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and their correspondence on working class organizationwith various associates and opponents. Strangely, or maybe not so strangely given the state of working class organization here these days, many of their comments, taken in due regard for changed times and circumstances, are germane today. This correspondence is only a start and should just whet the reader's appetite to research further.
*****
Marx-Engels Correspondence 1851
Engels to Marx
In London
Source: MECW Volume 38, p. 289;
First published: in Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, 1913.
[Manchester,] Thursday, 13 February 1851
Dear Marx,
I had been more or less expecting this business with Harney. I saw the notice of the Bem meeting in The Friend of the People, which stated that the Germans, French, Poles and Hungarians, as well as the fraternal democrats would be taking part, and it was quite clear that these could be none other than Great Windmill Street & Co. I forgot to draw your attention to this announcement before. There’s no possibility of my pursuing the matter any further today. But tomorrow I shall write a letter to Harney in which I shall tell him not to print the manuscript I sent him, as I shall not be providing a sequel, and in which I shall at the same time explain the whole business to him in detail. If this letter is of no avail, the whole rigmarole will have to be dropped until Mr Harney returns of his own accord, which will happen very soon. I have a very strong suspicion that he will be up here shortly and then I shall duly take him to task. It’s about time he realised that we're in earnest with him, too. At any rate, so as to save time and avoid writing twice I shall send the letter to you to be passed on to him as quickly as possible once you've read it.
Personally I find this inanity and want of tact on Harney’s part more irritating than anything else. But au fond it is of little moment.
At long last we again have the opportunity — the first time in ages — to show that we need neither popularity, nor the support of any party in any country, and that our position is completely independent of such ludicrous trifles. From now on we are only answerable for ourselves and, come the time when these gentry need us, we shall be in a position to dictate our own terms. Until then we shall at least have some peace and quiet. A measure of loneliness, too, of course — mon Dieu, I've already had a 3 months’ spell of that in Manchester and have grown used to it, and this, moreover, as a bachelor, which here, at any rate, is excessively boring. Besides we have no real grounds for complaint if we are shunned by the petits grands hommes; haven’t we been acting for years as though Cherethites and Plethites were our party when, in fact, we had no party, and when the people whom we considered as belonging to our party, at least officially, sous réserve de les appeler des bêtes incorrigibles entre nous [with the reservation that between ourselves we called them incorrigible fools], didn’t even understand the rudiments of our stuff? How can people like us, who shun official appointments like the plague, fit into a ‘party’? And what have we, who spit on popularity, who don’t know what to make of ourselves if we show signs of growing popular, to do with a ‘party’, i.e. a herd of jackasses who swear by us because they think we're of the same kidney as they? Truly, it is no loss if we are no longer held to be the ‘right and adequate expression’ of the ignorant curs with whom we have been thrown together over the past few years.
A revolution is a purely natural phenomenon which is subject to physical laws rather than to the rules that determine the development of society in ordinary times. Or rather, in revolution these rules assume a much more physical character, the material force of necessity makes itself more strongly felt. And as soon as one steps forward as the representative of a party, one is dragged into this whirlpool of irresistible natural necessity. By the mere fact of keeping oneself independent, being in the nature of things more revolutionary than the others, one is able at least for a time to maintain one’s independence from this whirlpool, although one does, of course, end up by being dragged into it.
This is the position we can and must adopt on the next occasion. Not only no official government appointments but also, and for as long as possible, no official party appointments, no seat on committees, etc., no responsibility for jackasses, merciless criticism of everyone, and, besides, that serenity of which all the conspiracies of blockheads cannot deprive us. And this much we are able to do. We can always, in the nature of things, be more revolutionary than the phrase-mongers because we have learnt our lesson and they have not, because we know what we want and they do not, and because, after what we have seen for at least three years, we shall take it a great deal more coolly than anyone who has an interest in the business.
The main thing at the moment is to find some way of getting our things published; either in a quarterly in which we make a frontal attack and consolidate our position so far as persons are concerned, or in fat books where we do the same without being under the necessity of mentioning any one of these vipers. Either way suits me; in the long run, and with reaction on the increase, it seems to me that the feasibility of the former is decreasing and that the latter will come more and more to be the expedient to which we must apply ourselves. What price all the gossip the entire émigré crowd can muster against you, when you answer it with your political economy?
Tomorrow, the letter for Harney. En attendant, salut.
Your
F. E.
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
For Oratorian Brother Ronald Callahan- North Adamsville High School Class of 1974- Another Way To Seek A Newer World
Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for the Oratorian Brothers. I think this is the right religious order.
Peter Paul Markin, Class of 1974, comment:
Usually when I have had an occasion to use the word “brother” it is to ask for something like –“Say brother, can you spare a dime?” And has cursed, under my breathe of course, when I have not received recognition of and, more importantly, dough for my down and out status which required the use of that statement. Or I have used it as a solidarity word when I have addressed one of the male members of the eight million political causes that I have worked on in my life-“Brother Jones has made very good point. We should, of course, storm heaven to get this government to stop this damn war (fill in whatever war is going on at the time and you will not be far off).” Here, in speaking of one of my fellow North Adamsville High School classmates, Brother Ronald Callahan, I am using the term as a sincere honorific. For those of you who do not know Brother Ronald is a member of the Oratorian Brothers, a Catholic order somewhere down on the hierarchical ladder of the Roman Catholic Church. Wherever that rung is, he, as my devout Irish Catholic grandmother, the one who lived over on Young Street and was regarded by one and all as a “saint” (if only for having put up with cranky, I am being kind here, grandfather), would say (secretly hoping, hoping against hope, that it would apply to me), had the “calling” to serve the Church.
Now Brother Ronald and I, except for a few sporadic e-mails over the last couple of years, have neither seen nor heard from each other since our school days. So this is something of an unsolicited testimonial on my part (although my intention is to draw him out into the public spotlight to write about his life and work of which I have a glimmer of long time ago recognition). Moreover, except for a shared youthful adherence to the Roman Catholic Church which I long ago placed on the back burner of my life there are no religious connections that bind us together now. At one time, I swear, that I did delight in arguing, through the dark North Adamsville beach night, about the actual number of angels that could dance on the head of a needle, and the like, but that is long past. I do not want to comment on such matters, in any case, but rather on the fact of Brother Ronald’s doing good in this world.
We, from an early age, are told, no, ordered by parents, preachers, and Sunday school teachers that while we are about the business of ‘making and doing’ in the world to do good, or at least to do no evil. Most of us got that ‘making and doing’ part, and have paid stumbling, fumbling, mumbling lip service to the last part. Brother Ronald, as his profession, and as a profession of his faith, and that is important here, choose a different path. Maybe not my path, and maybe not yours, but certainly in Brother Ronald’s case, as old Abe Lincoln said, the “better angels of our nature” prevailed over the grimy struggle for this world’s good. Most times I have to fidget around to find the right endings to my commentaries, but not on this one. You did good, real good, Brother. And from the ragtag remnant of the Salducci’s Pizza Parlor corner boys in the old North Adamsville hang-out good night- All honor to Brother Ronald Callahan.
Peter Paul Markin, Class of 1974, comment:
Usually when I have had an occasion to use the word “brother” it is to ask for something like –“Say brother, can you spare a dime?” And has cursed, under my breathe of course, when I have not received recognition of and, more importantly, dough for my down and out status which required the use of that statement. Or I have used it as a solidarity word when I have addressed one of the male members of the eight million political causes that I have worked on in my life-“Brother Jones has made very good point. We should, of course, storm heaven to get this government to stop this damn war (fill in whatever war is going on at the time and you will not be far off).” Here, in speaking of one of my fellow North Adamsville High School classmates, Brother Ronald Callahan, I am using the term as a sincere honorific. For those of you who do not know Brother Ronald is a member of the Oratorian Brothers, a Catholic order somewhere down on the hierarchical ladder of the Roman Catholic Church. Wherever that rung is, he, as my devout Irish Catholic grandmother, the one who lived over on Young Street and was regarded by one and all as a “saint” (if only for having put up with cranky, I am being kind here, grandfather), would say (secretly hoping, hoping against hope, that it would apply to me), had the “calling” to serve the Church.
Now Brother Ronald and I, except for a few sporadic e-mails over the last couple of years, have neither seen nor heard from each other since our school days. So this is something of an unsolicited testimonial on my part (although my intention is to draw him out into the public spotlight to write about his life and work of which I have a glimmer of long time ago recognition). Moreover, except for a shared youthful adherence to the Roman Catholic Church which I long ago placed on the back burner of my life there are no religious connections that bind us together now. At one time, I swear, that I did delight in arguing, through the dark North Adamsville beach night, about the actual number of angels that could dance on the head of a needle, and the like, but that is long past. I do not want to comment on such matters, in any case, but rather on the fact of Brother Ronald’s doing good in this world.
We, from an early age, are told, no, ordered by parents, preachers, and Sunday school teachers that while we are about the business of ‘making and doing’ in the world to do good, or at least to do no evil. Most of us got that ‘making and doing’ part, and have paid stumbling, fumbling, mumbling lip service to the last part. Brother Ronald, as his profession, and as a profession of his faith, and that is important here, choose a different path. Maybe not my path, and maybe not yours, but certainly in Brother Ronald’s case, as old Abe Lincoln said, the “better angels of our nature” prevailed over the grimy struggle for this world’s good. Most times I have to fidget around to find the right endings to my commentaries, but not on this one. You did good, real good, Brother. And from the ragtag remnant of the Salducci’s Pizza Parlor corner boys in the old North Adamsville hang-out good night- All honor to Brother Ronald Callahan.
“Workers of The World Unite, You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chains”-The Struggle For Trotsky's Fourth (Communist) International-From The Archives-THE DECLARATION OF FOUR(1933)-"On the Necessity and Principles of a New International"
Click on the headline to link to the Toward A History Of The Fourth International website for the article listed above.
Markin comment (repost from September 2010):
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 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.
********
Markin comment on this document
Everybody, and that most notably included Leon Trotsky, knew something was going awry with the Bolshevik Revolution by 1923 for many reasons, some of them beyond correction outside of an international extension of the revolution, especially to Germany that would provide the vital industrial infrastructure to aid the struggling Soviet Union. Nevertheless, and this is important to note about serious revolutionary politics and politicians in general, the fight in 1923 still needed to aimed at winning the party cadre over. That was the failing point of many oppositionists, inside and outside the party, then.
By 1933, with the rise of the virtually unopposed rise and consolidation of Nazism in Germany clearly putting paid to the Communist International’s (read: Stalin’s) erroneous strategy, working inside the party, or acting as an expelled fraction of the party, was no longer tenable. Like earlier with the First and Second Internationals the Communist International was now dead as a revolutionary organizational center. Time now to gather, by fits and starts, the cadre for a new international- the Fourth International
Markin comment (repost from September 2010):
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 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.
********
Markin comment on this document
Everybody, and that most notably included Leon Trotsky, knew something was going awry with the Bolshevik Revolution by 1923 for many reasons, some of them beyond correction outside of an international extension of the revolution, especially to Germany that would provide the vital industrial infrastructure to aid the struggling Soviet Union. Nevertheless, and this is important to note about serious revolutionary politics and politicians in general, the fight in 1923 still needed to aimed at winning the party cadre over. That was the failing point of many oppositionists, inside and outside the party, then.
By 1933, with the rise of the virtually unopposed rise and consolidation of Nazism in Germany clearly putting paid to the Communist International’s (read: Stalin’s) erroneous strategy, working inside the party, or acting as an expelled fraction of the party, was no longer tenable. Like earlier with the First and Second Internationals the Communist International was now dead as a revolutionary organizational center. Time now to gather, by fits and starts, the cadre for a new international- the Fourth International
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
When James Bond Re-Tread The World- "Casino Royale" - A Film Review
Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for Casino Royale.
DVD Review
Casino Royale, starring Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Judi Dench, form the spy novel written by Ian Fleming, M-G-M, 2006
I admit I was smitten by Ian Fleming’s James Bond epic Cold War spy notion back when we used to see such adventure film fare on the big screen at the local drive-in theater (for those who do know of that 1950s and early 1960s institution check Wikipedia) when we were more interested in some “hot” date more than in the movie. I think the first one in the Bond series was Doctor No with Sean Connery in the Bond role. There have been some twenty-odd Bond films since (and many copy-cat films) and a succession of Bond replacements. Frankly, despite the good performance here by Daniel Craig as Bond (and as almost always by Judi Dench in anything she does) this Bond notion I think has gotten stale. The virtue of Connery’s Bond was that while he was a wily and steadfast advocate of the “free world” he brought something of a slapstick air about the whole thing. This one, premised on fighting the “war on terrorism” by foiling a poker-loving “banker,” made me long for a cheeky Cold War spy night performance by Connery done with far less physical and technical whiz-bang action and more guile.
DVD Review
Casino Royale, starring Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Judi Dench, form the spy novel written by Ian Fleming, M-G-M, 2006
I admit I was smitten by Ian Fleming’s James Bond epic Cold War spy notion back when we used to see such adventure film fare on the big screen at the local drive-in theater (for those who do know of that 1950s and early 1960s institution check Wikipedia) when we were more interested in some “hot” date more than in the movie. I think the first one in the Bond series was Doctor No with Sean Connery in the Bond role. There have been some twenty-odd Bond films since (and many copy-cat films) and a succession of Bond replacements. Frankly, despite the good performance here by Daniel Craig as Bond (and as almost always by Judi Dench in anything she does) this Bond notion I think has gotten stale. The virtue of Connery’s Bond was that while he was a wily and steadfast advocate of the “free world” he brought something of a slapstick air about the whole thing. This one, premised on fighting the “war on terrorism” by foiling a poker-loving “banker,” made me long for a cheeky Cold War spy night performance by Connery done with far less physical and technical whiz-bang action and more guile.
Labor's Untold Story-From The Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Archives-The Struggle For Working Class Organization-Engels To Emil Blank In London (1848)
Markin comment:
Every Month Is Labor History MonthThis post is part of an on-going series under the following general title: Labor’s Untold Story- Reclaiming Our Labor History In Order To Fight Another Day-And Win!
Other Septembers in this series I have concentrated on various sometimes now obscure leaders and rank and file militants in the international working class movement, especially those who made contributions here in America like "Big Bill" Haywood and Eugene V. Debs. This year, given the pressing need for clarity around the labor party question in America(algebraically expressed in our movement as the struggle for a workers party that fights for a workers government) I have gone back to the sources-Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and their correspondence on working class organizationwith various associates and opponents. Strangely, or maybe not so strangely given the state of working class organization here these days, many of their comments, taken in due regard for changed times and circumstances, are germane today. This correspondence is only a start and should just whet the reader's appetite to research further.
*****
Letters of Marx and Engels 1848
Engels To Emil Blank In London (1848)
Source: MECW Volume 38, p. 167;
Written: 28 March 1848;
First published: in Marx and Engels, Works, First Russian Edition, 1934.
Paris, 28 March 1848
Dear Emil,
Today I received the first four halves of the 4 £5 notes and would ask you to send the other halves immediately, since I must get away as soon as possible. Many thanks for your willingness to come so promptly to my assistance in this emergency. Your subscription to the [Neue] Rheinische Zeitung has been registered.
As regards the parties here, there are, properly speaking, three major ones, not counting the minor ones (Legitimists [supporters of the Bourbon dynasty overthrown in 1830] and Bonapartists who simply intrigue, mere sects without influence among the people, in part wealthy, but no hope whatever of victory). These three are, first, those defeated on 24 February, i.e. the big bourgeoisie, speculators on the Bourse, bankers, manufacturers and big merchants, the old conservatives and liberals. Secondly, the petty bourgeoisie, the middle class, the bulk of the National Guard which, on 23 and 24 Febr. sided with the people, the ‘reasonable radicals’, Lamartine’s men and those of the National. Thirdly, the people, the Parisian workers, who are now holding Paris by force of arms.
The big bourgeoisie and the workers are in direct confrontation with each other. The petty bourgeois play an intermediary but altogether contemptible role. The latter, however, have a majority in the provisional government (Lamartine, Marrast, Dupont de I'Eure, Marie, Garnier-Pagès and, occasionally, Crémieux as well).
They, and the provisional government with them, vacillate a great deal. The quieter everything becomes, the more the government and the petty-bourgeois party incline towards the big bourgeoisie; the greater the unrest, the more they join up with the workers again. Recently, for instance, when the bourgeois had again become fearfully uppish and actually dispatched a column of National Guards 8,000 strong to the Town Hall to protest against a decree of the provisional government, and more especially against Ledru-Rollin’s vigorous measures,[212] they did in fact succeed in so intimidating the majority of the government, and in particular the weak-kneed Lamartine, that he publicly disavowed Ledru. But on the following day, 17 March, 200,000 workers marched on the Town Hall, proclaimed their implicit confidence in Ledru-Rollin and compelled the majority of the government and Lamartine to recant. For the time being, then, the men of the Réforme (Ledru-Rollin, Flocon, L. Blanc, Albert, Arago) again have the upper hand. They, more than anyone else in the government, still represent the workers, and are communists without knowing it. Unfortunately little Louis Blanc is making a great ass of himself with his vanity and his crack-brained schemes.[213] Ere long he will come a terrible cropper. But Ledru-Rollin is behaving very well.
The most unfortunate thing is that the government, on the one hand, has to make promises to the workers and, on the other, is unable to keep any of them because it lacks the courage to secure the necessary funds by revolutionary measures against the bourgeoisie, by severe progressive taxation, succession duties, confiscation of all émigré property, ban on the export of currency, state bank, etc. The men of the Réforme are allowed to make promises which they are then prevented from keeping by the most inane conservative decisions.
In addition there is now a new element in the National Assembly: the peasants who make up 5/7 of the French nation and support the party of the National, of the petty bourgeoisie. It is highly probable that this party will win, that the men of the Réforme will fall, and then there'll be another revolution. It’s also possible that, once in Paris, the deputies will realise how things stand here, and that only the men of the Réforme can stay the course in the long term. This, however, is improbable.
The postponement of the elections for a fortnight is also a victory for the Parisian workers over the bourgeois party.[214]
The men of the National, Marrast and Co., cut a very poor figure in other respects as well. They live in clover and provide their friends with palaces and good positions. Those from the Réforme are quite different. I've been to see old Flocon several times; the fellow lives as before in poor lodgings on the fifth floor, smokes cheap shag in an old clay pipe, and has bought nothing for himself but a new dressing-gown. For the rest his way of life is no less republican than when he was still editor of the Réforme, nor is he any less friendly, cordial and open-hearted. He’s one of the most decent fellows I know.
Recently I lunched at the Tuileries, in the Prince de Joinville’s suite, with old Imbert who was a réfugié in Brussels and is now Governor of the Tuileries. In Louis-Philippe’s apartments now the wounded lie on the carpets, smoking stubby pipes. In the throne-room the portraits of Soult and Bugeaud have been torn down and ripped and the one of Grouchy cut to shreds.
Going past at this very moment, to the strains of the Marseillaise, is the funeral cortège of a working man who died of his wounds. Escorting him are National Guards and armed populace at least 10,000 strong, and young toffs from the Chaussée d'Antin, have to escort the procession as mounted National Guards. The bourgeois are enraged at seeing a working man thus given the last honours.
Your
F. E.
Every Month Is Labor History MonthThis post is part of an on-going series under the following general title: Labor’s Untold Story- Reclaiming Our Labor History In Order To Fight Another Day-And Win!
Other Septembers in this series I have concentrated on various sometimes now obscure leaders and rank and file militants in the international working class movement, especially those who made contributions here in America like "Big Bill" Haywood and Eugene V. Debs. This year, given the pressing need for clarity around the labor party question in America(algebraically expressed in our movement as the struggle for a workers party that fights for a workers government) I have gone back to the sources-Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and their correspondence on working class organizationwith various associates and opponents. Strangely, or maybe not so strangely given the state of working class organization here these days, many of their comments, taken in due regard for changed times and circumstances, are germane today. This correspondence is only a start and should just whet the reader's appetite to research further.
*****
Letters of Marx and Engels 1848
Engels To Emil Blank In London (1848)
Source: MECW Volume 38, p. 167;
Written: 28 March 1848;
First published: in Marx and Engels, Works, First Russian Edition, 1934.
Paris, 28 March 1848
Dear Emil,
Today I received the first four halves of the 4 £5 notes and would ask you to send the other halves immediately, since I must get away as soon as possible. Many thanks for your willingness to come so promptly to my assistance in this emergency. Your subscription to the [Neue] Rheinische Zeitung has been registered.
As regards the parties here, there are, properly speaking, three major ones, not counting the minor ones (Legitimists [supporters of the Bourbon dynasty overthrown in 1830] and Bonapartists who simply intrigue, mere sects without influence among the people, in part wealthy, but no hope whatever of victory). These three are, first, those defeated on 24 February, i.e. the big bourgeoisie, speculators on the Bourse, bankers, manufacturers and big merchants, the old conservatives and liberals. Secondly, the petty bourgeoisie, the middle class, the bulk of the National Guard which, on 23 and 24 Febr. sided with the people, the ‘reasonable radicals’, Lamartine’s men and those of the National. Thirdly, the people, the Parisian workers, who are now holding Paris by force of arms.
The big bourgeoisie and the workers are in direct confrontation with each other. The petty bourgeois play an intermediary but altogether contemptible role. The latter, however, have a majority in the provisional government (Lamartine, Marrast, Dupont de I'Eure, Marie, Garnier-Pagès and, occasionally, Crémieux as well).
They, and the provisional government with them, vacillate a great deal. The quieter everything becomes, the more the government and the petty-bourgeois party incline towards the big bourgeoisie; the greater the unrest, the more they join up with the workers again. Recently, for instance, when the bourgeois had again become fearfully uppish and actually dispatched a column of National Guards 8,000 strong to the Town Hall to protest against a decree of the provisional government, and more especially against Ledru-Rollin’s vigorous measures,[212] they did in fact succeed in so intimidating the majority of the government, and in particular the weak-kneed Lamartine, that he publicly disavowed Ledru. But on the following day, 17 March, 200,000 workers marched on the Town Hall, proclaimed their implicit confidence in Ledru-Rollin and compelled the majority of the government and Lamartine to recant. For the time being, then, the men of the Réforme (Ledru-Rollin, Flocon, L. Blanc, Albert, Arago) again have the upper hand. They, more than anyone else in the government, still represent the workers, and are communists without knowing it. Unfortunately little Louis Blanc is making a great ass of himself with his vanity and his crack-brained schemes.[213] Ere long he will come a terrible cropper. But Ledru-Rollin is behaving very well.
The most unfortunate thing is that the government, on the one hand, has to make promises to the workers and, on the other, is unable to keep any of them because it lacks the courage to secure the necessary funds by revolutionary measures against the bourgeoisie, by severe progressive taxation, succession duties, confiscation of all émigré property, ban on the export of currency, state bank, etc. The men of the Réforme are allowed to make promises which they are then prevented from keeping by the most inane conservative decisions.
In addition there is now a new element in the National Assembly: the peasants who make up 5/7 of the French nation and support the party of the National, of the petty bourgeoisie. It is highly probable that this party will win, that the men of the Réforme will fall, and then there'll be another revolution. It’s also possible that, once in Paris, the deputies will realise how things stand here, and that only the men of the Réforme can stay the course in the long term. This, however, is improbable.
The postponement of the elections for a fortnight is also a victory for the Parisian workers over the bourgeois party.[214]
The men of the National, Marrast and Co., cut a very poor figure in other respects as well. They live in clover and provide their friends with palaces and good positions. Those from the Réforme are quite different. I've been to see old Flocon several times; the fellow lives as before in poor lodgings on the fifth floor, smokes cheap shag in an old clay pipe, and has bought nothing for himself but a new dressing-gown. For the rest his way of life is no less republican than when he was still editor of the Réforme, nor is he any less friendly, cordial and open-hearted. He’s one of the most decent fellows I know.
Recently I lunched at the Tuileries, in the Prince de Joinville’s suite, with old Imbert who was a réfugié in Brussels and is now Governor of the Tuileries. In Louis-Philippe’s apartments now the wounded lie on the carpets, smoking stubby pipes. In the throne-room the portraits of Soult and Bugeaud have been torn down and ripped and the one of Grouchy cut to shreds.
Going past at this very moment, to the strains of the Marseillaise, is the funeral cortège of a working man who died of his wounds. Escorting him are National Guards and armed populace at least 10,000 strong, and young toffs from the Chaussée d'Antin, have to escort the procession as mounted National Guards. The bourgeois are enraged at seeing a working man thus given the last honours.
Your
F. E.
Out In The 1940s Crime Noir Night-The Mexican Immigration Situation-Then- Anthony Mann’s “Border Incident”-A Film Review
Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for the film noir Border Incident
DVD Review
Border Incident, starring Ricardo Montaban, George Murphy, directed by Anthony Mann, M-G-M, 1949
No question I am a film noir, especially a crime noir, aficionado. Recently I have been on a tear reviewing various crime noir efforts and drawing comparisons between the ones that “speak” to me and those that, perhaps, should have been better left on the cutting room floor. The classics are easy and need no additional comment from me for their plot lines stand on their own merits. Others, because they have a fetching, or wicked, for that matter, femme fatale to muddy the waters also get a pass. Some, such as the film under review, which deals with the American and Mexican governments’ attempts to curb illegal immigration and those who benefit from it, the 1940s black and white B-film Border Incident, offers very little of either.
It is not for lack of interesting subject matter- the question of illegal Mexican immigrant migration is still very much with us as the news headlines scream out almost daily. Certainly the “coyotes” (illegal alien smugglers) and other social relationships (complicit farm owners, governmental agents, etc.) featured in this film are very much with us as the periodic finding of clots of dead illegal immigrants in some woe begotten deserts testifies to. It is also not for lack of trying to draw attention to the importance of the issue but rather that the stilted dialogue of the main characters, relentlessly hammering us with clear cut choices between good and evil when a lot of life is very gray, very gray indeed, gets in the way.
Probably the biggest problem, however, and one which is seemingly endemic to the police procedural crime noir B-movie genre, is that in the attempt to earnestly portray a living social problem involving governmental action takes the life out of the film and becomes mere propaganda. I would contrast this one with, let us say, Orson Welles’ Touch Of Evil, another border town-centered film and you will in one minute both get my point and get the different. If you insist on seeing this one then it is because of the great black and white gritty cinematography of the great American West landscape and some tense character-shot moments. But again Touch has all that, and more.
DVD Review
Border Incident, starring Ricardo Montaban, George Murphy, directed by Anthony Mann, M-G-M, 1949
No question I am a film noir, especially a crime noir, aficionado. Recently I have been on a tear reviewing various crime noir efforts and drawing comparisons between the ones that “speak” to me and those that, perhaps, should have been better left on the cutting room floor. The classics are easy and need no additional comment from me for their plot lines stand on their own merits. Others, because they have a fetching, or wicked, for that matter, femme fatale to muddy the waters also get a pass. Some, such as the film under review, which deals with the American and Mexican governments’ attempts to curb illegal immigration and those who benefit from it, the 1940s black and white B-film Border Incident, offers very little of either.
It is not for lack of interesting subject matter- the question of illegal Mexican immigrant migration is still very much with us as the news headlines scream out almost daily. Certainly the “coyotes” (illegal alien smugglers) and other social relationships (complicit farm owners, governmental agents, etc.) featured in this film are very much with us as the periodic finding of clots of dead illegal immigrants in some woe begotten deserts testifies to. It is also not for lack of trying to draw attention to the importance of the issue but rather that the stilted dialogue of the main characters, relentlessly hammering us with clear cut choices between good and evil when a lot of life is very gray, very gray indeed, gets in the way.
Probably the biggest problem, however, and one which is seemingly endemic to the police procedural crime noir B-movie genre, is that in the attempt to earnestly portray a living social problem involving governmental action takes the life out of the film and becomes mere propaganda. I would contrast this one with, let us say, Orson Welles’ Touch Of Evil, another border town-centered film and you will in one minute both get my point and get the different. If you insist on seeing this one then it is because of the great black and white gritty cinematography of the great American West landscape and some tense character-shot moments. But again Touch has all that, and more.
“Workers of The World Unite, You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chains”-The Struggle For Trotsky's Fourth (Communist) International-From The Archives-Documents of the 1923 opposition-"The Thirteenth Party Conference January 16-18 1924"
Click on the headline to link to the Toward A History Of The Fourth International website for the article listed above.
Markin comment (repost from September 2010):
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 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.
*********
Markin comment on this document
Everybody, and that most notably included Leon Trotsky, knew something was going awry with the Bolshevik Revolution by 1923 for many reasons, some of them beyond correction outside of an international extension of the revolution, especially to Germany that would provide the vital industrial infrastructure to aid the struggling Soviet Union. Nevertheless, and this is important to note about serious revolutionary politics and politicians in general, the fight in 1923 still needed to aimed at winning the party cadre over. That was the failing point of many oppositionists, inside and outside the party, then. Who were revolutionaries to appeal to at that time? The kulaks? We saw where that led a couple of years later when Stalin/Bukharin made their right turn.
The line of argument of the two leading left- Bolsheviks, Sapronov and Preobrazensky, here and in previous documents on workers democracy , the soviet economy, and party bureaucratization would, along with the criticisms of Communist International policy as most clearly articulated by Trotsky later, would form the thread around which the Russian (and later International)Left Opposition would struggle for the next ten years. Unfortuntely this Party Conference was really the last time that the Russian Left Opposition could fairly forthrightly (even with the Stalinist rigging of the delegate selection) argue its case-and be heard.
Markin comment (repost from September 2010):
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 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.
*********
Markin comment on this document
Everybody, and that most notably included Leon Trotsky, knew something was going awry with the Bolshevik Revolution by 1923 for many reasons, some of them beyond correction outside of an international extension of the revolution, especially to Germany that would provide the vital industrial infrastructure to aid the struggling Soviet Union. Nevertheless, and this is important to note about serious revolutionary politics and politicians in general, the fight in 1923 still needed to aimed at winning the party cadre over. That was the failing point of many oppositionists, inside and outside the party, then. Who were revolutionaries to appeal to at that time? The kulaks? We saw where that led a couple of years later when Stalin/Bukharin made their right turn.
The line of argument of the two leading left- Bolsheviks, Sapronov and Preobrazensky, here and in previous documents on workers democracy , the soviet economy, and party bureaucratization would, along with the criticisms of Communist International policy as most clearly articulated by Trotsky later, would form the thread around which the Russian (and later International)Left Opposition would struggle for the next ten years. Unfortuntely this Party Conference was really the last time that the Russian Left Opposition could fairly forthrightly (even with the Stalinist rigging of the delegate selection) argue its case-and be heard.
Monday, September 05, 2011
Out In The 1940s Crime Noir Night-From Rags To Riches- John Garfield’s Blues- “Force Of Evil”-A Film Review
Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for the crime noir film, Force Of Evil.
DVD Review
Force Of Evil, starring John Garfield, Thomas Gomez, M-G-M, 1948
No question I am a film noir, especially a crime noir, aficionado. Recently I have been on a tear reviewing various crime noir efforts and drawing comparisons between the ones that “speak” to me and those that, perhaps, should have been better left on the cutting room floor. The classics are easy and need no additional comment from me their plot lines stand on their own merits, although I will make some comment here. Others, because they have a fetching, or wicked, for that matter, femme fatale to muddy the waters also get a pass. Some, such as the film under review from the late 1940s starring John Garfield, Force of Evil, offers very little of either. It is not for lack of trying but rather that the stilted dialogue of the main characters, relentlessly hammering us with clear cut choices between good and evil when a lot of life is very gray, very gray indeed, gets in the way. And it is certainly not that John Garfield can not carry off a crime noir film. Hell, he and femme fatale Lana Turner burned up the screen in the film adaptation of James M. Cain’s crime novel The Postman Always Rings Twice, a film that I will review in the near future in this series. The plot line and dialogue just got in the way here. It is as simple as that.
Here is the scoop. John Garfield, through his brother’s Great Depression-era sacrifice went to law school and became a high-priced lawyer (silly brother, right?), made the New York City big time. A Wall Street lawyer big time. Well, almost big time, because the way he got there was through a very lucrative association with a crime boss who was looking to control the numbers racket in 1940s New York City (the numbers racket, now called the lottery, is now respectably controlled by the state, whatever state) and make it a legal business like any other self-respecting capitalist adventure. The trouble is said sacrificing brother is running a numbers “bank” slated for the dustbin as part of the crime boss’s consolidation plan. Capitalism 101, okay. This makes Brother Garfield queasy and filled with self-doubts and regrets (in between bouts of greed fueled by the dough to be made by a poor boy New York City slum corner boy). The tension between those two forces (ah, good and evil, got it) aided by a “girl next store-type (good force, right?) gnawing at his innards forces dear John to come clean at the end. Especially when said crime boss, through another criminal associate, offs his brother. Like I said, a little thin in the story line.
What is not thin though, and as is usually the case when New York City is the locale, is the black and white cinematography that gives some very interesting footage to the dramatic tension here- the good versus evil thing mentioned above. Additionally “the girl next store” character almost breaks out and becomes something of a human we can recognize when money, wealth and fame enter the picture. Although she never quite does break out of the good angel stuff. Still it is always good to hear John Garfield struggling with some cosmic message in his corner boy heart. But wait and see him in Postman if you want really gritty, attention-getting performance. This one is just very, very average.
DVD Review
Force Of Evil, starring John Garfield, Thomas Gomez, M-G-M, 1948
No question I am a film noir, especially a crime noir, aficionado. Recently I have been on a tear reviewing various crime noir efforts and drawing comparisons between the ones that “speak” to me and those that, perhaps, should have been better left on the cutting room floor. The classics are easy and need no additional comment from me their plot lines stand on their own merits, although I will make some comment here. Others, because they have a fetching, or wicked, for that matter, femme fatale to muddy the waters also get a pass. Some, such as the film under review from the late 1940s starring John Garfield, Force of Evil, offers very little of either. It is not for lack of trying but rather that the stilted dialogue of the main characters, relentlessly hammering us with clear cut choices between good and evil when a lot of life is very gray, very gray indeed, gets in the way. And it is certainly not that John Garfield can not carry off a crime noir film. Hell, he and femme fatale Lana Turner burned up the screen in the film adaptation of James M. Cain’s crime novel The Postman Always Rings Twice, a film that I will review in the near future in this series. The plot line and dialogue just got in the way here. It is as simple as that.
Here is the scoop. John Garfield, through his brother’s Great Depression-era sacrifice went to law school and became a high-priced lawyer (silly brother, right?), made the New York City big time. A Wall Street lawyer big time. Well, almost big time, because the way he got there was through a very lucrative association with a crime boss who was looking to control the numbers racket in 1940s New York City (the numbers racket, now called the lottery, is now respectably controlled by the state, whatever state) and make it a legal business like any other self-respecting capitalist adventure. The trouble is said sacrificing brother is running a numbers “bank” slated for the dustbin as part of the crime boss’s consolidation plan. Capitalism 101, okay. This makes Brother Garfield queasy and filled with self-doubts and regrets (in between bouts of greed fueled by the dough to be made by a poor boy New York City slum corner boy). The tension between those two forces (ah, good and evil, got it) aided by a “girl next store-type (good force, right?) gnawing at his innards forces dear John to come clean at the end. Especially when said crime boss, through another criminal associate, offs his brother. Like I said, a little thin in the story line.
What is not thin though, and as is usually the case when New York City is the locale, is the black and white cinematography that gives some very interesting footage to the dramatic tension here- the good versus evil thing mentioned above. Additionally “the girl next store” character almost breaks out and becomes something of a human we can recognize when money, wealth and fame enter the picture. Although she never quite does break out of the good angel stuff. Still it is always good to hear John Garfield struggling with some cosmic message in his corner boy heart. But wait and see him in Postman if you want really gritty, attention-getting performance. This one is just very, very average.
The Struggle For The Labor Party In The United States- The DeLeonist (Socialist Labor Party-Derived) Attempt At A Labor Party- The American Labor Party (1932)
Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for the DeLeonist (Socialist Labor Party-Derived) attempt at a labor party The American Labor Party (1932)
Markin comment on this series:
Obviously, for a Marxist, the question of working class political power is central to the possibilities for the main thrust of his or her politics- the quest for that socialist revolution that initiates the socialist reconstruction of society. But working class politics, no less than any other kinds of political expressions has to take an organization form, a disciplined organizational form in the end, but organization nevertheless. In that sense every Marxist worth his or her salt, from individual labor militants to leagues, tendencies, and whatever other formations are out there these days on the left, struggles to built a revolutionary labor party, a Bolshevik-style party.
Glaringly, in the United States there is no such party, nor even a politically independent reformist labor party, as exists in Great Britain. And no, the Democratic Party, imperialist commander-in-chief Obama's Democratic Party is not a labor party. Although plenty of people believe it is an adequate substitute, including some avowed socialists. But they are just flat-out wrong. This series is thus predicated on providing information about, analysis of, and acting as a spur to a close look at the history of the labor party question in America by those who have actually attempted to create one, or at to propagandize for one.
As usual, I will start this series with the work of the International Communist League/Spartacist League/U.S. as I have been mining their archival materials of late. I am most familiar with the history of their work on this question, although on this question the Socialist Workers Party's efforts run a close second, especially in their revolutionary period. Lastly, and most importantly, I am comfortable starting with the ICL/SL efforts on the labor party question since after having reviewed in this space in previous series their G.I. work and youth work (Campus Spartacist and the Revolutionary Marxist Caucus Newsletter inside SDS) I noted that throughout their history they have consistently called for the creation of such a party in the various social arenas in which they have worked. Other organizational and independent efforts, most notably by the Socialist Workers Party and the American Communist Party will follow.
*********
Markin comment on this article:
Markin comment on this series:
Obviously, for a Marxist, the question of working class political power is central to the possibilities for the main thrust of his or her politics- the quest for that socialist revolution that initiates the socialist reconstruction of society. But working class politics, no less than any other kinds of political expressions has to take an organization form, a disciplined organizational form in the end, but organization nevertheless. In that sense every Marxist worth his or her salt, from individual labor militants to leagues, tendencies, and whatever other formations are out there these days on the left, struggles to built a revolutionary labor party, a Bolshevik-style party.
Glaringly, in the United States there is no such party, nor even a politically independent reformist labor party, as exists in Great Britain. And no, the Democratic Party, imperialist commander-in-chief Obama's Democratic Party is not a labor party. Although plenty of people believe it is an adequate substitute, including some avowed socialists. But they are just flat-out wrong. This series is thus predicated on providing information about, analysis of, and acting as a spur to a close look at the history of the labor party question in America by those who have actually attempted to create one, or at to propagandize for one.
As usual, I will start this series with the work of the International Communist League/Spartacist League/U.S. as I have been mining their archival materials of late. I am most familiar with the history of their work on this question, although on this question the Socialist Workers Party's efforts run a close second, especially in their revolutionary period. Lastly, and most importantly, I am comfortable starting with the ICL/SL efforts on the labor party question since after having reviewed in this space in previous series their G.I. work and youth work (Campus Spartacist and the Revolutionary Marxist Caucus Newsletter inside SDS) I noted that throughout their history they have consistently called for the creation of such a party in the various social arenas in which they have worked. Other organizational and independent efforts, most notably by the Socialist Workers Party and the American Communist Party will follow.
*********
Markin comment on this article:
“Workers of The World Unite, You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chains”-The Struggle For Trotsky's Fourth (Communist) International-From The Archives-Documents of the 1923 opposition-"The Moscow Provincial Conference January 10-11 1924"
Click on the headline to link to the Toward A History Of The Fourth International website for the article listed above.
Markin comment (repost from September 2010):
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 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.
*********
Markin comment on this document:
Everybody, and that most notably included Leon Trotsky, knew something was going awry with the Bolshevik Revolution by 1923 for many reasons, some of them beyond correction outside of an international extension of the revolution, especially to Germany that would provide the vital industrial infrastructure to aid the struggling Soviet Union. Nevertheless, and this is important to note about serious revolutionary politics and politicians in general, the fight in 1923 still needed to aimed at winning the party cadre over. That was the failing point of many oppositionists, inside and outside the party, then. Who were revolutionaries to appeal to at that time? The kulaks? We saw where that led a couple of years later when Stalin/Bukharin made their right turn.
The line of argument of the two leading left- Bolsheviks, Sapronov and Preobrazensky, here and in the previous document on workers democracy, the soviet economy, and party bureaucratization would, along with the criticisms of Communist International policy as most clearly articulated by Trotsky later, would form the thread around which the Russian (and later International)Left Opposition would struggle for the next ten years.
Markin comment (repost from September 2010):
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 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.
*********
Markin comment on this document:
Everybody, and that most notably included Leon Trotsky, knew something was going awry with the Bolshevik Revolution by 1923 for many reasons, some of them beyond correction outside of an international extension of the revolution, especially to Germany that would provide the vital industrial infrastructure to aid the struggling Soviet Union. Nevertheless, and this is important to note about serious revolutionary politics and politicians in general, the fight in 1923 still needed to aimed at winning the party cadre over. That was the failing point of many oppositionists, inside and outside the party, then. Who were revolutionaries to appeal to at that time? The kulaks? We saw where that led a couple of years later when Stalin/Bukharin made their right turn.
The line of argument of the two leading left- Bolsheviks, Sapronov and Preobrazensky, here and in the previous document on workers democracy, the soviet economy, and party bureaucratization would, along with the criticisms of Communist International policy as most clearly articulated by Trotsky later, would form the thread around which the Russian (and later International)Left Opposition would struggle for the next ten years.
Sunday, September 04, 2011
The Struggle For The Labor Party In The United States- Daniel DeLeon's Socialist Labor Party
Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for the Socialist Labor Party
Markin comment on this series:
Obviously, for a Marxist, the question of working class political power is central to the possibilities for the main thrust of his or her politics- the quest for that socialist revolution that initiates the socialist reconstruction of society. But working class politics, no less than any other kinds of political expressions has to take an organization form, a disciplined organizational form in the end, but organization nevertheless. In that sense every Marxist worth his or her salt, from individual labor militants to leagues, tendencies, and whatever other formations are out there these days on the left, struggles to built a revolutionary labor party, a Bolshevik-style party.
Glaringly, in the United States there is no such party, nor even a politically independent reformist labor party, as exists in Great Britain. And no, the Democratic Party, imperialist commander-in-chief Obama's Democratic Party is not a labor party. Although plenty of people believe it is an adequate substitute, including some avowed socialists. But they are just flat-out wrong. This series is thus predicated on providing information about, analysis of, and acting as a spur to a close look at the history of the labor party question in America by those who have actually attempted to create one, or at to propagandize for one.
As usual, I will start this series with the work of the International Communist League/Spartacist League/U.S. as I have been mining their archival materials of late. I am most familiar with the history of their work on this question, although on this question the Socialist Workers Party's efforts run a close second, especially in their revolutionary period. Lastly, and most importantly, I am comfortable starting with the ICL/SL efforts on the labor party question since after having reviewed in this space in previous series their G.I. work and youth work (Campus Spartacist and the Revolutionary Marxist Caucus Newsletter inside SDS) I noted that throughout their history they have consistently called for the creation of such a party in the various social arenas in which they have worked. Other organizational and independent efforts, most notably by the Socialist Workers Party and the American Communist Party will follow.
*********
Markin comment on this series:
Obviously, for a Marxist, the question of working class political power is central to the possibilities for the main thrust of his or her politics- the quest for that socialist revolution that initiates the socialist reconstruction of society. But working class politics, no less than any other kinds of political expressions has to take an organization form, a disciplined organizational form in the end, but organization nevertheless. In that sense every Marxist worth his or her salt, from individual labor militants to leagues, tendencies, and whatever other formations are out there these days on the left, struggles to built a revolutionary labor party, a Bolshevik-style party.
Glaringly, in the United States there is no such party, nor even a politically independent reformist labor party, as exists in Great Britain. And no, the Democratic Party, imperialist commander-in-chief Obama's Democratic Party is not a labor party. Although plenty of people believe it is an adequate substitute, including some avowed socialists. But they are just flat-out wrong. This series is thus predicated on providing information about, analysis of, and acting as a spur to a close look at the history of the labor party question in America by those who have actually attempted to create one, or at to propagandize for one.
As usual, I will start this series with the work of the International Communist League/Spartacist League/U.S. as I have been mining their archival materials of late. I am most familiar with the history of their work on this question, although on this question the Socialist Workers Party's efforts run a close second, especially in their revolutionary period. Lastly, and most importantly, I am comfortable starting with the ICL/SL efforts on the labor party question since after having reviewed in this space in previous series their G.I. work and youth work (Campus Spartacist and the Revolutionary Marxist Caucus Newsletter inside SDS) I noted that throughout their history they have consistently called for the creation of such a party in the various social arenas in which they have worked. Other organizational and independent efforts, most notably by the Socialist Workers Party and the American Communist Party will follow.
*********
Labor's Untold Story-From The Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Archives-The Struggle For Working Class Organization-Engels To Marx In Brussels (1847)
Markin comment:
Every Month Is Labor History MonthThis post is part of an on-going series under the following general title: Labor’s Untold Story- Reclaiming Our Labor History In Order To Fight Another Day-And Win!
Other Septembers in this series I have concentrated on various sometimes now obscure leaders and rank and file militants in the international working class movement, especially those who made contributions here in America like "Big Bill" Haywood and Eugene V. Debs. This year, given the pressing need for clarity around the labor party question in America(algebraically expressed in our movement as the struggle for a workers party that fights for a workers government) I have gone back to the sources-Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and their correspondence on working class organizationwith various associates and opponents. Strangely, or maybe not so strangely given the state of working class organization here these days, many of their comments, taken in due regard for changed times and circumstances, are germane today. This correspondence is only a start and should just whet the reader's appetite to research further.
*******
Letters of Marx and Engels 1847
Engels To Marx
In Brussels
Source: MECW Volume 38, p. 133;
Written: 26 October 1847;
First published: in Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, 1913.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paris, 25-26 October 1847
Dear Bartholomäus,
Only today am I able to write to you because it was only today that I managed to see little Louis Blanc – after terrible tussles with the portière. As a result of my long conversation with him, the little man is prepared to do anything. He was courtesy and friendliness itself, and seems to have no more urgent wish than to associate with us as closely as possible. There is none of the French national patronage about him. I had written to tell him that I was coming with a mandat formel to him from the London, Brussels and Rhineland democrats, and also as a Chartist agent.[168] He asked for details about everything; I described the condition of our party to him in the most glowing terms, spoke about Switzerland, Jacoby, the Badeners as allies [169] etc., etc.
You, I said, were the chief: You can regard Mr Marx as the head of our party (i. e. of the most advanced section of German democracy, which I was representing vis-à-vis him) and his recent book against Mr Proudhon as our programme. Of this he took most careful note. Then finally he promised to comment on your book in the Réforme. He told me a great deal about the mouvement souterrain [underground movement] that is now going on among the workers; he also said that the workers had printed 3,000 copies of his Organisation du travail cheaply and that at the end of a fortnight a further edition of 3,000 copies had been needed — he said the workers were more revolutionary than ever, but had learned to bide their time, no riots, only major coups that would be sure to succeed, etc., etc. By the way he too would seem to have got out of the habit of patronising the workers.
When I see such things as M. de Lamartine’s new programme, I can’t help laughing! In order to assess the present state of French society properly you have to be in a position which enables you to see a little of everything, to visit a minister in the morning, a merchant in the afternoon, and a working man in the evening.’
The coming revolution, he went on, would be quite different from, and much more drastic than, all previous ones, and it would be sheer bêtise [stupidity] to keep on thundering only against kings, etc., etc.
By and large, he was very well-behaved and perfectly cordial. You see, the man is all right, he has the best intentions in the world. He spoke of you with great sympathy and said he was sorry that you and he had parted rather froidement [coldly], etc., etc. He still has a special hankering after a German and French review to be published in Paris. Might come in useful later.
As to Ruge, after whom he inquired, I warned him; he has appointed himself panegyrist of the Prussian Diet, and this even after the result.[170] — So he’s taken a step back? — Yes, indeed.
With père Flocon I am hitting it off well. I first approached him as if I were an Englishman and asked him in Harney’s name why he so ignored the Star. Well, yes, he said, he was sorry, he’d be only too glad to mention it, only there was no one on the editorial staff who understood English! I offered to write a weekly article for him [171] which he accepted de grand coeur. When I told him I was the Star’s correspondent, he seemed quite moved.[172] If things go on like this we shall have won over this whole trend in four weeks. Flocon wishes me to write an essay on Chartism for his personal benefit, he hasn’t the vaguest idea about it. I shall call on him presently and ensnare him further in our net. I shall tell him that the Atelier is making approaches to me (which is true; I am going there this evening), and that, if he behaves decently, I shall turn them down. That will touch his worthy heart.
When I’ve been here a little longer and have grown more accustomed to writing French, I’ll make a start on the Revue indépendante.
I quite forgot to ask L. Blanc why he hadn’t accepted your Congress article.[173] I shall tax him with it when he next comes to see me. By the way I doubt whether he has, in fact, received your book. He was quite unable to remember having done so today. And before I went away he spoke in very uncertain terms about it. I shall find out within a day or two. If he hasn’t got it, I shall give him my copy.
Just imagine, little Bernays, who trots round here and plays the martyr — one betrayed by everybody, one ‘who has helped everybody with money or good advice’ (littéralement) — this creature has a horse and gig! It’s Börnstein’s, of course, but no matter. This same chap who makes himself out to be an oppressed, penniless martyr one day, boasts the next that he is the only one who knows how to earn money. He has been plodding away at 21 sheets (!) on the Praslin affair[174] which are coming out in Switzerland. [Bernays, Die Ermordung der Herzogin von Praslin] The nub of the matter is this: not la duchesse but le duc is the martyr! My response to his prating about martyrdom was to remind him that he has long owed me 60 fr. He is becoming every inch the industrialist and brags about it. In any case he’s cracked. — Even Ewerbeck is furious with him.
I have not yet seen Cabet. He is happy, it seems, to be leaving, having noticed that things are showing signs of disintegrating here. Flocon wants to commence the attack, not so L. Blanc, and rightly, although L. Blanc has a finger in all manner of pies and looks forward with glee to seeing the bourgeoisie jolted out of their security by the sudden onset of revolution.
I have been to see père Flocon. The good man was cordiality itself, and the honest frankness with which I told him about my affair with the Atelier nearly brought tears to his eyes. From the Atelier I went on to talk about the National: ‘When in Brussels we were discussing the question of which faction of French democracy to approach, we were unanimously agreed that our very first move should be to make contact with the Réforme, there being a strong and well-founded bias against the National abroad. In the first place this paper’s national prejudices prevent any rapprochement’ — ‘yes, yes, that’s true,’ said Flocon, ‘and this was precisely why the Réforme was founded; we declared from the very outset that we were not out for conquests’ — ‘and then,’ I went on, ‘if I am to believe my predecessors, for I myself have never been to the National those gentlemen always give the impression of wanting to patronise foreigners, which for that matter is perfectly consistent with their national prejudices; we for our part have no need of their patronage; it is not patrons we want, but allies. — ‘Ah, yes, but we’re not at all like that; it would never occur to us: — ‘True, and I have nothing but praise for the way the gentlemen of the Réforme proceed.’
But how helpful it was that I reminded little Blanc of our affairs. Your Congress speech had, it appears, been mislaid; today he hastened to look for it and send it to Flocon with a very urgent note requesting him to print it forthwith. I explained the thing to Flocon; the man was unable to understand the why, how and when because Blanc had sent it to him without any further explanation. Flocon greatly regretted that the thing had become so outdated; while parfaitement d’accord with it, he thought it was now too late. Nevertheless he would see whether it could not be included in an article. He would, he said, do his very best.
The article in the Réforme on Lamartine’s pious intentions was by L. Blanc, as you will have seen. It isn’t bad, and in all respects a thousand times better than perpetual Flocon. Undoubtedly he would attack Lamartine very harshly, did he not happen to be his rival just now.
People, you see, are as well-disposed as one could wish. My relations with them are already ten times better than Ewerbeck’s ever were. I shall now utterly forbid the latter to write for the Réforme. He can relieve himself in the National and there compete with Venedey & Co.; he’ll do no harm there, and anyway nothing of his will be published.
Afterwards I again visited the Atelier. I took with me an amendment to an article in the last issue on English working men which will also be included. The fellows were very well-behaved; I told them un tas d’anecdotes about English workers, etc. They requested me most urgently to collaborate, which I shall only do, however, if needs must. Just imagine, the rédacteur en chef thought it would be a good idea if the English workers were to dispatch an address to their French counterparts, calling on them to oppose the libre-échange movement and champion the cause of travail national. Quel héroïque dévouement! But in this he failed even where his own people were concerned.
By the way, I was not compelled to make any concessions to these people. I told L. Blanc that we were in agreement with them on all practical and current questions and that on purely theoretical questions we were marching towards the same goal; that the principles propounded in his first volume agreed in many respects with our own and that, regarding the rest, he would find it more fully developed in your book. As for the religious question, we regarded this as altogether secondary, as a question which should never be allowed to become a pretext for strife between men of the same party. For all that, I went on, a friendly discussion of theoretical questions was perfectly feasible and indeed desirable, with which he was parfaitment d’accord.
Lupus was perfectly right in assuming that I would very soon meet the management.[175] Barely three days after my arrival here I ran into Seiler in the Boulevard des Italiens. You will long since have heard that he has done a bolt and has no intention of returning. He is going the rounds of the French correspondence bureaux in search of a berth. Since then I have repeatedly failed to find him and don’t know how his affairs are going. If he meddles with the Réforme we shall have to disown him.
Ask that accursed Bornstedt what he means by not sending me his paper. [Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung] I cannot forever be chasing after the Straubingers[86] for it. Should he feign ignorance of my address, give it to him, 5, rue Neuve Saint-Martin. I’ll send him a few articles as soon as ever can.
Hellish confusion among the Straubingers. In the days immediately preceding my arrival, the last of the Grünians were thrown out, an entire community of whom, however, half will return. We are now only thirty strong. I at once set up a propaganda community and I rush round speechifying. I was immediately elected to the district [Paris District Committee of the Communist League] and have been entrusted with the correspondence. Some 20-30 candidates have been put up for admission. We shall soon grow stronger again. Strictly between ourselves, I’ve played an infernal trick on Mosi. [Moses Hess] He had actually put through a delightfully amended confession of faith.[176] Last Friday at the district I dealt with this, point by point, and was not yet half way through when the lads declared themselves satisfaits. Completely unopposed, I got them to entrust me with the task of drafting a new one [Engels, ‘Principles of Communism’] which will be discussed next Friday by the district and will be sent to London behind the backs of the communities. Naturally not a soul must know about this, otherwise we shall all be unseated and there’ll be the deuce of a row.
Born will be coming to see you in Brussels; he is going to London.[177] He may arrive before this letter. He will be travelling, somewhat rashly, down the Rhine through Prussia, always provided they don’t cop him. Drum something more into him when he arrives; the fellow is the most receptive of all to our ideas and with a little preparation will be able to do good service in London.
Great heavens, I was on the point of forgetting all that avalanche of trash unloosed upon me from the heights of the Alps by the great Heinzen. [K. Heinzen, ‘Ein “Repräsentant” der Kommunisten’, Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung, 21 October 1847 — written in reply to Engels’ ‘The Communists and Karl Heinzen’] It is truly fortunate that it should all have been packed into one issue; nobody will plough his way through it. I myself had to break off several times. What a blockhead! Having first maintained that he can’t write, I now find myself compelled to add that he can’t read either, nor does he seem particularly conversant with the four rules of arithmetic. The ass ought to read F. O’Connor’s letter in the last Star, addressed to the radical newspapers, which begins with ‘You Ruffians’, and ends with ‘You Ruffians’, [F. O’Connor, ‘To the Editors of the Nottingham Mercury, the Nonconformist, the Dispatch, the Globe, the Manchester Examiner and Lloyds’ Trash’, The Northern Star, No. 522, 23 October 1847] then he would see what a miserable duffer he is in the matter of invective. Well, you will be duly hauling this low, stupid lout over the coals. [Marx, Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality] I’m very glad that you intend to keep your answer quite brief. I could never answer such an attack, simply couldn’t bring myself to — save perhaps with a box on the ears.
Tuesday
My article [The Commercial Crisis in England. — The Chartist Movement. — Ireland] has appeared in the Réforme. Curiously enough Flocon hasn’t altered one syllable, which greatly surprises me.
I have not yet called on père Heine. As you can well imagine, with all this business, I’ve had a devilish lot to do and a fearsome amount of running about and writing.
I have written to Elberfeld about the Free Trade — protective tariff business and am daily expecting a reply. [178] Write again soon. My regards to your wife and children.
Your
Engels
You really should read O’Connor’s article in the last Star attacking the six radical newspapers; it’s a masterpiece of inspired abuse, in many places better than Cobbett and approaching Shakespeare.
What bug can have bitten poor Moses to make him thus perpetually air in the newspaper his fantasies on the consequences of a revolution by the proletariat? [a reference to M. Hess, ‘Die Folgen einer Revolution des Proletariats’, Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung, 14 and 31 October, 7 and 11 November 1847]
Every Month Is Labor History MonthThis post is part of an on-going series under the following general title: Labor’s Untold Story- Reclaiming Our Labor History In Order To Fight Another Day-And Win!
Other Septembers in this series I have concentrated on various sometimes now obscure leaders and rank and file militants in the international working class movement, especially those who made contributions here in America like "Big Bill" Haywood and Eugene V. Debs. This year, given the pressing need for clarity around the labor party question in America(algebraically expressed in our movement as the struggle for a workers party that fights for a workers government) I have gone back to the sources-Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and their correspondence on working class organizationwith various associates and opponents. Strangely, or maybe not so strangely given the state of working class organization here these days, many of their comments, taken in due regard for changed times and circumstances, are germane today. This correspondence is only a start and should just whet the reader's appetite to research further.
*******
Letters of Marx and Engels 1847
Engels To Marx
In Brussels
Source: MECW Volume 38, p. 133;
Written: 26 October 1847;
First published: in Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, 1913.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paris, 25-26 October 1847
Dear Bartholomäus,
Only today am I able to write to you because it was only today that I managed to see little Louis Blanc – after terrible tussles with the portière. As a result of my long conversation with him, the little man is prepared to do anything. He was courtesy and friendliness itself, and seems to have no more urgent wish than to associate with us as closely as possible. There is none of the French national patronage about him. I had written to tell him that I was coming with a mandat formel to him from the London, Brussels and Rhineland democrats, and also as a Chartist agent.[168] He asked for details about everything; I described the condition of our party to him in the most glowing terms, spoke about Switzerland, Jacoby, the Badeners as allies [169] etc., etc.
You, I said, were the chief: You can regard Mr Marx as the head of our party (i. e. of the most advanced section of German democracy, which I was representing vis-à-vis him) and his recent book against Mr Proudhon as our programme. Of this he took most careful note. Then finally he promised to comment on your book in the Réforme. He told me a great deal about the mouvement souterrain [underground movement] that is now going on among the workers; he also said that the workers had printed 3,000 copies of his Organisation du travail cheaply and that at the end of a fortnight a further edition of 3,000 copies had been needed — he said the workers were more revolutionary than ever, but had learned to bide their time, no riots, only major coups that would be sure to succeed, etc., etc. By the way he too would seem to have got out of the habit of patronising the workers.
When I see such things as M. de Lamartine’s new programme, I can’t help laughing! In order to assess the present state of French society properly you have to be in a position which enables you to see a little of everything, to visit a minister in the morning, a merchant in the afternoon, and a working man in the evening.’
The coming revolution, he went on, would be quite different from, and much more drastic than, all previous ones, and it would be sheer bêtise [stupidity] to keep on thundering only against kings, etc., etc.
By and large, he was very well-behaved and perfectly cordial. You see, the man is all right, he has the best intentions in the world. He spoke of you with great sympathy and said he was sorry that you and he had parted rather froidement [coldly], etc., etc. He still has a special hankering after a German and French review to be published in Paris. Might come in useful later.
As to Ruge, after whom he inquired, I warned him; he has appointed himself panegyrist of the Prussian Diet, and this even after the result.[170] — So he’s taken a step back? — Yes, indeed.
With père Flocon I am hitting it off well. I first approached him as if I were an Englishman and asked him in Harney’s name why he so ignored the Star. Well, yes, he said, he was sorry, he’d be only too glad to mention it, only there was no one on the editorial staff who understood English! I offered to write a weekly article for him [171] which he accepted de grand coeur. When I told him I was the Star’s correspondent, he seemed quite moved.[172] If things go on like this we shall have won over this whole trend in four weeks. Flocon wishes me to write an essay on Chartism for his personal benefit, he hasn’t the vaguest idea about it. I shall call on him presently and ensnare him further in our net. I shall tell him that the Atelier is making approaches to me (which is true; I am going there this evening), and that, if he behaves decently, I shall turn them down. That will touch his worthy heart.
When I’ve been here a little longer and have grown more accustomed to writing French, I’ll make a start on the Revue indépendante.
I quite forgot to ask L. Blanc why he hadn’t accepted your Congress article.[173] I shall tax him with it when he next comes to see me. By the way I doubt whether he has, in fact, received your book. He was quite unable to remember having done so today. And before I went away he spoke in very uncertain terms about it. I shall find out within a day or two. If he hasn’t got it, I shall give him my copy.
Just imagine, little Bernays, who trots round here and plays the martyr — one betrayed by everybody, one ‘who has helped everybody with money or good advice’ (littéralement) — this creature has a horse and gig! It’s Börnstein’s, of course, but no matter. This same chap who makes himself out to be an oppressed, penniless martyr one day, boasts the next that he is the only one who knows how to earn money. He has been plodding away at 21 sheets (!) on the Praslin affair[174] which are coming out in Switzerland. [Bernays, Die Ermordung der Herzogin von Praslin] The nub of the matter is this: not la duchesse but le duc is the martyr! My response to his prating about martyrdom was to remind him that he has long owed me 60 fr. He is becoming every inch the industrialist and brags about it. In any case he’s cracked. — Even Ewerbeck is furious with him.
I have not yet seen Cabet. He is happy, it seems, to be leaving, having noticed that things are showing signs of disintegrating here. Flocon wants to commence the attack, not so L. Blanc, and rightly, although L. Blanc has a finger in all manner of pies and looks forward with glee to seeing the bourgeoisie jolted out of their security by the sudden onset of revolution.
I have been to see père Flocon. The good man was cordiality itself, and the honest frankness with which I told him about my affair with the Atelier nearly brought tears to his eyes. From the Atelier I went on to talk about the National: ‘When in Brussels we were discussing the question of which faction of French democracy to approach, we were unanimously agreed that our very first move should be to make contact with the Réforme, there being a strong and well-founded bias against the National abroad. In the first place this paper’s national prejudices prevent any rapprochement’ — ‘yes, yes, that’s true,’ said Flocon, ‘and this was precisely why the Réforme was founded; we declared from the very outset that we were not out for conquests’ — ‘and then,’ I went on, ‘if I am to believe my predecessors, for I myself have never been to the National those gentlemen always give the impression of wanting to patronise foreigners, which for that matter is perfectly consistent with their national prejudices; we for our part have no need of their patronage; it is not patrons we want, but allies. — ‘Ah, yes, but we’re not at all like that; it would never occur to us: — ‘True, and I have nothing but praise for the way the gentlemen of the Réforme proceed.’
But how helpful it was that I reminded little Blanc of our affairs. Your Congress speech had, it appears, been mislaid; today he hastened to look for it and send it to Flocon with a very urgent note requesting him to print it forthwith. I explained the thing to Flocon; the man was unable to understand the why, how and when because Blanc had sent it to him without any further explanation. Flocon greatly regretted that the thing had become so outdated; while parfaitement d’accord with it, he thought it was now too late. Nevertheless he would see whether it could not be included in an article. He would, he said, do his very best.
The article in the Réforme on Lamartine’s pious intentions was by L. Blanc, as you will have seen. It isn’t bad, and in all respects a thousand times better than perpetual Flocon. Undoubtedly he would attack Lamartine very harshly, did he not happen to be his rival just now.
People, you see, are as well-disposed as one could wish. My relations with them are already ten times better than Ewerbeck’s ever were. I shall now utterly forbid the latter to write for the Réforme. He can relieve himself in the National and there compete with Venedey & Co.; he’ll do no harm there, and anyway nothing of his will be published.
Afterwards I again visited the Atelier. I took with me an amendment to an article in the last issue on English working men which will also be included. The fellows were very well-behaved; I told them un tas d’anecdotes about English workers, etc. They requested me most urgently to collaborate, which I shall only do, however, if needs must. Just imagine, the rédacteur en chef thought it would be a good idea if the English workers were to dispatch an address to their French counterparts, calling on them to oppose the libre-échange movement and champion the cause of travail national. Quel héroïque dévouement! But in this he failed even where his own people were concerned.
By the way, I was not compelled to make any concessions to these people. I told L. Blanc that we were in agreement with them on all practical and current questions and that on purely theoretical questions we were marching towards the same goal; that the principles propounded in his first volume agreed in many respects with our own and that, regarding the rest, he would find it more fully developed in your book. As for the religious question, we regarded this as altogether secondary, as a question which should never be allowed to become a pretext for strife between men of the same party. For all that, I went on, a friendly discussion of theoretical questions was perfectly feasible and indeed desirable, with which he was parfaitment d’accord.
Lupus was perfectly right in assuming that I would very soon meet the management.[175] Barely three days after my arrival here I ran into Seiler in the Boulevard des Italiens. You will long since have heard that he has done a bolt and has no intention of returning. He is going the rounds of the French correspondence bureaux in search of a berth. Since then I have repeatedly failed to find him and don’t know how his affairs are going. If he meddles with the Réforme we shall have to disown him.
Ask that accursed Bornstedt what he means by not sending me his paper. [Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung] I cannot forever be chasing after the Straubingers[86] for it. Should he feign ignorance of my address, give it to him, 5, rue Neuve Saint-Martin. I’ll send him a few articles as soon as ever can.
Hellish confusion among the Straubingers. In the days immediately preceding my arrival, the last of the Grünians were thrown out, an entire community of whom, however, half will return. We are now only thirty strong. I at once set up a propaganda community and I rush round speechifying. I was immediately elected to the district [Paris District Committee of the Communist League] and have been entrusted with the correspondence. Some 20-30 candidates have been put up for admission. We shall soon grow stronger again. Strictly between ourselves, I’ve played an infernal trick on Mosi. [Moses Hess] He had actually put through a delightfully amended confession of faith.[176] Last Friday at the district I dealt with this, point by point, and was not yet half way through when the lads declared themselves satisfaits. Completely unopposed, I got them to entrust me with the task of drafting a new one [Engels, ‘Principles of Communism’] which will be discussed next Friday by the district and will be sent to London behind the backs of the communities. Naturally not a soul must know about this, otherwise we shall all be unseated and there’ll be the deuce of a row.
Born will be coming to see you in Brussels; he is going to London.[177] He may arrive before this letter. He will be travelling, somewhat rashly, down the Rhine through Prussia, always provided they don’t cop him. Drum something more into him when he arrives; the fellow is the most receptive of all to our ideas and with a little preparation will be able to do good service in London.
Great heavens, I was on the point of forgetting all that avalanche of trash unloosed upon me from the heights of the Alps by the great Heinzen. [K. Heinzen, ‘Ein “Repräsentant” der Kommunisten’, Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung, 21 October 1847 — written in reply to Engels’ ‘The Communists and Karl Heinzen’] It is truly fortunate that it should all have been packed into one issue; nobody will plough his way through it. I myself had to break off several times. What a blockhead! Having first maintained that he can’t write, I now find myself compelled to add that he can’t read either, nor does he seem particularly conversant with the four rules of arithmetic. The ass ought to read F. O’Connor’s letter in the last Star, addressed to the radical newspapers, which begins with ‘You Ruffians’, and ends with ‘You Ruffians’, [F. O’Connor, ‘To the Editors of the Nottingham Mercury, the Nonconformist, the Dispatch, the Globe, the Manchester Examiner and Lloyds’ Trash’, The Northern Star, No. 522, 23 October 1847] then he would see what a miserable duffer he is in the matter of invective. Well, you will be duly hauling this low, stupid lout over the coals. [Marx, Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality] I’m very glad that you intend to keep your answer quite brief. I could never answer such an attack, simply couldn’t bring myself to — save perhaps with a box on the ears.
Tuesday
My article [The Commercial Crisis in England. — The Chartist Movement. — Ireland] has appeared in the Réforme. Curiously enough Flocon hasn’t altered one syllable, which greatly surprises me.
I have not yet called on père Heine. As you can well imagine, with all this business, I’ve had a devilish lot to do and a fearsome amount of running about and writing.
I have written to Elberfeld about the Free Trade — protective tariff business and am daily expecting a reply. [178] Write again soon. My regards to your wife and children.
Your
Engels
You really should read O’Connor’s article in the last Star attacking the six radical newspapers; it’s a masterpiece of inspired abuse, in many places better than Cobbett and approaching Shakespeare.
What bug can have bitten poor Moses to make him thus perpetually air in the newspaper his fantasies on the consequences of a revolution by the proletariat? [a reference to M. Hess, ‘Die Folgen einer Revolution des Proletariats’, Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung, 14 and 31 October, 7 and 11 November 1847]
“Workers of The World Unite, You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chains”-The Struggle For Trotsky's Fourth (Communist) International-From The Archives-Documents of the 1923 opposition-"The Moscow—Party meeting December 11 1923 "
Click on the headline to link to the Toward A History Of The Fourth International website for the article listed above.
Markin comment (repost from September 2010):
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 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.
**********
Markin comment on this document
Everybody, and that most notably included Leon Trotsky, knew something was going awry with the Bolshevik Revolution by 1923 for many reasons, some of them beyond correction outside of an international extension of the revolution, especially to Germany that would provide the vital industrial infrastructure to aid the struggling Soviet Union. Nevertheless, and this is important to note about serious revolutionary politics and politicians in general, the fight in 1923 still needed to aimed at winning the party cadre over. That was the failing point of many oppositionists, inside and outside the party, then. Who were revolutionaries to appeal to at that time? The kulaks? We saw where that led a couple of years later when Stalin/Bukharin made their right turn. How about the adherents of Nestor Mahkno? To pose the questions is to give the answers.
The line of argument of the two leading left- Bolsheviks, Sapronov and Preobrazensky, here on workers democracy and party bureaucratization would, along with the criticisms of Communist International policy as most clearly articulated by Trotsky later, would form the thread around which the Russian (and later International)Left Opposition would struggle for the next ten years.
Markin comment (repost from September 2010):
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 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.
**********
Markin comment on this document
Everybody, and that most notably included Leon Trotsky, knew something was going awry with the Bolshevik Revolution by 1923 for many reasons, some of them beyond correction outside of an international extension of the revolution, especially to Germany that would provide the vital industrial infrastructure to aid the struggling Soviet Union. Nevertheless, and this is important to note about serious revolutionary politics and politicians in general, the fight in 1923 still needed to aimed at winning the party cadre over. That was the failing point of many oppositionists, inside and outside the party, then. Who were revolutionaries to appeal to at that time? The kulaks? We saw where that led a couple of years later when Stalin/Bukharin made their right turn. How about the adherents of Nestor Mahkno? To pose the questions is to give the answers.
The line of argument of the two leading left- Bolsheviks, Sapronov and Preobrazensky, here on workers democracy and party bureaucratization would, along with the criticisms of Communist International policy as most clearly articulated by Trotsky later, would form the thread around which the Russian (and later International)Left Opposition would struggle for the next ten years.
Saturday, September 03, 2011
“Workers of The World Unite, You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chains”-The Struggle For Trotsky's Fourth (Communist) International-From The Archives-Documents of the 1923 opposition-"The Platform of the 46"
Click on the headline to link to the Toward A History Of The Fourth International website for the article listed above.
Markin comment (repost from September 2010):
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 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.
*********
Markin comment on this document
Everybody, and that most notably included Leon Trotsky, knew something was going awry with the Bolshevik Revolution by 1923 for many reasons, some of them beyond correction outside of an international extension of the revolution, especially to Germany that would provide the vital industrial infrastructure to aid the struggling Soviet Union. Nevertheless, and this is important to note about serious revolutionary politics and politicians in general, the fight in 1923 still needed to aimed at winning the party cadre over. That was the failing point of many oppositionists, inside and outside the party, then. Who were revolutionaries to appeal to at that time? The kulaks? We saw where that led a couple of years later when Stalin/Bukharin made their right turn.
Markin comment (repost from September 2010):
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 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.
*********
Markin comment on this document
Everybody, and that most notably included Leon Trotsky, knew something was going awry with the Bolshevik Revolution by 1923 for many reasons, some of them beyond correction outside of an international extension of the revolution, especially to Germany that would provide the vital industrial infrastructure to aid the struggling Soviet Union. Nevertheless, and this is important to note about serious revolutionary politics and politicians in general, the fight in 1923 still needed to aimed at winning the party cadre over. That was the failing point of many oppositionists, inside and outside the party, then. Who were revolutionaries to appeal to at that time? The kulaks? We saw where that led a couple of years later when Stalin/Bukharin made their right turn.
Growing Up Absurd In The 1950s- Be-Bop The Adventure Car Hop-The Golden Age Of Rock 'N' Roll-With Johnny Ace In Mind
Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of Johnny Ace performing his classic Pledging My Love.
CD Review
The Golden Age Of American Rock ‘n’ Roll; Volume 6, various artists, Ace Records, 1996
Scene: Prompted by the cover photograph, the memory cover photograph, which grace each CD in this The Golden Age Of American Rock ‘n’ Roll series. The golden age of the automobile meets the golden age of al fresco dining, okay, okay pre-Big Mac dining. Sorry, I got carried away. And once I have put automobile and teen dining out together all that needs to be added is that Eddie is out, out once again, with his ever lovin’ Ginny in the Clintondale 1950s be-bop teen night, having a little something to eat after a hard teen dance and a bout of down in the Adamsville beach “submarine race” watching night.
“Two hamburgers, all the trimmings, two fries, two Cokes, Sissy,” rasped half-whispering Eddie Connell to Adventure Car Hop primo car hop (and ex-Eddie girlfriend back in junior high days when he learned a thing or two about girls, about girl charms and girl bewilderments), Sissy Jordan. For those who know not of Adventure Car Hops or car hops in general here is a quick primer. Adventure Car Hop is nothing but a old time drive-in restaurant where the car hop takes your order from you while you are sitting in your “boss” car (hopefully boss car, although the lot this night is filled with dads’ borrowed cars, strictly not boss, not boss at all) with your “boss” girl ( you had better call her that or next week she will be somebody else’s boss honey) personally and returns after, well, depends on how busy it is, and right now this in Adventure Car Hop busy time, with your order.
Now Sissy, a little older than most Clintondale car hops at twenty-two, is really nothing but a career waitress, a foxy one still, but a career waitress which is all a car hop really is. Except most are "slumming” through senior-hood at Clintondale High or some local college and are just trying to make some extra money for this and that while being beautiful. Because, and there is no scientific proof for this, but none is needed in any case, at Adventure Car Hop in the year 1962 every car hop is a fox (that beautiful just mentioned), a double fox on some nights, in their short shorts, tight blouses, and funny-shaped box hats.
And in the 1962 teen be-bop night, the teen be-bop Friday or Saturday night those foxes are magnets for every guy with a car, fathers’ car or not, without girls hoping against hope for a moment with one said car hop, and guys with girls who are looking to show off their girls, foxier even than the car hops if that is possible and usually isn’t although do not under any conditions let them know that, and, more importantly, their boss cars. And playing, playing loudly for all to hear their souped-up car radio complexes, turned nightly in rock heaven’s WJDA, the radio station choice of every teen under the age of twenty-one. And right now on Eddie's super-duplex speaker combo The Dell-Vikings are singing their hit, Black Slacks and some walkers (yes, some guys and girls, some lame guys and girls, walk to Adventure to grab something to eat after the Clintondale Majestic Theater lets out. They, of course, eat at the thoughtfully provided picnic tables although their orders are still taken by Sissy’s brigade) are crooning along to the tune. Nicely, although they are still nothing but lamos in the teen night social order.
But, getting back to Eddie and Ginny, see Sissy knows something that you and I don’t know just by the way Eddie placed his order as The Falcon’s doo wop serenade, Your So Fine, blares away from his radio in the Clintondale teen night. Sissy knows because, being a fox she has had plenty of experience (including with Eddie in the days, the junior high days when she and Eddie were nothing but walkers) that Eddie and Ginny (who was nothing but a stick when Eddie and she were an item, a stick being a girl, a twelve or thirteen year old junior high school girl with no shape, unlike say Sissy who did have a shape, although no question, no question even to Sissy Ginny has a shape now, not as good as her’s but a shape good enough to keep Eddie snagged) have been "doing it” after the spending the early evening at the Surf, the lock rock dance hall for those over twenty-one (and where is liquor is served). The tip-off: Eddie’s request for all the trimmings on his hamburgers. All the trimmings in this case being mustard, ketchup, pickles, lettuce, and here is the clincher, onions. Yes, Eddie and Ginny are done with love’s chores for the evening and can now revert to primal culinary needs without rancor, or concern.
Sissy had to laugh at how ritualized (although she would never use such a word herself to describe what was going on) the teen night life was in Clintondale (and really just slightly older teens like the clients of the Surf rock club, Eddie and Ginny, who learned the ropes at Adventure Car Hop way back when). If a couple came early, say eight o’clock they never ordered onions, no way, the night still held too much promise. The walkers, well, the walkers you couldn’t tell, especially the young walkers like she and Eddie in the old days, but usually they didn’t have enough sense to say “no onions.” And then there were the Eddies and Ginnys floating in around two, or three in the morning, done (and you know what done is now), starving, maybe a little drunk and ready to devour Benny’s (the owner of Adventure) cardboard hamburgers, deep-fried, fat-saturated French fries, and diluted soda (known locally as tonic, go figure) as long as those burgers had onions, many onions on them. And as we turn off this scene to the strains of Johnny Ace crooning Pledging My Love on Eddie’s car radio competing just now with a car further over with The Elegants’ Little Star Sissy has just place the car tray on Eddie’s side of the car and brought the order and placed it on the tray, with all the trimmings.
CD Review
The Golden Age Of American Rock ‘n’ Roll; Volume 6, various artists, Ace Records, 1996
Scene: Prompted by the cover photograph, the memory cover photograph, which grace each CD in this The Golden Age Of American Rock ‘n’ Roll series. The golden age of the automobile meets the golden age of al fresco dining, okay, okay pre-Big Mac dining. Sorry, I got carried away. And once I have put automobile and teen dining out together all that needs to be added is that Eddie is out, out once again, with his ever lovin’ Ginny in the Clintondale 1950s be-bop teen night, having a little something to eat after a hard teen dance and a bout of down in the Adamsville beach “submarine race” watching night.
“Two hamburgers, all the trimmings, two fries, two Cokes, Sissy,” rasped half-whispering Eddie Connell to Adventure Car Hop primo car hop (and ex-Eddie girlfriend back in junior high days when he learned a thing or two about girls, about girl charms and girl bewilderments), Sissy Jordan. For those who know not of Adventure Car Hops or car hops in general here is a quick primer. Adventure Car Hop is nothing but a old time drive-in restaurant where the car hop takes your order from you while you are sitting in your “boss” car (hopefully boss car, although the lot this night is filled with dads’ borrowed cars, strictly not boss, not boss at all) with your “boss” girl ( you had better call her that or next week she will be somebody else’s boss honey) personally and returns after, well, depends on how busy it is, and right now this in Adventure Car Hop busy time, with your order.
Now Sissy, a little older than most Clintondale car hops at twenty-two, is really nothing but a career waitress, a foxy one still, but a career waitress which is all a car hop really is. Except most are "slumming” through senior-hood at Clintondale High or some local college and are just trying to make some extra money for this and that while being beautiful. Because, and there is no scientific proof for this, but none is needed in any case, at Adventure Car Hop in the year 1962 every car hop is a fox (that beautiful just mentioned), a double fox on some nights, in their short shorts, tight blouses, and funny-shaped box hats.
And in the 1962 teen be-bop night, the teen be-bop Friday or Saturday night those foxes are magnets for every guy with a car, fathers’ car or not, without girls hoping against hope for a moment with one said car hop, and guys with girls who are looking to show off their girls, foxier even than the car hops if that is possible and usually isn’t although do not under any conditions let them know that, and, more importantly, their boss cars. And playing, playing loudly for all to hear their souped-up car radio complexes, turned nightly in rock heaven’s WJDA, the radio station choice of every teen under the age of twenty-one. And right now on Eddie's super-duplex speaker combo The Dell-Vikings are singing their hit, Black Slacks and some walkers (yes, some guys and girls, some lame guys and girls, walk to Adventure to grab something to eat after the Clintondale Majestic Theater lets out. They, of course, eat at the thoughtfully provided picnic tables although their orders are still taken by Sissy’s brigade) are crooning along to the tune. Nicely, although they are still nothing but lamos in the teen night social order.
But, getting back to Eddie and Ginny, see Sissy knows something that you and I don’t know just by the way Eddie placed his order as The Falcon’s doo wop serenade, Your So Fine, blares away from his radio in the Clintondale teen night. Sissy knows because, being a fox she has had plenty of experience (including with Eddie in the days, the junior high days when she and Eddie were nothing but walkers) that Eddie and Ginny (who was nothing but a stick when Eddie and she were an item, a stick being a girl, a twelve or thirteen year old junior high school girl with no shape, unlike say Sissy who did have a shape, although no question, no question even to Sissy Ginny has a shape now, not as good as her’s but a shape good enough to keep Eddie snagged) have been "doing it” after the spending the early evening at the Surf, the lock rock dance hall for those over twenty-one (and where is liquor is served). The tip-off: Eddie’s request for all the trimmings on his hamburgers. All the trimmings in this case being mustard, ketchup, pickles, lettuce, and here is the clincher, onions. Yes, Eddie and Ginny are done with love’s chores for the evening and can now revert to primal culinary needs without rancor, or concern.
Sissy had to laugh at how ritualized (although she would never use such a word herself to describe what was going on) the teen night life was in Clintondale (and really just slightly older teens like the clients of the Surf rock club, Eddie and Ginny, who learned the ropes at Adventure Car Hop way back when). If a couple came early, say eight o’clock they never ordered onions, no way, the night still held too much promise. The walkers, well, the walkers you couldn’t tell, especially the young walkers like she and Eddie in the old days, but usually they didn’t have enough sense to say “no onions.” And then there were the Eddies and Ginnys floating in around two, or three in the morning, done (and you know what done is now), starving, maybe a little drunk and ready to devour Benny’s (the owner of Adventure) cardboard hamburgers, deep-fried, fat-saturated French fries, and diluted soda (known locally as tonic, go figure) as long as those burgers had onions, many onions on them. And as we turn off this scene to the strains of Johnny Ace crooning Pledging My Love on Eddie’s car radio competing just now with a car further over with The Elegants’ Little Star Sissy has just place the car tray on Eddie’s side of the car and brought the order and placed it on the tray, with all the trimmings.
Labor's Untold Story-From The Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Archives-The Struggle For Working Class Organization-Engels To Marx In Zalt-Bommel (1847)
Markin comment:
Every Month Is Labor History MonthThis post is part of an on-going series under the following general title: Labor’s Untold Story- Reclaiming Our Labor History In Order To Fight Another Day-And Win!
Other Septembers in this series I have concentrated on various sometimes now obscure leaders and rank and file militants in the international working class movement, especially those who made contributions here in America like "Big Bill" Haywood and Eugene V. Debs. This year, given the pressing need for clarity around the labor party question in America(algebraically expressed in our movement as the struggle for a workers party that fights for a workers government) I have gone back to the sources-Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and their correspondence on working class organizationwith various associates and opponents. Strangely, or maybe not so strangely given the state of working class organization here these days, many of their comments, taken in due regard for changed times and circumstances, are germane today. This correspondence is only a start and should just whet the reader's appetite to research further.
********
Letters of Marx and Engels 1847
Engels To Marx In Zalt-Bommel
Source: MECW Volume 38, p. 122;
Written: 30 September 1847;
First published: in Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, 1913.
Brussels, 28-30 September 1847
Tuesday, 28 September
Dear Marx,
There has recently been a very curious business here. All those elements among the local Germans who are dissatisfied with us and what we do have formed a coalition for the purpose of overthrowing you, me and the communists in general, and competing with the Workers’ Society. [158] Bornstedt is exceedingly displeased; the story emanating from Otterberg, passed on and confirmed by Sandkuhl and exploited by Crüger and Moras, to the effect that we were simply exploiting him, Bornstedt, has made him furious with all of us; Moras and Crüger, who go about complaining of our alleged cavalier treatment of them, have put his back up even further. Seiler is annoyed because of the unpardonable neglect he suffered at the founding of the Workers’ Society, and because of its good progress, which has given the lie to all his predictions. Heilberg is seeking to take spectacular if unbloody revenge for all the slights that have been, and are being, daily meted out to him. Bornstedt, too, is seething because his gifts of books and maps have failed to buy him the status of an influential democrat and honorary membership of, and a place for his bust in, the Society, instead of which his typesetter [Karl Wallau] will, tomorrow evening, put his name to the vote like that of any ordinary mortal. He is also vexed that he, the aristocratic homme d'esprit, should find much less opportunity to make fun of the workers than he had hoped. Then Moras is annoyed at having been unable to win over the Brüsseler-Zeitung for Heinzen. Enfin all these heterogeneous elements agreed upon a coup that was to reduce us one and all to a secondary role vis-à-vis Imbert and the Belgian democrats, and to call into being a society far more grandiose and universal than our uncouth Workers’ Society. All these gentlemen were fired by the idea of taking the initiative in something for once, and the cowardly rascals deemed the moment of your absence admirably suited to that end. But they had shamefully miscalculated.
They therefore decided quite on the sly to arrange a cosmopolitan-democratic supper and there to propose without prior warning a society à la fraternal democrats [122] with workers’ meetings, etc., etc. They set up a kind of committee onto which as a matter of form they co-opted the, to them, completely harmless Imbert. After hearing all kinds of vague rumours, it was not until Sunday evening at the Society that I learned anything positive about it from Bornstedt, and on Monday the meal was to take place. I could get no details from Bornstedt except that Jottrand, General Mellinet, Adolf Bartels, Kats, etc., etc., would be there, Poles, Italians, etc., etc. Although I had no inkling whatever about the whole coalition (only on Monday morning did I learn that Bornstedt was somewhat piqued and that Moras and Crüger were moaning and plotting: about Seiler and Heilberg I knew nothing), nonetheless I smelled a rat. But it was essential to attend because of the Belgians and because nothing democratic must be allowed to take place in little Brussels without our participating. But something had to be done about forming a group. Wallau and I accordingly put the matter forward and advocated it vigorously, upon which some thirty immediately agreed to go. On Monday morning I was told by Lupus that, besides the président d'honneur, old Mellinet, and the actual chairman, Jottrand, they would have to have two vice-chairmen, one of whom would be Imbert and the other a German, preferably a working man. Wallau was, unfortunately, out of the running since he didn’t speak French. That’s what he'd been told by Bornstedt. He, Lupus, had replied that in that case it must be me. I told Lupus that it must be him, but he refused point-blank. I was also reluctant because I look so awfully young, but finally I thought that, for all eventualities, it would be best for me to accept.
We went there in the evening.[159] Bornstedt was all innocence, as though nothing had as yet been arranged, merely the officials (toujours à l'exception de l'Allemand) , and a few registered speakers, none of whose names, save for Crüger and Moras I was able to discover; he kept making off to see to the arrangement of the place, hurried from one person to the next, duping, intriguing, bootlicking for all he was worth. However I saw no evidence of any specific intrigue; this didn’t transpire till later on. We were at the Estaminet Liégeois in the Place du Palais de Justice. When it came to electing the officials, Bornstedt, contrary to all that had been agreed, proposed Wallau. The latter declined through Wolff (Lupus) and had me proposed, this being carried in style. Thus thwarted, the whole plot collapsed. They now +- lost their heads and gave themselves away. After Imbert had proposed the health of the martyrs de la liberté, I came out with a toast in French au souvenir de la revolution de 1792 and, as an afterthought, of the anniversaire du 1er vendémiaire an I de la république.[160] [the anniversary of the First Vendémiaire of the first year of the Republic — 22 September 1792, the day when the Republic was proclaimed, fell on the First Vendémiaire according to the republican calendar] Crüger followed me with a ludicrous speech during which he dried up and had to resort to his manuscript. Then Moras, who read out an harangue almost entirely devoted to his humble self. Both in German. So confused were their toasts that I have absolutely no recollection of them. Then Pellering in Flemish. The lawyer Spilthoorn of Ghent, speaking French au peuple anglais then, to my great astonishment, that hunchbacked spider Heilberg, with a long, school-masterly, vapid speech in French in which he 1) patted himself on the back as editor of the Atelier Démocratique; 2) declared that he, Maximus Heilberg, had for several months been pursuing — but that must be said in French: The Association of Belgian Working Men, that is the goal I have been pursuing for several months (i. e. since the moment I deigned to take cognisance of the final chapter of the Poverty of Philosophy). He, then, and not Kats and the other Belgians. ‘We shall enter the lists when our elders are no longer there’ etc., etc. [Marseillaise] He will achieve what Kats and Jottrand could not do; 3) proposed to found a fraternal democracy and to reorganise the meetings; 4) to entrust the elected bureau with the organisation of both.
Well now, what confusion! First lump together the cosmopolitan business and Belgian meetings on Belgian affairs and 2) instead of dropping this proposal because everything’s going wrong for you, pass it on to the existing bureau! And if he had my departure in mind, should he not have known that it would be unthinkable to bring anyone else but you into the bureau? But the numbskull had already written the Whole of his speech and his vanity wouldn’t allow him to omit anything by which he could seize the initiative in some way. The thing, of course, went through, but in view of the highly factice albeit noisy enthusiasm, there could be no question of putting the confused proposal into better order. Next A. Bartels spoke (Jules wasn’t there), and then Wallau demanded the floor. But how intense was my astonishment when suddenly Bornstedt thrust himself forward and urgently demanded the floor for Seiler as a speaker whose name was higher up the register. Having got it, Seiler delivered an interminably long, garrulous, silly, absurdly vapid and truly shameful speech (in French) in which he talked the most hair-raising nonsense about pouvoirs législatif, administratif et exécutif, gave all manner of wise advice to the democrats (as did Heilberg, who invented the most wondrous things about teaching and questions of education), in which Seiler, further posing en grand homme spoke of democratic societies, in which I participated and which I may perhaps even have directed (literally), and finally, with the latest news to come from Paris; etc., etc., actually dragged in his precious bureau.[161] In short, it was ghastly. Several speakers followed, a Swiss jackass, Pellering, Kats (very good), etc., etc., and at ten o'clock Jottrand (who blushed with shame for the Germans) declared the sitting closed. Suddenly Heilberg called for silence and announced that Weerth’s speech at the free-trade congress [162] would be appearing next day in a supplement to the Atelier which would be sold separately!!! Then Zalewski also spoke, whining a while about the union between that unfortunate Poland and that great, noble and poetical Germany — finally all went home quietly enough but very much out of temper.
Thursday, 30 September
Since the above was written a great deal more has happened and various things have been decided. On Tuesday morning, when the whole plot was clear to me, I hurried round to counter it; that same night at 2 o'clock I went to see Lupus at the bureau i could not Bornstedt he balloted out of the Workers’ Society? Wednesday called on all and sundry, but everybody was of the opinion that we couldn’t do it. On Wednesday evening, when I arrived at the Society, Bornstedt was already there; his attitude was equivocal; finally Thomis came in with the latest issue; my anti-Heinzen article which I'd brought him as long ago as Monday and, not finding him in (2 o'clock in the afternoon), had taken to the printers, was not in it. [Engels, ‘The Communists and Karl Heinzen’. First article, dated 26 September was not printed in No. 78, 29 September; it appeared in the next issue on 3 October 1847] On my questioning him, he said there had been no space. I reminded him of what you and he had agreed.[163] He denied it; I waited till Wallau arrived and he told me there had been space enough but that on Tuesday Bornstedt had had the article fetched from the printers and had not sent it back again. I went to Bornstedt and very rudely told him as much. He tried to lie his way out. I again reverted to the agreement, which he again denied, save for a few trivial generalities. I passed some insulting remarks — Crüger, Gigot and Imbert, etc., etc., were present — and asked: ‘Do you intend to publish the article on Sunday, oui ou non?’ — ‘We'll have to discuss it first.’ — ‘I refuse to discuss it with you.’ — And thereupon I left him.
The sitting began. Bornstedt, chin cradled in his hands, sat looking at me with a curiously gloating expression. I stared back at him and waited. Up got Mr Thomis, who, as you know, had demanded the floor. He drew a prepared speech out of his pocket and read out a series of the most peculiar aspersions on our sham battle.[164] This went on for some time but, as it showed no signs of finishing, there was a general muttering, a mass of people demanded the floor, and Wallau called Thomis to order. The latter, Thomis, then read out some half dozen inane phrases on the question and withdrew. Then Hess spoke and defended us pretty well. Then Junge. Then Wolff’ of Paris who, though he dried up 3 times, was much applauded. Then several more. Wolff had betrayed the fact that our opposition had been purely formal. So I had to take the floor. I spoke — to the great discomfiture of Bornstedt, who had believed that I was too much preoccupied with personal squabbles — I spoke, then, about the revolutionary aspect of the protectionist system, completely ignoring the aforesaid Thomis, of course, and proposed a new question. Agreed. — Pause. — Bornstedt, badly shaken by the vehement way I had addressed him, by Thomis’ ratting on him (there were echoes of Bornstedt in his speech) and by the vehemence of my peroration — Bornstedt came up to me: My dear boy, how terribly impassioned you are, etc., etc. In short, I was to sign the article. — No. — Then at least we should agree on a short editorial introduction. — Very well, eleven o'clock tomorrow at the Café Suisse.
There followed the matter of the admission of Bornstedt, Crüger, Wolff. Hess was the first to get up; he addressed 2 questions to Bornstedt about Monday’s meeting. Bornstedt lied his way out, and Hess was weak enough to declare himself satisfait. Junge went for Bornstedt personally because of his behaviour at the Society and because he had introduced Sandkuhl under a false name. Fischer came out very energetically against Bornstedt, quite impromptu but very well. Several others likewise. In short, the triumphant Mr von Bornstedt had almost literally to run the gauntlet of the workers. He took a severe drubbing and was so thunderstruck — he, who of course believed he had well and truly bought his way in with his gifts of books — that he could only answer evasively, feebly, concedingly — in spite of the fact that Wallau, fanatically in support of him, was a wretched chairman who permitted him to interrupt the speakers at any and every opportunity. Everything was still hanging in the balance when Wallau directed the candidates to withdraw and called for a vote. Crüger, proposed by me as an exceptionally guileless man, who could in no way harm the Society, and purement et simplement seconded by Wolff, got through. In the case of Bornstedt, Wallau came out with a long, impassioned speech on his behalf. Then I stood up, went into the whole matter of the plot in so far as it concerned the Society, demolished Bornstedt’s evasions, each by means of the other, and finally declared: Bornstedt has intrigued against us, has sought to compete with us, but we have won, and hence can now admit him into the Society. During my speech — the best I have ever made — I was constantly interrupted by applause; notably when I said: these gentlemen believed that all had been won because I, their vice-chairman, was going away, but it had not occurred to them that there is, amongst us, one to whom the position belongs by right, one who alone is able to represent the German democrats here in Brussels, and that is Marx — whereupon tremendous applause. in short, no one spoke after me, and thus Bornstedt was not done the honour of being thrown out. He was standing outside the door and listening to it all. I would rather have said my say while he was still in the room, but it could not be done, because I had to spare myself for the final blow, and Wallau broke off the discussion. But, like Wolff and Crüger, he had heard every word. As opposed to him, Wolff was admitted almost without a hitch.
In short, at yesterday’s sitting Bornstedt, Crüger, etc., etc., suffered such an affront that they cannot honourably frequent the Society again, and they've had enough to last them a long time. But frequent it they certainly will; the shameless Bornstedt has been so reduced by our even greater insolence, by the utter failure of all his calculations, and by our vehemence, that all he can do is trot around Brussels whining to everyone about his disgrace — the lowest depths of debasement. He came back into the hall raging but impotent and, when I took my leave of the Society and was allowed to go with every imaginable mark of respect, he departed seething. Bürgers, who has been here since the day before yesterday evening, was present while we discussed Bornstedt.
Throughout, the behaviour of our workers was really splendid: the gifts, 26 books and 27 maps, were never mentioned, they treated Bornstedt with the utmost frigidity and lack of consideration — and, when I spoke and had reached my peroration, I had it in my power to have him rejected by a vast majority. Even Wallau admits as much. But we treated him worse than that by adopting him with scorn and contumely. The affair has made a capital impression on the Society; for the first time they have had a role to play, have dominated a meeting despite all the plotting, and have put in his place a fellow who was trying to set himself up against them. Only a few clerks, etc., etc., are dissatisfied, the vast majority being enthusiastically on our side. They have experienced what it means to be associated.
This morning I went to the Café Suisse, and who should fail to turn up but Bornstedt. — Weerth and Seiler, however, were there to meet me; they had just been talking to Bornstedt, and Seiler was obsequiousness and ingratiation personified. 1, of course, gave him the cold shoulder. Yesterday’s sitting, by the way, was so dramatic, and evolved so splendidly towards its climax that sheer aesthetic emotion momentarily turned Wolff of Paris into a party man. Today I also went to see A. Bartels and explained to him that the German Society was in no way responsible for what had happened on Monday, that Crüger, Bornstedt, Moras, Seiler, Heilberg, etc., etc., were not even members, and that the whole affair, staged without the knowledge of the German Society, was in fact a bid to set up a rival faction. A letter in similar vein, signed by all the committee members, is to be sent to Jottrand tomorrow, when I and Lupus will also be going to see Imbert. I have further written the following letter to Jottrand about the place on the organising I committee of the Brussels fraternal democrats which will become vacant on my departure:
‘Sir, Being obliged to leave Brussels for a few months, I find myself unable to carry out the functions which the meeting of the 27th instant saw fit to entrust to me. — I therefore request you to call on a German democrat resident in Brussels to participate in the work of the committee charged with organising a universal democratic society. I would take the liberty of proposing to you one of the German democrats in Brussels whom the meeting, had he been able to attend it, would have nominated for the office which, in his absence, it honoured me by conferring upon myself. I mean Mr Marx who, I am firmly convinced, has the best claim to represent German democracy on the committee. Hence it would not be Mr Marx who would he replacing me there, but rather I who, at the meeting, replaced Mr Marx. I am, Sir, etc., etc.'
I had in fact already agreed with Jottrand that I would advise him in writing of my departure and propose you for the committee. Jottrand is also away and will be back in a fortnight. If, as I believe, nothing comes of the whole affair, it will be Heilberg’s proposal that falls through; if something does come of it, then it will be we who have brought the thing about. Either way we have succeeded in getting you and, after you, myself, recognised as representatives of the German democrats in Brussels, besides the whole plot having been brought to a dreadfully ignominious end.
This evening there was a meeting of the community [165] at which I took the chair. With the exception of Wallau who, by the way, allowed himself to be converted and whose conduct yesterday was, indeed, excusable on various grounds for which I made allowance — with this one exception, then, the enthusiasm about the Bornstedt affair was unanimous. The fellows are beginning to feel their own importance. They have at last taken their stand as a society, as a power, vis-à-vis other people, and the’ fact that everything went with such a splendid swing and that their victory was so complete has made them enormously proud. Junge’s in the seventh heaven, Riedel is beside himself with joy, even little Ohnemans goes strutting about like a fighting-cock. Anyway, as I said before, this affair has given, and will continue to give, the Society a tremendous impetus, both internal and external Fellows who otherwise never open their traps have attacked Bornstedt. And even the plot has helped us: firstly Bornstedt went about telling everyone that the German democratic Workers’ Society had arranged the meeting and secondly we denied it all and, as a result of both these things, the society has become a general topic of conversation among Belgian democrats and is regarded as a highly significant, plus ou moins mysterious power German democracy is growing very strong in Brussels, Bartels remarked this morning.
By the way, you too are to be included in the committee’s letter to Jottrand. Gigot will sign himself ‘Secretary in Marx’s absence’.
Settle your financial affairs as quickly as possible and come back here again. I'm itching to get away, but must first wait until these plots have run their course. Just now I can’t possibly leave. So the sooner you come the better. But first put your financial affairs in order. At all events I'll remain at my post as long as I possibly can; si c'est possible, until you arrive. But for that very reason it’s desirable that you come soon.
Your
Engels
Every Month Is Labor History MonthThis post is part of an on-going series under the following general title: Labor’s Untold Story- Reclaiming Our Labor History In Order To Fight Another Day-And Win!
Other Septembers in this series I have concentrated on various sometimes now obscure leaders and rank and file militants in the international working class movement, especially those who made contributions here in America like "Big Bill" Haywood and Eugene V. Debs. This year, given the pressing need for clarity around the labor party question in America(algebraically expressed in our movement as the struggle for a workers party that fights for a workers government) I have gone back to the sources-Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and their correspondence on working class organizationwith various associates and opponents. Strangely, or maybe not so strangely given the state of working class organization here these days, many of their comments, taken in due regard for changed times and circumstances, are germane today. This correspondence is only a start and should just whet the reader's appetite to research further.
********
Letters of Marx and Engels 1847
Engels To Marx In Zalt-Bommel
Source: MECW Volume 38, p. 122;
Written: 30 September 1847;
First published: in Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, 1913.
Brussels, 28-30 September 1847
Tuesday, 28 September
Dear Marx,
There has recently been a very curious business here. All those elements among the local Germans who are dissatisfied with us and what we do have formed a coalition for the purpose of overthrowing you, me and the communists in general, and competing with the Workers’ Society. [158] Bornstedt is exceedingly displeased; the story emanating from Otterberg, passed on and confirmed by Sandkuhl and exploited by Crüger and Moras, to the effect that we were simply exploiting him, Bornstedt, has made him furious with all of us; Moras and Crüger, who go about complaining of our alleged cavalier treatment of them, have put his back up even further. Seiler is annoyed because of the unpardonable neglect he suffered at the founding of the Workers’ Society, and because of its good progress, which has given the lie to all his predictions. Heilberg is seeking to take spectacular if unbloody revenge for all the slights that have been, and are being, daily meted out to him. Bornstedt, too, is seething because his gifts of books and maps have failed to buy him the status of an influential democrat and honorary membership of, and a place for his bust in, the Society, instead of which his typesetter [Karl Wallau] will, tomorrow evening, put his name to the vote like that of any ordinary mortal. He is also vexed that he, the aristocratic homme d'esprit, should find much less opportunity to make fun of the workers than he had hoped. Then Moras is annoyed at having been unable to win over the Brüsseler-Zeitung for Heinzen. Enfin all these heterogeneous elements agreed upon a coup that was to reduce us one and all to a secondary role vis-à-vis Imbert and the Belgian democrats, and to call into being a society far more grandiose and universal than our uncouth Workers’ Society. All these gentlemen were fired by the idea of taking the initiative in something for once, and the cowardly rascals deemed the moment of your absence admirably suited to that end. But they had shamefully miscalculated.
They therefore decided quite on the sly to arrange a cosmopolitan-democratic supper and there to propose without prior warning a society à la fraternal democrats [122] with workers’ meetings, etc., etc. They set up a kind of committee onto which as a matter of form they co-opted the, to them, completely harmless Imbert. After hearing all kinds of vague rumours, it was not until Sunday evening at the Society that I learned anything positive about it from Bornstedt, and on Monday the meal was to take place. I could get no details from Bornstedt except that Jottrand, General Mellinet, Adolf Bartels, Kats, etc., etc., would be there, Poles, Italians, etc., etc. Although I had no inkling whatever about the whole coalition (only on Monday morning did I learn that Bornstedt was somewhat piqued and that Moras and Crüger were moaning and plotting: about Seiler and Heilberg I knew nothing), nonetheless I smelled a rat. But it was essential to attend because of the Belgians and because nothing democratic must be allowed to take place in little Brussels without our participating. But something had to be done about forming a group. Wallau and I accordingly put the matter forward and advocated it vigorously, upon which some thirty immediately agreed to go. On Monday morning I was told by Lupus that, besides the président d'honneur, old Mellinet, and the actual chairman, Jottrand, they would have to have two vice-chairmen, one of whom would be Imbert and the other a German, preferably a working man. Wallau was, unfortunately, out of the running since he didn’t speak French. That’s what he'd been told by Bornstedt. He, Lupus, had replied that in that case it must be me. I told Lupus that it must be him, but he refused point-blank. I was also reluctant because I look so awfully young, but finally I thought that, for all eventualities, it would be best for me to accept.
We went there in the evening.[159] Bornstedt was all innocence, as though nothing had as yet been arranged, merely the officials (toujours à l'exception de l'Allemand) , and a few registered speakers, none of whose names, save for Crüger and Moras I was able to discover; he kept making off to see to the arrangement of the place, hurried from one person to the next, duping, intriguing, bootlicking for all he was worth. However I saw no evidence of any specific intrigue; this didn’t transpire till later on. We were at the Estaminet Liégeois in the Place du Palais de Justice. When it came to electing the officials, Bornstedt, contrary to all that had been agreed, proposed Wallau. The latter declined through Wolff (Lupus) and had me proposed, this being carried in style. Thus thwarted, the whole plot collapsed. They now +- lost their heads and gave themselves away. After Imbert had proposed the health of the martyrs de la liberté, I came out with a toast in French au souvenir de la revolution de 1792 and, as an afterthought, of the anniversaire du 1er vendémiaire an I de la république.[160] [the anniversary of the First Vendémiaire of the first year of the Republic — 22 September 1792, the day when the Republic was proclaimed, fell on the First Vendémiaire according to the republican calendar] Crüger followed me with a ludicrous speech during which he dried up and had to resort to his manuscript. Then Moras, who read out an harangue almost entirely devoted to his humble self. Both in German. So confused were their toasts that I have absolutely no recollection of them. Then Pellering in Flemish. The lawyer Spilthoorn of Ghent, speaking French au peuple anglais then, to my great astonishment, that hunchbacked spider Heilberg, with a long, school-masterly, vapid speech in French in which he 1) patted himself on the back as editor of the Atelier Démocratique; 2) declared that he, Maximus Heilberg, had for several months been pursuing — but that must be said in French: The Association of Belgian Working Men, that is the goal I have been pursuing for several months (i. e. since the moment I deigned to take cognisance of the final chapter of the Poverty of Philosophy). He, then, and not Kats and the other Belgians. ‘We shall enter the lists when our elders are no longer there’ etc., etc. [Marseillaise] He will achieve what Kats and Jottrand could not do; 3) proposed to found a fraternal democracy and to reorganise the meetings; 4) to entrust the elected bureau with the organisation of both.
Well now, what confusion! First lump together the cosmopolitan business and Belgian meetings on Belgian affairs and 2) instead of dropping this proposal because everything’s going wrong for you, pass it on to the existing bureau! And if he had my departure in mind, should he not have known that it would be unthinkable to bring anyone else but you into the bureau? But the numbskull had already written the Whole of his speech and his vanity wouldn’t allow him to omit anything by which he could seize the initiative in some way. The thing, of course, went through, but in view of the highly factice albeit noisy enthusiasm, there could be no question of putting the confused proposal into better order. Next A. Bartels spoke (Jules wasn’t there), and then Wallau demanded the floor. But how intense was my astonishment when suddenly Bornstedt thrust himself forward and urgently demanded the floor for Seiler as a speaker whose name was higher up the register. Having got it, Seiler delivered an interminably long, garrulous, silly, absurdly vapid and truly shameful speech (in French) in which he talked the most hair-raising nonsense about pouvoirs législatif, administratif et exécutif, gave all manner of wise advice to the democrats (as did Heilberg, who invented the most wondrous things about teaching and questions of education), in which Seiler, further posing en grand homme spoke of democratic societies, in which I participated and which I may perhaps even have directed (literally), and finally, with the latest news to come from Paris; etc., etc., actually dragged in his precious bureau.[161] In short, it was ghastly. Several speakers followed, a Swiss jackass, Pellering, Kats (very good), etc., etc., and at ten o'clock Jottrand (who blushed with shame for the Germans) declared the sitting closed. Suddenly Heilberg called for silence and announced that Weerth’s speech at the free-trade congress [162] would be appearing next day in a supplement to the Atelier which would be sold separately!!! Then Zalewski also spoke, whining a while about the union between that unfortunate Poland and that great, noble and poetical Germany — finally all went home quietly enough but very much out of temper.
Thursday, 30 September
Since the above was written a great deal more has happened and various things have been decided. On Tuesday morning, when the whole plot was clear to me, I hurried round to counter it; that same night at 2 o'clock I went to see Lupus at the bureau i could not Bornstedt he balloted out of the Workers’ Society? Wednesday called on all and sundry, but everybody was of the opinion that we couldn’t do it. On Wednesday evening, when I arrived at the Society, Bornstedt was already there; his attitude was equivocal; finally Thomis came in with the latest issue; my anti-Heinzen article which I'd brought him as long ago as Monday and, not finding him in (2 o'clock in the afternoon), had taken to the printers, was not in it. [Engels, ‘The Communists and Karl Heinzen’. First article, dated 26 September was not printed in No. 78, 29 September; it appeared in the next issue on 3 October 1847] On my questioning him, he said there had been no space. I reminded him of what you and he had agreed.[163] He denied it; I waited till Wallau arrived and he told me there had been space enough but that on Tuesday Bornstedt had had the article fetched from the printers and had not sent it back again. I went to Bornstedt and very rudely told him as much. He tried to lie his way out. I again reverted to the agreement, which he again denied, save for a few trivial generalities. I passed some insulting remarks — Crüger, Gigot and Imbert, etc., etc., were present — and asked: ‘Do you intend to publish the article on Sunday, oui ou non?’ — ‘We'll have to discuss it first.’ — ‘I refuse to discuss it with you.’ — And thereupon I left him.
The sitting began. Bornstedt, chin cradled in his hands, sat looking at me with a curiously gloating expression. I stared back at him and waited. Up got Mr Thomis, who, as you know, had demanded the floor. He drew a prepared speech out of his pocket and read out a series of the most peculiar aspersions on our sham battle.[164] This went on for some time but, as it showed no signs of finishing, there was a general muttering, a mass of people demanded the floor, and Wallau called Thomis to order. The latter, Thomis, then read out some half dozen inane phrases on the question and withdrew. Then Hess spoke and defended us pretty well. Then Junge. Then Wolff’ of Paris who, though he dried up 3 times, was much applauded. Then several more. Wolff had betrayed the fact that our opposition had been purely formal. So I had to take the floor. I spoke — to the great discomfiture of Bornstedt, who had believed that I was too much preoccupied with personal squabbles — I spoke, then, about the revolutionary aspect of the protectionist system, completely ignoring the aforesaid Thomis, of course, and proposed a new question. Agreed. — Pause. — Bornstedt, badly shaken by the vehement way I had addressed him, by Thomis’ ratting on him (there were echoes of Bornstedt in his speech) and by the vehemence of my peroration — Bornstedt came up to me: My dear boy, how terribly impassioned you are, etc., etc. In short, I was to sign the article. — No. — Then at least we should agree on a short editorial introduction. — Very well, eleven o'clock tomorrow at the Café Suisse.
There followed the matter of the admission of Bornstedt, Crüger, Wolff. Hess was the first to get up; he addressed 2 questions to Bornstedt about Monday’s meeting. Bornstedt lied his way out, and Hess was weak enough to declare himself satisfait. Junge went for Bornstedt personally because of his behaviour at the Society and because he had introduced Sandkuhl under a false name. Fischer came out very energetically against Bornstedt, quite impromptu but very well. Several others likewise. In short, the triumphant Mr von Bornstedt had almost literally to run the gauntlet of the workers. He took a severe drubbing and was so thunderstruck — he, who of course believed he had well and truly bought his way in with his gifts of books — that he could only answer evasively, feebly, concedingly — in spite of the fact that Wallau, fanatically in support of him, was a wretched chairman who permitted him to interrupt the speakers at any and every opportunity. Everything was still hanging in the balance when Wallau directed the candidates to withdraw and called for a vote. Crüger, proposed by me as an exceptionally guileless man, who could in no way harm the Society, and purement et simplement seconded by Wolff, got through. In the case of Bornstedt, Wallau came out with a long, impassioned speech on his behalf. Then I stood up, went into the whole matter of the plot in so far as it concerned the Society, demolished Bornstedt’s evasions, each by means of the other, and finally declared: Bornstedt has intrigued against us, has sought to compete with us, but we have won, and hence can now admit him into the Society. During my speech — the best I have ever made — I was constantly interrupted by applause; notably when I said: these gentlemen believed that all had been won because I, their vice-chairman, was going away, but it had not occurred to them that there is, amongst us, one to whom the position belongs by right, one who alone is able to represent the German democrats here in Brussels, and that is Marx — whereupon tremendous applause. in short, no one spoke after me, and thus Bornstedt was not done the honour of being thrown out. He was standing outside the door and listening to it all. I would rather have said my say while he was still in the room, but it could not be done, because I had to spare myself for the final blow, and Wallau broke off the discussion. But, like Wolff and Crüger, he had heard every word. As opposed to him, Wolff was admitted almost without a hitch.
In short, at yesterday’s sitting Bornstedt, Crüger, etc., etc., suffered such an affront that they cannot honourably frequent the Society again, and they've had enough to last them a long time. But frequent it they certainly will; the shameless Bornstedt has been so reduced by our even greater insolence, by the utter failure of all his calculations, and by our vehemence, that all he can do is trot around Brussels whining to everyone about his disgrace — the lowest depths of debasement. He came back into the hall raging but impotent and, when I took my leave of the Society and was allowed to go with every imaginable mark of respect, he departed seething. Bürgers, who has been here since the day before yesterday evening, was present while we discussed Bornstedt.
Throughout, the behaviour of our workers was really splendid: the gifts, 26 books and 27 maps, were never mentioned, they treated Bornstedt with the utmost frigidity and lack of consideration — and, when I spoke and had reached my peroration, I had it in my power to have him rejected by a vast majority. Even Wallau admits as much. But we treated him worse than that by adopting him with scorn and contumely. The affair has made a capital impression on the Society; for the first time they have had a role to play, have dominated a meeting despite all the plotting, and have put in his place a fellow who was trying to set himself up against them. Only a few clerks, etc., etc., are dissatisfied, the vast majority being enthusiastically on our side. They have experienced what it means to be associated.
This morning I went to the Café Suisse, and who should fail to turn up but Bornstedt. — Weerth and Seiler, however, were there to meet me; they had just been talking to Bornstedt, and Seiler was obsequiousness and ingratiation personified. 1, of course, gave him the cold shoulder. Yesterday’s sitting, by the way, was so dramatic, and evolved so splendidly towards its climax that sheer aesthetic emotion momentarily turned Wolff of Paris into a party man. Today I also went to see A. Bartels and explained to him that the German Society was in no way responsible for what had happened on Monday, that Crüger, Bornstedt, Moras, Seiler, Heilberg, etc., etc., were not even members, and that the whole affair, staged without the knowledge of the German Society, was in fact a bid to set up a rival faction. A letter in similar vein, signed by all the committee members, is to be sent to Jottrand tomorrow, when I and Lupus will also be going to see Imbert. I have further written the following letter to Jottrand about the place on the organising I committee of the Brussels fraternal democrats which will become vacant on my departure:
‘Sir, Being obliged to leave Brussels for a few months, I find myself unable to carry out the functions which the meeting of the 27th instant saw fit to entrust to me. — I therefore request you to call on a German democrat resident in Brussels to participate in the work of the committee charged with organising a universal democratic society. I would take the liberty of proposing to you one of the German democrats in Brussels whom the meeting, had he been able to attend it, would have nominated for the office which, in his absence, it honoured me by conferring upon myself. I mean Mr Marx who, I am firmly convinced, has the best claim to represent German democracy on the committee. Hence it would not be Mr Marx who would he replacing me there, but rather I who, at the meeting, replaced Mr Marx. I am, Sir, etc., etc.'
I had in fact already agreed with Jottrand that I would advise him in writing of my departure and propose you for the committee. Jottrand is also away and will be back in a fortnight. If, as I believe, nothing comes of the whole affair, it will be Heilberg’s proposal that falls through; if something does come of it, then it will be we who have brought the thing about. Either way we have succeeded in getting you and, after you, myself, recognised as representatives of the German democrats in Brussels, besides the whole plot having been brought to a dreadfully ignominious end.
This evening there was a meeting of the community [165] at which I took the chair. With the exception of Wallau who, by the way, allowed himself to be converted and whose conduct yesterday was, indeed, excusable on various grounds for which I made allowance — with this one exception, then, the enthusiasm about the Bornstedt affair was unanimous. The fellows are beginning to feel their own importance. They have at last taken their stand as a society, as a power, vis-à-vis other people, and the’ fact that everything went with such a splendid swing and that their victory was so complete has made them enormously proud. Junge’s in the seventh heaven, Riedel is beside himself with joy, even little Ohnemans goes strutting about like a fighting-cock. Anyway, as I said before, this affair has given, and will continue to give, the Society a tremendous impetus, both internal and external Fellows who otherwise never open their traps have attacked Bornstedt. And even the plot has helped us: firstly Bornstedt went about telling everyone that the German democratic Workers’ Society had arranged the meeting and secondly we denied it all and, as a result of both these things, the society has become a general topic of conversation among Belgian democrats and is regarded as a highly significant, plus ou moins mysterious power German democracy is growing very strong in Brussels, Bartels remarked this morning.
By the way, you too are to be included in the committee’s letter to Jottrand. Gigot will sign himself ‘Secretary in Marx’s absence’.
Settle your financial affairs as quickly as possible and come back here again. I'm itching to get away, but must first wait until these plots have run their course. Just now I can’t possibly leave. So the sooner you come the better. But first put your financial affairs in order. At all events I'll remain at my post as long as I possibly can; si c'est possible, until you arrive. But for that very reason it’s desirable that you come soon.
Your
Engels
***The Struggle For The Labor Party In The United States-The Program Of The American Labor Party (1936)- A Link
Click on the headline to link to the Program Of The American Labor Party (1936)
Markin comment on this series:
Obviously, for a Marxist, the question of working class political power is central to the possibilities for the main thrust of his or her politics- the quest for that socialist revolution that initiates the socialist reconstruction of society. But working class politics, no less than any other kinds of political expressions has to take an organization form, a disciplined organizational form in the end, but organization nevertheless. In that sense every Marxist worth his or her salt, from individual labor militants to leagues, tendencies, and whatever other formations are out there these days on the left, struggles to built a revolutionary labor party, a Bolshevik-style party.
Glaringly, in the United States there is no such party, nor even a politically independent reformist labor party, as exists in Great Britain. And no, the Democratic Party, imperialist commander-in-chief Obama's Democratic Party is not a labor party. Although plenty of people believe it is an adequate substitute, including some avowed socialists. But they are just flat-out wrong. This series is thus predicated on providing information about, analysis of, and acting as a spur to a close look at the history of the labor party question in America by those who have actually attempted to create one, or at to propagandize for one.
As usual, I will start this series with the work of the International Communist League/Spartacist League/U.S. as I have been mining their archival materials of late. I am most familiar with the history of their work on this question, although on this question the Socialist Workers Party's efforts run a close second, especially in their revolutionary period. Lastly, and most importantly, I am comfortable starting with the ICL/SL efforts on the labor party question since after having reviewed in this space in previous series their G.I. work and youth work (Campus Spartacist and the Revolutionary Marxist Caucus Newsletter inside SDS) I noted that throughout their history they have consistently called for the creation of such a party in the various social arenas in which they have worked. Other organizational and independent efforts, most notably by the Socialist Workers Party and the American Communist Party will follow.
*********
Markin comment on this series:
Obviously, for a Marxist, the question of working class political power is central to the possibilities for the main thrust of his or her politics- the quest for that socialist revolution that initiates the socialist reconstruction of society. But working class politics, no less than any other kinds of political expressions has to take an organization form, a disciplined organizational form in the end, but organization nevertheless. In that sense every Marxist worth his or her salt, from individual labor militants to leagues, tendencies, and whatever other formations are out there these days on the left, struggles to built a revolutionary labor party, a Bolshevik-style party.
Glaringly, in the United States there is no such party, nor even a politically independent reformist labor party, as exists in Great Britain. And no, the Democratic Party, imperialist commander-in-chief Obama's Democratic Party is not a labor party. Although plenty of people believe it is an adequate substitute, including some avowed socialists. But they are just flat-out wrong. This series is thus predicated on providing information about, analysis of, and acting as a spur to a close look at the history of the labor party question in America by those who have actually attempted to create one, or at to propagandize for one.
As usual, I will start this series with the work of the International Communist League/Spartacist League/U.S. as I have been mining their archival materials of late. I am most familiar with the history of their work on this question, although on this question the Socialist Workers Party's efforts run a close second, especially in their revolutionary period. Lastly, and most importantly, I am comfortable starting with the ICL/SL efforts on the labor party question since after having reviewed in this space in previous series their G.I. work and youth work (Campus Spartacist and the Revolutionary Marxist Caucus Newsletter inside SDS) I noted that throughout their history they have consistently called for the creation of such a party in the various social arenas in which they have worked. Other organizational and independent efforts, most notably by the Socialist Workers Party and the American Communist Party will follow.
*********
Friday, September 02, 2011
“Workers of The World Unite, You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chains”-The Struggle For Trotsky's Fourth (Communist) International-From The Archives-Documents of the 1923 opposition-"Trotsky opens the attack"
Click on the headline to link to the Toward A History Of The Fourth International website for the article listed above.
Markin comment (repost from September 2010):
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 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.
*******
Markin comment on this document:
Everybody, and that most notably included Leon Trotsky, knew something was going awry with the Bolshevik Revolution by 1923 for many reasons, some of them beyond correction outside of an international extension of the revolution, especially to Germany that would provide the vital industrial infrastructure to aid the struggling Soviet Union. Nevertheless, and this is important to note about serious revolutionary politics and politicians in general, the fight in 1923 still needed to aimed at winning the party cadre over. That was the failing point of many oppositionists, inside and outside the party, then. Who were revolutionaries to appeal to at that time? The kulaks? We saw where that led a couple of years later when Stalin/Bukharin made their right turn.
Markin comment (repost from September 2010):
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 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.
*******
Markin comment on this document:
Everybody, and that most notably included Leon Trotsky, knew something was going awry with the Bolshevik Revolution by 1923 for many reasons, some of them beyond correction outside of an international extension of the revolution, especially to Germany that would provide the vital industrial infrastructure to aid the struggling Soviet Union. Nevertheless, and this is important to note about serious revolutionary politics and politicians in general, the fight in 1923 still needed to aimed at winning the party cadre over. That was the failing point of many oppositionists, inside and outside the party, then. Who were revolutionaries to appeal to at that time? The kulaks? We saw where that led a couple of years later when Stalin/Bukharin made their right turn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)