Activists get 2 years for anti-Putin church stunt
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, AP
MOSCOW — Three punk rock-style activists who briefly took over a cathedral in a raucous prayer for deliverance from Vladimir Putin were sentenced to two years in prison for hooliganism on Friday, a decision that drew protests around the world as it highlighted the Russian president's intensifying crackdown on dissent.
Protesters from Moscow to New York and musicians including Madonna and Paul McCartney condemned the prosecution of the three women, members of a band called Pussy Riot. Several countries, including the U.S., and even some Kremlin loyalists decried the verdict.
Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, 22, Maria Alekhina, 24, and Yekaterina Samutsevich, 30, were arrested in March after performing a "punk prayer" in Christ the Savior Cathedral, dancing and high-kicking as they called on the Virgin Mary to save Russia from Putin, who was elected to a third term as Russia's president two weeks later.
Judge Marina Syrova ruled Friday that the band members had "committed hooliganism driven by religious hatred." She rejected the women's arguments that they were protesting the Russian Orthodox Church's support for Putin and didn't intend to offend religious believers.
Putin himself had said the band members shouldn't be judged too harshly, creating expectations that they could be sentenced to time served and freed in the courtroom. This, however, would have left the impression that Putin had bowed to public pressure, something he has resisted throughout his 12 years in power.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Putin couldn't intervene in the judicial process and refused to comment on the sentence.
When the sentence was announced, shouts of "down with the police state" rose from a crowd of hundreds of Pussy Riot supporters outside the courtroom. More than 50 people were detained, including former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, who said police beat him.
Protesters donned the colorful balaclavas that have become a symbol of the band in many European and U.S. cities, though no single protest outside Moscow drew more than a few hundred people.
In Kiev, Ukraine, four women, one of whom was topless, used a chainsaw to cut down a cross. About 40 protesters gathered in New York held up banners that read: "We are all hooligans."
The crowd in Moscow included many of the prominent writers, journalists and opposition partisans who spearheaded the mass protests that shook the city over the winter and spring. Pussy Riot was an obscure band of activists for much of that time, and some fellow opponents of Putin disapproved of their tactics, but they rallied to the group's defense after the March arrests.
For three hours as the judge read the verdict, the defendants stood in handcuffs in a glass cage in the courtroom, the same one where oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, another Putin opponent, was convicted two years ago.
The three women smiled sadly as the judge recounted testimony of prosecution witnesses accusing them of sacrilege and "devilish dances" in the church and said that their feminist views made them hate the Orthodox religion.
Tolokonnikova laughed out loud when the judge read the testimony of a psychologist who said that her "active stance on social issues" was an anomaly.
The three women remained calm and kept smiling after the judge announced the sentence. Someone in the courtroom shouted "Shame!" They waved at relatives from behind the glass.
The charges carried a maximum penalty of seven years in prison, though prosecutors had asked for a three-year sentence.
Popular Russian author Boris Akunin, a supporter of Pussy Riot who was outside the courthouse, said Putin "has doomed himself to another year and a half of international shame and humiliation."
"The whole thing is bad because it's yet another step toward the escalation of tensions within society. And the government is absolutely to blame," he said.
Defense lawyers said they would appeal but had little hope that the verdict would be overturned. "This verdict is the result of a political decision in the Kremlin, made by Vladimir Putin," said Mark Feygin.
He said the women would not ask for a pardon from Putin. "They will not beg and humiliate themselves before such a bastard," he said.
Another sign of the defendants' resolve came in a new song the band released Friday on the Internet: "Putin Is Lighting the Fires of Revolution."
Samutsevich's father said he had met with his daughter before the court session and she was prepared for a prison sentence. "We tried to comfort her," said Stanislav Samutsevich.
Amnesty International, which has called the women prisoners of conscience, said the court ruling "shows that the Russian authorities will stop at no end to suppress dissent and stifle civil society."
Governments including the United States, Britain, France and Germany denounced the sentences as disproportionate.
President Barack Obama was disappointed by the decision, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. "While we understand the group's behavior was offensive to some, we have serious concerns about the way that these young women have been treated by the Russian judicial system," he said.
Further controversy was stirred up by the detention of Kasparov, now one of Putin's fiercest critics. He said he was beaten by the police who detained him, but police claimed that he bit an officer's finger. After his release, Kasparov tweeted that he was going to an emergency room "to check my injuries and to prove that I am not drunk and haven't bitten anyone."
The Pussy Riot case has helped to energize the opposition. Protest leader Alexei Navalny condemned the verdict as a "cynical mockery of justice" and said the opposition would step up its protests.
Even some Kremlin loyalists strongly criticized the verdict. Former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said it has dealt "yet another blow to the court system and citizens' trust in it."
`'The country's image and its attractiveness in the eyes of investors have suffered an enormous damage," he said.
Mikhail Fedotov, the head of a presidential advisory council on human rights, voiced hope that the sentence will be repealed or at least softened. Mikhail Barshchevsky, a lawyer who represents the Cabinet in high courts, said that the verdict had no basis in Russian criminal law.
The Pussy Riot case has underlined the vast influence of the Russian Orthodox Church. Although church and state are formally separate, the church identifies itself as the heart of Russian national identity and critics say its strength effectively makes it a quasi-state entity. Some Orthodox groups and many believers had urged strong punishment for an action they consider blasphemous.
The head of the church, Patriarch Kirill, has made no secret of his strong support for Putin, praising his leadership as "God's miracle," and he described the punk performance as part of an assault by "enemy forces" on the church. He avoided talking to journalists Friday as he left Warsaw's Royal Castle following a ceremony in which he and the head of Poland's Catholic Church called for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation between the churches.
The Orthodox Church said in a statement after the verdict that the band's stunt was a "sacrilege" and a "reflection of rude animosity toward millions of people and their feelings." It also asked the authorities to "show clemency toward the convicted in the hope that they will refrain from new sacrilegious actions."
A handful of Orthodox activists joined the crowd outside the courthouse. "I'm glad they were punished like criminals and didn't get away with it," said Dmitry Tsorionov, holding a Bible. "They committed a grave crime and nobody should do it again."
The case comes in the wake of several recently passed laws cracking down on opposition, including one that raised the fine for taking part in an unauthorized demonstrations by 150 times to 300,000 rubles (about $9,000).
Another measure requires non-governmental organizations that both engage in vaguely defined "political activity" and receive funding from abroad to register as "foreign agents." Putin has accused foreign countries of feeding much of the dissent in Russia.
___
Nataliya Vasilyeva, Lynn Berry, Mansur Mirovalev and Jim Heintz contributed to this report.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Friday, August 17, 2012
The Latest From The Private Bradley Manning Support Network-Free Bradley Manning Now! -Bradley’s unlawful pretrial punishment at Quantico
Click on the headline to link to the Private Bradley Manning Support Network for the latest information on his case and activities on his behalf .
*********
We of the anti-war movement were not able to do much to affect the Bush- Obama Iraq war timetable but we can save the one hero of that war, Private Bradley Manning. The entry below can serve as a continuing rationale for my (and your) support to this honorable whistleblower.
From the American Left History Blog, March 28, 2012
Why I Am Standing In Solidarity With Private Bradley Manning- A Personal Note From An Ex-Soldier Political Prisoner
Markin comment:
Last year I wrote a little entry in this space in order to motivate my reasons for standing in solidarity with a March 20th rally in support of Private Manning at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia where he was then being held. I have subsequently repeatedly used that entry, Why I Will Be Standing In Solidarity With Private Bradley Manning At Quantico, Virginia On Sunday March 20th At 2:00 PM- A Personal Note From An Ex-Soldier Political Prisoner, as a I have tried to publicize his case in blogs and other Internet sources, at various rallies, and at marches, most recently at the Veterans For Peace Saint Patrick’s Day Peace Parade in South Boston on March 18th.
In that spirit I have updated, a little, that earlier entry to reflect the changed circumstances over the past year or so. As one would expect when the cause is still the same, Private Bradley Manning's freedom, unfortunately most of the entry is still in the same key. And will be until the day he is freed by his jailers. And I will continue to stand in proud solidarity with Private Manning until that great day.
*****
Of course I will be standing at the front gate to the Fort Meade , Maryland on April 25th because I stand in solidarity with the actions of Private Bradley Manning in bringing to light, just a little light, some of the nefarious doings of this government, Bush-like or Obamian. If he did such acts they are no crime. No crime at all in my eyes or in the eyes of the vast majority of people who know of the case and of its importance as an individual act of resistance to the unjust and barbaric American-led war in Iraq. I sleep just a shade bit easier these days knowing that Private Manning (or someone) exposed what we all knew, or should have known- the Iraq war and the Afghan war justification rested on a house of cards. American imperialism’s gun-toting house of cards, but cards nevertheless.
Of course I will also be standing at the front gate of Fort Meade, Maryland on April 25th because I am outraged by the treatment meted out to Private Manning, presumably an innocent man, by a government who alleges itself to be some “beacon” of the civilized world. Bradley Manning had been held in solidarity at Quantico and other locales for over 500 days, and has been held without trial for much longer, as the government and its military try to glue a case together. The military, and its henchmen in the Justice Department, have gotten more devious although not smarter since I was a soldier in their crosshairs over forty years ago.
Now the two reasons above are more than sufficient for my standing at the front gate at Fort Meade on April 25th although they, in themselves, are only the appropriate reasons that any progressive thinking person would need to show up and shout to the high heavens for Private Manning’s freedom. I have an additional reason though, a very pressing personal reason. As mentioned above I too was in the military’s crosshairs as a citizen-soldier during the height of the Vietnam War. I will not go into the details of that episode, this comment after all is about brother soldier Manning, other than that I spent my own time in an Army stockade for, let’s put it this way, working on the principle of “what if they gave a war and nobody came”.
Forty years later I am still working off that principle, and gladly. But here is the real point. During that time I had outside support, outside civilian support, that rallied on several occasions outside the military base where I was confined. Believe me that knowledge helped me get through the tough days inside. So on April 25th I will be just, once again, as I have been able to on too few other occasions over years, paying my dues for that long ago support. You, Brother Manning, are a true winter soldier. We were not able to do much about the course of the Iraq War (and little thus far on Afghanistan) but we can move might and main to save the one real hero of that whole mess.
Private Manning I hope that you will hear us and hear about our rally in your defense outside the gates. Better yet, everybody who reads this piece join us and make sure that he can hear us loud and clear. And let us shout to high heaven against this gross injustice-Free Private Manning Now!
***********
Bradley’s unlawful pretrial punishment at Quantico
The following post was published on the blog of David Coombs, Bradley Manning’s attorney, and includes a link to the Article 13 motion to dismiss charges based on Bradley’s abusive conditions in Quantico, as well as Coombs’ explanation of the motion and various key incidents. This motion will be argued at the motion hearing at Ft. Meade scheduled for October 1-5.
By David Coombs. August 10, 2012.
On 27 July 2012, the Defense filed a motion to dismiss all charges owing to the unlawful pretrial punishment to which PFC Manning was subjected while at Marine Corps Base, Quantico. In addition, on 27 August July 2012, the Defense also filed a motion for a continuance based on the late production by the Government of extensive documentation that is “obviously material to the preparation of the defense.” The motions are found below:
1. Article 13 Motion
2. Motion for Continuance
The Order to Keep PFC Manning Subject to the Harshest Conditions Possible
In its Article 13 motion, the Defense argues that a decision had been made early on at Quantico to keep PFC Manning in MAX Custody and in Prevention of Injury (POI) status — in effect, the functional equivalent in solitary confinement. In January 2011, multiple Brig officials held a meeting where a senior officer ordered that PFC Manning would be held in maximum custody and POI indefinitely. The senior officer stated that “nothing is going to happen to PFC Manning on my watch.” He also said, “nothing’s going to change. He won’t be able to hurt himself and he won’t be able to get away, and our way of making sure of this is that he will remain on this status indefinitely.” At that point, a Brig psychiatrist became very upset and voiced his concerns, stating something to the effect of, “Sir, I am concerned because if you’re going to do that, maybe you might want to call it something else, because it’s not based on anything from behavioral health.” In response the senior officer said, “We’ll do whatever we want to do. You [the Brig psychiatrists] make your recommendation and I have to make a decision based on everything else.” The psychiatrist responded, “Then don’t say it’s based on mental health. You can say it’s MAX custody, but just don’t say that we’re somehow involved in this.” The senior officer said, “That’s what we’re going to do.” The senior officer made it clear to those present at the meeting that the decision to keep PFC Manning in MAX and POI was coming from those higher in the chain of command.
Multiple Brig psychiatrists recommended for almost nine months that PFC Manning be downgraded from POI status. The psychiatrists informed Quantico Brig officials that PFC Manning’s POI status was not warranted because he did not present a risk to himself and that the POI status was actually causing PFC Manning psychological harm. The psychiatrists’ recommendations were outright ignored by Quantico officials.
The Egregious Conditions of PFC Manning’s Confinement
The Article 13 motion also chronicles the conditions of PFC Manning’s confinement at Quantico. PFC Manning was placed in a 6×8 cell with no window or natural light. Owing to his classification as a MAX detainee, PFC Manning was subject to the following restrictions:
•
PFC Manning was placed in a cell directly in front of the guard post to facilitate his constant monitoring.
•
PFC Manning was awoken at 0500 hours and required to remain awake in his cell from 0500 to 2200 hours.
•
PFC Manning was not permitted to lie down on his rack during the duty day. Nor was PFC Manning permitted to lean his back against the cell wall; he had to sit upright on his rack without any back support.
•
Whenever PFC Manning was moved outside his cell, the entire facility was locked down.
•
Whenever PFC Manning was moved outside his cell, he was shackled with metal hand and leg restraints and accompanied by at least two guards.
•
From 29 July 2010 to 10 December 2010, PFC Manning was permitted only 20 minutes of “sunshine call.” Aside from a 3-5 minute shower, this would be the only time PFC Manning would regularly spend outside his cell. During this sunshine call, he would be brought to a small concrete yard, about half to a third of the size of a basketball court. PFC Manning would be permitted to walk around the yard in hand and leg shackles, while being accompanied by a Brig guard at his immediate side (the guard would have his hand on PFC Manning’s back). Two to three other guards would also be present observing PFC Manning. PFC Manning would usually walk in figure-eights or some other pattern. He was not permitted to sit down or stay stationary.
•
Initially, Brig guards provided PFC Manning with athletic shoes without laces which would fall off when he attempted to walk. PFC Manning elected to wear boots instead because at least the boots would stay on when he walked.
•
From 10 December 2010 onward, PFC Manning was permitted a one hour recreation call. At this point, the Brig authorized the removal of his hand and leg shackles and PFC Manning was no longer required to be accompanied by a Brig guard at his immediate side. Although PFC Manning was technically “permitted” to use exercise equipment at the gym, most of this equipment was unplugged or broken down. In addition, depending on the guards, they would not permit him to use certain types of equipment (e.g. the chin up bar). So as to avoid any problems with the guards, PFC Manning would usually walk around the room as he had during his sunshine calls. Three or four guards would be monitoring PFC Manning during his recreation call.
•
PFC Manning was only authorized non-contact visits. The non-contact visits were permitted on Saturdays and Sundays between 1200 and 1500 hours by approved visitors. During these visits, he would have to wear his hand and leg restraints.
•
PFC Manning was required to meet his visitors in a small 4 by 6 foot room that was separated with a glass partition. His visits were monitored by the guards and they were audio recorded by the Brig. The recording equipment was added by Army CID after PFC Manning’s transfer to the Quantico Brig.
•
PFC Manning was only permitted non-contact visits with his attorneys. During these visits, he was shackled at the hands and feet.
•
PFC Manning was not permitted any work duty.
Owing to PFC Manning being placed on continuous POI status, he was subject to the following further restrictions:
•
PFC Manning was subject to constant monitoring; the Brig guards were required to check on him every five minutes by asking him some variation of, “are you okay?” PFC Manning was required to respond in some affirmative manner. Guards were required to make notations every five minutes in a logbook.
•
At night, if the guards could not see him clearly, because he had a blanket over his head or he was curled up towards the wall, they would wake PFC Manning in order to ensure that he was okay.
•
At night, only some of the lights would be turned off. Additionally, there was a florescent light in the hall outside PFC Manning’s cell that would stay on at night.
•
PFC Manning was required to receive each of his meals alone in his cell. He was only permitted to eat with a spoon.
•
There were usually no detainees on either side of PFC Manning. If PFC Manning attempted to speak to those detainees that were several cells away from him, the guards would order him to stop speaking.
•
PFC Manning originally was provided with a standard mattress and no pillow. PFC Manning tried to fold the mattress to make a pillow so that he could be more comfortable when sleeping. Brig officials did not like this, so on 15 December 2010 they provided him with a suicide mattress with a built-in pillow. This built-in pillow was only a couple of inches high and was not really any better than sleeping on a flat mattress.
•
PFC Manning was not permitted regular sheets or blankets. Instead he was provided with a tear-proof security blanket. This blanket was extremely coarse and irritated PFC Manning’s skin. At first, PFC Manning would get rashes and carpet burns on his skin from the blanket. Eventually, his skin became accustomed to the coarseness of the blanket and he got fewer rashes. The blanket did not keep PFC Manning warm because it did not retain heat and, due to its stiffness, did not contour to his body.
•
PFC Manning was not allowed to have any personal items in his cell.
•
PFC Manning was only allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read. If he was not actively reading, the book or magazine would be taken away from him. Also, the book or magazine would be taken away from him at the end of the day before he went to sleep.
•
For the last month of his confinement at Quantico, PFC Manning was given a pen and five pieces of paper along with his book. However, if he was not actively reading his book and taking notes, these items would be taken away from him.
•
PFC Manning was prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempted to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he would be forced to stop.
•
When PFC Manning went to sleep, he was required to strip down to his underwear and surrender his clothing to the guards.
•
PFC Manning was only permitted hygiene items as needed. PFC Manning would have to request toilet paper every time he wanted to go to the bathroom; at times, he had to wait for guards to provide him with toilet paper.
•
There was no soap in his cell. PFC Manning requested soap to wash his hands after using the bathroom; guards would sometimes get the soap, and sometimes not.
•
PFC Manning was not permitted to wear shoes in his cell.
•
PFC Manning was initially only permitted correspondence time for one hour a day; after 27 October 2010, this was changed to two hours per day.
The 18 January 2011 Incident
On two separate occasions, Brig officials elected to increase the special handling instructions on PFC Manning. The first occurred on 18 January 2011, the day after a protest outside the gates of Quantico. On that day, Brig guards harassed PFC Manning as they escorted him to his recreation call. The first guard told PFC Manning to “turn left.” When he complied, the second guard yelled, “don’t turn left.” When PFC Manning attempted to comply with the demands of the second guard, he was told by the first, “I said turn left.” PFC Manning responded, “yes, Corporal” to the first guard. At this point, the third guard chimed in by telling PFC Manning that “in the Marine Corps we reply with ‘aye’ and not ‘yes.’” He then asked PFC Manning if he understood. PFC Manning made the mistake of replying “yes, Sergeant.” At this point the fourth guard yelled, “you mean ‘aye,’ Sergeant.” When PFC Manning arrived at the recreation room, he was told to stand still so the guards could remove his leg restraints. As PFC Manning stood still, one of the guards yelled, “I told you to stand still.” PFC Manning replied, “yes Corporal, I am standing still.” Another guard then said, “you mean ‘aye’ Corporal.” Next, the same guard said “I thought we covered this, you say ‘aye’ and not ‘yes,’ do you understand?” PFC Manning responded, “aye Sergeant.” Right after PFC Manning replied, he was once again yelled at to “stand still.” Due to being yelled at and the intensity of the guards, PFC Manning mistakenly replied, “yes Corporal, I am standing still.” As soon as PFC Manning uttered his response he attempted to correct himself by saying “aye” instead of “yes,” but it was too late. One of the guards starting yelling at PFC Manning again, “what don’t you understand” and “are we going to have a problem?” Once the leg restraints were taken off of PFC Manning, he took a step back from the guards. PFC Manning’s heart was pounding in his chest, and he could feel himself getting dizzy. A Brig psychiatrist determined that this event was likely an anxiety attack due to the situation. After his restraints were removed, PFC Manning sat down to avoid falling. When he did this, the guards took a step towards him. PFC Manning instinctively backed away from the guards. As soon as PFC Manning backed away, the guards walked toward him as if to prepare to restrain PFC Manning. PFC Manning immediately put his hands up in the air, and said “I am not doing anything, I am just trying to follow your orders.” The guards then told PFC Manning to start walking. PFC Manning complied with their order by saying “aye” instead of “yes.” After recreation call, when he was back in his cell, PFC Manning was visited by a senior Brig official. PFC Manning tried to explain what happened earlier in the day. He also expressed his frustration at the conditions of his confinement. The Brig official said “no one will tell me what to do.” He also said that he was, for all practical purposes, “God.” PFC Manning responded by saying, “you still have to follow Brig procedures.” PFC Manning also said, “everyone has a boss that they have to answer to.” The Brig official then placed PFC Manning in Suicide Risk status, over the recommendation of a Brig psychiatrist. This resulted in PFC Manning being subject to the following additional restrictions:
•
From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning was forced to strip down to his underwear during the day.
•
From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning was forced to sleep naked at night.
•
From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning’s eyeglasses were taken away from him.
•
From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning was not permitted out of his cell and was on 24-hour suicide watch.
The 2 March 2011 Incident
The second incident where the special handling restrictions were increased arose on 2 March 2011. On that date, PFC Manning was informed that no relief would be granted with respect to PFC Manning’s previously-filed Article 138 Complaint. Understandably frustrated by this decision after enduring (at that point) over seven months in unduly harsh confinement conditions, PFC Manning asked a Brig official what he needed to do in order to be downgraded from MAX and POI. The Brig official responded by essentially telling PFC Manning that there was nothing he could do to downgrade his detainee status and that the Brig simply considered him a risk of self-harm. Out of frustration, PFC Manning responded that the POI restrictions were absurd. PFC Manning sarcastically told the Brig official that if he wanted to harm himself, he could conceivably do so with the elastic waistband of his underwear or with his flip-flops. Later that day, Quantico officials increased the restrictions imposed upon PFC Manning under the pretense that PFC Manning was a suicide risk. PFC Manning was not, however, placed under the designation of Suicide Risk. In order to keep PFC Manning in Suicide Risk, Quantico would have needed a supporting recommendation from one of the Brig’s mental health providers (which Quantico did not have). In response to this specific incident, a Brig psychiatrist met with the PFC Manning. After speaking to PFC Manning, he assessed PFC Manning as a “low risk and requiring only routine outpatient follow-up [with] no need for … closer clinical observation.” In particular, he indicated that PFC Manning’s statement about the waist band of his underwear was in no way prompted by “a psychiatric condition.” Rather it was part of his process of “intellectualizing” the conditions of his confinement. The increase in the special handling instructions resulted in PFC Manning being subject to the following additional restrictions:
•
From 2 March 2011 until 6 March 2011, PFC Manning was forced to surrender all his clothing at night and sleep naked.
•
From 2 March 2011 until 6 March 2011, PFC Manning was forced to surrender his eyeglasses during the day and at night. After 6 March 2011, his eyeglasses were returned to him during the day, but continued to be removed from him at night.
•
On 3 March 2011 until 6 March 2011, PFC Manning forced to stand naked at parade rest where he was in view of multiple guards.
•
From 7 March 2011 onward, PFC Manning was required to wear a heavy and restrictive suicide smock which irritated his skin and, on one occasion, almost choked him.
PFC Manning’s Transfer to Fort Leavenworth
On 20 April 2011, after enduring nearly nine months of solitary confinement, PFC Manning was moved to the Fort Leavenworth Joint Regional Correctional Facility. After a routine indoctrination period, PFC Manning was assigned to Medium Custody (there is no designation of Minimum Custody for pretrial detainees). The severe restrictions on PFC Manning’s liberty were lifted. PFC Manning is now permitted to eat with other detainees, socialize with other detainees, walk around without metal shackles, have personal and hygiene items in his cell, etc. PFC Manning has been held in this status for approximately the past 15 months.
11th Hour Revelations That Implicate Officers Much Higher in the Chain of Command
PFC Manning was held at Marine Corps Base Quantico from 29 July 2010 to 20 April 2011. During this time, PFC Manning was held in MAX custody and under POI status. In the fall of 2010, the Defense raised the issue of unlawful pretrial punishment with the Government. On 8 December 2010, the Defense made a discovery request for all documentation from Quantico pertaining to PFC Manning. The Government provided extensive documentation related to PFC Manning’s confinement at Quantico in October of 2011. The Defense believed that this was the full extent of the information the Government had from Quantico.
The deadline for the Defense to file the Article 13 motion was 27 August 2012. On 26 August 2012, the Defense informed the Court and the Government that it would be sending the attachments for the Article 13 motion by Fed-Ex. The attachments exceed 500 pages. The Government did not indicate to the Defense not to mail the attachments. On the evening of 26 August 2012 (after the Defense’s attachments had already been sent), the Government informed the Defense that it had discovered 84 emails that had not yet been produced that were “obviously material to the preparation of the defense.” At approximately 21:15, the Government sent the Defense the 84 emails. The Government indicated that it received these emails from Quantico approximately 6 months ago. However, the Government did not begin reviewing the emails until 25 July 2012.
These emails reveal that the senior Brig officer who ordered PFC Manning to be held in MAX and in POI was receiving his marching orders from a three-star general. They also reveal that everyone at Quantico was complicit in the unlawful pretrial punishment, from senior officers to enlisted soldier.
The Defense requested a continuance to file a supplement to the Article 13 motion based on the late production of the 84 emails. In addition, the Defense filed a discovery request seeking more documentation from the numerous “players” that the Defense did not know were involved in PFC Manning’s custody classification. The Government has indicated that it is currently looking into determining whether such documentation exists. The Defense will likely be required to file a motion to compel discovery in order to obtain this documentation.
The filing deadline for the Supplement to the Article 13 motion is 24 August 2012. The Defense believes that if it receives additional discovery, a further supplement to the motion will be necessary. Further, the Defense will supplement its witness list based on the information in the 84 emails. The Defense anticipates that approximately 10 more individuals will be added to the Defense’s witness list.
The oral argument for the Article 13 motion is currently scheduled for 1-5 October 2012.
*********
We of the anti-war movement were not able to do much to affect the Bush- Obama Iraq war timetable but we can save the one hero of that war, Private Bradley Manning. The entry below can serve as a continuing rationale for my (and your) support to this honorable whistleblower.
From the American Left History Blog, March 28, 2012
Why I Am Standing In Solidarity With Private Bradley Manning- A Personal Note From An Ex-Soldier Political Prisoner
Markin comment:
Last year I wrote a little entry in this space in order to motivate my reasons for standing in solidarity with a March 20th rally in support of Private Manning at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia where he was then being held. I have subsequently repeatedly used that entry, Why I Will Be Standing In Solidarity With Private Bradley Manning At Quantico, Virginia On Sunday March 20th At 2:00 PM- A Personal Note From An Ex-Soldier Political Prisoner, as a I have tried to publicize his case in blogs and other Internet sources, at various rallies, and at marches, most recently at the Veterans For Peace Saint Patrick’s Day Peace Parade in South Boston on March 18th.
In that spirit I have updated, a little, that earlier entry to reflect the changed circumstances over the past year or so. As one would expect when the cause is still the same, Private Bradley Manning's freedom, unfortunately most of the entry is still in the same key. And will be until the day he is freed by his jailers. And I will continue to stand in proud solidarity with Private Manning until that great day.
*****
Of course I will be standing at the front gate to the Fort Meade , Maryland on April 25th because I stand in solidarity with the actions of Private Bradley Manning in bringing to light, just a little light, some of the nefarious doings of this government, Bush-like or Obamian. If he did such acts they are no crime. No crime at all in my eyes or in the eyes of the vast majority of people who know of the case and of its importance as an individual act of resistance to the unjust and barbaric American-led war in Iraq. I sleep just a shade bit easier these days knowing that Private Manning (or someone) exposed what we all knew, or should have known- the Iraq war and the Afghan war justification rested on a house of cards. American imperialism’s gun-toting house of cards, but cards nevertheless.
Of course I will also be standing at the front gate of Fort Meade, Maryland on April 25th because I am outraged by the treatment meted out to Private Manning, presumably an innocent man, by a government who alleges itself to be some “beacon” of the civilized world. Bradley Manning had been held in solidarity at Quantico and other locales for over 500 days, and has been held without trial for much longer, as the government and its military try to glue a case together. The military, and its henchmen in the Justice Department, have gotten more devious although not smarter since I was a soldier in their crosshairs over forty years ago.
Now the two reasons above are more than sufficient for my standing at the front gate at Fort Meade on April 25th although they, in themselves, are only the appropriate reasons that any progressive thinking person would need to show up and shout to the high heavens for Private Manning’s freedom. I have an additional reason though, a very pressing personal reason. As mentioned above I too was in the military’s crosshairs as a citizen-soldier during the height of the Vietnam War. I will not go into the details of that episode, this comment after all is about brother soldier Manning, other than that I spent my own time in an Army stockade for, let’s put it this way, working on the principle of “what if they gave a war and nobody came”.
Forty years later I am still working off that principle, and gladly. But here is the real point. During that time I had outside support, outside civilian support, that rallied on several occasions outside the military base where I was confined. Believe me that knowledge helped me get through the tough days inside. So on April 25th I will be just, once again, as I have been able to on too few other occasions over years, paying my dues for that long ago support. You, Brother Manning, are a true winter soldier. We were not able to do much about the course of the Iraq War (and little thus far on Afghanistan) but we can move might and main to save the one real hero of that whole mess.
Private Manning I hope that you will hear us and hear about our rally in your defense outside the gates. Better yet, everybody who reads this piece join us and make sure that he can hear us loud and clear. And let us shout to high heaven against this gross injustice-Free Private Manning Now!
***********
Bradley’s unlawful pretrial punishment at Quantico
The following post was published on the blog of David Coombs, Bradley Manning’s attorney, and includes a link to the Article 13 motion to dismiss charges based on Bradley’s abusive conditions in Quantico, as well as Coombs’ explanation of the motion and various key incidents. This motion will be argued at the motion hearing at Ft. Meade scheduled for October 1-5.
By David Coombs. August 10, 2012.
On 27 July 2012, the Defense filed a motion to dismiss all charges owing to the unlawful pretrial punishment to which PFC Manning was subjected while at Marine Corps Base, Quantico. In addition, on 27 August July 2012, the Defense also filed a motion for a continuance based on the late production by the Government of extensive documentation that is “obviously material to the preparation of the defense.” The motions are found below:
1. Article 13 Motion
2. Motion for Continuance
The Order to Keep PFC Manning Subject to the Harshest Conditions Possible
In its Article 13 motion, the Defense argues that a decision had been made early on at Quantico to keep PFC Manning in MAX Custody and in Prevention of Injury (POI) status — in effect, the functional equivalent in solitary confinement. In January 2011, multiple Brig officials held a meeting where a senior officer ordered that PFC Manning would be held in maximum custody and POI indefinitely. The senior officer stated that “nothing is going to happen to PFC Manning on my watch.” He also said, “nothing’s going to change. He won’t be able to hurt himself and he won’t be able to get away, and our way of making sure of this is that he will remain on this status indefinitely.” At that point, a Brig psychiatrist became very upset and voiced his concerns, stating something to the effect of, “Sir, I am concerned because if you’re going to do that, maybe you might want to call it something else, because it’s not based on anything from behavioral health.” In response the senior officer said, “We’ll do whatever we want to do. You [the Brig psychiatrists] make your recommendation and I have to make a decision based on everything else.” The psychiatrist responded, “Then don’t say it’s based on mental health. You can say it’s MAX custody, but just don’t say that we’re somehow involved in this.” The senior officer said, “That’s what we’re going to do.” The senior officer made it clear to those present at the meeting that the decision to keep PFC Manning in MAX and POI was coming from those higher in the chain of command.
Multiple Brig psychiatrists recommended for almost nine months that PFC Manning be downgraded from POI status. The psychiatrists informed Quantico Brig officials that PFC Manning’s POI status was not warranted because he did not present a risk to himself and that the POI status was actually causing PFC Manning psychological harm. The psychiatrists’ recommendations were outright ignored by Quantico officials.
The Egregious Conditions of PFC Manning’s Confinement
The Article 13 motion also chronicles the conditions of PFC Manning’s confinement at Quantico. PFC Manning was placed in a 6×8 cell with no window or natural light. Owing to his classification as a MAX detainee, PFC Manning was subject to the following restrictions:
•
PFC Manning was placed in a cell directly in front of the guard post to facilitate his constant monitoring.
•
PFC Manning was awoken at 0500 hours and required to remain awake in his cell from 0500 to 2200 hours.
•
PFC Manning was not permitted to lie down on his rack during the duty day. Nor was PFC Manning permitted to lean his back against the cell wall; he had to sit upright on his rack without any back support.
•
Whenever PFC Manning was moved outside his cell, the entire facility was locked down.
•
Whenever PFC Manning was moved outside his cell, he was shackled with metal hand and leg restraints and accompanied by at least two guards.
•
From 29 July 2010 to 10 December 2010, PFC Manning was permitted only 20 minutes of “sunshine call.” Aside from a 3-5 minute shower, this would be the only time PFC Manning would regularly spend outside his cell. During this sunshine call, he would be brought to a small concrete yard, about half to a third of the size of a basketball court. PFC Manning would be permitted to walk around the yard in hand and leg shackles, while being accompanied by a Brig guard at his immediate side (the guard would have his hand on PFC Manning’s back). Two to three other guards would also be present observing PFC Manning. PFC Manning would usually walk in figure-eights or some other pattern. He was not permitted to sit down or stay stationary.
•
Initially, Brig guards provided PFC Manning with athletic shoes without laces which would fall off when he attempted to walk. PFC Manning elected to wear boots instead because at least the boots would stay on when he walked.
•
From 10 December 2010 onward, PFC Manning was permitted a one hour recreation call. At this point, the Brig authorized the removal of his hand and leg shackles and PFC Manning was no longer required to be accompanied by a Brig guard at his immediate side. Although PFC Manning was technically “permitted” to use exercise equipment at the gym, most of this equipment was unplugged or broken down. In addition, depending on the guards, they would not permit him to use certain types of equipment (e.g. the chin up bar). So as to avoid any problems with the guards, PFC Manning would usually walk around the room as he had during his sunshine calls. Three or four guards would be monitoring PFC Manning during his recreation call.
•
PFC Manning was only authorized non-contact visits. The non-contact visits were permitted on Saturdays and Sundays between 1200 and 1500 hours by approved visitors. During these visits, he would have to wear his hand and leg restraints.
•
PFC Manning was required to meet his visitors in a small 4 by 6 foot room that was separated with a glass partition. His visits were monitored by the guards and they were audio recorded by the Brig. The recording equipment was added by Army CID after PFC Manning’s transfer to the Quantico Brig.
•
PFC Manning was only permitted non-contact visits with his attorneys. During these visits, he was shackled at the hands and feet.
•
PFC Manning was not permitted any work duty.
Owing to PFC Manning being placed on continuous POI status, he was subject to the following further restrictions:
•
PFC Manning was subject to constant monitoring; the Brig guards were required to check on him every five minutes by asking him some variation of, “are you okay?” PFC Manning was required to respond in some affirmative manner. Guards were required to make notations every five minutes in a logbook.
•
At night, if the guards could not see him clearly, because he had a blanket over his head or he was curled up towards the wall, they would wake PFC Manning in order to ensure that he was okay.
•
At night, only some of the lights would be turned off. Additionally, there was a florescent light in the hall outside PFC Manning’s cell that would stay on at night.
•
PFC Manning was required to receive each of his meals alone in his cell. He was only permitted to eat with a spoon.
•
There were usually no detainees on either side of PFC Manning. If PFC Manning attempted to speak to those detainees that were several cells away from him, the guards would order him to stop speaking.
•
PFC Manning originally was provided with a standard mattress and no pillow. PFC Manning tried to fold the mattress to make a pillow so that he could be more comfortable when sleeping. Brig officials did not like this, so on 15 December 2010 they provided him with a suicide mattress with a built-in pillow. This built-in pillow was only a couple of inches high and was not really any better than sleeping on a flat mattress.
•
PFC Manning was not permitted regular sheets or blankets. Instead he was provided with a tear-proof security blanket. This blanket was extremely coarse and irritated PFC Manning’s skin. At first, PFC Manning would get rashes and carpet burns on his skin from the blanket. Eventually, his skin became accustomed to the coarseness of the blanket and he got fewer rashes. The blanket did not keep PFC Manning warm because it did not retain heat and, due to its stiffness, did not contour to his body.
•
PFC Manning was not allowed to have any personal items in his cell.
•
PFC Manning was only allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read. If he was not actively reading, the book or magazine would be taken away from him. Also, the book or magazine would be taken away from him at the end of the day before he went to sleep.
•
For the last month of his confinement at Quantico, PFC Manning was given a pen and five pieces of paper along with his book. However, if he was not actively reading his book and taking notes, these items would be taken away from him.
•
PFC Manning was prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempted to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he would be forced to stop.
•
When PFC Manning went to sleep, he was required to strip down to his underwear and surrender his clothing to the guards.
•
PFC Manning was only permitted hygiene items as needed. PFC Manning would have to request toilet paper every time he wanted to go to the bathroom; at times, he had to wait for guards to provide him with toilet paper.
•
There was no soap in his cell. PFC Manning requested soap to wash his hands after using the bathroom; guards would sometimes get the soap, and sometimes not.
•
PFC Manning was not permitted to wear shoes in his cell.
•
PFC Manning was initially only permitted correspondence time for one hour a day; after 27 October 2010, this was changed to two hours per day.
The 18 January 2011 Incident
On two separate occasions, Brig officials elected to increase the special handling instructions on PFC Manning. The first occurred on 18 January 2011, the day after a protest outside the gates of Quantico. On that day, Brig guards harassed PFC Manning as they escorted him to his recreation call. The first guard told PFC Manning to “turn left.” When he complied, the second guard yelled, “don’t turn left.” When PFC Manning attempted to comply with the demands of the second guard, he was told by the first, “I said turn left.” PFC Manning responded, “yes, Corporal” to the first guard. At this point, the third guard chimed in by telling PFC Manning that “in the Marine Corps we reply with ‘aye’ and not ‘yes.’” He then asked PFC Manning if he understood. PFC Manning made the mistake of replying “yes, Sergeant.” At this point the fourth guard yelled, “you mean ‘aye,’ Sergeant.” When PFC Manning arrived at the recreation room, he was told to stand still so the guards could remove his leg restraints. As PFC Manning stood still, one of the guards yelled, “I told you to stand still.” PFC Manning replied, “yes Corporal, I am standing still.” Another guard then said, “you mean ‘aye’ Corporal.” Next, the same guard said “I thought we covered this, you say ‘aye’ and not ‘yes,’ do you understand?” PFC Manning responded, “aye Sergeant.” Right after PFC Manning replied, he was once again yelled at to “stand still.” Due to being yelled at and the intensity of the guards, PFC Manning mistakenly replied, “yes Corporal, I am standing still.” As soon as PFC Manning uttered his response he attempted to correct himself by saying “aye” instead of “yes,” but it was too late. One of the guards starting yelling at PFC Manning again, “what don’t you understand” and “are we going to have a problem?” Once the leg restraints were taken off of PFC Manning, he took a step back from the guards. PFC Manning’s heart was pounding in his chest, and he could feel himself getting dizzy. A Brig psychiatrist determined that this event was likely an anxiety attack due to the situation. After his restraints were removed, PFC Manning sat down to avoid falling. When he did this, the guards took a step towards him. PFC Manning instinctively backed away from the guards. As soon as PFC Manning backed away, the guards walked toward him as if to prepare to restrain PFC Manning. PFC Manning immediately put his hands up in the air, and said “I am not doing anything, I am just trying to follow your orders.” The guards then told PFC Manning to start walking. PFC Manning complied with their order by saying “aye” instead of “yes.” After recreation call, when he was back in his cell, PFC Manning was visited by a senior Brig official. PFC Manning tried to explain what happened earlier in the day. He also expressed his frustration at the conditions of his confinement. The Brig official said “no one will tell me what to do.” He also said that he was, for all practical purposes, “God.” PFC Manning responded by saying, “you still have to follow Brig procedures.” PFC Manning also said, “everyone has a boss that they have to answer to.” The Brig official then placed PFC Manning in Suicide Risk status, over the recommendation of a Brig psychiatrist. This resulted in PFC Manning being subject to the following additional restrictions:
•
From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning was forced to strip down to his underwear during the day.
•
From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning was forced to sleep naked at night.
•
From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning’s eyeglasses were taken away from him.
•
From 18 January 2011 until 20 January 2011, PFC Manning was not permitted out of his cell and was on 24-hour suicide watch.
The 2 March 2011 Incident
The second incident where the special handling restrictions were increased arose on 2 March 2011. On that date, PFC Manning was informed that no relief would be granted with respect to PFC Manning’s previously-filed Article 138 Complaint. Understandably frustrated by this decision after enduring (at that point) over seven months in unduly harsh confinement conditions, PFC Manning asked a Brig official what he needed to do in order to be downgraded from MAX and POI. The Brig official responded by essentially telling PFC Manning that there was nothing he could do to downgrade his detainee status and that the Brig simply considered him a risk of self-harm. Out of frustration, PFC Manning responded that the POI restrictions were absurd. PFC Manning sarcastically told the Brig official that if he wanted to harm himself, he could conceivably do so with the elastic waistband of his underwear or with his flip-flops. Later that day, Quantico officials increased the restrictions imposed upon PFC Manning under the pretense that PFC Manning was a suicide risk. PFC Manning was not, however, placed under the designation of Suicide Risk. In order to keep PFC Manning in Suicide Risk, Quantico would have needed a supporting recommendation from one of the Brig’s mental health providers (which Quantico did not have). In response to this specific incident, a Brig psychiatrist met with the PFC Manning. After speaking to PFC Manning, he assessed PFC Manning as a “low risk and requiring only routine outpatient follow-up [with] no need for … closer clinical observation.” In particular, he indicated that PFC Manning’s statement about the waist band of his underwear was in no way prompted by “a psychiatric condition.” Rather it was part of his process of “intellectualizing” the conditions of his confinement. The increase in the special handling instructions resulted in PFC Manning being subject to the following additional restrictions:
•
From 2 March 2011 until 6 March 2011, PFC Manning was forced to surrender all his clothing at night and sleep naked.
•
From 2 March 2011 until 6 March 2011, PFC Manning was forced to surrender his eyeglasses during the day and at night. After 6 March 2011, his eyeglasses were returned to him during the day, but continued to be removed from him at night.
•
On 3 March 2011 until 6 March 2011, PFC Manning forced to stand naked at parade rest where he was in view of multiple guards.
•
From 7 March 2011 onward, PFC Manning was required to wear a heavy and restrictive suicide smock which irritated his skin and, on one occasion, almost choked him.
PFC Manning’s Transfer to Fort Leavenworth
On 20 April 2011, after enduring nearly nine months of solitary confinement, PFC Manning was moved to the Fort Leavenworth Joint Regional Correctional Facility. After a routine indoctrination period, PFC Manning was assigned to Medium Custody (there is no designation of Minimum Custody for pretrial detainees). The severe restrictions on PFC Manning’s liberty were lifted. PFC Manning is now permitted to eat with other detainees, socialize with other detainees, walk around without metal shackles, have personal and hygiene items in his cell, etc. PFC Manning has been held in this status for approximately the past 15 months.
11th Hour Revelations That Implicate Officers Much Higher in the Chain of Command
PFC Manning was held at Marine Corps Base Quantico from 29 July 2010 to 20 April 2011. During this time, PFC Manning was held in MAX custody and under POI status. In the fall of 2010, the Defense raised the issue of unlawful pretrial punishment with the Government. On 8 December 2010, the Defense made a discovery request for all documentation from Quantico pertaining to PFC Manning. The Government provided extensive documentation related to PFC Manning’s confinement at Quantico in October of 2011. The Defense believed that this was the full extent of the information the Government had from Quantico.
The deadline for the Defense to file the Article 13 motion was 27 August 2012. On 26 August 2012, the Defense informed the Court and the Government that it would be sending the attachments for the Article 13 motion by Fed-Ex. The attachments exceed 500 pages. The Government did not indicate to the Defense not to mail the attachments. On the evening of 26 August 2012 (after the Defense’s attachments had already been sent), the Government informed the Defense that it had discovered 84 emails that had not yet been produced that were “obviously material to the preparation of the defense.” At approximately 21:15, the Government sent the Defense the 84 emails. The Government indicated that it received these emails from Quantico approximately 6 months ago. However, the Government did not begin reviewing the emails until 25 July 2012.
These emails reveal that the senior Brig officer who ordered PFC Manning to be held in MAX and in POI was receiving his marching orders from a three-star general. They also reveal that everyone at Quantico was complicit in the unlawful pretrial punishment, from senior officers to enlisted soldier.
The Defense requested a continuance to file a supplement to the Article 13 motion based on the late production of the 84 emails. In addition, the Defense filed a discovery request seeking more documentation from the numerous “players” that the Defense did not know were involved in PFC Manning’s custody classification. The Government has indicated that it is currently looking into determining whether such documentation exists. The Defense will likely be required to file a motion to compel discovery in order to obtain this documentation.
The filing deadline for the Supplement to the Article 13 motion is 24 August 2012. The Defense believes that if it receives additional discovery, a further supplement to the motion will be necessary. Further, the Defense will supplement its witness list based on the information in the 84 emails. The Defense anticipates that approximately 10 more individuals will be added to the Defense’s witness list.
The oral argument for the Article 13 motion is currently scheduled for 1-5 October 2012.
The Latest From The Private Bradley Manning Support Network-Free Bradley Manning Now! -Update 8/16/12: Assange’s asylum, Bradley’s case and inequality, and West Coast rallies
http://www.bradleymanning.org/
Click on the headline to link to the Private Bradley Manning Support Network for the latest information on his case and activities on his behalf .
*********
We of the anti-war movement were not able to do much to affect the Bush- Obama Iraq war timetable but we can save the one hero of that war, Private Bradley Manning. The entry below can serve as a continuing rationale for my (and your) support to this honorable whistleblower.
From the American Left History Blog, March 28, 2012
Why I Am Standing In Solidarity With Private Bradley Manning- A Personal Note From An Ex-Soldier Political Prisoner
Markin comment:
Last year I wrote a little entry in this space in order to motivate my reasons for standing in solidarity with a March 20th rally in support of Private Manning at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia where he was then being held. I have subsequently repeatedly used that entry, Why I Will Be Standing In Solidarity With Private Bradley Manning At Quantico, Virginia On Sunday March 20th At 2:00 PM- A Personal Note From An Ex-Soldier Political Prisoner, as a I have tried to publicize his case in blogs and other Internet sources, at various rallies, and at marches, most recently at the Veterans For Peace Saint Patrick’s Day Peace Parade in South Boston on March 18th.
In that spirit I have updated, a little, that earlier entry to reflect the changed circumstances over the past year or so. As one would expect when the cause is still the same, Private Bradley Manning's freedom, unfortunately most of the entry is still in the same key. And will be until the day he is freed by his jailers. And I will continue to stand in proud solidarity with Private Manning until that great day.
*****
Of course I will be standing at the front gate to the Fort Meade , Maryland on April 25th because I stand in solidarity with the actions of Private Bradley Manning in bringing to light, just a little light, some of the nefarious doings of this government, Bush-like or Obamian. If he did such acts they are no crime. No crime at all in my eyes or in the eyes of the vast majority of people who know of the case and of its importance as an individual act of resistance to the unjust and barbaric American-led war in Iraq. I sleep just a shade bit easier these days knowing that Private Manning (or someone) exposed what we all knew, or should have known- the Iraq war and the Afghan war justification rested on a house of cards. American imperialism’s gun-toting house of cards, but cards nevertheless.
Of course I will also be standing at the front gate of Fort Meade, Maryland on April 25th because I am outraged by the treatment meted out to Private Manning, presumably an innocent man, by a government who alleges itself to be some “beacon” of the civilized world. Bradley Manning had been held in solidarity at Quantico and other locales for over 500 days, and has been held without trial for much longer, as the government and its military try to glue a case together. The military, and its henchmen in the Justice Department, have gotten more devious although not smarter since I was a soldier in their crosshairs over forty years ago.
Now the two reasons above are more than sufficient for my standing at the front gate at Fort Meade on April 25th although they, in themselves, are only the appropriate reasons that any progressive thinking person would need to show up and shout to the high heavens for Private Manning’s freedom. I have an additional reason though, a very pressing personal reason. As mentioned above I too was in the military’s crosshairs as a citizen-soldier during the height of the Vietnam War. I will not go into the details of that episode, this comment after all is about brother soldier Manning, other than that I spent my own time in an Army stockade for, let’s put it this way, working on the principle of “what if they gave a war and nobody came”.
Forty years later I am still working off that principle, and gladly. But here is the real point. During that time I had outside support, outside civilian support, that rallied on several occasions outside the military base where I was confined. Believe me that knowledge helped me get through the tough days inside. So on April 25th I will be just, once again, as I have been able to on too few other occasions over years, paying my dues for that long ago support. You, Brother Manning, are a true winter soldier. We were not able to do much about the course of the Iraq War (and little thus far on Afghanistan) but we can move might and main to save the one real hero of that whole mess.
Private Manning I hope that you will hear us and hear about our rally in your defense outside the gates. Better yet, everybody who reads this piece join us and make sure that he can hear us loud and clear. And let us shout to high heaven against this gross injustice-Free Private Manning Now!
************
Update 8/16/12: Assange’s asylum, Bradley’s case and inequality, and West Coast rallies
Bradley Manning and Julian Assange
Ecuador grants asylum to Julian Assange. In a statement this morning granting asylum to the WikiLeaks publisher, Ecuadorian FM Ricardo Patino said that Ecuador asked Sweden to agree to question Assange on the condition that it wouldn’t extradite him to the United States. Sweden refused.
In his remarks, Patino said, “[Assange] is victim of political persecution. … If Assange is extradited to U.S., he will not receive a fair trial.” As many have written, such as Glenn Greenwald, one needs only to look at how Bradley Manning has been treated in the U.S. – from solitary confinement, to the unprecedentedly egregious “aiding the enemy” interpretation, to a secretive trial free of public documents – to understand that Assange’s fear is rational and legitimate. As of this posting, Assange remains in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. (Read more…)
‘The Most Disturbing Thing About the Case Against Bradley Manning.’ Jake Blumgart, for the Seattle Stranger, writes that the collective deprivations of Bradley Manning’s rights point to a larger, insidious threat to our civil liberties: that governments will go after the powerless seeking to expose atrocities with an aggressive fervor and at the same time award more and more immunity to the powerful committing far more serious crimes. As we’ve written about, the Army is punishing the messenger while convicted murderers and war criminals get leniency or total impunity.
As Blumgart writes,
“Whether Manning is guilty or not, whether he should be prosecuted or lauded, whether he is a whistle-blower or an indiscriminate dumper of information, it is clear that Manning’s case is an example of a larger trend in American society: The powerless and economically vulnerable are held to punishingly harsh standards, while the rich and powerful get away with a slap on the wrist (if that). Steal $100 of food from the grocery store? You go to jail. Steal $10,000 from your employees through shady employment practices? Worst thing that happens is you might have to pay them back (but probably not).”
In a useful and careful rehashing of Bradley’s case, Blumgart tallies the various injustices against Bradley in what can only be described as a show trial thus far. (Read more…)
Reminder: actions today throughout the West Coast. At 5 PM PT, supporters in Oakland will rally at Oscar Grant Plaza for PFC Bradley Manning. Led by veterans and anti-war activists, the action is part of a set of rallies along the coast, including demonstrations in Los Angeles and Portland as well.
Click on the headline to link to the Private Bradley Manning Support Network for the latest information on his case and activities on his behalf .
*********
We of the anti-war movement were not able to do much to affect the Bush- Obama Iraq war timetable but we can save the one hero of that war, Private Bradley Manning. The entry below can serve as a continuing rationale for my (and your) support to this honorable whistleblower.
From the American Left History Blog, March 28, 2012
Why I Am Standing In Solidarity With Private Bradley Manning- A Personal Note From An Ex-Soldier Political Prisoner
Markin comment:
Last year I wrote a little entry in this space in order to motivate my reasons for standing in solidarity with a March 20th rally in support of Private Manning at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia where he was then being held. I have subsequently repeatedly used that entry, Why I Will Be Standing In Solidarity With Private Bradley Manning At Quantico, Virginia On Sunday March 20th At 2:00 PM- A Personal Note From An Ex-Soldier Political Prisoner, as a I have tried to publicize his case in blogs and other Internet sources, at various rallies, and at marches, most recently at the Veterans For Peace Saint Patrick’s Day Peace Parade in South Boston on March 18th.
In that spirit I have updated, a little, that earlier entry to reflect the changed circumstances over the past year or so. As one would expect when the cause is still the same, Private Bradley Manning's freedom, unfortunately most of the entry is still in the same key. And will be until the day he is freed by his jailers. And I will continue to stand in proud solidarity with Private Manning until that great day.
*****
Of course I will be standing at the front gate to the Fort Meade , Maryland on April 25th because I stand in solidarity with the actions of Private Bradley Manning in bringing to light, just a little light, some of the nefarious doings of this government, Bush-like or Obamian. If he did such acts they are no crime. No crime at all in my eyes or in the eyes of the vast majority of people who know of the case and of its importance as an individual act of resistance to the unjust and barbaric American-led war in Iraq. I sleep just a shade bit easier these days knowing that Private Manning (or someone) exposed what we all knew, or should have known- the Iraq war and the Afghan war justification rested on a house of cards. American imperialism’s gun-toting house of cards, but cards nevertheless.
Of course I will also be standing at the front gate of Fort Meade, Maryland on April 25th because I am outraged by the treatment meted out to Private Manning, presumably an innocent man, by a government who alleges itself to be some “beacon” of the civilized world. Bradley Manning had been held in solidarity at Quantico and other locales for over 500 days, and has been held without trial for much longer, as the government and its military try to glue a case together. The military, and its henchmen in the Justice Department, have gotten more devious although not smarter since I was a soldier in their crosshairs over forty years ago.
Now the two reasons above are more than sufficient for my standing at the front gate at Fort Meade on April 25th although they, in themselves, are only the appropriate reasons that any progressive thinking person would need to show up and shout to the high heavens for Private Manning’s freedom. I have an additional reason though, a very pressing personal reason. As mentioned above I too was in the military’s crosshairs as a citizen-soldier during the height of the Vietnam War. I will not go into the details of that episode, this comment after all is about brother soldier Manning, other than that I spent my own time in an Army stockade for, let’s put it this way, working on the principle of “what if they gave a war and nobody came”.
Forty years later I am still working off that principle, and gladly. But here is the real point. During that time I had outside support, outside civilian support, that rallied on several occasions outside the military base where I was confined. Believe me that knowledge helped me get through the tough days inside. So on April 25th I will be just, once again, as I have been able to on too few other occasions over years, paying my dues for that long ago support. You, Brother Manning, are a true winter soldier. We were not able to do much about the course of the Iraq War (and little thus far on Afghanistan) but we can move might and main to save the one real hero of that whole mess.
Private Manning I hope that you will hear us and hear about our rally in your defense outside the gates. Better yet, everybody who reads this piece join us and make sure that he can hear us loud and clear. And let us shout to high heaven against this gross injustice-Free Private Manning Now!
************
Update 8/16/12: Assange’s asylum, Bradley’s case and inequality, and West Coast rallies
Bradley Manning and Julian Assange
Ecuador grants asylum to Julian Assange. In a statement this morning granting asylum to the WikiLeaks publisher, Ecuadorian FM Ricardo Patino said that Ecuador asked Sweden to agree to question Assange on the condition that it wouldn’t extradite him to the United States. Sweden refused.
In his remarks, Patino said, “[Assange] is victim of political persecution. … If Assange is extradited to U.S., he will not receive a fair trial.” As many have written, such as Glenn Greenwald, one needs only to look at how Bradley Manning has been treated in the U.S. – from solitary confinement, to the unprecedentedly egregious “aiding the enemy” interpretation, to a secretive trial free of public documents – to understand that Assange’s fear is rational and legitimate. As of this posting, Assange remains in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. (Read more…)
‘The Most Disturbing Thing About the Case Against Bradley Manning.’ Jake Blumgart, for the Seattle Stranger, writes that the collective deprivations of Bradley Manning’s rights point to a larger, insidious threat to our civil liberties: that governments will go after the powerless seeking to expose atrocities with an aggressive fervor and at the same time award more and more immunity to the powerful committing far more serious crimes. As we’ve written about, the Army is punishing the messenger while convicted murderers and war criminals get leniency or total impunity.
As Blumgart writes,
“Whether Manning is guilty or not, whether he should be prosecuted or lauded, whether he is a whistle-blower or an indiscriminate dumper of information, it is clear that Manning’s case is an example of a larger trend in American society: The powerless and economically vulnerable are held to punishingly harsh standards, while the rich and powerful get away with a slap on the wrist (if that). Steal $100 of food from the grocery store? You go to jail. Steal $10,000 from your employees through shady employment practices? Worst thing that happens is you might have to pay them back (but probably not).”
In a useful and careful rehashing of Bradley’s case, Blumgart tallies the various injustices against Bradley in what can only be described as a show trial thus far. (Read more…)
Reminder: actions today throughout the West Coast. At 5 PM PT, supporters in Oakland will rally at Oscar Grant Plaza for PFC Bradley Manning. Led by veterans and anti-war activists, the action is part of a set of rallies along the coast, including demonstrations in Los Angeles and Portland as well.
The Latest From The Private Bradley Manning Support Network-Free Bradley Manning Now! -Hundreds rally at Obama campaign offices for Bradley, veterans arrested-President Obama Pardon Bradley Manning
Click on the headline to link to the Private Bradley Manning Support Network for the latest information on his case and activities on his behalf .
*********
We of the anti-war movement were not able to do much to affect the Bush- Obama Iraq war timetable but we can save the one hero of that war, Private Bradley Manning. The entry below can serve as a continuing rationale for my (and your) support to this honorable whistleblower.
From the American Left History Blog, March 28, 2012
Why I Am Standing In Solidarity With Private Bradley Manning- A Personal Note From An Ex-Soldier Political Prisoner
Markin comment:
Last year I wrote a little entry in this space in order to motivate my reasons for standing in solidarity with a March 20th rally in support of Private Manning at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia where he was then being held. I have subsequently repeatedly used that entry, Why I Will Be Standing In Solidarity With Private Bradley Manning At Quantico, Virginia On Sunday March 20th At 2:00 PM- A Personal Note From An Ex-Soldier Political Prisoner, as a I have tried to publicize his case in blogs and other Internet sources, at various rallies, and at marches, most recently at the Veterans For Peace Saint Patrick’s Day Peace Parade in South Boston on March 18th.
In that spirit I have updated, a little, that earlier entry to reflect the changed circumstances over the past year or so. As one would expect when the cause is still the same, Private Bradley Manning's freedom, unfortunately most of the entry is still in the same key. And will be until the day he is freed by his jailers. And I will continue to stand in proud solidarity with Private Manning until that great day.
*****
Of course I will be standing at the front gate to the Fort Meade , Maryland on April 25th because I stand in solidarity with the actions of Private Bradley Manning in bringing to light, just a little light, some of the nefarious doings of this government, Bush-like or Obamian. If he did such acts they are no crime. No crime at all in my eyes or in the eyes of the vast majority of people who know of the case and of its importance as an individual act of resistance to the unjust and barbaric American-led war in Iraq. I sleep just a shade bit easier these days knowing that Private Manning (or someone) exposed what we all knew, or should have known- the Iraq war and the Afghan war justification rested on a house of cards. American imperialism’s gun-toting house of cards, but cards nevertheless.
Of course I will also be standing at the front gate of Fort Meade, Maryland on April 25th because I am outraged by the treatment meted out to Private Manning, presumably an innocent man, by a government who alleges itself to be some “beacon” of the civilized world. Bradley Manning had been held in solidarity at Quantico and other locales for over 500 days, and has been held without trial for much longer, as the government and its military try to glue a case together. The military, and its henchmen in the Justice Department, have gotten more devious although not smarter since I was a soldier in their crosshairs over forty years ago.
Now the two reasons above are more than sufficient for my standing at the front gate at Fort Meade on April 25th although they, in themselves, are only the appropriate reasons that any progressive thinking person would need to show up and shout to the high heavens for Private Manning’s freedom. I have an additional reason though, a very pressing personal reason. As mentioned above I too was in the military’s crosshairs as a citizen-soldier during the height of the Vietnam War. I will not go into the details of that episode, this comment after all is about brother soldier Manning, other than that I spent my own time in an Army stockade for, let’s put it this way, working on the principle of “what if they gave a war and nobody came”.
Forty years later I am still working off that principle, and gladly. But here is the real point. During that time I had outside support, outside civilian support, that rallied on several occasions outside the military base where I was confined. Believe me that knowledge helped me get through the tough days inside. So on April 25th I will be just, once again, as I have been able to on too few other occasions over years, paying my dues for that long ago support. You, Brother Manning, are a true winter soldier. We were not able to do much about the course of the Iraq War (and little thus far on Afghanistan) but we can move might and main to save the one real hero of that whole mess.
Private Manning I hope that you will hear us and hear about our rally in your defense outside the gates. Better yet, everybody who reads this piece join us and make sure that he can hear us loud and clear. And let us shout to high heaven against this gross injustice-Free Private Manning Now!
**********
Hundreds rally at Obama campaign offices for Bradley, veterans arrested
In a coordinated set of actions, Bradley Manning supporters–led by veterans including Scott Olsen–rallied at and occupied Obama campaign offices on the West Coast yesterday, twelve arrested
By the Bradley Manning Support Network. August 17, 2012.
Six veterans and activists in Oakland, and six more in Portland, OR, were arrested Thursday night at Obama campaign offices for occupying the spaces in solidarity with accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower PFC Bradley Manning. Dozens of veterans and anti-war demonstrators coordinated a West Coast set of actions that also included protests in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Seattle.
Among the approximately 100 Oakland protesters was Iraq War veteran Scott Olsen, who participated in the sit-in, said, “We occupied the President’s campaign office to raise awareness about the injustices Bradley Manning has endured. Bradley has sacrificed for us, doing what was right despite potentially spending the rest of his life in jail.”
In Los Angeles, Iraq War veteran Kevin Baker explained why he supports the Nobel Peace Prize nominee: “Generals say Bradley Manning put lives at risk, but they’re the ones who put us at risk, keeping these things secret and lying us into war.”
Protesters delivered a letter to campaign staff members, which they requested be sent to President Obama at the main campaign headquarters in Chicago. The letter makes its demands clear: that President Obama pardon PFC Bradley Manning, accounting for both his abusive treatment in a Quantico prison cell and the president’s own unlawfully prejudicial remarks that Bradley “broke the law.”
Rallying at the entrance of Obama’s Oakland campaign office. Campaign staff eventually agreed to email it to the national headquarters. Still, several activists remained in each city awaiting President Obama’s response to their demands, and police eventually took six in Oakland and six in Portland into custody.
Veterans are calling for similar actions nationwide during the Democratic National Convention, and for rallies at Ft,. Meade, MD when Bradley returns to court on August 28, and again on October 1.
•RT TV news coverage w/ photos & video
•U.S. News and World Report of Oakland event
•SF Indybay photos of Oakland event
•Occupy Oakland videos and photos of Oakland event
•Local Fox TV News coverage of Oakland event (Youtube)
•Local NBC News coverage of the Portland event (Youtube)
•Portland Occupier coverage of Portland event
*********
We of the anti-war movement were not able to do much to affect the Bush- Obama Iraq war timetable but we can save the one hero of that war, Private Bradley Manning. The entry below can serve as a continuing rationale for my (and your) support to this honorable whistleblower.
From the American Left History Blog, March 28, 2012
Why I Am Standing In Solidarity With Private Bradley Manning- A Personal Note From An Ex-Soldier Political Prisoner
Markin comment:
Last year I wrote a little entry in this space in order to motivate my reasons for standing in solidarity with a March 20th rally in support of Private Manning at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia where he was then being held. I have subsequently repeatedly used that entry, Why I Will Be Standing In Solidarity With Private Bradley Manning At Quantico, Virginia On Sunday March 20th At 2:00 PM- A Personal Note From An Ex-Soldier Political Prisoner, as a I have tried to publicize his case in blogs and other Internet sources, at various rallies, and at marches, most recently at the Veterans For Peace Saint Patrick’s Day Peace Parade in South Boston on March 18th.
In that spirit I have updated, a little, that earlier entry to reflect the changed circumstances over the past year or so. As one would expect when the cause is still the same, Private Bradley Manning's freedom, unfortunately most of the entry is still in the same key. And will be until the day he is freed by his jailers. And I will continue to stand in proud solidarity with Private Manning until that great day.
*****
Of course I will be standing at the front gate to the Fort Meade , Maryland on April 25th because I stand in solidarity with the actions of Private Bradley Manning in bringing to light, just a little light, some of the nefarious doings of this government, Bush-like or Obamian. If he did such acts they are no crime. No crime at all in my eyes or in the eyes of the vast majority of people who know of the case and of its importance as an individual act of resistance to the unjust and barbaric American-led war in Iraq. I sleep just a shade bit easier these days knowing that Private Manning (or someone) exposed what we all knew, or should have known- the Iraq war and the Afghan war justification rested on a house of cards. American imperialism’s gun-toting house of cards, but cards nevertheless.
Of course I will also be standing at the front gate of Fort Meade, Maryland on April 25th because I am outraged by the treatment meted out to Private Manning, presumably an innocent man, by a government who alleges itself to be some “beacon” of the civilized world. Bradley Manning had been held in solidarity at Quantico and other locales for over 500 days, and has been held without trial for much longer, as the government and its military try to glue a case together. The military, and its henchmen in the Justice Department, have gotten more devious although not smarter since I was a soldier in their crosshairs over forty years ago.
Now the two reasons above are more than sufficient for my standing at the front gate at Fort Meade on April 25th although they, in themselves, are only the appropriate reasons that any progressive thinking person would need to show up and shout to the high heavens for Private Manning’s freedom. I have an additional reason though, a very pressing personal reason. As mentioned above I too was in the military’s crosshairs as a citizen-soldier during the height of the Vietnam War. I will not go into the details of that episode, this comment after all is about brother soldier Manning, other than that I spent my own time in an Army stockade for, let’s put it this way, working on the principle of “what if they gave a war and nobody came”.
Forty years later I am still working off that principle, and gladly. But here is the real point. During that time I had outside support, outside civilian support, that rallied on several occasions outside the military base where I was confined. Believe me that knowledge helped me get through the tough days inside. So on April 25th I will be just, once again, as I have been able to on too few other occasions over years, paying my dues for that long ago support. You, Brother Manning, are a true winter soldier. We were not able to do much about the course of the Iraq War (and little thus far on Afghanistan) but we can move might and main to save the one real hero of that whole mess.
Private Manning I hope that you will hear us and hear about our rally in your defense outside the gates. Better yet, everybody who reads this piece join us and make sure that he can hear us loud and clear. And let us shout to high heaven against this gross injustice-Free Private Manning Now!
**********
Hundreds rally at Obama campaign offices for Bradley, veterans arrested
In a coordinated set of actions, Bradley Manning supporters–led by veterans including Scott Olsen–rallied at and occupied Obama campaign offices on the West Coast yesterday, twelve arrested
By the Bradley Manning Support Network. August 17, 2012.
Six veterans and activists in Oakland, and six more in Portland, OR, were arrested Thursday night at Obama campaign offices for occupying the spaces in solidarity with accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower PFC Bradley Manning. Dozens of veterans and anti-war demonstrators coordinated a West Coast set of actions that also included protests in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Seattle.
Among the approximately 100 Oakland protesters was Iraq War veteran Scott Olsen, who participated in the sit-in, said, “We occupied the President’s campaign office to raise awareness about the injustices Bradley Manning has endured. Bradley has sacrificed for us, doing what was right despite potentially spending the rest of his life in jail.”
In Los Angeles, Iraq War veteran Kevin Baker explained why he supports the Nobel Peace Prize nominee: “Generals say Bradley Manning put lives at risk, but they’re the ones who put us at risk, keeping these things secret and lying us into war.”
Protesters delivered a letter to campaign staff members, which they requested be sent to President Obama at the main campaign headquarters in Chicago. The letter makes its demands clear: that President Obama pardon PFC Bradley Manning, accounting for both his abusive treatment in a Quantico prison cell and the president’s own unlawfully prejudicial remarks that Bradley “broke the law.”
Rallying at the entrance of Obama’s Oakland campaign office. Campaign staff eventually agreed to email it to the national headquarters. Still, several activists remained in each city awaiting President Obama’s response to their demands, and police eventually took six in Oakland and six in Portland into custody.
Veterans are calling for similar actions nationwide during the Democratic National Convention, and for rallies at Ft,. Meade, MD when Bradley returns to court on August 28, and again on October 1.
•RT TV news coverage w/ photos & video
•U.S. News and World Report of Oakland event
•SF Indybay photos of Oakland event
•Occupy Oakland videos and photos of Oakland event
•Local Fox TV News coverage of Oakland event (Youtube)
•Local NBC News coverage of the Portland event (Youtube)
•Portland Occupier coverage of Portland event
UNAC CALLS FOR EDUCATION AND ACTION-STATEMENT ON ESCALATING THREATS OF MILITARY ACTION AND INCREASED RACIST VIOLENCE/REPRESSION AT HOME
STATEMENT ON ESCALATING THREATS OF MILITARY ACTION AND INCREASED RACIST VIOLENCE/REPRESSION AT HOME
DANGEROUS ESCALATION IN THREATS OF MILITARY ACTION AGAINST SYRIA AND IRAN
AND INCREASED RACIST VIOLENCE AND REPRESSION AT HOME
UNAC CALLS FOR EDUCATION AND ACTION
NO WARS/NO SANCTIONS/NO DRONES/NO THREATS/NO PROVOCATIONS/NO ASSASSINATIONS
SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF SYRIA AND IRAN
NO TO RACISM, RAIDS, AND REPRESSION
BUILD OCTOBER 7 ACTIONS AGAINST WARS ABROAD AND POLICE STATE
ATTACKS ON CIVIL LIBERTIES AT HOME
The news is filled with alarming new threats of attacks on Syria and Iran. Secretary of State Clinton says the U.S. and Turkey are discussing details for a “No-Fly Zone” over Syria. We know from the Libyan experience that a “No-Fly Zone” would require massive NATO bombing of Syrian air defenses and huge civilian casualties. At the same time, State Department spokespeople are targeting Iran and Hezbollah for alleged military support to the Assad government and unsubstantiated terrorist actions. These claims and increased sanctions are designed to justify increased U.S. intervention. Israel says Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Israel, whose belligerence was recently rewarded by the U.S. gift of a $680M missile shield (added to the $3.1 billion for military aid this year), has again gone to the airwaves threatening pre-emptive military action against Iran in the near future.
All of this sounds eerily familiar as lead-ups to new wars, when the old ones have not ended. This is how the public was whipped up and the basis was laid before attacking Iraq and Libya. Going after Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya, causing massive loss of life and destruction, could be small potatoes compared to the conflagration we might see following military intervention in Syria, Iran and Lebanon. This would also prevent achievement of the promise we witnessed with the Arab Spring uprisings. All of this stemming from a rapacious drive for imperialist domination of resources and power.
At the same time, we see increased repression and poverty at home. Islamophobia and scapegoating of Muslims leads to manufactured frame-ups and violence against the Muslim community, and by extension brutal attacks on Sikhs as well. Immigrants are targeted. Increased militarization of our society leads to an expansion of surveillance and stop-and-frisk operations, military weapons in the hands of police, and an explosion of the prison industry with mass incarceration of Black and Latino youth. Civil liberties and the right to dissent are under siege with indefinite detention and extra-judicial assassinations now the law of the land.
To pay for wars and to maximize the profits of the haves, they take more and more from the have-nots. We see cuts to the social safety nets, attacks on labor, privatization of government programs, huge unemployment, neglect of infrastructure, rapid climate change and poisoning of the environment.
When we need a strong and unified movement to mobilize against these horrors, much of the left is confused by the misinformation and distracted by the elections. We can’t be falsely assured that elections will save us when the wars and repressions have been bi-partisan. We are not powerless. We must do everything we can to counter these threats.
What should we do?
· Counter the media propaganda and educate people about the realities on the ground with teach-ins, forums, protests, letters to the editor, op-eds, phone calls to Congress, petitions, resolutions and referendums. Be creative.
· Reach out to new constituencies and form alliances based on our connected interests – students, Occupy activists, workers, immigrant groups, Muslims, community groups, civil liberties organizations, antiwar committees, international solidarity groups, communities of color.
· If there is direct military intervention or a “No Fly Zone”, we must pour into the streets with day-after mobilizations.
· Stand in solidarity with victims of police, state, and racial violence and repression and build links to people under attack – Sikhs, Muslims, undocumented workers, death row prisoners, African-American and Latino youth, social justice activists are all targets in an atmosphere of escalating racism and repression.
· Build regional and local actions all over the country focused on the dual wars abroad and at home-on Sunday, October 7, the anniversary of the attack on Afghanistan and the initiation of the global War of Terror on the 99% in the interests of the 1%.
LET’S STAND TOGETHER IN UNITY AND SOLIDARITY. TOGETHER WE ARE POWERFUL!
DANGEROUS ESCALATION IN THREATS OF MILITARY ACTION AGAINST SYRIA AND IRAN
AND INCREASED RACIST VIOLENCE AND REPRESSION AT HOME
UNAC CALLS FOR EDUCATION AND ACTION
NO WARS/NO SANCTIONS/NO DRONES/NO THREATS/NO PROVOCATIONS/NO ASSASSINATIONS
SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF SYRIA AND IRAN
NO TO RACISM, RAIDS, AND REPRESSION
BUILD OCTOBER 7 ACTIONS AGAINST WARS ABROAD AND POLICE STATE
ATTACKS ON CIVIL LIBERTIES AT HOME
The news is filled with alarming new threats of attacks on Syria and Iran. Secretary of State Clinton says the U.S. and Turkey are discussing details for a “No-Fly Zone” over Syria. We know from the Libyan experience that a “No-Fly Zone” would require massive NATO bombing of Syrian air defenses and huge civilian casualties. At the same time, State Department spokespeople are targeting Iran and Hezbollah for alleged military support to the Assad government and unsubstantiated terrorist actions. These claims and increased sanctions are designed to justify increased U.S. intervention. Israel says Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Israel, whose belligerence was recently rewarded by the U.S. gift of a $680M missile shield (added to the $3.1 billion for military aid this year), has again gone to the airwaves threatening pre-emptive military action against Iran in the near future.
All of this sounds eerily familiar as lead-ups to new wars, when the old ones have not ended. This is how the public was whipped up and the basis was laid before attacking Iraq and Libya. Going after Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya, causing massive loss of life and destruction, could be small potatoes compared to the conflagration we might see following military intervention in Syria, Iran and Lebanon. This would also prevent achievement of the promise we witnessed with the Arab Spring uprisings. All of this stemming from a rapacious drive for imperialist domination of resources and power.
At the same time, we see increased repression and poverty at home. Islamophobia and scapegoating of Muslims leads to manufactured frame-ups and violence against the Muslim community, and by extension brutal attacks on Sikhs as well. Immigrants are targeted. Increased militarization of our society leads to an expansion of surveillance and stop-and-frisk operations, military weapons in the hands of police, and an explosion of the prison industry with mass incarceration of Black and Latino youth. Civil liberties and the right to dissent are under siege with indefinite detention and extra-judicial assassinations now the law of the land.
To pay for wars and to maximize the profits of the haves, they take more and more from the have-nots. We see cuts to the social safety nets, attacks on labor, privatization of government programs, huge unemployment, neglect of infrastructure, rapid climate change and poisoning of the environment.
When we need a strong and unified movement to mobilize against these horrors, much of the left is confused by the misinformation and distracted by the elections. We can’t be falsely assured that elections will save us when the wars and repressions have been bi-partisan. We are not powerless. We must do everything we can to counter these threats.
What should we do?
· Counter the media propaganda and educate people about the realities on the ground with teach-ins, forums, protests, letters to the editor, op-eds, phone calls to Congress, petitions, resolutions and referendums. Be creative.
· Reach out to new constituencies and form alliances based on our connected interests – students, Occupy activists, workers, immigrant groups, Muslims, community groups, civil liberties organizations, antiwar committees, international solidarity groups, communities of color.
· If there is direct military intervention or a “No Fly Zone”, we must pour into the streets with day-after mobilizations.
· Stand in solidarity with victims of police, state, and racial violence and repression and build links to people under attack – Sikhs, Muslims, undocumented workers, death row prisoners, African-American and Latino youth, social justice activists are all targets in an atmosphere of escalating racism and repression.
· Build regional and local actions all over the country focused on the dual wars abroad and at home-on Sunday, October 7, the anniversary of the attack on Afghanistan and the initiation of the global War of Terror on the 99% in the interests of the 1%.
LET’S STAND TOGETHER IN UNITY AND SOLIDARITY. TOGETHER WE ARE POWERFUL!
Labor Day celebrated in the right way! Publix Day of Action coming this Labor Day...
Labor Day celebrated in the right way! Publix Day of Action coming this Labor Day...
Labor Day celebrated the right way...
Fair Food activists ramping up for a Labor Day of Action with Publix protests across southeast market states!
This Labor Day weekend, a weekend in which we honor the contributions of workers to our society, Fair Food activists across the southern states that make up Publix's market -- from Homestead to Sarasota in Florida to Nashville, Atlanta, and more -- are taking action to support the men and women who harvest Florida's tomatoes!
For years, Publix has refused to join companies like Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Burger King, McDonalds and others in supporting the CIW's Fair Food Program. This Labor Day weekend, you can join with people from your school, congregation or community group to call on Publix to join the Fair Food Program and do its part to support the groundbreaking collaboration among workers, growers, and purchasers that is changing wages and working conditions in Florida's fields today.
If you wish to join in the Labor Day Weekend of Action, please contact the folks at Interfaith Action of Southwest Florida by emailing jordan@interfaithact.org or calling 239-986-9101. They'll let you know of any plans already underway in your area, supply you a template press release in order to publicize your action, and do whatever else they can to ensure that your action is a success. And don't forget to take pictures for a photo report on the CIW website!
And, just in case you need a pinch of additional motivation to get you over the hump and into action, go to the CIW's Vimeo page to have a look at the beautiful, inspirational video from Day Six of this past spring's Fast for Fair Food.
Labor Day celebrated the right way...
Fair Food activists ramping up for a Labor Day of Action with Publix protests across southeast market states!
This Labor Day weekend, a weekend in which we honor the contributions of workers to our society, Fair Food activists across the southern states that make up Publix's market -- from Homestead to Sarasota in Florida to Nashville, Atlanta, and more -- are taking action to support the men and women who harvest Florida's tomatoes!
For years, Publix has refused to join companies like Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Burger King, McDonalds and others in supporting the CIW's Fair Food Program. This Labor Day weekend, you can join with people from your school, congregation or community group to call on Publix to join the Fair Food Program and do its part to support the groundbreaking collaboration among workers, growers, and purchasers that is changing wages and working conditions in Florida's fields today.
If you wish to join in the Labor Day Weekend of Action, please contact the folks at Interfaith Action of Southwest Florida by emailing jordan@interfaithact.org or calling 239-986-9101. They'll let you know of any plans already underway in your area, supply you a template press release in order to publicize your action, and do whatever else they can to ensure that your action is a success. And don't forget to take pictures for a photo report on the CIW website!
And, just in case you need a pinch of additional motivation to get you over the hump and into action, go to the CIW's Vimeo page to have a look at the beautiful, inspirational video from Day Six of this past spring's Fast for Fair Food.
From Occupy Homes MA-Boston-Attention people facing foreclosure or in foreclosure: Don't let the Bank push you out!
From Occupy Homes MA-Boston-Attention people facing foreclosure or in foreclosure: Don't let the Bank push you out!
Important information
If you are the former owner or a tenant in a foreclosed building, you can fight for your home after foreclosure. If you have received an eviction notice from the Bank, DO NOT MOVE! Do not accept "cash for keys" payments without consulting with Occupy Homes MA or an attorney.
To all residents: If you live in a building that has already been foreclosed or where a foreclosure seems likely, call us at Occupy Homes at 617-524-3541 or come to any meeting of the City Life every Tuesday night, 6:15 pm, at 284 Amory St. in JP (near Stonybrook Station on Orange Line). You can fight the eviction.
Don't panic. Don't move. Organize! Join Occupy Homes MA
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Tufts Library - Canoe Room
46 Broad Street, Weymouth
6:00 PM
Mortgage companies have been unwilling to do meaningful loan modifications for homeowners in trouble. To owners: If you financed your home during the real estate bubble, chances are the value of your home is much less than the value of the mortgage. In that case, a "meaningful loan modification" is one that reduces principal owed.
To owners and tenants: After foreclosure, lenders evicted about 2400 households in Boston in 2008. About 77% of these households were tenants. AM these evictions were "no fault," because foreclosing lenders refuse to accept rent. They sit on vacant property after foreclosure and our neighborhoods decline.
Occupy Homes MA is dedicated to uniting tenants and former owners in foreclosed buildings in order to protect our homes and neighborhoods against giant mortgage companies and banks.
For more information, call Occupy Homes MA: 617-249-4359 - Email: SouthShoreOccupy@gmail.com
Important information
If you are the former owner or a tenant in a foreclosed building, you can fight for your home after foreclosure. If you have received an eviction notice from the Bank, DO NOT MOVE! Do not accept "cash for keys" payments without consulting with Occupy Homes MA or an attorney.
To all residents: If you live in a building that has already been foreclosed or where a foreclosure seems likely, call us at Occupy Homes at 617-524-3541 or come to any meeting of the City Life every Tuesday night, 6:15 pm, at 284 Amory St. in JP (near Stonybrook Station on Orange Line). You can fight the eviction.
Don't panic. Don't move. Organize! Join Occupy Homes MA
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Tufts Library - Canoe Room
46 Broad Street, Weymouth
6:00 PM
Mortgage companies have been unwilling to do meaningful loan modifications for homeowners in trouble. To owners: If you financed your home during the real estate bubble, chances are the value of your home is much less than the value of the mortgage. In that case, a "meaningful loan modification" is one that reduces principal owed.
To owners and tenants: After foreclosure, lenders evicted about 2400 households in Boston in 2008. About 77% of these households were tenants. AM these evictions were "no fault," because foreclosing lenders refuse to accept rent. They sit on vacant property after foreclosure and our neighborhoods decline.
Occupy Homes MA is dedicated to uniting tenants and former owners in foreclosed buildings in order to protect our homes and neighborhoods against giant mortgage companies and banks.
For more information, call Occupy Homes MA: 617-249-4359 - Email: SouthShoreOccupy@gmail.com
*From The Pen Of Vladimir Lenin- From “Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder (1920)-Appendix
Click on the headline to link to the Lenin Internet Archives.
Markin comment:
This article goes along with the propaganda points in the fight for our communist future mentioned in other posts.
*******
With this now-classic work, Lenin aimed to encapsulate the lessons the Bolshevik Party had learned from its involvement in three revolutions in 12 years—in a manner that European Communists could relate to, for it was to them he was speaking. He also further develops the theory of what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" means and stresses that the primary danger for the working-class movement in general is opportunism on the one hand, and anti-Marxist ultra-leftism on the other.
"Left-Wing" Communism: an Infantile Disorder was written in April, and the appendix was written on May 12, 1920. It came out on June 8-10 in Russian and in July was published in German, English and French. Lenin gave personal attention to the book’s type-setting and printing schedule so that it would be published before the opening of the Second Congress of the Communist International, each delegate receiving a copy. Between July and November 1920, the book was re-published in Leipzig, Paris and London, in the German, French and English languages respectively.
"Left-Wing" Communism: an Infantile Disorder is published according to the first edition print, the proofs of which were read by Lenin himself.
**********
Appendix
Contents:
The Split Among The German Communists
The Communists And The Independents In Germany
Turati and Co. in Italy
False Conclusions from Correct Premises
Note from Wijnkoop, June 30 1920
Before publishing houses in our country—which has been plundered by the imperialists of the whole world in revenge for the proletarian revolution, and which is still being plundered and blockaded by them regardless of all promises they made to their workers—were able to bring out my pamphlet, additional material arrived from abroad. Without claiming to present in my pamphlet anything more than the cursory notes of a publicist, I shall dwell briefly upon a few points.
I. The Split Among the German Communists
The split among the Communists in Germany is an accomplished fact. The "Lefts", or the "opposition on principle", have formed a separate Communist Workers’ Party, as distinct from the Communist Party. A split also seems imminent in Italy—I say "seems", as I have only two additional issues (Nos. 7 and 8) of the Left newspaper, Il Soviet, in which the possibility of and necessity for a split is openly discussed, and mention is also made of a congress of the "Abstentionist" group (or the boycottists, i.e., opponents of participation in parliament), which group is still part of the Italian Socialist Party.
There is reason to fear that the split with the "Lefts", the anti-parliamentarians (in part anti-politicals too, who are opposed to any political party and to work in the trade unions), will become an international phenomenon, like the split with the "Centrists" (i.e., Kautskyites, Longuetists, Independents, etc.). Let that be so. At all events, a split is better than confusion, which hampers the ideological, theoretical and revolutionary growth and maturing of the party, and its harmonious, really organised practical work which actually paves the way for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Let the "Lefts" put themselves to a practical test on a national and international scale. Let them try to prepare for (and then implement) the dictatorship of the proletariat, without a rigorously centralised party with iron discipline, without the ability to become masters of every sphere, every branch, and every variety of political and cultural work. Practical experience will soon teach them.
Only, every effort should be made to prevent the split with the "Lefts,, from impeding—or to see that it impedes as little as possible—the necessary amalgamation into a single party, inevitable in the near future, of all participants in the working-class movement who sincerely and conscientiously stand for Soviet government and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was the exceptional good fortune of the Bolsheviks in Russia to have had fifteen years for a systematic and consummated struggle both against the Mensheviks (i.e., the opportunists and "Centrists") and against the "Lefts", long before the masses began direct action for the dictatorship of the proletariat. In Europe and America the same work has now to be done by forced marches, so to say. Certain individuals, especially among unsuccessful aspirants to leadership, may (if they lack proletarian discipline and are not honest towards themselves) persist in their mistakes for a long time; however, when the time is ripe, the masses of the workers will themselves unite easily and rapidly and unite all sincere Communists to form a single party capable of establishing the Soviet system and the dictatorship of the proletariat. *9
II. The Communists and the Indenpendents in Germany
In this pamphlet I have expressed the opinion that a compromise between the Communists and the Left wing of the Independents is necessary and useful to communism, but will not be easy to bring about. Newspapers which I have subsequently received have confirmed this opinion on both points. No. 32 of The Red Flag, organ of the Central Committee, the Communist Party of Germany (Die Rote Fahne, Zentralorgan der Kommunistischen Partei Deutschlands, Spartakusbund, of March 26, 1920) published a "statement" by this Central Committee regarding the Kapp-Luttwitz military putsch and on the "socialist government". This statement is quite correct both in its basic premise and its practical conclusions. The basic premise is that at present there is no "objective basis" for the dictatorship of the proletariat because the "majority of the urban workers" support the Independents. The conclusion is: a promise to be a "loyal opposition" (i.e., renunciation of preparations for a "forcible overthrow") to a "socialist government if it excludes bourgeois-capitalist parties".
In the main, this tactic is undoubtedly correct. Yet, even if minor inaccuracies of formulation should not be dwelt on, it is impossible to pass over in silence the fact that a government consisting of social-traitors should not (in an official statement by the Communist Party) be called "socialist"; that one should not speak of the exclusion of "bourgeois-capitalist parties", when the parties both of the Scheidemanns and of the Kautskys and Crispiens are petty-bourgeois-democratic parties; that things should never be written that are contained in S4 of the statement, which reads:
"...A state of affairs in which political freedom can be enjoyed without restriction, and bourgeois democracy cannot operate as the dictatorship of capital is, from the viewpoint of the development of the proletarian dictatorship, of the utmost importance in further winning the proletarian masses over to the side of communism."
Such a state of affairs is impossible. Petty-bourgeois leaders, the German Hendersons (Scheidemanns) and Snowdens (Crispiens), do not and cannot go beyond the bounds of bourgeois democracy, which, in its turn, cannot but be a dictatorship of capital. To achieve the practical results ~ that the Central Committee of the Communist Party had 4, been quite rightly working for, there was no need to write such things, which are wrong in principle and politically harmful. It would have been sufficient to say (if one wished to observe parliamentary amenities): "As long as the majority of the urban workers follow the Independents, we Communists must do nothing to prevent those workers from getting rid of their last philistine-democratic (i.e., ’bourgeois-capitalist’) illusions by going through the experience of having a government of their ’own’." That is sufficient ground for a compromise, which is really necessary and should consist in renouncing, for a certain period, all attempts at the forcible overthrow of a government which enjoys the confidence of a majority of the urban workers. But in everyday mass agitation, in which one is not bound by official parliamentary amenities, one might, of course, add: "Let scoundrels like the Scheidemanns, and philistines like the Kautskys and Crispiens reveal by their deeds how they have been fooled themselves and how they are fooling the workers; their ’clean’ government will itself do the ’cleanest’ job of all in ’cleansing’ the Augean stables of socialism, Social-Democracy and other forms of social treachery."
The real nature of the present leaders of the (leaders of whom it has been wrongly said that they have already lost all influence, whereas in reality they are even more dangerous to the proletariat that the Hungarian Social-Democrats who styled themselves Communists and promised to "support" the dictatorship of the proletariat) was once again revealed during the German equivalent of the Kornilov revolt, i.e., the Kapp-Luttwitz putsch. *10 A small but striking illustration is provided by two brief articles—one by Karl Kautsky entitled "Decisive Hours" ("Entscheidende Stunden") in Freiheit (Freedom), organ of the Independents, of March 30, 1920, and the other by Arthur Crispien entitled "On the Political Situation" (in the same newspaper, issue of April 14, 1920). These gentlemen are absolutely incapable of thinking and reasoning like revolutionaries. They are snivelling philistine democrats, who become a thousand times more dangerous to the proletariat when they claim to be supporters of Soviet government and of the dictatorship of the proletariat because, in fact, whenever a difficult and dangerous situation arises they are sure to commit treachery ... while "sincerely" believing that they are helping the proletariat! Did not the Hungarian Social-Democrats, after rechristening themselves Communists, also want to "help" the proletariat when, because of their cowardice and spinelessness, they considered the position of Soviet power in Hungary hopeless and went snivelling to the agents of the Entente capitalists and the Entente hangmen?
III. Turatie and Co. in Italy
The issues of the Italian newspaper Il Soviet referred to above fully confirm what I have said in the pamphlet about the Italian Socialist Party’s error in tolerating such members and even such a group of parliamentarians in their ranks. It is still further confirmed by an outside observer like the Rome correspondent of The Manchester Guardian, organ of the British liberal bourgeoisie, whose interview with Turati is published in its issue of March 12 1920. The correspondent writes:
"... Signor Turati’s opinion is that the revolutionary peril is not such as to cause undue anxiety in Italy. The Maximalists are fanning the fire of Soviet theories only to keep the masses awake and excited. These theories are however, merely legendary notions, unripe programmes, incapable of being put to practical use. They are likely only to maintain the working classes in a state of expectation. The very men who. use them as a lure to dazzle proletarian eyes find themselves compelled to fight a daily battle for the extortion of some often trifling economic advantages so as to delay the moment when the working classes will lose their illusions and faith in their cherished myths. Hence a long string of strikes of all sizes and with all pretexts up to the very latest ones in the mail and railway services—strikes which make the already hard conditions of the country still worse. The country is irritated owing to the difficulties connected with its Adriatic problem, is weighed down by its foreign debt and by its inflated paper circulation, and yet it is still far from realising the necessity of adopting that discipline of work which alone can restore order and prosperity."
It is clear as daylight that this British correspondent has blurted out the truth, which is probably being concealed and glossed over both by Turati himself, and his bourgeois defenders, accomplices and inspirers in Italy. That truth is that the ideas and political activities of Turati, Treves, Modigliani, Dugoni and Co. are really and precisely of the kind that the British correspondent has described. It is downright social treachery. Just look at this advocacy of order and discipline among the workers, who are wage-slaves toiling to enrich the capitalists! And how familiar to us Russians are all these Menshevik speeches! What a valuable admission it is that the masses are in favour of Soviet government! How stupid and vulgarly bourgeois is the failure to understand the revolutionary role of strikes which are spreading spontaneously! Indeed, the correspondent of the British bourgeois-liberal newspaper has rendered Turati and Co. a disservice and has excellently confirmed the correctness of the demand by Comrade Bordiga and his friends on Il Soviet, who are insisting that the Italian Socialist Party, if it really wants to be for the Third International, should drum Turati and Co. out of its ranks and become a Communist Party both in name and in deed.
IV. False Conclusions from Correct Premises
However, Comrade Bordiga and his "Left" friends draw from their correct criticism of Turati and Co. the wrong conclusion that any participation in parliament is harmful in principle. The Italian "Lefts" cannot advance even a shadow of serious argument in support of this view. They simply do not know (or try to forget) the international examples of really revolutionary and communist utilisation of bourgeois parliaments, which has been of unquestionable value in preparing for the proletarian revolution. They simply cannot conceive of any "new" ways of that utilisation, and keep on repeatedly and endlessly vociferating about the "old" non-Bolshevik way.
Herein lies their fundamental error. In all fields of activity, and not in the parliamentary sphere alone, communism must introduce (and without long and persistent effort it will be unable to introduce) something new in principle that will represent a radical break with the traditions of the Second International (while retaining and developing what was good in the latter).
Let us take, say, journalistic work. Newspapers, pamphlets and leaflets perform the indispensable work of propaganda, agitation and organisation. No mass movement in any country at all civilised can get along without a journalistic apparatus. No outcries against "leaders" or solemn vows to keep the masses uncontaminated by the influence of leaders will relieve us of the necessity of using, for this work, people from a bourgeois-intellectual environment or will rid us of the bourgeois-democratic, "private property" atmosphere and environment in which this work is carried out under capitalism. Even two and a half years after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, after the conquest of political power by the proletariat, we still have this atmosphere around us, this environment of mass (peasant, artisan) bourgeois-democratic private property relations.
Parliamentarianism is one form of activity; journalism is another. The content of both can and should be communist if those engaged in these two spheres are genuine Communists, really members of a proletarian mass party. Yet, in neither sphere—and in no other sphere of activity under capitalism and during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism—is it possible to avoid those difficulties which the proletariat must overcome, those special problems which the proletariat must solve so as to use, for its own purposes, the services of people from the ranks of the bourgeoisie, eradicate bourgeois-intellectualist prejudices and influences, and weaken the resistance of (and, ultimately, completely transform) the petty-bourgeois environment.
Did we not, before the war of 1914-18, witness in all countries innumerable cases of extreme "Left" anarchists, syndicalists and others fulminating against parliamentarianism, deriding bourgeois-vulgarised parliamentary socialists, castigating their careerism, and so on and so forth, and yet themselves pursuing the same kind of bourgeois career through journalism and through work in the syndicates (trade unions)? Is not the example of Jouhaux and Merrheim, to limit oneself to France, typical in this respect?
The childishness of those who "repudiate" participation in parliament consists in their thinking it possible to "solve" the difficult problem of combating bourgeois-democratic influences within the working-class movement in such a "simple", "easy", allegedly revolutionary manner, whereas they are actually merely running away from their own shadows, only closing their eyes to difficulties and trying to shrug them off with mere words. The most shameless careerism, the bourgeois utilisation of parliamentary seats, glaringly reformist perversion of parliamentary activity, and vulgar petty-bourgeois conservatism are all unquestionably common and prevalent features engendered everywhere by capitalism, not only outside but also within the working-class movement. But the selfsame capitalism and the bourgeois environment it creates (which disappears very slowly even after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, since the peasantry constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie) give rise to what is essentially the same bourgeois careerism, national chauvinism, petty-bourgeois vulgarity, etc. —merely varying insignificantly in form—in positively every sphere of activity and life.
You think, my dear boycottists and anti-parliamentarians, that you are "terribly revolutionary", but in reality you are frightened by the comparatively minor difficulties of the struggle against bourgeois influences within the working-class movement, whereas your victory—i.e., the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the conquest of political power by the proletariat—will create these very same difficulties on a still larger, an infinitely larger scale. Like children, you are frightened by a minor difficulty which confronts you today, but you do not understand that tomorrow, and the day after, you will still have to learn, and learn thoroughly, to overcome the selfsame difficulties, only on an immeasurably greater scale.
Under Soviet rule, your proletarian party and ours will be invaded by a still larger number of bourgeois intellectuals. They will worm their way into the Soviets, the courts, and the administration, since communism cannot be built otherwise than with the aid of the human material created by capitalism, and the bourgeois intellectuals cannot be expelled and destroyed, but must be won over, remoulded, assimilated and re-educated, just as we must—in a protracted struggle waged on the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat—re-educate the proletarians themselves, who do not abandon their petty-bourgeois prejudices at one stroke, by a miracle, at the behest of the Virgin Mary, at the behest of a slogan, resolution or decree, but only in the course of a long and difficult mass struggle against mass petty-bourgeois influences. Under Soviet rule, these same problems, which the anti-parliamentarians now so proudly so haughtily, so lightly and so childishly brush aside with a wave of the hand—these selfsame problems are arising anew within the Soviets, within the Soviet administration among the Soviet "pleaders" (in Russia we have abolished, and have rightly abolished, the bourgeois legal bar, but it is reviving again under the cover of the "Soviet pleaders" [40]’). Among Soviet engineers, Soviet school-teachers and the privileged, i.e., the most highly skilled and best situated, workers at Soviet factories, we observe a constant revival of absolutely all the negative traits peculiar to bourgeois parliamentarianism, and we are conquering this evil—gradually —only by a tireless, prolonged and persistent struggle based on proletarian organisation and discipline.
Of course, under the rule of the bourgeoisie it is very "difficult" to eradicate bourgeois habits from our own, i.e., the workers’, party; it is "difficult" to expel from the party the familiar parliamentary leaders who have been hopelessly corrupted by bourgeois prejudices; it is "difficult" to subject to proletarian discipline the absolutely essential (even if very limited) number of people coming from the ranks of the bourgeoisie; it is "difficult" to form, in a bourgeois parliament, a communist group fully worthy of the working class; it is "difficult" to ensure that the communist parliamentarians do not engage in bourgeois parliamentary inanities, but concern themselves with the very urgent work of propaganda, agitation and organisation among the masses. All this is "difficult", to be sure; it was difficult in Russia, and it is vastly more difficult in Western Europe and in America, where the bourgeoisie is far stronger, where bourgeois-democratic traditions are stronger, and so on.
Yet all these "difficulties" are mere child’s play compared with the same sort of problems which, in any event, the proletariat will have most certainly to solve in order to achieve victory, both during the proletarian revolution and after the seizure of power by the proletariat. Compared with these truly gigantic problems of re-educating, under the proletarian dictatorship, millions of peasants and small proprietors, hundreds of thousands of office employees, officials and bourgeois intellectuals, of subordinating them all to the proletarian state and to proletarian leadership, of eradicating their bourgeois habits and traditions—compared with these gigantic problems it is childishly easy to create, under the rule of the bourgeoisie, and in a bourgeois parliament, a really communist group of a real proletarian party.
If our "Left" and anti-parliamentarian comrades do not learn to overcome even such a small difficulty now, we may safely assert that either they will prove incapable of achieving the dictatorship of the proletariat, and will be unable to subordinate and remould the bourgeois intellectuals and bourgeois institutions on a wide scale, or they will have to hastily complete their education, and, by that haste, will do a great deal of harm to the cause of the proletariat, will commit more errors than usual, will manifest more than average weakness and inefficiency, and so on and so forth.
Until the bourgeoisie has been overthrown and, after that, until small-scale economy and small commodity production have entirely disappeared, the bourgeois atmosphere, proprietary habits and petty-bourgeois traditions will hamper proletarian work both outside and within the working-class movement, not only in a single field of activity—the parliamentary—but, inevitably, in every field of social activity, in all cultural and political spheres without exception. The attempt to brush aside, to fence oneself off from one of the "unpleasant" problems or difficulties in some one sphere of activity is a profound mistake, which will later most certainly have to be paid for. We must learn how to master every sphere of work and activity without exception, to overcome all difficulties and eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs and traditions everywhere. Any other way of presenting the question is just trifling, mere childishness.
May 12, 1920
V.
In the Russian edition of this book I somewhat incorrectly described the conduct of the Communist Party of Holland as a whole, in the sphere of international revolutionary policy. I therefore avail myself of the present opportunity to publish a letter from our Dutch comrades on this question and to correct the expression "Dutch Tribunists", which I used in the Russian text, and for which I now substitute the words "certain members of the Communist Party of Holland." [41]
N. Lenin
Letter From Wijnkoop
Moscow, June 30, 1920
Dear Comrade Lenin,
Thanks to your kindness, we members of the Dutch delegation to the Second Congress of the Communist International were able to read your Left-Wing Communism—An Infantile Disorder prior to its publication in the European languages. In several places in the book you emphasise your disapproval of the part played by some members of the Communist Party of Holland in international politics.
We feel, nevertheless, that we must protest against your laying the responsibility for their actions on the Communist Party. This is highly inaccurate. Moreover, it is unjust, because these members of the Communist Party of Holland take little or no part in the Party’s current activities and are endeavouring, directly or indirectly, to give effect, in the Communist Party of Holland, to opposition slogans against which the Party and all its organs have waged, and continue to wage to this day, a most energetic struggle.
Fraternally yours,
D. J. Wijnkoop
(on behalf of the Dutch delegation)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
[40] "Soviet pleaders"—collegiums of advocates established in February 1918, under the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’, Peasants’ and Cossacks’ Deputies. In October 1920, these collegiums were abolished.
[41] On the basis of this directive from Lenin the words "certain members of the Communist Party of Holland" have been substituted everywhere in this volume, in the text of "Left-Wing" Communism -- an Infantile Disorder for the expression "Dutch Tribunists".
[*9] With regard to the question of future amalgamation of the "Left" Communists, the anti-parliamentarians, with the Communists in general, I would make the following additional remarks. In the measure in which I have been able to familiarise myself with the newspapers of the "Left" Communists and the Communists in general in Germany, I find that the former have the advantage of being better able than the latter to carry on agitation among the masses. I have repeatedly observed something similar to this in the history of the Bolshevik Party, though on a smaller scale, in individual local organisations, and not on a national scale. For instance, in 1907-08 the "Left" Bolsheviks, on certain occasions and in certain places, carried on more successful agitation among the masses than we did. This may partly have been due to the fact that a revolutionary moment, or at a time when revolutionary recollections are still fresh, it is easier to approach the masses with tactics of sheer negation. This, however, is not an argument to prove the correctness of such tactics. At all events, there is not the least doubt that a Communist party that wishes to be the real vanguard, the advanced detachment, of the revolutionary class, of the proletariat—and which, in addition wishes to learn to lead the masses, not only the proletarian, but also the non-proletarian masses of working and exploited people—must know how to conduct propaganda, how to organise, and how to carry on agitation in a manner most simple and comprehensible, most clear and vivid, both to the urban, factory masses and to the rural masses.
[*10] Incidentally, this has been dealt with in an exceptionally clear, concise, precise and Marxist way in the excellent organ of the Austrian Communist Party, The Red Banner, of March 28 and 30, 1920. (Die Rote Fahne, Wien, 1920, Nos. 266 and 267; L.L.: "Ein neuer Abschnitt der deutschen Revolution" ["A New Stage of the German Revolution" -- Ed]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markin comment:
This article goes along with the propaganda points in the fight for our communist future mentioned in other posts.
*******
With this now-classic work, Lenin aimed to encapsulate the lessons the Bolshevik Party had learned from its involvement in three revolutions in 12 years—in a manner that European Communists could relate to, for it was to them he was speaking. He also further develops the theory of what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" means and stresses that the primary danger for the working-class movement in general is opportunism on the one hand, and anti-Marxist ultra-leftism on the other.
"Left-Wing" Communism: an Infantile Disorder was written in April, and the appendix was written on May 12, 1920. It came out on June 8-10 in Russian and in July was published in German, English and French. Lenin gave personal attention to the book’s type-setting and printing schedule so that it would be published before the opening of the Second Congress of the Communist International, each delegate receiving a copy. Between July and November 1920, the book was re-published in Leipzig, Paris and London, in the German, French and English languages respectively.
"Left-Wing" Communism: an Infantile Disorder is published according to the first edition print, the proofs of which were read by Lenin himself.
**********
Appendix
Contents:
The Split Among The German Communists
The Communists And The Independents In Germany
Turati and Co. in Italy
False Conclusions from Correct Premises
Note from Wijnkoop, June 30 1920
Before publishing houses in our country—which has been plundered by the imperialists of the whole world in revenge for the proletarian revolution, and which is still being plundered and blockaded by them regardless of all promises they made to their workers—were able to bring out my pamphlet, additional material arrived from abroad. Without claiming to present in my pamphlet anything more than the cursory notes of a publicist, I shall dwell briefly upon a few points.
I. The Split Among the German Communists
The split among the Communists in Germany is an accomplished fact. The "Lefts", or the "opposition on principle", have formed a separate Communist Workers’ Party, as distinct from the Communist Party. A split also seems imminent in Italy—I say "seems", as I have only two additional issues (Nos. 7 and 8) of the Left newspaper, Il Soviet, in which the possibility of and necessity for a split is openly discussed, and mention is also made of a congress of the "Abstentionist" group (or the boycottists, i.e., opponents of participation in parliament), which group is still part of the Italian Socialist Party.
There is reason to fear that the split with the "Lefts", the anti-parliamentarians (in part anti-politicals too, who are opposed to any political party and to work in the trade unions), will become an international phenomenon, like the split with the "Centrists" (i.e., Kautskyites, Longuetists, Independents, etc.). Let that be so. At all events, a split is better than confusion, which hampers the ideological, theoretical and revolutionary growth and maturing of the party, and its harmonious, really organised practical work which actually paves the way for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Let the "Lefts" put themselves to a practical test on a national and international scale. Let them try to prepare for (and then implement) the dictatorship of the proletariat, without a rigorously centralised party with iron discipline, without the ability to become masters of every sphere, every branch, and every variety of political and cultural work. Practical experience will soon teach them.
Only, every effort should be made to prevent the split with the "Lefts,, from impeding—or to see that it impedes as little as possible—the necessary amalgamation into a single party, inevitable in the near future, of all participants in the working-class movement who sincerely and conscientiously stand for Soviet government and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was the exceptional good fortune of the Bolsheviks in Russia to have had fifteen years for a systematic and consummated struggle both against the Mensheviks (i.e., the opportunists and "Centrists") and against the "Lefts", long before the masses began direct action for the dictatorship of the proletariat. In Europe and America the same work has now to be done by forced marches, so to say. Certain individuals, especially among unsuccessful aspirants to leadership, may (if they lack proletarian discipline and are not honest towards themselves) persist in their mistakes for a long time; however, when the time is ripe, the masses of the workers will themselves unite easily and rapidly and unite all sincere Communists to form a single party capable of establishing the Soviet system and the dictatorship of the proletariat. *9
II. The Communists and the Indenpendents in Germany
In this pamphlet I have expressed the opinion that a compromise between the Communists and the Left wing of the Independents is necessary and useful to communism, but will not be easy to bring about. Newspapers which I have subsequently received have confirmed this opinion on both points. No. 32 of The Red Flag, organ of the Central Committee, the Communist Party of Germany (Die Rote Fahne, Zentralorgan der Kommunistischen Partei Deutschlands, Spartakusbund, of March 26, 1920) published a "statement" by this Central Committee regarding the Kapp-Luttwitz military putsch and on the "socialist government". This statement is quite correct both in its basic premise and its practical conclusions. The basic premise is that at present there is no "objective basis" for the dictatorship of the proletariat because the "majority of the urban workers" support the Independents. The conclusion is: a promise to be a "loyal opposition" (i.e., renunciation of preparations for a "forcible overthrow") to a "socialist government if it excludes bourgeois-capitalist parties".
In the main, this tactic is undoubtedly correct. Yet, even if minor inaccuracies of formulation should not be dwelt on, it is impossible to pass over in silence the fact that a government consisting of social-traitors should not (in an official statement by the Communist Party) be called "socialist"; that one should not speak of the exclusion of "bourgeois-capitalist parties", when the parties both of the Scheidemanns and of the Kautskys and Crispiens are petty-bourgeois-democratic parties; that things should never be written that are contained in S4 of the statement, which reads:
"...A state of affairs in which political freedom can be enjoyed without restriction, and bourgeois democracy cannot operate as the dictatorship of capital is, from the viewpoint of the development of the proletarian dictatorship, of the utmost importance in further winning the proletarian masses over to the side of communism."
Such a state of affairs is impossible. Petty-bourgeois leaders, the German Hendersons (Scheidemanns) and Snowdens (Crispiens), do not and cannot go beyond the bounds of bourgeois democracy, which, in its turn, cannot but be a dictatorship of capital. To achieve the practical results ~ that the Central Committee of the Communist Party had 4, been quite rightly working for, there was no need to write such things, which are wrong in principle and politically harmful. It would have been sufficient to say (if one wished to observe parliamentary amenities): "As long as the majority of the urban workers follow the Independents, we Communists must do nothing to prevent those workers from getting rid of their last philistine-democratic (i.e., ’bourgeois-capitalist’) illusions by going through the experience of having a government of their ’own’." That is sufficient ground for a compromise, which is really necessary and should consist in renouncing, for a certain period, all attempts at the forcible overthrow of a government which enjoys the confidence of a majority of the urban workers. But in everyday mass agitation, in which one is not bound by official parliamentary amenities, one might, of course, add: "Let scoundrels like the Scheidemanns, and philistines like the Kautskys and Crispiens reveal by their deeds how they have been fooled themselves and how they are fooling the workers; their ’clean’ government will itself do the ’cleanest’ job of all in ’cleansing’ the Augean stables of socialism, Social-Democracy and other forms of social treachery."
The real nature of the present leaders of the (leaders of whom it has been wrongly said that they have already lost all influence, whereas in reality they are even more dangerous to the proletariat that the Hungarian Social-Democrats who styled themselves Communists and promised to "support" the dictatorship of the proletariat) was once again revealed during the German equivalent of the Kornilov revolt, i.e., the Kapp-Luttwitz putsch. *10 A small but striking illustration is provided by two brief articles—one by Karl Kautsky entitled "Decisive Hours" ("Entscheidende Stunden") in Freiheit (Freedom), organ of the Independents, of March 30, 1920, and the other by Arthur Crispien entitled "On the Political Situation" (in the same newspaper, issue of April 14, 1920). These gentlemen are absolutely incapable of thinking and reasoning like revolutionaries. They are snivelling philistine democrats, who become a thousand times more dangerous to the proletariat when they claim to be supporters of Soviet government and of the dictatorship of the proletariat because, in fact, whenever a difficult and dangerous situation arises they are sure to commit treachery ... while "sincerely" believing that they are helping the proletariat! Did not the Hungarian Social-Democrats, after rechristening themselves Communists, also want to "help" the proletariat when, because of their cowardice and spinelessness, they considered the position of Soviet power in Hungary hopeless and went snivelling to the agents of the Entente capitalists and the Entente hangmen?
III. Turatie and Co. in Italy
The issues of the Italian newspaper Il Soviet referred to above fully confirm what I have said in the pamphlet about the Italian Socialist Party’s error in tolerating such members and even such a group of parliamentarians in their ranks. It is still further confirmed by an outside observer like the Rome correspondent of The Manchester Guardian, organ of the British liberal bourgeoisie, whose interview with Turati is published in its issue of March 12 1920. The correspondent writes:
"... Signor Turati’s opinion is that the revolutionary peril is not such as to cause undue anxiety in Italy. The Maximalists are fanning the fire of Soviet theories only to keep the masses awake and excited. These theories are however, merely legendary notions, unripe programmes, incapable of being put to practical use. They are likely only to maintain the working classes in a state of expectation. The very men who. use them as a lure to dazzle proletarian eyes find themselves compelled to fight a daily battle for the extortion of some often trifling economic advantages so as to delay the moment when the working classes will lose their illusions and faith in their cherished myths. Hence a long string of strikes of all sizes and with all pretexts up to the very latest ones in the mail and railway services—strikes which make the already hard conditions of the country still worse. The country is irritated owing to the difficulties connected with its Adriatic problem, is weighed down by its foreign debt and by its inflated paper circulation, and yet it is still far from realising the necessity of adopting that discipline of work which alone can restore order and prosperity."
It is clear as daylight that this British correspondent has blurted out the truth, which is probably being concealed and glossed over both by Turati himself, and his bourgeois defenders, accomplices and inspirers in Italy. That truth is that the ideas and political activities of Turati, Treves, Modigliani, Dugoni and Co. are really and precisely of the kind that the British correspondent has described. It is downright social treachery. Just look at this advocacy of order and discipline among the workers, who are wage-slaves toiling to enrich the capitalists! And how familiar to us Russians are all these Menshevik speeches! What a valuable admission it is that the masses are in favour of Soviet government! How stupid and vulgarly bourgeois is the failure to understand the revolutionary role of strikes which are spreading spontaneously! Indeed, the correspondent of the British bourgeois-liberal newspaper has rendered Turati and Co. a disservice and has excellently confirmed the correctness of the demand by Comrade Bordiga and his friends on Il Soviet, who are insisting that the Italian Socialist Party, if it really wants to be for the Third International, should drum Turati and Co. out of its ranks and become a Communist Party both in name and in deed.
IV. False Conclusions from Correct Premises
However, Comrade Bordiga and his "Left" friends draw from their correct criticism of Turati and Co. the wrong conclusion that any participation in parliament is harmful in principle. The Italian "Lefts" cannot advance even a shadow of serious argument in support of this view. They simply do not know (or try to forget) the international examples of really revolutionary and communist utilisation of bourgeois parliaments, which has been of unquestionable value in preparing for the proletarian revolution. They simply cannot conceive of any "new" ways of that utilisation, and keep on repeatedly and endlessly vociferating about the "old" non-Bolshevik way.
Herein lies their fundamental error. In all fields of activity, and not in the parliamentary sphere alone, communism must introduce (and without long and persistent effort it will be unable to introduce) something new in principle that will represent a radical break with the traditions of the Second International (while retaining and developing what was good in the latter).
Let us take, say, journalistic work. Newspapers, pamphlets and leaflets perform the indispensable work of propaganda, agitation and organisation. No mass movement in any country at all civilised can get along without a journalistic apparatus. No outcries against "leaders" or solemn vows to keep the masses uncontaminated by the influence of leaders will relieve us of the necessity of using, for this work, people from a bourgeois-intellectual environment or will rid us of the bourgeois-democratic, "private property" atmosphere and environment in which this work is carried out under capitalism. Even two and a half years after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, after the conquest of political power by the proletariat, we still have this atmosphere around us, this environment of mass (peasant, artisan) bourgeois-democratic private property relations.
Parliamentarianism is one form of activity; journalism is another. The content of both can and should be communist if those engaged in these two spheres are genuine Communists, really members of a proletarian mass party. Yet, in neither sphere—and in no other sphere of activity under capitalism and during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism—is it possible to avoid those difficulties which the proletariat must overcome, those special problems which the proletariat must solve so as to use, for its own purposes, the services of people from the ranks of the bourgeoisie, eradicate bourgeois-intellectualist prejudices and influences, and weaken the resistance of (and, ultimately, completely transform) the petty-bourgeois environment.
Did we not, before the war of 1914-18, witness in all countries innumerable cases of extreme "Left" anarchists, syndicalists and others fulminating against parliamentarianism, deriding bourgeois-vulgarised parliamentary socialists, castigating their careerism, and so on and so forth, and yet themselves pursuing the same kind of bourgeois career through journalism and through work in the syndicates (trade unions)? Is not the example of Jouhaux and Merrheim, to limit oneself to France, typical in this respect?
The childishness of those who "repudiate" participation in parliament consists in their thinking it possible to "solve" the difficult problem of combating bourgeois-democratic influences within the working-class movement in such a "simple", "easy", allegedly revolutionary manner, whereas they are actually merely running away from their own shadows, only closing their eyes to difficulties and trying to shrug them off with mere words. The most shameless careerism, the bourgeois utilisation of parliamentary seats, glaringly reformist perversion of parliamentary activity, and vulgar petty-bourgeois conservatism are all unquestionably common and prevalent features engendered everywhere by capitalism, not only outside but also within the working-class movement. But the selfsame capitalism and the bourgeois environment it creates (which disappears very slowly even after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, since the peasantry constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie) give rise to what is essentially the same bourgeois careerism, national chauvinism, petty-bourgeois vulgarity, etc. —merely varying insignificantly in form—in positively every sphere of activity and life.
You think, my dear boycottists and anti-parliamentarians, that you are "terribly revolutionary", but in reality you are frightened by the comparatively minor difficulties of the struggle against bourgeois influences within the working-class movement, whereas your victory—i.e., the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the conquest of political power by the proletariat—will create these very same difficulties on a still larger, an infinitely larger scale. Like children, you are frightened by a minor difficulty which confronts you today, but you do not understand that tomorrow, and the day after, you will still have to learn, and learn thoroughly, to overcome the selfsame difficulties, only on an immeasurably greater scale.
Under Soviet rule, your proletarian party and ours will be invaded by a still larger number of bourgeois intellectuals. They will worm their way into the Soviets, the courts, and the administration, since communism cannot be built otherwise than with the aid of the human material created by capitalism, and the bourgeois intellectuals cannot be expelled and destroyed, but must be won over, remoulded, assimilated and re-educated, just as we must—in a protracted struggle waged on the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat—re-educate the proletarians themselves, who do not abandon their petty-bourgeois prejudices at one stroke, by a miracle, at the behest of the Virgin Mary, at the behest of a slogan, resolution or decree, but only in the course of a long and difficult mass struggle against mass petty-bourgeois influences. Under Soviet rule, these same problems, which the anti-parliamentarians now so proudly so haughtily, so lightly and so childishly brush aside with a wave of the hand—these selfsame problems are arising anew within the Soviets, within the Soviet administration among the Soviet "pleaders" (in Russia we have abolished, and have rightly abolished, the bourgeois legal bar, but it is reviving again under the cover of the "Soviet pleaders" [40]’). Among Soviet engineers, Soviet school-teachers and the privileged, i.e., the most highly skilled and best situated, workers at Soviet factories, we observe a constant revival of absolutely all the negative traits peculiar to bourgeois parliamentarianism, and we are conquering this evil—gradually —only by a tireless, prolonged and persistent struggle based on proletarian organisation and discipline.
Of course, under the rule of the bourgeoisie it is very "difficult" to eradicate bourgeois habits from our own, i.e., the workers’, party; it is "difficult" to expel from the party the familiar parliamentary leaders who have been hopelessly corrupted by bourgeois prejudices; it is "difficult" to subject to proletarian discipline the absolutely essential (even if very limited) number of people coming from the ranks of the bourgeoisie; it is "difficult" to form, in a bourgeois parliament, a communist group fully worthy of the working class; it is "difficult" to ensure that the communist parliamentarians do not engage in bourgeois parliamentary inanities, but concern themselves with the very urgent work of propaganda, agitation and organisation among the masses. All this is "difficult", to be sure; it was difficult in Russia, and it is vastly more difficult in Western Europe and in America, where the bourgeoisie is far stronger, where bourgeois-democratic traditions are stronger, and so on.
Yet all these "difficulties" are mere child’s play compared with the same sort of problems which, in any event, the proletariat will have most certainly to solve in order to achieve victory, both during the proletarian revolution and after the seizure of power by the proletariat. Compared with these truly gigantic problems of re-educating, under the proletarian dictatorship, millions of peasants and small proprietors, hundreds of thousands of office employees, officials and bourgeois intellectuals, of subordinating them all to the proletarian state and to proletarian leadership, of eradicating their bourgeois habits and traditions—compared with these gigantic problems it is childishly easy to create, under the rule of the bourgeoisie, and in a bourgeois parliament, a really communist group of a real proletarian party.
If our "Left" and anti-parliamentarian comrades do not learn to overcome even such a small difficulty now, we may safely assert that either they will prove incapable of achieving the dictatorship of the proletariat, and will be unable to subordinate and remould the bourgeois intellectuals and bourgeois institutions on a wide scale, or they will have to hastily complete their education, and, by that haste, will do a great deal of harm to the cause of the proletariat, will commit more errors than usual, will manifest more than average weakness and inefficiency, and so on and so forth.
Until the bourgeoisie has been overthrown and, after that, until small-scale economy and small commodity production have entirely disappeared, the bourgeois atmosphere, proprietary habits and petty-bourgeois traditions will hamper proletarian work both outside and within the working-class movement, not only in a single field of activity—the parliamentary—but, inevitably, in every field of social activity, in all cultural and political spheres without exception. The attempt to brush aside, to fence oneself off from one of the "unpleasant" problems or difficulties in some one sphere of activity is a profound mistake, which will later most certainly have to be paid for. We must learn how to master every sphere of work and activity without exception, to overcome all difficulties and eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs and traditions everywhere. Any other way of presenting the question is just trifling, mere childishness.
May 12, 1920
V.
In the Russian edition of this book I somewhat incorrectly described the conduct of the Communist Party of Holland as a whole, in the sphere of international revolutionary policy. I therefore avail myself of the present opportunity to publish a letter from our Dutch comrades on this question and to correct the expression "Dutch Tribunists", which I used in the Russian text, and for which I now substitute the words "certain members of the Communist Party of Holland." [41]
N. Lenin
Letter From Wijnkoop
Moscow, June 30, 1920
Dear Comrade Lenin,
Thanks to your kindness, we members of the Dutch delegation to the Second Congress of the Communist International were able to read your Left-Wing Communism—An Infantile Disorder prior to its publication in the European languages. In several places in the book you emphasise your disapproval of the part played by some members of the Communist Party of Holland in international politics.
We feel, nevertheless, that we must protest against your laying the responsibility for their actions on the Communist Party. This is highly inaccurate. Moreover, it is unjust, because these members of the Communist Party of Holland take little or no part in the Party’s current activities and are endeavouring, directly or indirectly, to give effect, in the Communist Party of Holland, to opposition slogans against which the Party and all its organs have waged, and continue to wage to this day, a most energetic struggle.
Fraternally yours,
D. J. Wijnkoop
(on behalf of the Dutch delegation)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
[40] "Soviet pleaders"—collegiums of advocates established in February 1918, under the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’, Peasants’ and Cossacks’ Deputies. In October 1920, these collegiums were abolished.
[41] On the basis of this directive from Lenin the words "certain members of the Communist Party of Holland" have been substituted everywhere in this volume, in the text of "Left-Wing" Communism -- an Infantile Disorder for the expression "Dutch Tribunists".
[*9] With regard to the question of future amalgamation of the "Left" Communists, the anti-parliamentarians, with the Communists in general, I would make the following additional remarks. In the measure in which I have been able to familiarise myself with the newspapers of the "Left" Communists and the Communists in general in Germany, I find that the former have the advantage of being better able than the latter to carry on agitation among the masses. I have repeatedly observed something similar to this in the history of the Bolshevik Party, though on a smaller scale, in individual local organisations, and not on a national scale. For instance, in 1907-08 the "Left" Bolsheviks, on certain occasions and in certain places, carried on more successful agitation among the masses than we did. This may partly have been due to the fact that a revolutionary moment, or at a time when revolutionary recollections are still fresh, it is easier to approach the masses with tactics of sheer negation. This, however, is not an argument to prove the correctness of such tactics. At all events, there is not the least doubt that a Communist party that wishes to be the real vanguard, the advanced detachment, of the revolutionary class, of the proletariat—and which, in addition wishes to learn to lead the masses, not only the proletarian, but also the non-proletarian masses of working and exploited people—must know how to conduct propaganda, how to organise, and how to carry on agitation in a manner most simple and comprehensible, most clear and vivid, both to the urban, factory masses and to the rural masses.
[*10] Incidentally, this has been dealt with in an exceptionally clear, concise, precise and Marxist way in the excellent organ of the Austrian Communist Party, The Red Banner, of March 28 and 30, 1920. (Die Rote Fahne, Wien, 1920, Nos. 266 and 267; L.L.: "Ein neuer Abschnitt der deutschen Revolution" ["A New Stage of the German Revolution" -- Ed]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Mississippi., an angst-filled Civil War anniversary-Reply-Nina Simone's "Mississippi Goddam"
Click on the title to link a "YouTube" film clip of Nina Simone performing her "Mississippi Goddam. Thanks, Nina.
For Miss., an angst-filled Civil War anniversary
By EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS, AP
JACKSON, Miss. — Commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Civil War can be an angst-filled task in Mississippi, with its long history of racial strife and a state flag that still bears the Confederate battle emblem.
Well-intentioned Mississippians who work for racial reconciliation say slavery was morally indefensible. Still, some speak in hushed tones as they confess a certain admiration for the valor of Confederate troops who fought for what was, to them, the hallowed ground of home and country.
"Mississippi has such a troubled past that a lot of people are very sensitive about commemorating or recognizing or remembering the Civil War because it has such an unpleasant reference for African-Americans," said David Sansing, who is white and a professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi.
"Many Mississippians are reluctant to go back there because they don't want to remind themselves or the African-American people about our sordid past," said Sansing. "But it is our past."
Black Mississippians express pride that some ancestors were Union soldiers who fought to end slavery, though it took more than a century for the U.S. to dismantle state-sanctioned segregation and guarantee voting rights.
Sansing is among dignitaries traveling to Antietam National Battlefield in Sharpsburg, Md., this weekend to dedicate a blue-gray granite marker commemorating the 11th Mississippi Infantry, which saw 119 members killed, wounded or missing in battle there on Sept. 16-17, 1862. The infantry had almost 1,000 soldiers, including a unit of University of Mississippi students known as the University Greys.
Among the speakers set to dedicate the monument Sunday is Bertram Hayes-Davis, great-great grandson of Confederate president Jefferson Davis. He was recently hired as executive director of Beauvoir, the white-columned Biloxi, Miss., mansion that was the final home of his ancestor, a Mississippi native.
The state is taking a decidedly low-key and scholarly approach to commemorating the sesquicentennial of the Civil War.
Re-enactments have taken place at battlefields near Tupelo and are planned soon near Iuka. Lectures, concerts and other gatherings are scheduled over the next several months. Several events are expected in 2013 to mark the 1863 siege of Vicksburg, which gave the Union control of the Mississippi River.
Mississippi is the last state with a flag that includes the Confederate battle emblem, a red field topped by a blue X with 13 white stars. The symbol has been on the state flag since 1894. In a 2001 statewide election, voters decided nearly 2-to-1 to keep it, despite arguments it was racially divisive and tarnishing the state's image.
With a population that's 38 percent black, Mississippi has elected hundreds of black public officials in the past four decades — a change directly linked to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Many people, across racial lines, say it's important that Civil War history commemorations not turn into celebrations of a lost cause.
Derrick Johnson, state president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said generations have been taught a "revisionist history" of the Civil War that ignores or downplays the impact of slavery. He said he wants a full discussion of the war.
"In mixed racial company, people don't want to address race and there is truly an avoidance of conversation when it relates to history and race," Johnson said. "Civil War, pre-Civil War, Reconstruction, Redemption, segregation — nobody wants to have candid conversations about how the past affects the public policy of this state and how people of different races interact with one another in this state."
On Dec. 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to secede. Mississippi moved next on Jan. 9, 1861, with a secession declaration stating, in part: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world."
Rick Martin is chief of operations for the Vicksburg National Military Park, a 1,800-acre battlefield that sprawls through the city's hills and bluffs. The park attracts about 800,000 people a year from around the world, and Martin said their most common questions are "Why did the war start?" and "How could this happen?"
"Depending on what part of the country you're from ... people have been brought up different ways to understand why the Civil War was fought," Martin said. "When it comes down to it, you can boil it all down to slavery. That is the root cause of the Civil War."
Robert M. Walker, a historian who became Vicksburg's first black mayor in the late 1980s, was instrumental in pushing the park to install a monument that honors all black people — free and slave — who participated in military action in Vicksburg during the Civil War. The monument was added in 2003.
Black soldiers fought for the Union in the Battle of Milliken's Bend, La., on June 7, 1863, just up the Mississippi River from Vicksburg. The site was a supply and communication post for the Union as it worked to conquer Vicksburg during a siege that lasted from May 22, 1863, until the Confederates surrendered on July 4.
"One thing I'm particularly proud of is that black men who were poorly or sometimes not trained at all took up arms to fight for their own freedom and the freedom of their loved ones," Walker said. "The conventional belief was that they were not battle worthy, that they wouldn't fight."
After the Battle of Milliken's Bend, the black soldiers won praise from military officers.
"These folks were genuine, were real freedom fighters," Walker said.
Beauvoir, owned by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, honors Davis' service as Confederate president. The home was nearly wiped away by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Most of the restoration is finished, and Hayes-Davis said several events will mark the sesquicentennial of the Civil War. This fall, Beauvoir is reopening its presidential library.
Hayes-Davis doesn't apologize for his ancestor and doesn't shy away from discussing an era that divided a nation and killed an estimated 620,000 to 750,000 people.
"History is one of the most important things we have in our country and we need to make sure we understand it, that we know all the reasons things occurred," said Hayes-Davis, who grew up in Colorado Springs, Colo. "I don't think it's difficult at all to talk about the War Between the States."
____
Markin comment:
50 years later and even the mere mention of Mississippi puts me directly in mind of Nina Simone's no-nonsense song about the struggle down South in the early part of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Thanks, Nina.
Mississippi Goddam Lyrics
(1963) Nina Simone
The name of this tune is Mississippi Goddam
And I mean every word of it
Alabama's gotten me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
Alabama's gotten me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
Can't you see it
Can't you feel it
It's all in the air
I can't stand the pressure much longer
Somebody say a prayer
Alabama's gotten me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
This is a show tune
But the show hasn't been written for it, yet
Hound dogs on my trail
School children sitting in jail
Black cat cross my path
I think every day's gonna be my last
Lord have mercy on this land of mine
We all gonna get it in due time
I don't belong here
I don't belong there
I've even stopped believing in prayer
Don't tell me
I tell you
Me and my people just about due
I've been there so I know
They keep on saying "Go slow!"
But that's just the trouble
"do it slow"
Washing the windows
"do it slow"
Picking the cotton
"do it slow"
You're just plain rotten
"do it slow"
You're too damn lazy
"do it slow"
The thinking's crazy
"do it slow"
Where am I going
What am I doing
I don't know
I don't know
Just try to do your very best
Stand up be counted with all the rest
For everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
I made you thought I was kiddin' didn't we
Picket lines
School boycotts
They try to say it's a communist plot
All I want is equality
for my sister my brother my people and me
Yes you lied to me all these years
You told me to wash and clean my ears
And talk real fine just like a lady
And you'd stop calling me Sister Sadie
Oh but this whole country is full of lies
You're all gonna die and die like flies
I don't trust you any more
You keep on saying "Go slow!"
"Go slow!"
But that's just the trouble
"do it slow"
Desegregation
"do it slow"
Mass participation
"do it slow"
Reunification
"do it slow"
Do things gradually
"do it slow"
But bring more tragedy
"do it slow"
Why don't you see it
Why don't you feel it
I don't know
I don't know
You don't have to live next to me
Just give me my equality
Everybody knows about Mississippi
Everybody knows about Alabama
Everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
That's it for now! see ya' later
For Miss., an angst-filled Civil War anniversary
By EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS, AP
JACKSON, Miss. — Commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Civil War can be an angst-filled task in Mississippi, with its long history of racial strife and a state flag that still bears the Confederate battle emblem.
Well-intentioned Mississippians who work for racial reconciliation say slavery was morally indefensible. Still, some speak in hushed tones as they confess a certain admiration for the valor of Confederate troops who fought for what was, to them, the hallowed ground of home and country.
"Mississippi has such a troubled past that a lot of people are very sensitive about commemorating or recognizing or remembering the Civil War because it has such an unpleasant reference for African-Americans," said David Sansing, who is white and a professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi.
"Many Mississippians are reluctant to go back there because they don't want to remind themselves or the African-American people about our sordid past," said Sansing. "But it is our past."
Black Mississippians express pride that some ancestors were Union soldiers who fought to end slavery, though it took more than a century for the U.S. to dismantle state-sanctioned segregation and guarantee voting rights.
Sansing is among dignitaries traveling to Antietam National Battlefield in Sharpsburg, Md., this weekend to dedicate a blue-gray granite marker commemorating the 11th Mississippi Infantry, which saw 119 members killed, wounded or missing in battle there on Sept. 16-17, 1862. The infantry had almost 1,000 soldiers, including a unit of University of Mississippi students known as the University Greys.
Among the speakers set to dedicate the monument Sunday is Bertram Hayes-Davis, great-great grandson of Confederate president Jefferson Davis. He was recently hired as executive director of Beauvoir, the white-columned Biloxi, Miss., mansion that was the final home of his ancestor, a Mississippi native.
The state is taking a decidedly low-key and scholarly approach to commemorating the sesquicentennial of the Civil War.
Re-enactments have taken place at battlefields near Tupelo and are planned soon near Iuka. Lectures, concerts and other gatherings are scheduled over the next several months. Several events are expected in 2013 to mark the 1863 siege of Vicksburg, which gave the Union control of the Mississippi River.
Mississippi is the last state with a flag that includes the Confederate battle emblem, a red field topped by a blue X with 13 white stars. The symbol has been on the state flag since 1894. In a 2001 statewide election, voters decided nearly 2-to-1 to keep it, despite arguments it was racially divisive and tarnishing the state's image.
With a population that's 38 percent black, Mississippi has elected hundreds of black public officials in the past four decades — a change directly linked to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Many people, across racial lines, say it's important that Civil War history commemorations not turn into celebrations of a lost cause.
Derrick Johnson, state president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said generations have been taught a "revisionist history" of the Civil War that ignores or downplays the impact of slavery. He said he wants a full discussion of the war.
"In mixed racial company, people don't want to address race and there is truly an avoidance of conversation when it relates to history and race," Johnson said. "Civil War, pre-Civil War, Reconstruction, Redemption, segregation — nobody wants to have candid conversations about how the past affects the public policy of this state and how people of different races interact with one another in this state."
On Dec. 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to secede. Mississippi moved next on Jan. 9, 1861, with a secession declaration stating, in part: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world."
Rick Martin is chief of operations for the Vicksburg National Military Park, a 1,800-acre battlefield that sprawls through the city's hills and bluffs. The park attracts about 800,000 people a year from around the world, and Martin said their most common questions are "Why did the war start?" and "How could this happen?"
"Depending on what part of the country you're from ... people have been brought up different ways to understand why the Civil War was fought," Martin said. "When it comes down to it, you can boil it all down to slavery. That is the root cause of the Civil War."
Robert M. Walker, a historian who became Vicksburg's first black mayor in the late 1980s, was instrumental in pushing the park to install a monument that honors all black people — free and slave — who participated in military action in Vicksburg during the Civil War. The monument was added in 2003.
Black soldiers fought for the Union in the Battle of Milliken's Bend, La., on June 7, 1863, just up the Mississippi River from Vicksburg. The site was a supply and communication post for the Union as it worked to conquer Vicksburg during a siege that lasted from May 22, 1863, until the Confederates surrendered on July 4.
"One thing I'm particularly proud of is that black men who were poorly or sometimes not trained at all took up arms to fight for their own freedom and the freedom of their loved ones," Walker said. "The conventional belief was that they were not battle worthy, that they wouldn't fight."
After the Battle of Milliken's Bend, the black soldiers won praise from military officers.
"These folks were genuine, were real freedom fighters," Walker said.
Beauvoir, owned by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, honors Davis' service as Confederate president. The home was nearly wiped away by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Most of the restoration is finished, and Hayes-Davis said several events will mark the sesquicentennial of the Civil War. This fall, Beauvoir is reopening its presidential library.
Hayes-Davis doesn't apologize for his ancestor and doesn't shy away from discussing an era that divided a nation and killed an estimated 620,000 to 750,000 people.
"History is one of the most important things we have in our country and we need to make sure we understand it, that we know all the reasons things occurred," said Hayes-Davis, who grew up in Colorado Springs, Colo. "I don't think it's difficult at all to talk about the War Between the States."
____
Markin comment:
50 years later and even the mere mention of Mississippi puts me directly in mind of Nina Simone's no-nonsense song about the struggle down South in the early part of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Thanks, Nina.
Mississippi Goddam Lyrics
(1963) Nina Simone
The name of this tune is Mississippi Goddam
And I mean every word of it
Alabama's gotten me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
Alabama's gotten me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
Can't you see it
Can't you feel it
It's all in the air
I can't stand the pressure much longer
Somebody say a prayer
Alabama's gotten me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
This is a show tune
But the show hasn't been written for it, yet
Hound dogs on my trail
School children sitting in jail
Black cat cross my path
I think every day's gonna be my last
Lord have mercy on this land of mine
We all gonna get it in due time
I don't belong here
I don't belong there
I've even stopped believing in prayer
Don't tell me
I tell you
Me and my people just about due
I've been there so I know
They keep on saying "Go slow!"
But that's just the trouble
"do it slow"
Washing the windows
"do it slow"
Picking the cotton
"do it slow"
You're just plain rotten
"do it slow"
You're too damn lazy
"do it slow"
The thinking's crazy
"do it slow"
Where am I going
What am I doing
I don't know
I don't know
Just try to do your very best
Stand up be counted with all the rest
For everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
I made you thought I was kiddin' didn't we
Picket lines
School boycotts
They try to say it's a communist plot
All I want is equality
for my sister my brother my people and me
Yes you lied to me all these years
You told me to wash and clean my ears
And talk real fine just like a lady
And you'd stop calling me Sister Sadie
Oh but this whole country is full of lies
You're all gonna die and die like flies
I don't trust you any more
You keep on saying "Go slow!"
"Go slow!"
But that's just the trouble
"do it slow"
Desegregation
"do it slow"
Mass participation
"do it slow"
Reunification
"do it slow"
Do things gradually
"do it slow"
But bring more tragedy
"do it slow"
Why don't you see it
Why don't you feel it
I don't know
I don't know
You don't have to live next to me
Just give me my equality
Everybody knows about Mississippi
Everybody knows about Alabama
Everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
That's it for now! see ya' later
Some South African miners vow to fight to the death-Victory To The South African Gold Mine Workers!-Break With The ANC!-For A Black-Centered Workers Government!
Click on the headline to link to an article-South Africa: Populist Demagogue Malema and the ANC-Break with the Bourgeois Tripartite Alliance!-Forge a Leninist-Trotskyist Party to Fight for a Black-Centered Workers Government!
*************
Some South African miners vow to fight to the death
By THOMAS PHAKANE and MICHELLE FAUL, AP
MARIKANA, South Africa — Frantic wives searched for missing loved ones, President Jacob Zuma rushed home from a regional summit and some miners vowed a fight to the death Friday as police announced a shocking casualty toll from the previous day's shooting by officers of striking platinum miners: 34 dead and 78 wounded.
Wives of miners at the Lonmin platinum mine northwest of Johannesburg took the place of dead and wounded husbands on Friday in staging a protest. Instead of asking for higher wages as the miners had done, the women demanded to know why police had opened fire Thursday with automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns on the strikers, many of whom had been armed with spears, machetes and clubs.
"Police stop shooting our husbands and sons," read a banner carried by the women. They kneeled before shotgun-toting police and sang a protest song, saying "What have we done?" in the Xhosa language.
Police insisted that they acted in self-defense, noting that strikers even possessed a pistol taken from a police officer they had beaten to death on Monday.
National police Chief Mangwashi Victoria Phiyega told a packed news conference that Thursday was a dark day for South Africa and that it was not a time for pointing fingers, but many people were comparing the shootings to apartheid-era state violence and political parties and labor unions demanded an investigation.
Zuma returned home from a summit in Mozambique and announced an official inquiry into the killings, which he called shocking and tragic. The president headed directly to the mine, 70 kilometers (40 miles) northwest of Johannesburg, where his office said he would visit injured miners in the hospital.
At least 10 other people were killed during the week-old strike, including two police officers battered to death by strikers and two mine security guards burned alive when strikers set their vehicle ablaze.
Makhosi Mbongane, a 32-year-old winch operator, said mine managers should have come to the striking workers rather than send police. Strikers were demanding monthly salary raises from $625 to $1,563. Mbongane vowed that he was not going back to work and would not allow anyone else to do so either.
"They can beat us, kill us and kick and trample on us with their feet, do whatever they want to do, we aren't going to go back to work," he told The Associated Press. "If they employ other people they won't be able to work either. We will stay here and kill them."
Myriad problems are facing South Africa 18 years after white racist rule ended, including growing inequality between a white minority joined by a small black elite while most blacks endure high unemployment and inadequate housing, health care and education.
The shootings "awaken us to the reality of the time bomb that has stopped ticking — it has exploded," The Sowetan newspaper said in a front-page editorial Friday. "Africans are pitted against each other... They are fighting for a bigger slice of the mineral wealth of the country."
The youth wing of the ruling African National Congress party argues that nationalization of the nation's mines and farms is the only way to redress the evils of the apartheid past. Zuma's government has played down those demands.
Lonmin PLC chairman Roger Phillimore issued a statement Friday saying the deaths were deeply regretted.
At hospitals in the area, people gathered, hoping to find missing family members among the wounded. At the scrubland scene of the killings, a woman carrying a baby on her back said she was looking for a missing miner.
"My husband left yesterday morning at 7 a.m. to come to the protest and he never came back," said Nobantu Mkhuze.
Shares in Lonmin PLC fell as much as 8 percent Friday. Since violence broke out last weekend at the Marikana mine, shares have fallen by as much as 20 percent, wiping some 390 million pounds ($610 million) off the company's market value. The company, the world's third-largest platinum miner, has also been hit by Thursday's announcement that chief executive officer Ian Farmer is hospitalized with a serious illness.
Also Friday, police and forensic experts watched by about 100 people combed the scene of the shooting, planting multicolored cones and numbered placards to mark evidence amid the dirt and bushes where the shooting took place. Police also searched the rocky outcropping where thousands of miners had gathered daily to strike.
The South Africa Police Service defended officers' actions, saying in a statement that they were "viciously attacked by the (strikers), using a variety of weapons, including firearms. The police, in order to protect their own lives and in self-defense, were forced to engage the group with force."
Shocked South Africans watched replay after replay of video of the shooting that erupted after police used water cannons, and then stun grenades and tear gas in an effort to disperse the strikers and get them to hand over their weapons. Some miners did leave, though others carrying weapons began war chants and marched toward the township near the mine.
Suddenly, a group of miners rushed through the underbrush and haze of tear gas at a line of police officers. Officers immediately opened fire, with miners falling to the ground. Dozens of shots were fired by police armed with automatic rifles and pistols.
By the time officers shouted "Cease fire!" dozens of miners were motionless on the ground, dead or dying.
Poor South Africans protest daily across the country for basic services such as running water, housing and better health and education. Protests often turn violent, with people charging that ANC leaders have joined the white minority that continues to enrich itself while life becomes ever harder for the black majority.
While the initial walkout and protest focused on wages, violence has been fueled by the struggles between the dominant National Union of Mineworkers and the upstart and more radical Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union.
NUM secretary-general Frans Baleni has said that some of his union members were on a hit list, including a shop steward killed Tuesday by strikers.
___
Faul reported from Johannesburg. Associated Press journalist Jon Gambrell contributed to this report.
*************
Some South African miners vow to fight to the death
By THOMAS PHAKANE and MICHELLE FAUL, AP
MARIKANA, South Africa — Frantic wives searched for missing loved ones, President Jacob Zuma rushed home from a regional summit and some miners vowed a fight to the death Friday as police announced a shocking casualty toll from the previous day's shooting by officers of striking platinum miners: 34 dead and 78 wounded.
Wives of miners at the Lonmin platinum mine northwest of Johannesburg took the place of dead and wounded husbands on Friday in staging a protest. Instead of asking for higher wages as the miners had done, the women demanded to know why police had opened fire Thursday with automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns on the strikers, many of whom had been armed with spears, machetes and clubs.
"Police stop shooting our husbands and sons," read a banner carried by the women. They kneeled before shotgun-toting police and sang a protest song, saying "What have we done?" in the Xhosa language.
Police insisted that they acted in self-defense, noting that strikers even possessed a pistol taken from a police officer they had beaten to death on Monday.
National police Chief Mangwashi Victoria Phiyega told a packed news conference that Thursday was a dark day for South Africa and that it was not a time for pointing fingers, but many people were comparing the shootings to apartheid-era state violence and political parties and labor unions demanded an investigation.
Zuma returned home from a summit in Mozambique and announced an official inquiry into the killings, which he called shocking and tragic. The president headed directly to the mine, 70 kilometers (40 miles) northwest of Johannesburg, where his office said he would visit injured miners in the hospital.
At least 10 other people were killed during the week-old strike, including two police officers battered to death by strikers and two mine security guards burned alive when strikers set their vehicle ablaze.
Makhosi Mbongane, a 32-year-old winch operator, said mine managers should have come to the striking workers rather than send police. Strikers were demanding monthly salary raises from $625 to $1,563. Mbongane vowed that he was not going back to work and would not allow anyone else to do so either.
"They can beat us, kill us and kick and trample on us with their feet, do whatever they want to do, we aren't going to go back to work," he told The Associated Press. "If they employ other people they won't be able to work either. We will stay here and kill them."
Myriad problems are facing South Africa 18 years after white racist rule ended, including growing inequality between a white minority joined by a small black elite while most blacks endure high unemployment and inadequate housing, health care and education.
The shootings "awaken us to the reality of the time bomb that has stopped ticking — it has exploded," The Sowetan newspaper said in a front-page editorial Friday. "Africans are pitted against each other... They are fighting for a bigger slice of the mineral wealth of the country."
The youth wing of the ruling African National Congress party argues that nationalization of the nation's mines and farms is the only way to redress the evils of the apartheid past. Zuma's government has played down those demands.
Lonmin PLC chairman Roger Phillimore issued a statement Friday saying the deaths were deeply regretted.
At hospitals in the area, people gathered, hoping to find missing family members among the wounded. At the scrubland scene of the killings, a woman carrying a baby on her back said she was looking for a missing miner.
"My husband left yesterday morning at 7 a.m. to come to the protest and he never came back," said Nobantu Mkhuze.
Shares in Lonmin PLC fell as much as 8 percent Friday. Since violence broke out last weekend at the Marikana mine, shares have fallen by as much as 20 percent, wiping some 390 million pounds ($610 million) off the company's market value. The company, the world's third-largest platinum miner, has also been hit by Thursday's announcement that chief executive officer Ian Farmer is hospitalized with a serious illness.
Also Friday, police and forensic experts watched by about 100 people combed the scene of the shooting, planting multicolored cones and numbered placards to mark evidence amid the dirt and bushes where the shooting took place. Police also searched the rocky outcropping where thousands of miners had gathered daily to strike.
The South Africa Police Service defended officers' actions, saying in a statement that they were "viciously attacked by the (strikers), using a variety of weapons, including firearms. The police, in order to protect their own lives and in self-defense, were forced to engage the group with force."
Shocked South Africans watched replay after replay of video of the shooting that erupted after police used water cannons, and then stun grenades and tear gas in an effort to disperse the strikers and get them to hand over their weapons. Some miners did leave, though others carrying weapons began war chants and marched toward the township near the mine.
Suddenly, a group of miners rushed through the underbrush and haze of tear gas at a line of police officers. Officers immediately opened fire, with miners falling to the ground. Dozens of shots were fired by police armed with automatic rifles and pistols.
By the time officers shouted "Cease fire!" dozens of miners were motionless on the ground, dead or dying.
Poor South Africans protest daily across the country for basic services such as running water, housing and better health and education. Protests often turn violent, with people charging that ANC leaders have joined the white minority that continues to enrich itself while life becomes ever harder for the black majority.
While the initial walkout and protest focused on wages, violence has been fueled by the struggles between the dominant National Union of Mineworkers and the upstart and more radical Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union.
NUM secretary-general Frans Baleni has said that some of his union members were on a hit list, including a shop steward killed Tuesday by strikers.
___
Faul reported from Johannesburg. Associated Press journalist Jon Gambrell contributed to this report.
In Honor Of Pat McGuire-Our Fallen Sister Of The Anti-War Streets-RIP
In Honor Of Pat McGuire-Our Fallen Anti-War Sister of The Streets-RIP
I, frankly, was hesitant to write the message. I had not known Pat McGuire well or long, mainly since the Occupy and Smedley Butler Brigade-Veterans for Peace anti-war street actions last fall. I, for example, did not know much of her personal history. I am not always careful of such things. I knew little of her medical problems, except the obvious and debilitating ones. The times frown upon public comment on such frailties. I knew little of her politics, past or present except that we stood shoulder to should on the mean anti-war streets of Boston. She thus stood on the right side of the angels.
I do know this about Pat McGuire, and I know it well. I know that at our Veterans for Peace June meeting she unhesitantly volunteered, despite her own medical problems, to help in our outreach program to help feed homeless veterans. I know that she attended and marched in the Occupy-initiated June 16th march against austerity despite the fact that she could not march the whole distance. And a few weeks ago, at a time when she must have known she was failing, she stood shoulder to shoulder with us at our weekly stand-out for Private Bradley Manning in Davis Square, Somerville.
Know this too. When we are snubbed by some in a hurry passer-by who refuses our desperate anti-war leaflets, when we are footsore or disappointed when the masses are not we us after some ill-attended march or rally, or when we are ready to make a deal with the devil to get some long-winded planning meeting over with think about Pat McGuire and what I have mentioned above. Yes, think about Pat McGuire our fallen sister of the anti-war streets. Pat McGuire-Presente
I, frankly, was hesitant to write the message. I had not known Pat McGuire well or long, mainly since the Occupy and Smedley Butler Brigade-Veterans for Peace anti-war street actions last fall. I, for example, did not know much of her personal history. I am not always careful of such things. I knew little of her medical problems, except the obvious and debilitating ones. The times frown upon public comment on such frailties. I knew little of her politics, past or present except that we stood shoulder to should on the mean anti-war streets of Boston. She thus stood on the right side of the angels.
I do know this about Pat McGuire, and I know it well. I know that at our Veterans for Peace June meeting she unhesitantly volunteered, despite her own medical problems, to help in our outreach program to help feed homeless veterans. I know that she attended and marched in the Occupy-initiated June 16th march against austerity despite the fact that she could not march the whole distance. And a few weeks ago, at a time when she must have known she was failing, she stood shoulder to shoulder with us at our weekly stand-out for Private Bradley Manning in Davis Square, Somerville.
Know this too. When we are snubbed by some in a hurry passer-by who refuses our desperate anti-war leaflets, when we are footsore or disappointed when the masses are not we us after some ill-attended march or rally, or when we are ready to make a deal with the devil to get some long-winded planning meeting over with think about Pat McGuire and what I have mentioned above. Yes, think about Pat McGuire our fallen sister of the anti-war streets. Pat McGuire-Presente
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)