RALLY EN APOYO DE WIKILEAKS DENUNCIANTE ALEGA soldado Bradley Manning EN EL CENTRO DE LA CIUDAD DE BOSTON HDQTRS OBAMA.-SEPTEMBER 6,2012- 2 PM
FECHA: Jueves 06 de septiembre 2012
HORA: (. Las personas serán el centro de distribución de panfletos de las 11:00 am y nos quedaremos hasta las 5:00 PM para unirse a nosotros en cualquier momento que podamos para mostrar su solidaridad) PUESTA A LAS 2:00 PM
LUGAR: CENTRO DE BOSTON OBAMA LA SEDE EN LA CALLE DE VERANO 77 (cerca de la parada de Downtown Crossing EN LAS LÍNEAS ROJAS Y NARANJA)
El Boston Smedley Butler Brigada y Samantha capítulo-Veteranos por la Paz, la Red de Apoyo a Bradley Boston Manning, Manning Square Somerville Comité y otros activistas sociales y ciudadanos interesados apoyar el llamamiento de la Red Nacional de Apoyo Bradley Manning y otros, para manifestación nacional en el ámbito local sede Obama el jueves 6 de septiembre de 2012, el día que el presidente Obama está previsto aceptar la nominación del Partido Demócrata del presidente, para pedir la libertad de denunciante WikiLeaks supuesto, el Ejército de soldado de primera clase Bradley Manning. También se pide al presidente a usar su autoridad constitucional de indultar a soldado Manning ahora.
Contacto: Pat Scanlon (VN 69 ')-Coordinador, VFP Capítulo 9, Smedley Butler Brigada patscanlonmusic@yahoo.com o Al Johnson, Coordinadora de Eventos -alfredjohnson34 @ comcast.net
FREE Bradley Manning-PRESIDENTE OBAMA PERDÓN Bradley Manning AHORA!
Visita nuestra página de Facebook-Downtown Boston Bradley Manning Support Rally-06 de septiembre- http://www.facebook.com/BradleyManningSupportRally #! / BradleyManningSupportRallySeptember6th
Trabajo donado llamada a la acción a Obama 2.012 oficinas a nivel nacional 06 de septiembre durante la DNC La Red de Apoyo a Bradley Manning, los afganos por la Paz y Veteranos de Bahía de SF de Irak contra la Guerra de llamada para las acciones de Nationwide en las oficinas locales de la campaña de Obama 06 de septiembre 2012 durante la Convención Nacional Demócrata! Free Bradley Manning!
Desde el arresto de Ejército PFC Bradley Manning en mayo de 2010 por supuestamente compartir las "Asesinato Colateral" video y otras pruebas de crímenes de guerra y la corrupción del gobierno con los sitios web WikiLeaks denunciantes-, progresistas y activistas de derechos humanos han estado preguntando, "¿Por qué no es el presidente Obama interviniendo para ayudar a Bradley? "
Después de todo, fue el presidente Obama quien mayo 2011 declaró con respecto a las protestas en Oriente Medio,
"En el siglo 21, la información es poder, la verdad no puede ocultarse, y la legitimidad de los gobiernos en última instancia dependerá de ciudadanos activos e informados".
El jueves, 16 de agosto de veteranos militares de EE.UU. en Portland OR, CA Oakland y Los Angeles CA, ocuparon las oficinas de campaña de Obama 2012 y enviado por fax una carta de demandas a la oficina central de la campaña de Obama. Esas cartas se inició:
Como aquellos que llevan años sirviendo a nuestro país, tenemos fe en que como Comandante en Jefe, el Presidente Obama haga lo correcto al responder a nuestra petición.
La carta pasó a enumerar las siguientes demandas:
Que el Presidente Obama retractarse y disculparse por declaraciones formuladas en abril de 2011, en la que dijo Bradley Manning "violó la ley." Porque el presidente Obama es el comandante en jefe, se está ante la influencia de comando ilegal, violando el artículo 37 del Código Uniforme de Justicia Militar Justicia (UCMJ), y evita que Bradley reciba un juicio justo.
Ese indulto del presidente Obama la acusó de denuncia, teniendo en cuenta sus 800 días de reclusión preventiva. Naciones Unidas tortura jefe Juan Méndez llama tratamiento de Manning "cruel e inhumano", ya que incluía nueve meses de confinamiento solitario en Quantico a pesar de psiquiatras Brig recomendando condiciones relajadas.
La Red de Apoyo a Bradley Manning mantiene la esperanza de que prevalecerá la justicia y que el presidente Obama puede ser el vehículo del cambio en este tema, pero primero tiene que oír alto y claro de los veteranos y civiles de todo el país que el pueblo estadounidense quiere reparar la ilegalidad la tortura de Bradley Manning, y creo que debe ser liberado.
Los organizadores de las acciones 16 agosto Costa Oeste están instando a otros a que se sumen a un esfuerzo nacional para sostener las acciones en muchas oficinas de campaña de Obama más locales el 6 de septiembre, el día del discurso de aceptación del candidato candidatura. Queremos compartir mensajes de apoyo a Bradley con oficinas de campaña de Obama, de costa a costa.
Por favor, póngase en contacto con emma@bradleymanning.org para más información sobre la asistencia y / o la organización de un evento.
Friday, August 24, 2012
RALLY DE APOIO ALEGADA WIKILEAKS denunciante Bradley Manning PRIVADO NO centro de Boston OBAMA HDQTRS. -September 6th-2 PM
RALLY DE APOIO ALEGADA WIKILEAKS denunciante Bradley Manning PRIVADO NO centro de Boston OBAMA HDQTRS.
DATA: quinta-feira 06 de setembro de 2012
TEMPO: (. Pessoas serão panfletagem no centro de cerca de 11:00 e vamos ficar até cerca de 17:00 para se juntar a nós a qualquer hora que puder para mostrar sua solidariedade) A partir de 02:00
LOCAL: Centro de Boston SEDE DE OBAMA EM RUA 77 DE VERÃO (perto da paragem de Downtown Crossing NA LINHA VERMELHA E LARANJA)
O Boston Smedley Butler Brigada e Samantha Capítulo-Veteranos pela Paz, o Boston Bradley Manning Support Network, Somerville Manning Praça Comitê e outros ativistas sociais e cidadãos preocupados apoiar o apelo pela Rede Nacional de Apoio Bradley Manning e outros em todo o país para reunir na sede Obama locais na quinta-feira 06 de setembro de 2012, o dia o presidente Obama está programado aceitar a nomeação do Partido Democrata do presidente, para pedir a liberdade de denúncia WikiLeaks alegada, Exército soldado de primeira classe Bradley Manning. Também será convidando o presidente a usar sua autoridade constitucional para perdoar Manning privados agora.
Contato: Pat Scanlon (VN 69 ')-Coordenador, VFP Capítulo 9, Smedley Butler Brigada patscanlonmusic@yahoo.com ou Al Johnson-Coordenador de Eventos -alfredjohnson34 @ comcast.net
GRÁTIS Bradley Manning-PRESIDENTE OBAMA PERDÃO Bradley Manning AGORA!
Confira nossa página do Facebook Downtown Boston Bradley Manning Suporte Rally-06 de setembro- http://www.facebook.com/BradleyManningSupportRally #! / BradleyManningSupportRallySeptember6th
Trabalho doado chamada para a ação em Obama 2.012 escritórios em todo o país 06 de setembro durante DNC O Bradley Manning Support Network, os afegãos Pela Paz e da Baía de SF Veteranos do Iraque Contra a Guerra Chamada para Ações de âmbito nacional em escritórios locais da campanha de Obama 6 de setembro de 2012 durante a Convenção Nacional Democrata! Bradley Manning livre!
Desde a prisão do Exército Bradley Manning PFC maio 2010 por supostamente compartilhando a "Assassinato Colateral" de vídeo e outras evidências de crimes de guerra e corrupção do governo com as WikiLeaks delator site, progressistas e ativistas de direitos humanos foram perguntando: "Por que não é presidente Obama entra para a ajudar Bradley? "
Afinal, foi o presidente Obama que maio 2011 declarou com relação a protestos no Oriente Médio,
"No século 21, a informação é poder, a verdade não pode ser escondida e a legitimidade dos governos vai depender cidadãos ativos e informados."
Na quinta-feira, 16 de agosto de veteranos militares dos EUA em Portland OR, CA Oakland e Los Angeles CA, ocuparam Obama 2.012 escritórios de campanha e enviado por fax uma carta de reivindicações para o escritório central da campanha de Obama. Essas cartas começou:
Como aqueles que passaram anos servindo nosso país, temos fé que, como comandante-em-chefe, o presidente Obama irá fazer a coisa certa em responder a nosso pedido.
A carta passou a listar as seguintes exigências:
Que o presidente Obama retratar e se desculpar por observações feitas em abril de 2011, na qual ele disse Bradley Manning "violou a lei." Como o presidente Obama é o comandante-em-chefe, isso constitui a influência de comando ilegal, violando o artigo 37 do Código Uniforme de militar Justiça (UCMJ), Bradley e impede de receber um julgamento justo.
Que o presidente Obama perdão ao acusado delator, levando em consideração seus 800 dias de confinamento pré-julgamento. Tortura chefe da ONU Juan Mendez chamado de tratamento de Manning "cruel e desumano", já que incluía nove meses de confinamento solitário em Quantico, apesar psiquiatras Brig recomendando condições relaxado.
O Bradley Manning Support Network mantém a esperança de que a justiça vai prevalecer e que o presidente Obama pode ser o veículo de mudança sobre esta questão, mas primeiro ele precisa ouvir alto e claro de veteranos e civis de todo o país que o povo americano quer a reparação para o ilegal a tortura de Bradley Manning, e acredito que ele deve ser libertado.
Organizadores dos 16 ago ações da costa oeste estão agora pedindo outros para se juntar a eles em um esforço nacional para realizar ações em diversos escritórios de campanha mais locais de Obama em 6 de setembro, o dia do candidato discurso de aceitação de nomeação. Queremos compartilhar mensagens de apoio para Bradley, com escritórios de campanha de Obama, de costa a costa.
Entre em contato com emma@bradleymanning.org para mais informações sobre como participar e / ou organizar um evento.
DATA: quinta-feira 06 de setembro de 2012
TEMPO: (. Pessoas serão panfletagem no centro de cerca de 11:00 e vamos ficar até cerca de 17:00 para se juntar a nós a qualquer hora que puder para mostrar sua solidariedade) A partir de 02:00
LOCAL: Centro de Boston SEDE DE OBAMA EM RUA 77 DE VERÃO (perto da paragem de Downtown Crossing NA LINHA VERMELHA E LARANJA)
O Boston Smedley Butler Brigada e Samantha Capítulo-Veteranos pela Paz, o Boston Bradley Manning Support Network, Somerville Manning Praça Comitê e outros ativistas sociais e cidadãos preocupados apoiar o apelo pela Rede Nacional de Apoio Bradley Manning e outros em todo o país para reunir na sede Obama locais na quinta-feira 06 de setembro de 2012, o dia o presidente Obama está programado aceitar a nomeação do Partido Democrata do presidente, para pedir a liberdade de denúncia WikiLeaks alegada, Exército soldado de primeira classe Bradley Manning. Também será convidando o presidente a usar sua autoridade constitucional para perdoar Manning privados agora.
Contato: Pat Scanlon (VN 69 ')-Coordenador, VFP Capítulo 9, Smedley Butler Brigada patscanlonmusic@yahoo.com ou Al Johnson-Coordenador de Eventos -alfredjohnson34 @ comcast.net
GRÁTIS Bradley Manning-PRESIDENTE OBAMA PERDÃO Bradley Manning AGORA!
Confira nossa página do Facebook Downtown Boston Bradley Manning Suporte Rally-06 de setembro- http://www.facebook.com/BradleyManningSupportRally #! / BradleyManningSupportRallySeptember6th
Trabalho doado chamada para a ação em Obama 2.012 escritórios em todo o país 06 de setembro durante DNC O Bradley Manning Support Network, os afegãos Pela Paz e da Baía de SF Veteranos do Iraque Contra a Guerra Chamada para Ações de âmbito nacional em escritórios locais da campanha de Obama 6 de setembro de 2012 durante a Convenção Nacional Democrata! Bradley Manning livre!
Desde a prisão do Exército Bradley Manning PFC maio 2010 por supostamente compartilhando a "Assassinato Colateral" de vídeo e outras evidências de crimes de guerra e corrupção do governo com as WikiLeaks delator site, progressistas e ativistas de direitos humanos foram perguntando: "Por que não é presidente Obama entra para a ajudar Bradley? "
Afinal, foi o presidente Obama que maio 2011 declarou com relação a protestos no Oriente Médio,
"No século 21, a informação é poder, a verdade não pode ser escondida e a legitimidade dos governos vai depender cidadãos ativos e informados."
Na quinta-feira, 16 de agosto de veteranos militares dos EUA em Portland OR, CA Oakland e Los Angeles CA, ocuparam Obama 2.012 escritórios de campanha e enviado por fax uma carta de reivindicações para o escritório central da campanha de Obama. Essas cartas começou:
Como aqueles que passaram anos servindo nosso país, temos fé que, como comandante-em-chefe, o presidente Obama irá fazer a coisa certa em responder a nosso pedido.
A carta passou a listar as seguintes exigências:
Que o presidente Obama retratar e se desculpar por observações feitas em abril de 2011, na qual ele disse Bradley Manning "violou a lei." Como o presidente Obama é o comandante-em-chefe, isso constitui a influência de comando ilegal, violando o artigo 37 do Código Uniforme de militar Justiça (UCMJ), Bradley e impede de receber um julgamento justo.
Que o presidente Obama perdão ao acusado delator, levando em consideração seus 800 dias de confinamento pré-julgamento. Tortura chefe da ONU Juan Mendez chamado de tratamento de Manning "cruel e desumano", já que incluía nove meses de confinamento solitário em Quantico, apesar psiquiatras Brig recomendando condições relaxado.
O Bradley Manning Support Network mantém a esperança de que a justiça vai prevalecer e que o presidente Obama pode ser o veículo de mudança sobre esta questão, mas primeiro ele precisa ouvir alto e claro de veteranos e civis de todo o país que o povo americano quer a reparação para o ilegal a tortura de Bradley Manning, e acredito que ele deve ser libertado.
Organizadores dos 16 ago ações da costa oeste estão agora pedindo outros para se juntar a eles em um esforço nacional para realizar ações em diversos escritórios de campanha mais locais de Obama em 6 de setembro, o dia do candidato discurso de aceitação de nomeação. Queremos compartilhar mensagens de apoio para Bradley, com escritórios de campanha de Obama, de costa a costa.
Entre em contato com emma@bradleymanning.org para mais informações sobre como participar e / ou organizar um evento.
Rassemblement de soutien à ALLÉGUÉE WIKILEAKS DÉNONCIATION BRADLEY MANNING PRIVÉ AU CENTRE-VILLE DE BOSTON OBAMA Hdqtrs.
Rassemblement de soutien à ALLÉGUÉE WIKILEAKS DÉNONCIATION BRADLEY MANNING PRIVÉ AU CENTRE-VILLE DE BOSTON OBAMA Hdqtrs.
DATE: JEUDI 6 septembre 2012
HEURE: (. Personnes seront distribution de tracts du centre-ville d'environ 11:00 et nous y resterons jusqu'à environ 17h00 alors rejoignez-nous à tout moment vous pouvez montrer votre solidarité) À PARTIR DE 14h00
LIEU: CENTRE-VILLE DE BOSTON OBAMA SIÈGE à 77, rue SUMMER (près de l'arrêt Downtown Crossing SUR LES LIGNES ROUGES ET ORANGE)
Le Boston Smedley Butler brigade et Samantha Chapitre-Combattants pour la Paix, le Réseau de soutien Bradley Manning Boston, Somerville Manning Place Comité et d'autres militants sociaux et des citoyens intéressés soutenir l'appel lancé par le Réseau national de soutien Bradley Manning et d'autres pays à se rallier à Obama siège local le jeudi 6 Septembre 2012, jour où le Président Obama devrait accepter l'investiture du parti démocrate du président, d'appeler à la liberté de dénonciation WikiLeaks présumé, l'Armée soldat de première classe Bradley Manning. Nous allons également appeler le président à user de son pouvoir constitutionnel de gracier soldat Manning maintenant.
Personne-ressource: Pat Scanlon (VN 69 ')-coordonnateur, VFP chapitre 9, Smedley Butler Brigade patscanlonmusic@yahoo.com ou Al Johnson-Coordonnatrice des événements -alfredjohnson34 @ comcast.net
GRATUIT Bradley Manning-PRÉSIDENT OBAMA PARDON Bradley Manning MAINTENANT!
Visitez notre page Facebook-Downtown Boston Bradley Manning soutien de rallye-Septembre 6e http://www.facebook.com/BradleyManningSupportRally#!/ BradleyManningSupportRallySeptember6th
Travail bénévole Appel à l'action à Obama 2012 bureaux dans le pays pendant 6 septembre DNC Le Réseau Bradley Manning soutien, les Afghans pour la paix et SF Bay Vétérans d'Irak Contre la Guerre de l'appel pour des actions à l'échelle nationale des bureaux locaux de la campagne d'Obama le 6 septembre 2012 lors de la Convention nationale démocrate! Bradley Manning gratuit!
Depuis l'arrestation de l'Armée PFC Bradley Manning en mai 2010 pour avoir prétendument le partage de la «Assassiner Collateral" vidéo et autres preuves de crimes de guerre et la corruption gouvernementale avec le site Wikileaks dénonciateurs, les progressistes et les militants des droits humains ont demandé, "Pourquoi pas le Président Obama intervenir pour aider Bradley? "
Après tout, c'est le président Obama qui a déclaré mai 2011 en ce qui concerne les manifestations au Moyen-Orient,
«Au 21e siècle, l'information c'est le pouvoir, la vérité ne peut pas être cachée, et la légitimité des gouvernements dépendra en définitive de citoyens actifs et informés."
Jeudi, Août 16, États-Unis vétérans militaires à Portland OR, Oakland et Los Angeles CA, occupé les bureaux de campagne d'Obama en 2012 et a faxé une lettre de demande au bureau central de la campagne d'Obama. Ces lettres ont commencé:
Comme ceux qui ont passé des années à servir notre pays, nous avons la foi que commandant en chef, le président Obama fera la bonne chose à répondre à notre demande.
La lettre poursuit en énumérant les exigences suivantes:
Que le président Obama se rétracter et de s'excuser de propos tenus en Avril 2011, dans laquelle il a affirmé M. Bradley Manning "a enfreint la loi." Parce que le président Obama est le commandant en chef, ce qui constitue une influence ordre illégal, violant ainsi l'article 37 du Code uniforme de militaire Justice (UCMJ), et empêche Bradley bénéficié d'un procès équitable.
Que le pardon du président Obama à l'accusé dénonciateur, en tenant compte de ses 800 jours de détention préventive. Des Nations Unies torture chef Juan Mendez appelle le traitement de Manning "cruel et inhumain», comme on a inclus neuf mois d'isolement à Quantico en dépit psychiatres Brig recommandant des conditions détendues.
Le Réseau Bradley Manning support maintient l'espoir que la justice prévaudra et que le président Obama peut être le véhicule du changement sur cette question, mais d'abord il a besoin d'entendre haut et fort les anciens combattants et les civils dans tout le pays que le peuple américain veut réparer l'illégalité la torture de Bradley Manning, et je crois qu'il devrait être libéré.
Les organisateurs des 16 août actions de la côte Ouest sont maintenant exhortant les autres à se joindre à un effort national pour organiser des actions à beaucoup plus de bureaux locaux de campagne d'Obama le 6 Septembre, le jour du discours d'acceptation de candidature du candidat. Nous voulons partager des messages de soutien pour Bradley avec des bureaux de campagne d'Obama, d'un océan à l'autre.
S'il vous plaît contacter emma@bradleymanning.org pour plus d'informations à propos de présence et / ou l'organisation d'un événement.
DATE: JEUDI 6 septembre 2012
HEURE: (. Personnes seront distribution de tracts du centre-ville d'environ 11:00 et nous y resterons jusqu'à environ 17h00 alors rejoignez-nous à tout moment vous pouvez montrer votre solidarité) À PARTIR DE 14h00
LIEU: CENTRE-VILLE DE BOSTON OBAMA SIÈGE à 77, rue SUMMER (près de l'arrêt Downtown Crossing SUR LES LIGNES ROUGES ET ORANGE)
Le Boston Smedley Butler brigade et Samantha Chapitre-Combattants pour la Paix, le Réseau de soutien Bradley Manning Boston, Somerville Manning Place Comité et d'autres militants sociaux et des citoyens intéressés soutenir l'appel lancé par le Réseau national de soutien Bradley Manning et d'autres pays à se rallier à Obama siège local le jeudi 6 Septembre 2012, jour où le Président Obama devrait accepter l'investiture du parti démocrate du président, d'appeler à la liberté de dénonciation WikiLeaks présumé, l'Armée soldat de première classe Bradley Manning. Nous allons également appeler le président à user de son pouvoir constitutionnel de gracier soldat Manning maintenant.
Personne-ressource: Pat Scanlon (VN 69 ')-coordonnateur, VFP chapitre 9, Smedley Butler Brigade patscanlonmusic@yahoo.com ou Al Johnson-Coordonnatrice des événements -alfredjohnson34 @ comcast.net
GRATUIT Bradley Manning-PRÉSIDENT OBAMA PARDON Bradley Manning MAINTENANT!
Visitez notre page Facebook-Downtown Boston Bradley Manning soutien de rallye-Septembre 6e http://www.facebook.com/BradleyManningSupportRally#!/ BradleyManningSupportRallySeptember6th
Travail bénévole Appel à l'action à Obama 2012 bureaux dans le pays pendant 6 septembre DNC Le Réseau Bradley Manning soutien, les Afghans pour la paix et SF Bay Vétérans d'Irak Contre la Guerre de l'appel pour des actions à l'échelle nationale des bureaux locaux de la campagne d'Obama le 6 septembre 2012 lors de la Convention nationale démocrate! Bradley Manning gratuit!
Depuis l'arrestation de l'Armée PFC Bradley Manning en mai 2010 pour avoir prétendument le partage de la «Assassiner Collateral" vidéo et autres preuves de crimes de guerre et la corruption gouvernementale avec le site Wikileaks dénonciateurs, les progressistes et les militants des droits humains ont demandé, "Pourquoi pas le Président Obama intervenir pour aider Bradley? "
Après tout, c'est le président Obama qui a déclaré mai 2011 en ce qui concerne les manifestations au Moyen-Orient,
«Au 21e siècle, l'information c'est le pouvoir, la vérité ne peut pas être cachée, et la légitimité des gouvernements dépendra en définitive de citoyens actifs et informés."
Jeudi, Août 16, États-Unis vétérans militaires à Portland OR, Oakland et Los Angeles CA, occupé les bureaux de campagne d'Obama en 2012 et a faxé une lettre de demande au bureau central de la campagne d'Obama. Ces lettres ont commencé:
Comme ceux qui ont passé des années à servir notre pays, nous avons la foi que commandant en chef, le président Obama fera la bonne chose à répondre à notre demande.
La lettre poursuit en énumérant les exigences suivantes:
Que le président Obama se rétracter et de s'excuser de propos tenus en Avril 2011, dans laquelle il a affirmé M. Bradley Manning "a enfreint la loi." Parce que le président Obama est le commandant en chef, ce qui constitue une influence ordre illégal, violant ainsi l'article 37 du Code uniforme de militaire Justice (UCMJ), et empêche Bradley bénéficié d'un procès équitable.
Que le pardon du président Obama à l'accusé dénonciateur, en tenant compte de ses 800 jours de détention préventive. Des Nations Unies torture chef Juan Mendez appelle le traitement de Manning "cruel et inhumain», comme on a inclus neuf mois d'isolement à Quantico en dépit psychiatres Brig recommandant des conditions détendues.
Le Réseau Bradley Manning support maintient l'espoir que la justice prévaudra et que le président Obama peut être le véhicule du changement sur cette question, mais d'abord il a besoin d'entendre haut et fort les anciens combattants et les civils dans tout le pays que le peuple américain veut réparer l'illégalité la torture de Bradley Manning, et je crois qu'il devrait être libéré.
Les organisateurs des 16 août actions de la côte Ouest sont maintenant exhortant les autres à se joindre à un effort national pour organiser des actions à beaucoup plus de bureaux locaux de campagne d'Obama le 6 Septembre, le jour du discours d'acceptation de candidature du candidat. Nous voulons partager des messages de soutien pour Bradley avec des bureaux de campagne d'Obama, d'un océan à l'autre.
S'il vous plaît contacter emma@bradleymanning.org pour plus d'informations à propos de présence et / ou l'organisation d'un événement.
RALLY IN SUPPORT OF ALLEGED WIKILEAKS WHISTLEBLOWER PRIVATE BRADLEY MANNING AT THE DOWNTOWN BOSTON OBAMA HDQTRS.-SEPTEMBER 6, 2012
RALLY IN SUPPORT OF ALLEGED WIKILEAKS WHISTLEBLOWER PRIVATE BRADLEY MANNING AT THE DOWNTOWN BOSTON OBAMA HDQTRS.-SEPTEMBER 6, 2012
DATE: THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 6, 2012
TIME: STARTING AT 2:00 PM (People will be leafleting downtown from about 11:00 AM and we will stay until about 5:00 PM so join us anytime you can to show your solidarity.)
PLACE: DOWNTOWN BOSTON OBAMA HEADQUARTERS AT 77 SUMMER STREET (NEAR THE DOWNTOWN CROSSING STOP ON THE RED AND ORANGE LINES)
The Boston Smedley Butler Brigade and Samantha Chapter- Veterans for Peace, the Boston Bradley Manning Support Network , Somerville Manning Square Committee and other social activists and concerned citizens support the call by the National Bradley Manning Support Network and others to rally nationwide at local Obama headquarters on Thursday September 6, 2012, the day President Obama is scheduled accept the Democratic Party nomination of president, to call for freedom for alleged WikiLeaks whistleblower, Army Private First Class Bradley Manning. We also will be calling on the president to use his constitutional authority to pardon Private Manning now.
Contact: Pat Scanlon (VN 69’)-Coordinator, VFP Chapter 9, Smedley Butler Brigade patscanlonmusic@yahoo.com or Al Johnson-Event Coordinator -alfredjohnson34@comcast.net
FREE BRADLEY MANNING-PRESIDENT OBAMA PARDON BRADLEY MANNING NOW!
Check our Facebook event page –Downtown Boston Bradley Manning Support Rally-September 6th-
http://www.facebook.com/BradleyManningSupportRallySeptember6th#!/events/439879979398064/
Labor donated
Call for action at Obama 2012 offices nationwide Sept. 6th during DNC
The Bradley Manning Support Network, Afghans For Peace and SF Bay Iraq Veterans Against the War Call for Nationwide Actions at local Obama Campaign Offices September 6th 2012 during the Democratic National Convention! Free Bradley Manning!
Since Army PFC Bradley Manning’s arrest in May 2010 for allegedly sharing the “Collateral Murder” video and other evidence of war crimes and government corruption with the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks, progressives and human rights activists have been asking, “Why isn’t President Obama stepping in to help Bradley?”
After all, it was President Obama who in May 2011 declared with regards to protests in the Middle East,
“In the 21st Century, information is power; the truth cannot be hidden; and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.”
On Thursday, August 16, US military veterans in Portland OR, Oakland CA, and Los Angeles CA, occupied Obama 2012 campaign offices and faxed a letter of demands to the Obama campaign’s central office. Those letters began:
As those who have spent years serving our country, we have faith that as Commander-in-Chief, President Obama will do the right thing in answering our request.
The letter went on to list the following demands:
That President Obama retract and apologize for remarks made in April 2011, in which he said Bradley Manning “broke the law.” Because President Obama is commander-in-chief, this constitutes unlawful command influence, violating Article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and prevents Bradley from receiving a fair trial.
That President Obama pardon the accused whistle-blower, taking into consideration his 800 days of pretrial confinement. UN torture chief Juan Mendez called Manning’s treatment “cruel and inhuman,” as it included nine months of solitary confinement at Quantico despite Brig psychiatrists recommending relaxed conditions.
The Bradley Manning Support Network maintains hope that justice will prevail and that President Obama can be the vehicle of change on this issue, but first he needs to hear loud and clear from veterans and civilians across the country that the American people want amends for the unlawful torture of Bradley Manning, and believe he should be freed.
Organizers of the August 16 West Coast actions are now urging others to join them in a nationwide effort to hold actions at many more local Obama campaign offices on September 6th, the day of candidate’s nomination acceptance speech. We want to share messages of support for Bradley with Obama campaign offices from coast to coast.
Please contact emma@bradleymanning.org for more information about attending and/or organizing an event.
DATE: THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 6, 2012
TIME: STARTING AT 2:00 PM (People will be leafleting downtown from about 11:00 AM and we will stay until about 5:00 PM so join us anytime you can to show your solidarity.)
PLACE: DOWNTOWN BOSTON OBAMA HEADQUARTERS AT 77 SUMMER STREET (NEAR THE DOWNTOWN CROSSING STOP ON THE RED AND ORANGE LINES)
The Boston Smedley Butler Brigade and Samantha Chapter- Veterans for Peace, the Boston Bradley Manning Support Network , Somerville Manning Square Committee and other social activists and concerned citizens support the call by the National Bradley Manning Support Network and others to rally nationwide at local Obama headquarters on Thursday September 6, 2012, the day President Obama is scheduled accept the Democratic Party nomination of president, to call for freedom for alleged WikiLeaks whistleblower, Army Private First Class Bradley Manning. We also will be calling on the president to use his constitutional authority to pardon Private Manning now.
Contact: Pat Scanlon (VN 69’)-Coordinator, VFP Chapter 9, Smedley Butler Brigade patscanlonmusic@yahoo.com or Al Johnson-Event Coordinator -alfredjohnson34@comcast.net
FREE BRADLEY MANNING-PRESIDENT OBAMA PARDON BRADLEY MANNING NOW!
Check our Facebook event page –Downtown Boston Bradley Manning Support Rally-September 6th-
http://www.facebook.com/BradleyManningSupportRallySeptember6th#!/events/439879979398064/
Labor donated
Call for action at Obama 2012 offices nationwide Sept. 6th during DNC
The Bradley Manning Support Network, Afghans For Peace and SF Bay Iraq Veterans Against the War Call for Nationwide Actions at local Obama Campaign Offices September 6th 2012 during the Democratic National Convention! Free Bradley Manning!
Since Army PFC Bradley Manning’s arrest in May 2010 for allegedly sharing the “Collateral Murder” video and other evidence of war crimes and government corruption with the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks, progressives and human rights activists have been asking, “Why isn’t President Obama stepping in to help Bradley?”
After all, it was President Obama who in May 2011 declared with regards to protests in the Middle East,
“In the 21st Century, information is power; the truth cannot be hidden; and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.”
On Thursday, August 16, US military veterans in Portland OR, Oakland CA, and Los Angeles CA, occupied Obama 2012 campaign offices and faxed a letter of demands to the Obama campaign’s central office. Those letters began:
As those who have spent years serving our country, we have faith that as Commander-in-Chief, President Obama will do the right thing in answering our request.
The letter went on to list the following demands:
That President Obama retract and apologize for remarks made in April 2011, in which he said Bradley Manning “broke the law.” Because President Obama is commander-in-chief, this constitutes unlawful command influence, violating Article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and prevents Bradley from receiving a fair trial.
That President Obama pardon the accused whistle-blower, taking into consideration his 800 days of pretrial confinement. UN torture chief Juan Mendez called Manning’s treatment “cruel and inhuman,” as it included nine months of solitary confinement at Quantico despite Brig psychiatrists recommending relaxed conditions.
The Bradley Manning Support Network maintains hope that justice will prevail and that President Obama can be the vehicle of change on this issue, but first he needs to hear loud and clear from veterans and civilians across the country that the American people want amends for the unlawful torture of Bradley Manning, and believe he should be freed.
Organizers of the August 16 West Coast actions are now urging others to join them in a nationwide effort to hold actions at many more local Obama campaign offices on September 6th, the day of candidate’s nomination acceptance speech. We want to share messages of support for Bradley with Obama campaign offices from coast to coast.
Please contact emma@bradleymanning.org for more information about attending and/or organizing an event.
From The Pen Of Joshua Lawrence Breslin -The Songs Of The Pre-Rock Fifties-They Shoot Record Players, Don’t They? -
I am a child of rock ‘n’ roll, no question. And I have filled up many sketches in my notebooks with plenty of material about my likes and dislikes from the classic period of that genre, the mid-1950s, when we first heard that different jail-break beat, a beat our parents could not “hear,” as we of the generation of ’68 earned our spurs and started that long teenage angst and alienation process of going our own way. Still, as much as we were determined to have our own music on our own terms, wafting through every household, every household that had a radio in the background, and more importantly, had the emerging sounds from television in it was our parents’ music- the music, mainly of the surviving the Great Depression (the 1930s one not the one we are in now in 2012) and fighting (or frantically waiting at home for news) World War II period. And that is what Lena Horne’s Stormy Weather evokes in these ears as I write this sketch. Or click above in contrast and listen to Dinah Washington (apologies, okay Ms. D.) vanilla kitten croon (nice, huh) What A Difference A Day Makes.
In an earlier piece noted that some the World War II era music “spoke” to me, or at least it did not offend my ear (especially a classic like Lena Horne on Stormy Weather). Some later stuff, however, as it intersected my generation’s jail-breakout rock beat, or should I say interfered with that breakout, is something else again. This material was nothing but a rearguard action, for the most part, to keep everything quiet, to be nice and, to hope, hope to high heaven that they (and you know, if you are of a certain age, who the “they” were) didn’t drop the bomb and ruin a Saturday chaste date. The cover art featured on one such compilation had a boy and girl sitting dreamily in a car (maybe dad’s, maybe in discretionary dollars new teen America, his own, but his, one way or another) looking out at the expanse says it all. This ain’t some reckless little rock ‘n’ roll scene, not even sweet, beatified be-bop. This is the music of older, "square" brothers and sisters caught in between “jump” forties and “rock” mid-fifties.
It is almost impossible to do anything with certain songs except draw and quarter them and make apologies to someone like Tony Bennett who actually did some better stuff later but here is all I can even come close to advising anyone under the age of one hundred (today) to hear:
Memories Are Made Of This, Dean Martin (martini, or whatever, in hand, Dino ain’t rocking, he’ll leave that for his son); Just In Time, Tony Bennett (already noted above); What A Difference A Day Makes, Dinah Washington (Jesus, what is a serious, be-bop jazz singer, “torch” too, and with great phrasing doing in this thing-except to prove my overall point as the exception).
From The Pen Of Peter Paul Markin- From The Boyos- The Songs Of The Dubliners
Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of the Dubliners performing Raglan Road.
Since my youth I have had an ear for roots music, whether I was conscious of that fact or not. The original of that interest first centered on the blues, then early rock and roll and later, with the folk revival of the early 1960’s, folk music. I have often wondered about the source of this interest. I am, and have always been a city boy, and an Eastern city boy at that. Nevertheless, over time I have come to appreciate many more forms of roots music than in my youth. The subject of the following review, The Dubliners, is an example.
In a sense it would seem that the source of my interest in the Dubliners would be apparent. My mother’s people came over from Ireland to America on the famine ships in the 1840’s. Not so, in my youth the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Machem were all that I would listen to for Irish, and particularly Irish political, songs. The Dubliners were a later acquired taste as I delved more into Irish history several years ago. I believe that the Dubliners were a little better musically than the Clancys (and Tommy too) and certainly Luke Kelly added much with his deep whiskey-sodden voice to any song he leads.
Politically (and culturally), both groups cover many of the same songs- from traditional Croppy Boy, Boys of Wexford types to the songs of the Easter Uprising in 1916. The Dubliners, probably because they were based in and stayed in Ireland, have a bigger selection of songs reflecting the more current struggles for liberation up in the north. In short, the Dubliners measure up to my youthful standards for Irish political music. If you just want good old Irish sentimental material or party/bar music they have plenty of that too. Check out their A Pub With No Beer or Finnegan’s Wake.
Since my youth I have had an ear for roots music, whether I was conscious of that fact or not. The original of that interest first centered on the blues, then early rock and roll and later, with the folk revival of the early 1960’s, folk music. I have often wondered about the source of this interest. I am, and have always been a city boy, and an Eastern city boy at that. Nevertheless, over time I have come to appreciate many more forms of roots music than in my youth. The subject of the following review, The Dubliners, is an example.
In a sense it would seem that the source of my interest in the Dubliners would be apparent. My mother’s people came over from Ireland to America on the famine ships in the 1840’s. Not so, in my youth the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Machem were all that I would listen to for Irish, and particularly Irish political, songs. The Dubliners were a later acquired taste as I delved more into Irish history several years ago. I believe that the Dubliners were a little better musically than the Clancys (and Tommy too) and certainly Luke Kelly added much with his deep whiskey-sodden voice to any song he leads.
Politically (and culturally), both groups cover many of the same songs- from traditional Croppy Boy, Boys of Wexford types to the songs of the Easter Uprising in 1916. The Dubliners, probably because they were based in and stayed in Ireland, have a bigger selection of songs reflecting the more current struggles for liberation up in the north. In short, the Dubliners measure up to my youthful standards for Irish political music. If you just want good old Irish sentimental material or party/bar music they have plenty of that too. Check out their A Pub With No Beer or Finnegan’s Wake.
From the Pen Of Peter Paul Markin- Will The Circle Be Unbroken- The Songs Of The Carter Family
Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of the Carter Family performing the old-time Under The Weeping Willow Tree.
In my jaded youth I developed an ear for roots music, whether I was conscious of that fact or not. The origin of that interest first centered on the blues, country and city with the likes of Son House , Skip James, Mississippi John Hurt, Muddy Waters, Howlin’ Wolf and Elmore James. Then early rock and roll, you know the rockabillies and R&B crowd, Elvis, Jerry Lee, Chuck, Roy, Big Joe and Ike, and later, with the folk revival of the early 1960’s, folk music, especially the protest to high heaven sort, Bob Dylan, Dave Von Ronk, Joan Baez, etc.
I have often wondered about the source of this interest. I am, and have always been a city boy, and an Eastern city boy at that. Meaning rootless or not meaningfully rooted in any of the niches mentioned above, or others. Nevertheless, over time I have come to appreciate many more forms of roots music than in my youth. Cajun, Tex-Mex, old time dust bowl ballads a la Woody Guthrie, cowboy stuff with the likes of Bob Wills and Milton Brown, Carter Family-etched mountain music and so on. The subject of the following review, The Carter Family, and their influence on mountain music is an example.
With the relatively recent spate of mountain music films, George Clooney’s Brother, Where Art Thou?, The Song-catcher and the Johnny Cash movie biography Walk The Line the Carter Family has again come into greater public prominence. And rightly so. The original trio (A.P., Ruth, May belle) performed simple country (or better rural) music mainly composed by A.P. Carter that evoked, if not a simpler time, then in any case, a simpler type of music. While I cannot listen endlessly to such music at one sitting about one-half a CD at a time works. Why not the whole CD? There is a very similar melody and guitar line to their work in most songs. The value of each song sometimes gets lost in the basic repetition.
A note on subject matter- The bulk of the songs concern home, hearth lovesickness, the vagaries of nature (god’s nature) and religion as might be expected from mountain people (and not just mountain people come to think of it). And that is okay. This reviewer, although not a religious man, can appreciate the simple, fundamentalist but very personal religion evoked here. The god evoked against hard times, hard struggle and righteousness against a seemingly intractable land and forward, ever forward. Not to romanticize the simple rural folk of the past but I do not believe that the religious sentiments expressed in old time mountain music are the same as those of religious fundamentalists today who want to ram a theocracy down our throats in the United States today. Those were people awestruck by the tasks before them and did not need to be “born again” (or see every last citizen in that condition) to appreciate that burden.
In my jaded youth I developed an ear for roots music, whether I was conscious of that fact or not. The origin of that interest first centered on the blues, country and city with the likes of Son House , Skip James, Mississippi John Hurt, Muddy Waters, Howlin’ Wolf and Elmore James. Then early rock and roll, you know the rockabillies and R&B crowd, Elvis, Jerry Lee, Chuck, Roy, Big Joe and Ike, and later, with the folk revival of the early 1960’s, folk music, especially the protest to high heaven sort, Bob Dylan, Dave Von Ronk, Joan Baez, etc.
I have often wondered about the source of this interest. I am, and have always been a city boy, and an Eastern city boy at that. Meaning rootless or not meaningfully rooted in any of the niches mentioned above, or others. Nevertheless, over time I have come to appreciate many more forms of roots music than in my youth. Cajun, Tex-Mex, old time dust bowl ballads a la Woody Guthrie, cowboy stuff with the likes of Bob Wills and Milton Brown, Carter Family-etched mountain music and so on. The subject of the following review, The Carter Family, and their influence on mountain music is an example.
With the relatively recent spate of mountain music films, George Clooney’s Brother, Where Art Thou?, The Song-catcher and the Johnny Cash movie biography Walk The Line the Carter Family has again come into greater public prominence. And rightly so. The original trio (A.P., Ruth, May belle) performed simple country (or better rural) music mainly composed by A.P. Carter that evoked, if not a simpler time, then in any case, a simpler type of music. While I cannot listen endlessly to such music at one sitting about one-half a CD at a time works. Why not the whole CD? There is a very similar melody and guitar line to their work in most songs. The value of each song sometimes gets lost in the basic repetition.
A note on subject matter- The bulk of the songs concern home, hearth lovesickness, the vagaries of nature (god’s nature) and religion as might be expected from mountain people (and not just mountain people come to think of it). And that is okay. This reviewer, although not a religious man, can appreciate the simple, fundamentalist but very personal religion evoked here. The god evoked against hard times, hard struggle and righteousness against a seemingly intractable land and forward, ever forward. Not to romanticize the simple rural folk of the past but I do not believe that the religious sentiments expressed in old time mountain music are the same as those of religious fundamentalists today who want to ram a theocracy down our throats in the United States today. Those were people awestruck by the tasks before them and did not need to be “born again” (or see every last citizen in that condition) to appreciate that burden.
Houston Janitors Strike for Economic Justice
Houston Janitors Strike for Economic Justice
by Mark Vorpahl
Email: info (nospam) workerscompass.org (verified)
27 Jul 2012
Echoing the story of David vs. Goliath, janitors in Houston are on strike and taking on such corporate giants as JPMorganChase and Exxon Mobile in an effort to pressure the janitorial companies they employ to agree to the workers' modest demands. It is these big business behemoths that are the real powers behind cleaning contractors such as ABM, GCA, ISS etc. By striking against these contractors, and publicly targeting these contractors' employers, the janitors are using their collective power in a showdown that has great significance for not only the Labor Movement but all workers.
The janitors are members of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1, which has a membership of 3,200 in Houston. Currently, these workers' wages top out at $8.35 per hour. On average, they make under $9,000 a year. The government defines the poverty line as an income of $22,314 for a family of four and $11,139 for an individual.
The janitors are asking for a $10.00 per hour starting wage. In response, the contractors offered a combined 50 cents an hour raise over the course of a five-year contract. With the growing cost of living over this time, these workers would sink even further into poverty if they accepted this. The contractors' proposal was nothing more than an insult.
Not content with merely insulting their employees, the contractors began to back up their position with injury. The janitors were subject to captive audience meetings where their jobs were threatened if they participated in union activity. Management warned that they would call for an immigration audit if the employees didn't quiet down. In addition, they also withheld paychecks of some union supporters. In all, 13 Unfair Labor Practices have been filed with the National Labor Relations Board.
The Union contract expired on May 31st. The janitors held a series of rallies and one-day work stoppages in order to convince management that they meant business. However, because these actions did not seriously impact the contractors' profits, they did not feel compelled to move. Consequently, the membership of SEIU Local 1 had no choice but vote to go on strike.
There are two features of this strike that make it exceptional.
One is how it highlights the growing inequality that exists in this nation and the need to fight it. Houston leads the nation in the growth of the number of millionaires. The companies targeted by the strike in its public campaign are some of the main players in the big business elite. On the other hand, not even the most rabid right-wing pro-corporate media can effectively portray the janitors as greedy unionists. This strike has the potential to tap into a growing discontent in the U.S. over inequality that helped launch Occupy as well as the Madison, Wisconsin Capital occupation in 2011.
The other exceptional feature of this struggle is the use of work stoppages and rallies nationally in solidarity with the Houston janitors. Solidarity strikes was one of the tactics employed by the CIO in the 1930s that propelled its rapid growth. Because of this tactic's effectiveness, it was outlawed in 1947 with the bi-partisan passage of the Taft-Hartley Act.
To get around the rigged rules of this slave labor law, many SEIU janitorial contracts have a "conscience clause." This clause enables janitors to refuse to cross a picket line at their work place without fear of penalty. As a result, picket lines have been set up in several cities at work sites that employ SEIU janitors, elevating the economic impact on the contractors, who are in Houston, to a national scale.
These contractors and their corporate employers are organized to pursue profits across the U.S. These profits are the only thing they care about. While they can more easily handle a strike isolated in one city, the nationwide solidarity work stoppage tactic employed by SEIU is much more difficult for them to deal with. If the bosses refuse to budge, it will be necessary to escalate this tactic further.
By highlighting the issue of inequality and countering the contractors with a nationwide response that uses work stoppages, SEIU is challenging the limits of the corporate political machine. It will be necessary to break these boundaries for Houston’s janitors, and all workers, to decisively win.
Currently, some Democratic politicians, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have voiced support for the strike. Given the massive funding both parties receive from Wall Street and the resulting pro-corporate policies they pursue, there should be no surprise that they either neglect or attack the issues of most importance to workers, so that such fine speeches like Biden’s have the appearance of cynical electioneering.
SEIU, and the unions in general, will not find a national voice by getting a seat at the table with these politicians who ignore or attempt to bind the membership's struggles. Instead Labor must devote its resources towards empowering its own members to fight for their own needs, without fear of offending the politicians, and create a social movement that speaks for all workers.
The demands that the Houston SEIU janitors are putting forward are extremely modest. However, their actions and organizing are growing more bold. They are already providing an example of greater struggles for economic justice in the near future.
For more information and to support the strike go to http://www.seiu1.org/
More info about this article at www.workerscompass.org
((((((((((((((((
by Mark Vorpahl
Email: info (nospam) workerscompass.org (verified)
27 Jul 2012
Echoing the story of David vs. Goliath, janitors in Houston are on strike and taking on such corporate giants as JPMorganChase and Exxon Mobile in an effort to pressure the janitorial companies they employ to agree to the workers' modest demands. It is these big business behemoths that are the real powers behind cleaning contractors such as ABM, GCA, ISS etc. By striking against these contractors, and publicly targeting these contractors' employers, the janitors are using their collective power in a showdown that has great significance for not only the Labor Movement but all workers.
The janitors are members of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1, which has a membership of 3,200 in Houston. Currently, these workers' wages top out at $8.35 per hour. On average, they make under $9,000 a year. The government defines the poverty line as an income of $22,314 for a family of four and $11,139 for an individual.
The janitors are asking for a $10.00 per hour starting wage. In response, the contractors offered a combined 50 cents an hour raise over the course of a five-year contract. With the growing cost of living over this time, these workers would sink even further into poverty if they accepted this. The contractors' proposal was nothing more than an insult.
Not content with merely insulting their employees, the contractors began to back up their position with injury. The janitors were subject to captive audience meetings where their jobs were threatened if they participated in union activity. Management warned that they would call for an immigration audit if the employees didn't quiet down. In addition, they also withheld paychecks of some union supporters. In all, 13 Unfair Labor Practices have been filed with the National Labor Relations Board.
The Union contract expired on May 31st. The janitors held a series of rallies and one-day work stoppages in order to convince management that they meant business. However, because these actions did not seriously impact the contractors' profits, they did not feel compelled to move. Consequently, the membership of SEIU Local 1 had no choice but vote to go on strike.
There are two features of this strike that make it exceptional.
One is how it highlights the growing inequality that exists in this nation and the need to fight it. Houston leads the nation in the growth of the number of millionaires. The companies targeted by the strike in its public campaign are some of the main players in the big business elite. On the other hand, not even the most rabid right-wing pro-corporate media can effectively portray the janitors as greedy unionists. This strike has the potential to tap into a growing discontent in the U.S. over inequality that helped launch Occupy as well as the Madison, Wisconsin Capital occupation in 2011.
The other exceptional feature of this struggle is the use of work stoppages and rallies nationally in solidarity with the Houston janitors. Solidarity strikes was one of the tactics employed by the CIO in the 1930s that propelled its rapid growth. Because of this tactic's effectiveness, it was outlawed in 1947 with the bi-partisan passage of the Taft-Hartley Act.
To get around the rigged rules of this slave labor law, many SEIU janitorial contracts have a "conscience clause." This clause enables janitors to refuse to cross a picket line at their work place without fear of penalty. As a result, picket lines have been set up in several cities at work sites that employ SEIU janitors, elevating the economic impact on the contractors, who are in Houston, to a national scale.
These contractors and their corporate employers are organized to pursue profits across the U.S. These profits are the only thing they care about. While they can more easily handle a strike isolated in one city, the nationwide solidarity work stoppage tactic employed by SEIU is much more difficult for them to deal with. If the bosses refuse to budge, it will be necessary to escalate this tactic further.
By highlighting the issue of inequality and countering the contractors with a nationwide response that uses work stoppages, SEIU is challenging the limits of the corporate political machine. It will be necessary to break these boundaries for Houston’s janitors, and all workers, to decisively win.
Currently, some Democratic politicians, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have voiced support for the strike. Given the massive funding both parties receive from Wall Street and the resulting pro-corporate policies they pursue, there should be no surprise that they either neglect or attack the issues of most importance to workers, so that such fine speeches like Biden’s have the appearance of cynical electioneering.
SEIU, and the unions in general, will not find a national voice by getting a seat at the table with these politicians who ignore or attempt to bind the membership's struggles. Instead Labor must devote its resources towards empowering its own members to fight for their own needs, without fear of offending the politicians, and create a social movement that speaks for all workers.
The demands that the Houston SEIU janitors are putting forward are extremely modest. However, their actions and organizing are growing more bold. They are already providing an example of greater struggles for economic justice in the near future.
For more information and to support the strike go to http://www.seiu1.org/
More info about this article at www.workerscompass.org
((((((((((((((((
Taxing the Rich and Its “Left” Critics -A Polemic
Markin comment:
I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts.
**********
Taxing the Rich and Its “Left” Critics
by Ann Robertson and Bill Leumer
28 Jul 2012
In a recent article published on the website of Socialist Viewpoint, Chris Kinder criticized those on the left who call for raising taxes on the rich. Identifying himself as a Trotskyist, Mr. Kinder displayed particular displeasure with Trotskyists who embrace this demand. Yet, as we will argue, his arguments fundamentally deviate from the political-strategic framework established by Marx and Engels and developed by Lenin and Trotsky.
“‘Tax the rich’ is far from a transitional demand,” Mr. Kinder argued and added: “Demanding taxation of the rich presumes the continued existence of the rich! But revolutionists seek to expropriate the rich capitalists as a precursor to creating an egalitarian, socialist society.”
This argument was further developed when he added: “Furthermore, ‘tax the rich,’ by presuming the continued existence of the exploiter class, cuts off any avenue to being a ‘bridge’ to a revolutionary program. As Trotsky explained in The Death Agony of Capitalism..., a transitional demand should help the masses to ‘find the bridge between present demands and the socialist program of the revolution.’”
Mr. Kinder continues his critique by noting that taxing the rich has been promoted by liberals, and, unlike transitional demands, can be won within the framework of capitalism. By improving the lot of the working class it can then defuse their revolutionary impulses.
He also argues that “it’s not a particularly internationalist demand,” since it would only benefit the workers of a particular country.
In place of calling for increasing taxes on the rich, Mr. Kinder offers this substitute: “…the immediate, and transitional, demand must be to expropriate the big banks and financial houses, with no compensation of course, and including no disruption of private individual and small business deposits. Immediately seize all assets, and return them to their proper owners. That means abolition of the mortgage debt owned by the expropriated banks and investors.”
If creating a revolutionary movement simply amounted to broadcasting transitional slogans to workers regardless of the level of consciousness of these workers, then Mr. Kinder’s approach might have some merit. But as Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky all emphasized, revolutionary politics rejects this approach and instead insist that revolutionaries raise demands that resonate with the working class or organize around demands that the workers themselves have raised. In this way workers become engaged, active, and in a position to learn from the dynamics of class struggle.
Let us begin by pointing out that taxing the rich does indeed have a long history, but in reviewing that history Mr. Kinder failed to mention that it was one of Marx’s and Engels’ ten transitional demands in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. They called for “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax,” which means exactly the same as “taxing the rich.”
In 1937, in an introduction to the Communist Manifesto, Trotsky commented on these transitional demands: “Calculated for a revolutionary epoch, the Manifesto contains…ten demands, corresponding to the period of direct transition from capitalism to socialism. In their Preface of 1872, Marx and Engels declared these demands to be in part antiquated, and, in any case, only of secondary importance. The reformists seized upon this evaluation to interpret it in the sense that transitional revolutionary demands had forever ceded their place to the social-democratic ‘minimum program,’ which, as is well known, does not transcend the limits of bourgeois democracy. As a matter of fact, the authors of the Manifesto indicated quite precisely the main correction of their transitional program, namely, ‘the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.’ In other words, the correction was directed against the fetishism of bourgeois democracy. Marx later counterposed to the capitalist state, the state of the type of the (Paris) Commune (1871). This ‘type’ subsequently assumed the much more graphic shape of Soviets. There cannot be a revolutionary program today without Soviets and without workers’ control. As for the rest, the ten demands of the Manifesto, which appeared ‘archaic’ in an epoch of peaceful parliamentary activity, have today regained completely their true significance. The social-democratic ‘minimum program,’ on the other hand, has become hopelessly antiquated.”
In other words, Trotsky endorsed taxing the rich as a transitional demand, and thus Mr. Kinder has unwittingly deviated from those he claims to follow.
Mr. Kinder has committed the kind of error that is frequently committed by beginners in Marxist revolutionary politics. They engage in an abstract, undialectical approach by reducing Marxism to a few doctrinaire slogans that they apply to every situation. Mr. Kinder, for example, takes slogans from Trotsky that were aimed at a class conscious and frequently revolutionary-minded working class in the 1930s. He then applies these same slogans to the current U.S. working class that is fragmented, lacks class consciousness, and is far from revolutionary. This beginners’ approach is both a reflection of their isolation from the working class with its day-to-day struggles as well as a barrier that separates them from the working class.
If one applied Mr. Kinder’s logic to cases where workers were fighting for a wage increase at work, one would be forced to condemn the struggle because wage increases can be won while capitalism remains intact, it is not a transitional demand, and it certainly benefits only a limited section of the working class while leaving the international working class no better off than before. Those who adopt Mr. Kinder’s logic typically are uninvolved with the day-to-day struggles of the working class and hence are not in a position to lead these struggles in a revolutionary direction.
Marxists have always wrestled with the problem of how to imbue the working class with a revolutionary consciousness, given that workers can fall into reformism, apathy, or demoralization. In his strategic essay, “What Next?” (1932), Trotsky confronted this problem by outlining the indispensable role of the united front in developing a revolutionary outlook among workers. In the course of his discussion he made many points that indicate a far more complicated framework than Mr. Kinder’s, a framework forged by Trotsky in the course of constant engagement in working class battles, both large and small. Here are some key passages that Mr. Kinder would have difficulty incorporating into his own two-dimensional framework.
“And so, ten years ago, the Comintern explained that the gist of the united-front policy was in the following: the Communist Party proves to the masses and their organizations its readiness in action to wage battle in common with them for aims, no matter how modest [emphasis added], so long as they lie on the road of the historical development of the proletariat; the Communist Party in this struggle takes into account the actual condition of the class at each given moment [emphasis added]; it turns not only to the masses, but also to those organizations whose leadership is recognized by the masses; it confronts the reformist organizations before the eyes of the masses with the real problems of the class struggle.”
Slightly later he adds, and this is particularly relevant to Mr. Kinder: “The mistakes made in the policy of the united front fall into two categories. In most cases the leading organs of the Communist Party approached the reformists with an offer to join in a common struggle for radical slogans which were alien to the situation and which found no response in the masses.”
Earlier Trotsky quoted from one of his earlier documents: “In these clashes — insofar as they involve the vital interests of the entire working class, or its majority, or this or that section — the working masses sense the need of unity in action…. Any party which mechanically counterposes itself to this need … will unfailingly be condemned in the minds of the workers…. For those who do not understand this task, the party is only a propaganda society and not an organization for mass action.”
And even still earlier Trotsky noted: “To fight, the proletariat must have unity in its ranks. This holds true for partial economic conflicts, within the walls of a single factory, as well as for such ‘national’ political battles as the one to repel fascism. Consequently the tactic of the united front is not something accidental and artificial — a cunning maneuver — not at all; it originates, entirely and wholly, in the objective conditions governing the development of the proletariat. The words in the Communist Manifesto which state that the Communists are not to be opposed to the proletariat, that they have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole, carry with them the meaning that the struggle of the party to win over the majority of the class must in no instance come into opposition with the need of the workers to keep unity within their fighting ranks.”
From the same essay Trotsky cites Lenin’s approach: “Shortly after that Lenin arrived from abroad, and he raked the ultimatists over the coals mercilessly. ‘You can’t,’ he lectured them, ‘nor can anyone else by means of ultimatums force the masses to skip the necessary phases of their own political development.’”
“Instead of monotonously repeating the same ready-made formulas before one and the same audience, it [a revolutionary party] would be enabled to set new strata into motion, to teach them through actual experience, to steel them, and to strengthen its hegemony among the working class.”
The comments above are crucial on several grounds. First, they indicate that Trotsky’s highest priority was to engage massive numbers of workers in class struggle where they learn from the own experiences the nature of capitalist society, its antagonistic class relations, and the role of the state in supporting the ruling class. “Mass actions,” he insisted “[were] the highest form of class struggle….” Even though workers initially might only be willing to fight for “modest” reforms, the education they derive from their battle experience often far exceeds theoretical study. Under conditions of battle, workers begin to develop a strong sense of camaraderie with one another, which is an incipient form of class consciousness. They see more clearly that the boss is their direct enemy, they watch the local or federal government and the media rush to provide support to the bosses and are consequently far from neutral or objective. Most importantly, if the workers win, they begin to sense the tremendous power they can wield when they act in solidarity and unity with one another. This sense of power can then quickly lead to workers eager to return to the battlefield to rack up even bigger victories. Eventually this logic can lead the working class to the realization that reforms are insufficient and only the replacement of capitalism by socialism will satisfactorily address their grievances. Consequently, the struggle for reforms can harbor all sorts of dialectical implications that lead the working class to a more revolutionary outlook.
In “The Belgian Dispute and the De Man Plan” (1935) Trotsky returned to the importance of engaging workers in struggle, this time leaning on Engels for support. “Engels never tired of repeating that Marxism is not an academic doctrine or a sectarian profession of faith but an instrument for systematic work among the masses.” And in the same essay Trotsky quoted Engels as saying: “It demonstrates how very useless a platform that is largely theoretically correct can be, if it does not know how to link itself with the real needs of the masses.”
But this emphasis on engaging the masses in struggle means, secondly, the set of demands appropriate for one set of workers might not coincide with the demands that could activate another set of workers.
For example, when “The Death Agony of Capitalism” in the Transitional Program is read carefully, it becomes apparent that it was aimed at a particular historical juncture, what Trotsky called “a prerevolutionary period.” As Trotsky observed about this particular historical period: “In all countries the proletariat is wracked by a deep disquiet. The multimillioned masses again and again enter the road of revolution. But each time they are blocked by their own conservative bureaucratic machines.” It was a “catastrophic period,” “a transitional epoch,” where the Spanish proletariat had tried to take power, where France and the U.S. experienced a wave of sit-down strikes and massive general strikes. Accordingly, the “time [was] ripe” to advance transitional demands.
But in other less revolutionary periods, transitional demands might not engage workers, which raises the need of less ambitious demands, or as Trotsky is quoted above as saying, demands “no matter how modest,” meaning that Trotsky would have fully endorsed struggles over wages and benefits.
Mr. Kinder takes no notice of the specific historical context that the transitional demands targeted. Instead he rips the transitional demands out of this prerevolutionary historic context and mindlessly applies them to every situation. Therefore, when Trotsky writes in “What Next?” about waging battle around demands “no matter how modest” and criticizes radical slogans that do not resonate with the masses, Mr. Kinder is forced to ignore such observations because they are incompatible with his simple, formulaic approach.
There are several distinctions that would benefit Mr. Kinder’s analysis. As Lenin once explained, propaganda must be distinguished from agitation. Propaganda can involve complex theoretical ideas in which, for example, the full program of revolutionaries is developed and explained. It could include, for example, lengthy expositions explaining why capitalism cannot meet the needs of the working class, why banks should be expropriated, why the workweek should be reduced with no reduction in pay, etc. Propaganda can be properly tackled, for example, in a study group or a lecture situation or perhaps a magazine article.
But agitation is altogether different. Here the revolutionary focuses on a few key slogans that has the potential to inspire workers to act. These slogans might involve a demand for a higher wage, or higher taxes on the rich in order to generate revenue for a massive government jobs program, public education and social services, or immediately terminating the current war, etc. Or, under heightened periods of struggle, they might include the demand that workers’ organizations take power, that all major capitalist businesses be expropriated, etc. Here, in order to get workers to act, the slogans must resonate; they must find a “response in the masses,” as Trotsky put it.
For Trotsky, the creation of united fronts, where workers fight for a few specific demands as opposed to an elaborate political program, is the indispensable road to achieving class consciousness. The united front is the primary vehicle in which workers unite as a class and begin to develop an understanding of society and their role in it. Class struggle is consequently waged by means of the united front. In the final analysis the united front aims at winning the majority of the working class to a revolutionary program.
Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky all emphasized that workers learn above all through their own experiences; going to battle is consequently an indispensable part of their education.
While most workers in the U.S. today might not be prepared to act on the demand to expropriate the banks without compensation, the call to raise taxes on the rich, which many unions have adopted, including the AFL-CIO, has resonated with most working people, as poll after poll has indicated. Moreover, this demand has the potential to unite what is now a fragmented working class. By generating additional revenue from these taxes that would be ear-marked for public education, vital social services, and job creation programs, all highly important to the working class according to polls, these demands have the potential to draw large segments of the working class into common action. And when this demand is won and taxes on the rich are raised, the unemployed, teachers, and other public workers are no longer reduced to fighting among themselves for the crumbs.
The current situation in the U.S. confronting revolutionaries diverges dramatically from the world that Trotsky was addressing when he wrote the “The Death Agony of Capitalism” in the Transitional Program in the late 1930s. Rather than the thousands of strikes taking place yearly, as in the 1930s in the U.S., the number has recently fallen to as low as a half-dozen. Thanks to the failure of the union officials to rally their members to put up a real fight while passively accepting concession after concession, workers often lack any confidence that there is anything they could effectively do that would improve their working conditions. Apathy and demoralization are rampant. Workers have not tried to take power. We are far from a pre-revolutionary situation that Trotsky described as “ripe” for transitional demands. And when those on the far left call for a general strike, few respond.
Given this context, if workers at a particular site without a lot of economic leverage decided to resist further demands for concessions but try instead to hold on to what they have, if the “revolutionary” were to insist that they fight for “30 for 40,” meaning doing 30 hours work for 40 hours of pay, which is one of Trotsky’s transitional demands, then instead of illuminating the correct path forward for the workers, the “revolutionary” would discredit him or herself in their eyes. Workers would believe such radicals are out of touch with reality. (This is not to say that union members might not pass a resolution in favor of “30 for 40;” but in this period such a resolution would only signify what workers would ideally want, not what they are prepared to fight for at this time. In other words, the resolution would take on the character of propaganda, not agitation.)
But revolutionaries who are not engaged in leading struggles, who are content to sit on the sidelines with their moralizing opposition to anything that falls short of a revolutionary leap, are hardly bothered by these critical responses to their proposals. They comfort themselves with the assurance that no reforms within the capitalist system will solve the problems of the working class. And, of course, they are entirely correct. But they simply lack the understanding of how to work with today’s working class — with its significant lack of class consciousness, let alone revolutionary consciousness — in order to make progress towards a socialist future. This is the dilemma that Trotsky’s discussion of the united front in his article “What Next?” was intended to resolve: the united front approach — where workers join together to put up a fight over whatever demands they find compelling — was the crucial link (the “middle term”) that starts with workers’ current level of consciousness in order to raise it through a dialectical, organic process to a higher revolutionary outlook.
About the Authors
Ann Robertson is a Lecturer at San Francisco State University and a member of the California Faculty Association. Bill Leumer is a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 853 (ret.). Both are writers for Workers Action and may be reached at sanfrancisco (at) workerscompass.org.
I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts.
**********
Taxing the Rich and Its “Left” Critics
by Ann Robertson and Bill Leumer
28 Jul 2012
In a recent article published on the website of Socialist Viewpoint, Chris Kinder criticized those on the left who call for raising taxes on the rich. Identifying himself as a Trotskyist, Mr. Kinder displayed particular displeasure with Trotskyists who embrace this demand. Yet, as we will argue, his arguments fundamentally deviate from the political-strategic framework established by Marx and Engels and developed by Lenin and Trotsky.
“‘Tax the rich’ is far from a transitional demand,” Mr. Kinder argued and added: “Demanding taxation of the rich presumes the continued existence of the rich! But revolutionists seek to expropriate the rich capitalists as a precursor to creating an egalitarian, socialist society.”
This argument was further developed when he added: “Furthermore, ‘tax the rich,’ by presuming the continued existence of the exploiter class, cuts off any avenue to being a ‘bridge’ to a revolutionary program. As Trotsky explained in The Death Agony of Capitalism..., a transitional demand should help the masses to ‘find the bridge between present demands and the socialist program of the revolution.’”
Mr. Kinder continues his critique by noting that taxing the rich has been promoted by liberals, and, unlike transitional demands, can be won within the framework of capitalism. By improving the lot of the working class it can then defuse their revolutionary impulses.
He also argues that “it’s not a particularly internationalist demand,” since it would only benefit the workers of a particular country.
In place of calling for increasing taxes on the rich, Mr. Kinder offers this substitute: “…the immediate, and transitional, demand must be to expropriate the big banks and financial houses, with no compensation of course, and including no disruption of private individual and small business deposits. Immediately seize all assets, and return them to their proper owners. That means abolition of the mortgage debt owned by the expropriated banks and investors.”
If creating a revolutionary movement simply amounted to broadcasting transitional slogans to workers regardless of the level of consciousness of these workers, then Mr. Kinder’s approach might have some merit. But as Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky all emphasized, revolutionary politics rejects this approach and instead insist that revolutionaries raise demands that resonate with the working class or organize around demands that the workers themselves have raised. In this way workers become engaged, active, and in a position to learn from the dynamics of class struggle.
Let us begin by pointing out that taxing the rich does indeed have a long history, but in reviewing that history Mr. Kinder failed to mention that it was one of Marx’s and Engels’ ten transitional demands in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. They called for “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax,” which means exactly the same as “taxing the rich.”
In 1937, in an introduction to the Communist Manifesto, Trotsky commented on these transitional demands: “Calculated for a revolutionary epoch, the Manifesto contains…ten demands, corresponding to the period of direct transition from capitalism to socialism. In their Preface of 1872, Marx and Engels declared these demands to be in part antiquated, and, in any case, only of secondary importance. The reformists seized upon this evaluation to interpret it in the sense that transitional revolutionary demands had forever ceded their place to the social-democratic ‘minimum program,’ which, as is well known, does not transcend the limits of bourgeois democracy. As a matter of fact, the authors of the Manifesto indicated quite precisely the main correction of their transitional program, namely, ‘the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.’ In other words, the correction was directed against the fetishism of bourgeois democracy. Marx later counterposed to the capitalist state, the state of the type of the (Paris) Commune (1871). This ‘type’ subsequently assumed the much more graphic shape of Soviets. There cannot be a revolutionary program today without Soviets and without workers’ control. As for the rest, the ten demands of the Manifesto, which appeared ‘archaic’ in an epoch of peaceful parliamentary activity, have today regained completely their true significance. The social-democratic ‘minimum program,’ on the other hand, has become hopelessly antiquated.”
In other words, Trotsky endorsed taxing the rich as a transitional demand, and thus Mr. Kinder has unwittingly deviated from those he claims to follow.
Mr. Kinder has committed the kind of error that is frequently committed by beginners in Marxist revolutionary politics. They engage in an abstract, undialectical approach by reducing Marxism to a few doctrinaire slogans that they apply to every situation. Mr. Kinder, for example, takes slogans from Trotsky that were aimed at a class conscious and frequently revolutionary-minded working class in the 1930s. He then applies these same slogans to the current U.S. working class that is fragmented, lacks class consciousness, and is far from revolutionary. This beginners’ approach is both a reflection of their isolation from the working class with its day-to-day struggles as well as a barrier that separates them from the working class.
If one applied Mr. Kinder’s logic to cases where workers were fighting for a wage increase at work, one would be forced to condemn the struggle because wage increases can be won while capitalism remains intact, it is not a transitional demand, and it certainly benefits only a limited section of the working class while leaving the international working class no better off than before. Those who adopt Mr. Kinder’s logic typically are uninvolved with the day-to-day struggles of the working class and hence are not in a position to lead these struggles in a revolutionary direction.
Marxists have always wrestled with the problem of how to imbue the working class with a revolutionary consciousness, given that workers can fall into reformism, apathy, or demoralization. In his strategic essay, “What Next?” (1932), Trotsky confronted this problem by outlining the indispensable role of the united front in developing a revolutionary outlook among workers. In the course of his discussion he made many points that indicate a far more complicated framework than Mr. Kinder’s, a framework forged by Trotsky in the course of constant engagement in working class battles, both large and small. Here are some key passages that Mr. Kinder would have difficulty incorporating into his own two-dimensional framework.
“And so, ten years ago, the Comintern explained that the gist of the united-front policy was in the following: the Communist Party proves to the masses and their organizations its readiness in action to wage battle in common with them for aims, no matter how modest [emphasis added], so long as they lie on the road of the historical development of the proletariat; the Communist Party in this struggle takes into account the actual condition of the class at each given moment [emphasis added]; it turns not only to the masses, but also to those organizations whose leadership is recognized by the masses; it confronts the reformist organizations before the eyes of the masses with the real problems of the class struggle.”
Slightly later he adds, and this is particularly relevant to Mr. Kinder: “The mistakes made in the policy of the united front fall into two categories. In most cases the leading organs of the Communist Party approached the reformists with an offer to join in a common struggle for radical slogans which were alien to the situation and which found no response in the masses.”
Earlier Trotsky quoted from one of his earlier documents: “In these clashes — insofar as they involve the vital interests of the entire working class, or its majority, or this or that section — the working masses sense the need of unity in action…. Any party which mechanically counterposes itself to this need … will unfailingly be condemned in the minds of the workers…. For those who do not understand this task, the party is only a propaganda society and not an organization for mass action.”
And even still earlier Trotsky noted: “To fight, the proletariat must have unity in its ranks. This holds true for partial economic conflicts, within the walls of a single factory, as well as for such ‘national’ political battles as the one to repel fascism. Consequently the tactic of the united front is not something accidental and artificial — a cunning maneuver — not at all; it originates, entirely and wholly, in the objective conditions governing the development of the proletariat. The words in the Communist Manifesto which state that the Communists are not to be opposed to the proletariat, that they have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole, carry with them the meaning that the struggle of the party to win over the majority of the class must in no instance come into opposition with the need of the workers to keep unity within their fighting ranks.”
From the same essay Trotsky cites Lenin’s approach: “Shortly after that Lenin arrived from abroad, and he raked the ultimatists over the coals mercilessly. ‘You can’t,’ he lectured them, ‘nor can anyone else by means of ultimatums force the masses to skip the necessary phases of their own political development.’”
“Instead of monotonously repeating the same ready-made formulas before one and the same audience, it [a revolutionary party] would be enabled to set new strata into motion, to teach them through actual experience, to steel them, and to strengthen its hegemony among the working class.”
The comments above are crucial on several grounds. First, they indicate that Trotsky’s highest priority was to engage massive numbers of workers in class struggle where they learn from the own experiences the nature of capitalist society, its antagonistic class relations, and the role of the state in supporting the ruling class. “Mass actions,” he insisted “[were] the highest form of class struggle….” Even though workers initially might only be willing to fight for “modest” reforms, the education they derive from their battle experience often far exceeds theoretical study. Under conditions of battle, workers begin to develop a strong sense of camaraderie with one another, which is an incipient form of class consciousness. They see more clearly that the boss is their direct enemy, they watch the local or federal government and the media rush to provide support to the bosses and are consequently far from neutral or objective. Most importantly, if the workers win, they begin to sense the tremendous power they can wield when they act in solidarity and unity with one another. This sense of power can then quickly lead to workers eager to return to the battlefield to rack up even bigger victories. Eventually this logic can lead the working class to the realization that reforms are insufficient and only the replacement of capitalism by socialism will satisfactorily address their grievances. Consequently, the struggle for reforms can harbor all sorts of dialectical implications that lead the working class to a more revolutionary outlook.
In “The Belgian Dispute and the De Man Plan” (1935) Trotsky returned to the importance of engaging workers in struggle, this time leaning on Engels for support. “Engels never tired of repeating that Marxism is not an academic doctrine or a sectarian profession of faith but an instrument for systematic work among the masses.” And in the same essay Trotsky quoted Engels as saying: “It demonstrates how very useless a platform that is largely theoretically correct can be, if it does not know how to link itself with the real needs of the masses.”
But this emphasis on engaging the masses in struggle means, secondly, the set of demands appropriate for one set of workers might not coincide with the demands that could activate another set of workers.
For example, when “The Death Agony of Capitalism” in the Transitional Program is read carefully, it becomes apparent that it was aimed at a particular historical juncture, what Trotsky called “a prerevolutionary period.” As Trotsky observed about this particular historical period: “In all countries the proletariat is wracked by a deep disquiet. The multimillioned masses again and again enter the road of revolution. But each time they are blocked by their own conservative bureaucratic machines.” It was a “catastrophic period,” “a transitional epoch,” where the Spanish proletariat had tried to take power, where France and the U.S. experienced a wave of sit-down strikes and massive general strikes. Accordingly, the “time [was] ripe” to advance transitional demands.
But in other less revolutionary periods, transitional demands might not engage workers, which raises the need of less ambitious demands, or as Trotsky is quoted above as saying, demands “no matter how modest,” meaning that Trotsky would have fully endorsed struggles over wages and benefits.
Mr. Kinder takes no notice of the specific historical context that the transitional demands targeted. Instead he rips the transitional demands out of this prerevolutionary historic context and mindlessly applies them to every situation. Therefore, when Trotsky writes in “What Next?” about waging battle around demands “no matter how modest” and criticizes radical slogans that do not resonate with the masses, Mr. Kinder is forced to ignore such observations because they are incompatible with his simple, formulaic approach.
There are several distinctions that would benefit Mr. Kinder’s analysis. As Lenin once explained, propaganda must be distinguished from agitation. Propaganda can involve complex theoretical ideas in which, for example, the full program of revolutionaries is developed and explained. It could include, for example, lengthy expositions explaining why capitalism cannot meet the needs of the working class, why banks should be expropriated, why the workweek should be reduced with no reduction in pay, etc. Propaganda can be properly tackled, for example, in a study group or a lecture situation or perhaps a magazine article.
But agitation is altogether different. Here the revolutionary focuses on a few key slogans that has the potential to inspire workers to act. These slogans might involve a demand for a higher wage, or higher taxes on the rich in order to generate revenue for a massive government jobs program, public education and social services, or immediately terminating the current war, etc. Or, under heightened periods of struggle, they might include the demand that workers’ organizations take power, that all major capitalist businesses be expropriated, etc. Here, in order to get workers to act, the slogans must resonate; they must find a “response in the masses,” as Trotsky put it.
For Trotsky, the creation of united fronts, where workers fight for a few specific demands as opposed to an elaborate political program, is the indispensable road to achieving class consciousness. The united front is the primary vehicle in which workers unite as a class and begin to develop an understanding of society and their role in it. Class struggle is consequently waged by means of the united front. In the final analysis the united front aims at winning the majority of the working class to a revolutionary program.
Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky all emphasized that workers learn above all through their own experiences; going to battle is consequently an indispensable part of their education.
While most workers in the U.S. today might not be prepared to act on the demand to expropriate the banks without compensation, the call to raise taxes on the rich, which many unions have adopted, including the AFL-CIO, has resonated with most working people, as poll after poll has indicated. Moreover, this demand has the potential to unite what is now a fragmented working class. By generating additional revenue from these taxes that would be ear-marked for public education, vital social services, and job creation programs, all highly important to the working class according to polls, these demands have the potential to draw large segments of the working class into common action. And when this demand is won and taxes on the rich are raised, the unemployed, teachers, and other public workers are no longer reduced to fighting among themselves for the crumbs.
The current situation in the U.S. confronting revolutionaries diverges dramatically from the world that Trotsky was addressing when he wrote the “The Death Agony of Capitalism” in the Transitional Program in the late 1930s. Rather than the thousands of strikes taking place yearly, as in the 1930s in the U.S., the number has recently fallen to as low as a half-dozen. Thanks to the failure of the union officials to rally their members to put up a real fight while passively accepting concession after concession, workers often lack any confidence that there is anything they could effectively do that would improve their working conditions. Apathy and demoralization are rampant. Workers have not tried to take power. We are far from a pre-revolutionary situation that Trotsky described as “ripe” for transitional demands. And when those on the far left call for a general strike, few respond.
Given this context, if workers at a particular site without a lot of economic leverage decided to resist further demands for concessions but try instead to hold on to what they have, if the “revolutionary” were to insist that they fight for “30 for 40,” meaning doing 30 hours work for 40 hours of pay, which is one of Trotsky’s transitional demands, then instead of illuminating the correct path forward for the workers, the “revolutionary” would discredit him or herself in their eyes. Workers would believe such radicals are out of touch with reality. (This is not to say that union members might not pass a resolution in favor of “30 for 40;” but in this period such a resolution would only signify what workers would ideally want, not what they are prepared to fight for at this time. In other words, the resolution would take on the character of propaganda, not agitation.)
But revolutionaries who are not engaged in leading struggles, who are content to sit on the sidelines with their moralizing opposition to anything that falls short of a revolutionary leap, are hardly bothered by these critical responses to their proposals. They comfort themselves with the assurance that no reforms within the capitalist system will solve the problems of the working class. And, of course, they are entirely correct. But they simply lack the understanding of how to work with today’s working class — with its significant lack of class consciousness, let alone revolutionary consciousness — in order to make progress towards a socialist future. This is the dilemma that Trotsky’s discussion of the united front in his article “What Next?” was intended to resolve: the united front approach — where workers join together to put up a fight over whatever demands they find compelling — was the crucial link (the “middle term”) that starts with workers’ current level of consciousness in order to raise it through a dialectical, organic process to a higher revolutionary outlook.
About the Authors
Ann Robertson is a Lecturer at San Francisco State University and a member of the California Faculty Association. Bill Leumer is a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 853 (ret.). Both are writers for Workers Action and may be reached at sanfrancisco (at) workerscompass.org.
Remembering Gore Vidal by Stephen Lendman
Remembering Gore Vidal by Stephen Lendman
02 Aug 2012
Many labels characterize him: distinguished author, essayist, playwright, historian, acerbic sociopolitical/cultural critic, freethinker, intellectual, and humanist.
In 2009, the American Humanist Association (AHA) named him honorary president.
On July 31, Gore Vidal died from complications of pneumonia at his Hollywood Hills, Los Angeles home.
He was 86. He'll be missed. Los Angeles Times writer Elaine Woo called him a "gadfly on the national conscience" and "literary juggernaut." He was that and much more.
New York Times writer Charles McGrath said he was "an Augustan figure who believed himself to be the last of a breed, and he was probably right. Few American writers have been more versatile or gotten more mileage from their talent."
Random House editor Jason Epstein called him "an American version of Montaigne."
As an essayist, New York Time Book Review writer RWB Lewis said he was "so good that we cannot do without him. He (was) a treasure of state."
London Guardian writer Richard Lea called him "one of the towering figures of American cultural and political life for more than six decades."
AHA said he was "a masterful humanist voice." He "added an enthusiastic, progressive and dynamic voice" to AHA's humanist movement.
AHA president David Niose said:
"The progressive and humanist values Gore Vidal repeatedly espoused moved the culture in a positive direction."
"He spent his life pointing out the places in society that needed the most attention without worrying who might be embarrassed or upset by his opinions."
Humanist magazine editor Jennifer Bardi added:
"He’s been called an iconoclast, a provocateur, and a misanthrope. And of course Gore occasionally said things that gave humanists pause. But he was forever dedicated to the cause of enlightenment and exposed injustice and hypocrisy at every turn."
On August 1, Bardi headlined "Goodbye, Mr. Honorary President," saying:
"It’s too hard to list all the appropriate adjectives and accolades that could proceed Gore Vidal’s name. Gore Vidal died tonight and the enlightened world mourns. But what a life he lived!"
He spent decades criticizing the religious right, US imperialism, perpetual wars, political extremism in the name of national security, America's military/industrial complex, and other political, social and economic injustices.
He succeeded Kurt Vonnegut as honorary AHA president. He accepted at the time, saying he would be "most honored to succeed my old friend as honorary president of the Association."
"Although he himself is hardly easy to replace, I will do my best to fill the great gap."
His official web site listed his accomplishments. They include 24 novels, five plays, many screenplays, over 200 essays, his memoir Palimpsest, his National Book Award winning "United States (Essays 1952 - 92)," and numerous other political books. They include:
• "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got to Be So Hated"
• "Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta"
• "Imperial America"
• "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire"
• "Reflections Upon a Sinking Ship"
• "Rocking the Boat"
• "The Last Empire: Essays 1992 - 2000"
In 2003, PBS featured Vidal in its American Masters series. His career spanned six decades, it said. He reflected "uncanny unity, a tone of easy familiarity with the world of politics and letters, an urbane wit, and supreme self-confidence as a writer" and sociopolitical critic.
Born in 1925, his web site called his maternal roots "thoroughly political." As a boy, he lived with his grandfather, Senator TP Gore. His father, Eugene Vidal, served as FDR's Bureau of Air Commerce director.
His mother, Nina Gore Vidal, divorced when Vidal was 10. She married Hugh Auchincloss. He divorced her and married Jackie Kennedy's mother. It established a connection between Vidal and the Kennedy clan. It lasted through JFK's presidency.
In 1943, he enlisted in the Army at age 17. At age 19, he became a warrant officer JG and first mate of the army ship FS 35. On night watch in port, he wrote his first novel, Williwaw.
Colombian novelist/journalist/Nobel Prize in Literature laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez praised Vidal's "magnificent series of historical novels or novelized histories." They cover American life from the 18th to the 21st century.
New York Times literary critic Harold Bloom called him "a masterly American historical novelist, now wholly matured, who has found his truest subject, which is our national political history during precisely those years when our political and military histories were as one, one thing and one thing only: the unwavering will of Abraham Lincoln to keep the states united."
He added he "demonstrates that his narrative achievement is vastly underestimated by American academic criticism, an injustice has has repaid amply in his essayist attacks upon the academy...."
Vidal's interest in politics wasn't limited to novels, essays, other writing, and commentaries. In 1960, he ran for Congress as a liberal Democrat in New York's Republican 29th district.
Publicly he supported recognizing Red China, cutting the Pentagon's budget, and spending more on education. He lost but won more votes in his district than JFK. He headed the 1960 Democrat ticket.
In 1982, he placed second in California's Democrat senatorial primary. He lost to current governor Jerry Brown.
Reflecting on Watergate, he called America "a nation of ongoing hustlers from the prisons and disaster areas of old Europe."
"I do not think that the America System in its present state of decadence is worth preserving."
"The initial success of the United States was largely accidental. A rich empty continent was....exploited by rapacious Europeans who made slaves of Africans and corpses of Indians in the process."
In his 1973 New Statesman essay titled "Political Melodramas," he said:
"In 1959 when I wrote ("The Best Man")....the character of the wicked candidate in the play on Richard Nixon, I thought it would be amusing if liberal politicians were to smear unjustly that uxorious man as a homosexual."
He was condemned for suggesting a "man could rise to any height in American politics if" so labeled. Ronald Reagan was one of the actors he auditioned for the lead role.
At the time, his film career was over. Vidal rejected him. He thought he couldn't play a credible president. He was right. In office, he faked it for eight years.
Obama's worse but hides it better.
At age 81, he visited Cuba. He headed a delegation of US intellectuals, historians and politicians. He suggested Bush could end up like Nixon. "We hope he will end up like Nixon, resigning the presidency," he said.
Comparing the two men, he added:
"When a building begins to fall to pieces, it is very difficult to stop its collapse."
"Everyone who listens to (Bush) knows he is a liar. It is frightening to have to constantly listen to a man repeating and repeating I am a" wartime president.
"Of all the human vices, the worst is to lie."
"When the people do not understand what the emperor is saying, what the government is saying, there is no communication" or trust.
He accused Bush of stealing the 2000 election and "high crimes against the Constitution of the United States."
"It gives me pleasure to be in a place full of hope," he told a University of Havana audience. In America, "people do not have the basic understanding of what they have lost. There has been a coup and the republic has died."
In September 2009, he was asked how Obama was doing. He was unsparing, saying:
"Dreadfully. I was hopeful. He was the most intelligent person we’ve had in that position for a long time. But he’s inexperienced. He has a total inability to understand military matters."
"He’s acting as if Afghanistan is the magic talisman: Solve that and you solve terrorism....we’ve failed in every other aspect of our effort of conquering the Middle East or whatever you want to call it."
On healthcare reform, he added:
"He f..ked it up. I don’t know how because the country wanted it. We’ll never see it happen."
On US politics, he said:
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party....and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat."
"Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt - until recently....and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand."
"But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."
He called democracy a system "where numerous elections are held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable candidates" no different from each other.
"By the time a man gets to be presidential material, he's been bought ten times over."
On America's Middle East wars, he said "I don't see us winning. We have made enemies of one billion Muslims."
He called himself "a born-again atheist. "Once people get hung up on theology, they've lost sanity forever," he said. "More people have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ than any other name in the history of the world."
He called monotheism "the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race."
He said most people misunderstand the First Amendment's "free exercise of religion" clause. "Yes, everyone has a right to worship any god he chooses," but he does not have the right to impose his beliefs on others who do not happen to share" his views.
"This separation was absolute in our original republic." It's been misinterpreted and distorted. Extremists "got the phrase In God We Trust onto the currency, in direct violation of the First Amendment."
In his essay titled "Shredding the Bill of Rights," he wrote:
"It has always been a mark of American freedom that unlike countries under constant Napoleonic surveillance, we are not obliged to carry identification to show to curious officials and pushy police."
"But now, due to Terrorism, every one of us is stopped at airports and obliged to show an ID which must include a mug shot (something, as Allah knows, no terrorist would ever dare fake)."
He said what too few others dared. He followed in the tradition of Henry James, Oscar Wilde, and Mark Twain, among others. He was one of America's most astute chroniclers.
Friends said he combined an old-fashioned sense of honor and stubborn will to live as he pleased.
He said George Bush had advance knowledge of 9/11. Roosevelt knew about Japan's planned Pearl Harbor attack.
Both men took full advantage. Timothy McVeigh was no more killer than Dwight Eisenhower, and America one day will be subservient to China. Characteristically he framed it as "The Yellow Man's Burden."
He was mainly self-educated. Classrooms bored him. He skipped college. He acquired wisdom on his own. He admired Montaigne, Italo Calvino, Henry James and Edith Wharton.
He called his conservative rival, William Buckley, a "cryptofascist." He described The New York Times as the "Typhoid Mary of American journalism."
He labeled Ronald Reagan "The Acting President." He called his wife Nancy a social climber "born with a silver ladder in her hand."
He openly criticized Israel's treatment of Palestinians. He once called pro-Israeli ideologue/Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz and his journalist wife Midge Dector "Israeli Fifth Columnists."
At the end, he was wheelchair bound. His mind and wit stayed sharp. He called style "knowing who you are, what you want to say, and not giving a damn."
In 2009, he said America is "rotting away at a funereal pace. We'll have a military dictatorship pretty soon, on the basis that nobody else can hold everything together."
Reflecting on his accomplishments, he said "I just played the game harder." He hoped to be remembered as "the person who wrote the best sentences of his time." He thought of himself as a modern-day Voltaire.
He's survived by his half-sister Nina Straight and half-brother Tommy Auchincloss. He'll be sorely missed.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
02 Aug 2012
Many labels characterize him: distinguished author, essayist, playwright, historian, acerbic sociopolitical/cultural critic, freethinker, intellectual, and humanist.
In 2009, the American Humanist Association (AHA) named him honorary president.
On July 31, Gore Vidal died from complications of pneumonia at his Hollywood Hills, Los Angeles home.
He was 86. He'll be missed. Los Angeles Times writer Elaine Woo called him a "gadfly on the national conscience" and "literary juggernaut." He was that and much more.
New York Times writer Charles McGrath said he was "an Augustan figure who believed himself to be the last of a breed, and he was probably right. Few American writers have been more versatile or gotten more mileage from their talent."
Random House editor Jason Epstein called him "an American version of Montaigne."
As an essayist, New York Time Book Review writer RWB Lewis said he was "so good that we cannot do without him. He (was) a treasure of state."
London Guardian writer Richard Lea called him "one of the towering figures of American cultural and political life for more than six decades."
AHA said he was "a masterful humanist voice." He "added an enthusiastic, progressive and dynamic voice" to AHA's humanist movement.
AHA president David Niose said:
"The progressive and humanist values Gore Vidal repeatedly espoused moved the culture in a positive direction."
"He spent his life pointing out the places in society that needed the most attention without worrying who might be embarrassed or upset by his opinions."
Humanist magazine editor Jennifer Bardi added:
"He’s been called an iconoclast, a provocateur, and a misanthrope. And of course Gore occasionally said things that gave humanists pause. But he was forever dedicated to the cause of enlightenment and exposed injustice and hypocrisy at every turn."
On August 1, Bardi headlined "Goodbye, Mr. Honorary President," saying:
"It’s too hard to list all the appropriate adjectives and accolades that could proceed Gore Vidal’s name. Gore Vidal died tonight and the enlightened world mourns. But what a life he lived!"
He spent decades criticizing the religious right, US imperialism, perpetual wars, political extremism in the name of national security, America's military/industrial complex, and other political, social and economic injustices.
He succeeded Kurt Vonnegut as honorary AHA president. He accepted at the time, saying he would be "most honored to succeed my old friend as honorary president of the Association."
"Although he himself is hardly easy to replace, I will do my best to fill the great gap."
His official web site listed his accomplishments. They include 24 novels, five plays, many screenplays, over 200 essays, his memoir Palimpsest, his National Book Award winning "United States (Essays 1952 - 92)," and numerous other political books. They include:
• "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got to Be So Hated"
• "Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta"
• "Imperial America"
• "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire"
• "Reflections Upon a Sinking Ship"
• "Rocking the Boat"
• "The Last Empire: Essays 1992 - 2000"
In 2003, PBS featured Vidal in its American Masters series. His career spanned six decades, it said. He reflected "uncanny unity, a tone of easy familiarity with the world of politics and letters, an urbane wit, and supreme self-confidence as a writer" and sociopolitical critic.
Born in 1925, his web site called his maternal roots "thoroughly political." As a boy, he lived with his grandfather, Senator TP Gore. His father, Eugene Vidal, served as FDR's Bureau of Air Commerce director.
His mother, Nina Gore Vidal, divorced when Vidal was 10. She married Hugh Auchincloss. He divorced her and married Jackie Kennedy's mother. It established a connection between Vidal and the Kennedy clan. It lasted through JFK's presidency.
In 1943, he enlisted in the Army at age 17. At age 19, he became a warrant officer JG and first mate of the army ship FS 35. On night watch in port, he wrote his first novel, Williwaw.
Colombian novelist/journalist/Nobel Prize in Literature laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez praised Vidal's "magnificent series of historical novels or novelized histories." They cover American life from the 18th to the 21st century.
New York Times literary critic Harold Bloom called him "a masterly American historical novelist, now wholly matured, who has found his truest subject, which is our national political history during precisely those years when our political and military histories were as one, one thing and one thing only: the unwavering will of Abraham Lincoln to keep the states united."
He added he "demonstrates that his narrative achievement is vastly underestimated by American academic criticism, an injustice has has repaid amply in his essayist attacks upon the academy...."
Vidal's interest in politics wasn't limited to novels, essays, other writing, and commentaries. In 1960, he ran for Congress as a liberal Democrat in New York's Republican 29th district.
Publicly he supported recognizing Red China, cutting the Pentagon's budget, and spending more on education. He lost but won more votes in his district than JFK. He headed the 1960 Democrat ticket.
In 1982, he placed second in California's Democrat senatorial primary. He lost to current governor Jerry Brown.
Reflecting on Watergate, he called America "a nation of ongoing hustlers from the prisons and disaster areas of old Europe."
"I do not think that the America System in its present state of decadence is worth preserving."
"The initial success of the United States was largely accidental. A rich empty continent was....exploited by rapacious Europeans who made slaves of Africans and corpses of Indians in the process."
In his 1973 New Statesman essay titled "Political Melodramas," he said:
"In 1959 when I wrote ("The Best Man")....the character of the wicked candidate in the play on Richard Nixon, I thought it would be amusing if liberal politicians were to smear unjustly that uxorious man as a homosexual."
He was condemned for suggesting a "man could rise to any height in American politics if" so labeled. Ronald Reagan was one of the actors he auditioned for the lead role.
At the time, his film career was over. Vidal rejected him. He thought he couldn't play a credible president. He was right. In office, he faked it for eight years.
Obama's worse but hides it better.
At age 81, he visited Cuba. He headed a delegation of US intellectuals, historians and politicians. He suggested Bush could end up like Nixon. "We hope he will end up like Nixon, resigning the presidency," he said.
Comparing the two men, he added:
"When a building begins to fall to pieces, it is very difficult to stop its collapse."
"Everyone who listens to (Bush) knows he is a liar. It is frightening to have to constantly listen to a man repeating and repeating I am a" wartime president.
"Of all the human vices, the worst is to lie."
"When the people do not understand what the emperor is saying, what the government is saying, there is no communication" or trust.
He accused Bush of stealing the 2000 election and "high crimes against the Constitution of the United States."
"It gives me pleasure to be in a place full of hope," he told a University of Havana audience. In America, "people do not have the basic understanding of what they have lost. There has been a coup and the republic has died."
In September 2009, he was asked how Obama was doing. He was unsparing, saying:
"Dreadfully. I was hopeful. He was the most intelligent person we’ve had in that position for a long time. But he’s inexperienced. He has a total inability to understand military matters."
"He’s acting as if Afghanistan is the magic talisman: Solve that and you solve terrorism....we’ve failed in every other aspect of our effort of conquering the Middle East or whatever you want to call it."
On healthcare reform, he added:
"He f..ked it up. I don’t know how because the country wanted it. We’ll never see it happen."
On US politics, he said:
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party....and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat."
"Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt - until recently....and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand."
"But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."
He called democracy a system "where numerous elections are held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable candidates" no different from each other.
"By the time a man gets to be presidential material, he's been bought ten times over."
On America's Middle East wars, he said "I don't see us winning. We have made enemies of one billion Muslims."
He called himself "a born-again atheist. "Once people get hung up on theology, they've lost sanity forever," he said. "More people have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ than any other name in the history of the world."
He called monotheism "the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race."
He said most people misunderstand the First Amendment's "free exercise of religion" clause. "Yes, everyone has a right to worship any god he chooses," but he does not have the right to impose his beliefs on others who do not happen to share" his views.
"This separation was absolute in our original republic." It's been misinterpreted and distorted. Extremists "got the phrase In God We Trust onto the currency, in direct violation of the First Amendment."
In his essay titled "Shredding the Bill of Rights," he wrote:
"It has always been a mark of American freedom that unlike countries under constant Napoleonic surveillance, we are not obliged to carry identification to show to curious officials and pushy police."
"But now, due to Terrorism, every one of us is stopped at airports and obliged to show an ID which must include a mug shot (something, as Allah knows, no terrorist would ever dare fake)."
He said what too few others dared. He followed in the tradition of Henry James, Oscar Wilde, and Mark Twain, among others. He was one of America's most astute chroniclers.
Friends said he combined an old-fashioned sense of honor and stubborn will to live as he pleased.
He said George Bush had advance knowledge of 9/11. Roosevelt knew about Japan's planned Pearl Harbor attack.
Both men took full advantage. Timothy McVeigh was no more killer than Dwight Eisenhower, and America one day will be subservient to China. Characteristically he framed it as "The Yellow Man's Burden."
He was mainly self-educated. Classrooms bored him. He skipped college. He acquired wisdom on his own. He admired Montaigne, Italo Calvino, Henry James and Edith Wharton.
He called his conservative rival, William Buckley, a "cryptofascist." He described The New York Times as the "Typhoid Mary of American journalism."
He labeled Ronald Reagan "The Acting President." He called his wife Nancy a social climber "born with a silver ladder in her hand."
He openly criticized Israel's treatment of Palestinians. He once called pro-Israeli ideologue/Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz and his journalist wife Midge Dector "Israeli Fifth Columnists."
At the end, he was wheelchair bound. His mind and wit stayed sharp. He called style "knowing who you are, what you want to say, and not giving a damn."
In 2009, he said America is "rotting away at a funereal pace. We'll have a military dictatorship pretty soon, on the basis that nobody else can hold everything together."
Reflecting on his accomplishments, he said "I just played the game harder." He hoped to be remembered as "the person who wrote the best sentences of his time." He thought of himself as a modern-day Voltaire.
He's survived by his half-sister Nina Straight and half-brother Tommy Auchincloss. He'll be sorely missed.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
U.S. Socialist Stewart Alexander Leaves the PFP (Peace And Freedom Party)
Markin comment:
I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts.
*********
U.S. Socialist Stewart Alexander Leaves the PFP
by Stewart Alexander
08 Aug 2012
Open Letter to the Peace and Freedom Party State Executive Committee
I am formally resigning my position of State Central Committee member with the Peace and Freedom Party.
I have met many wonderful and dedicated activists throughout my experience with the Peace and Freedom Party, and hope to maintain many of those friendships in the upcoming years.
While my position with regard to this past weekend's PFP Convention may be unpopular, I feel obliged to express the motivation behind my resignation. My commitment to the Peace and Freedom Party extends as far as the Party's commitment to socialism.
While the Nader nomination of 2008 may have been difficult to accept considering the fact that Nader was not a socialist candidate, I was willing to reconcile the choice believing that the nomination would heavily contribute to a substantial increase in new registered Peace and Freedom Party voters. When the registrations failed to meet what I considered to be a worthwhile sacrifice after the Nader nomination, I began to place a progressively greater hope that in 2012, the Party would make the nomination of a socialist candidate a priority.
Some might say if that was a priority, why didn't you do more to secure delegates to win the nomination, therefore ensuring the nomination of a socialist candidate? That's a valid question that I am happy to address.
We began the effort to reorganize the Socialist Party in California, which had been dormant for roughly a decade, in December of 2010. At the time, we had a very small handful of youngsters tasked with the challenge. The group marched forward, eventually establishing a Local in Los Angeles in February of 2011. Finally, on June 25th of 2011, the Socialist Party USA chartered the state of California, and we began to put our focus on the next year's election. The reality for me was, the overwhelming majority of the SPUSA membership in California had only joined the Party subsequent to February 2011, and very few had registered to the Peace and Freedom Party at the time.
This group in California, largely youngsters, fresh out of high school (and some still in high school) were just beginning their foray into the fight for socialism. Do I criticize them for not having been registered to vote Peace and Freedom Party prior to February of 2011? I do not. Was there encouragement provided to register Peace and Freedom Party after joining the Socialist Party USA? You bet, and many have, believing that Peace and Freedom Party was a party committed to socialism. Do I criticize them for their place on the learning curve with regard to electoral politics? No. I have tried to provide support and encouragement and assistance in their path toward establishing an active Socialist Party USA presence in California.
Knowing that I was able to play a vital role in where the SPUSA now stands in CA is something that I take great pride. (And for the record and for those who like to compare the number of registered Peace and Freedom Party voters versus the number of Socialist Party USA members, the SPUSA is a membership organization and does not measure its success in terms of registered voters. In 2010, Dan LaBotz of the Socialist Party USA ran for Senate in Ohio and received over 25,000 votes. Are all of those voters dues-paying members of the SPUSA? They are not.
In addition, a spirited effort was made to run a small slate of write-in candidates to serve as delegates for my campaign during the PFP Convention. Ultimately, that effort was unsuccessful, but I admired the effort and sacrifice made to go through the process required to run as write-ins during the California primary.
So I just want to clear the air on the issue of effort with regard to delegates. Had the SPUSA been one year earlier in reorganizing California, the situation may have been a bit different. Levying blame at the feet of those in California working on my campaign is not only inappropriate, in my opinion, but irresponsible if we place any premium on encouraging our youth to carry the torch in the fight for socialism.
Considering what we had to work with in California and the commitment to the Peace and Freedom Party over the years, the Alexander/Mendoza Campaign thought that making an appeal to the undecided Peace and Freedom Party delegates was a reasonable direction to travel. I am hopeful that many were aware of the fact that, in the numerous media opportunities I have had during my campaign; I have always done whatever I could to promote the Peace and Freedom Party, regardless of where my interview was being held.
I recently took a trip to the Socialist Party USA's National Organizing Conference (NOC) in Memphis, TN, where I explained my history with both Peace and Freedom Party and the Socialist Party USA to a group of nearly 100 activists who convened for the session. I felt some confidence that my history and loyalty to the Peace and Freedom Party, coupled with my commitment to socialism, would yield some measure of support to fill the gap created by the youth of the SPUSA. Never in a million years would I have expected what I witnessed during the Peace and Freedom Convention. To be frank, I am sorry that the youngsters, Alex Mendoza and the FSP Campaign endured the actions of a Party I so proudly supported for the last 14 years.
I have had time to reflect since the Convention, and while I have many questions: Where was the Q&A period for Roseanne Barr? Where was the skepticism that putting our faith that Barr would be able to deliver the voter registrations that Nader wasn't able to accomplish? Where was the concern that a Party that labels itself a socialist party on its website might nominate a candidate who just months ago claimed that she favored Regulated Capitalism? My prevailing feelings are of sorrow. Sorrow for those within and without the Peace and Freedom Party who put their trust and faith into those who could contribute to providing a socialist alternative in California, many of who have reached out to the campaign in the past few days; sorrow and frustration when I think about my loyalty to the Peace and Freedom Party. Sorrow and frustration at the complete lack of support that the socialist candidates received in the way of delegate votes at the Convention.
As I always have, I will continue my fight to build a better future for the working class. I will continue to cherish the time I spend educating young people on the value of socialism. I can only hope to inspire them as they inspire me.
Comradely,
Stewart Alexander
Socialist Party USA Presidential Candidate
Response to Stewart Alexander
by Cat Woods
10 Aug 2012
This letter is a response to Stewart Alexander's resignation letter posted here:
http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/215652/index.php
Stewart,
Are we supposed to feel sorry for you? You basically call Roseanne Barr a liar -- assuming that she is not really a socialist because she hasn't publicly called herself that as long as you. You talk as if you're being so noble in not blaming your *supporters* for not getting you the nomination, because of course you must have deserved it -- after all, you met Kevin Akin a long time ago.
Stewart, I never had anything against you (until now), but you lost this nomination *yourself*. If *any* of the other candidates had talked up the Peace & Freedom Party and pledged to make the CA voter registration drive a priority, Roseanne Barr & Cindy Sheehan would not have had a chance of winning the nomination. They ran ZERO people for delegate. You guys had committed delegates. Roseanne knew no one in the party; you had the long-time loyalty of many party members.
But none of you did. You took that loyalty for granted. You say yourself that the Socialist Party doesn't care that much about voter registration. Well, members of the PFP *care* whether we fall off the ballot in 2014.
Before Roseanne came along, I was just *bored* with the Presidential race. I even wondered whether I could get myself to attend the convention; what was the point? None of you were saying anything about the PFP or saving our ballot line. Every time I've heard you speak, you ramble on and on about how you met Kevin at a cafe years ago, blah blah blah. Occasional passion, but no focus, no preparation. This is supposed to convince us to nominate you for President? I'm sure you're capable of better, but you don't bring it when you speak publicly. Or at least none of the times I've heard you. From what I've heard from others, your "I've known Kevin a long time" speech has been a standard of yours for quite a while now.
About Nader in 2008, no he does not call himself a socialist, but he *did* help the party. He campaigned with our candidates so that they spoke about socialism to audiences of many hundreds instead of a couple dozen. (I was one of those whose path to socialism began with hearing Marsha Feinland's speech about nationalizing the banks since we already paid for them with the Wall Street bailout -- at a Nader event.) He had the Peace & Freedom Party logo on campaign literature which *actually* reached lots of *actual* people. He provided offices from which the PFP ran all its campaigns. The voter registration issue was not the same in 2008. The Top Two primary didn't pass until 2010. *That* is why we're in danger of falling off the ballot. You didn't know that? Do you care about *this* party (the PFP) or not?
Face it, Stewart: you thought you had this nomination in the bag and took your support for granted. I'm not sure why you were so surprised. If you'd called delegates, you'd have known you didn't have it in the bag. I certainly knew you weren't going to win it, and I only called a fraction of the delegates. My main fear was a complete breakdown where Roseanne got eliminated early and no one got a majority. I knew she was the "consensus" candidate if she could make it to the later rounds. I knew she had tons of later round support from your and Durham's supporters. You apparently didn't even bother to find that out.
Yeah, you shouldn't blame your own supporters. And it's completely pathetic that you're trying to blame the party for nominating someone who immediately grasped that this party was in danger and offered to help us, who immediately started putting the Peace & Freedom Party name into the *national* media, and who jumped at the opportunity to "come out" as a socialist and promote socialism. Almost as if she believed in socialism *more* than these people whining about not getting a nomination that they didn't bother to win.
The PFP is a multi-tendency party. You therefore do not get to define Roseanne and Cindy's socialism out of existence simply because you've called yourself a socialist longer and met Kevin Akin so many years ago.
The SP attends meetings of the National Organizing Committee. The hopes behind that committee include a strong hope among many of creating a *JOINT* national nominating process by 2016. My passion is to create a truly democratic process -- a direct national primary with ranked voting and one person one vote. But really it's no hope at all if the SP can't even accept when it loses the CA ballot line fair and square. An essential requirement of democracy is being willing to accept loss in order to have a fair process.
The person at a disadvantage here was Roseanne -- she didn't know the party's culture or the inner workings of our nomination process, she had no delegates, her celebrity was counted as a strike *against* her by a lot of party members, and she only had 3 weeks to win them over. But she brought it big time and won. Man up and deal with it.
-Cat Woods
Tell the Truth Stewart
by Marilyn Peters
sewing (nospam) marilynpeters.com (unverified)
10 Aug 2012
Tell the truth Stewart. I joined your campaign and ran the operations (successfully) for 6 weeks at the end of 2011. You allowed your campaign manager Mimi Soltysik (who did nothing to progress the campaign) to fire me when he became jealous of the work I was doing and the advances I was making in your campaign.
In early December I sent a letter signed by you to all SPUSA CA registrants asking for their help in joining the State Central Committee (SCC) of the Peace and Freedom Party. Both Cindy Henderson and Frank Boeheim of P&F attended an SPUSA meeting to teach Soltysik and others the importance of, and how to become SCC members. Frank even left one page of easy instructions for members to follow.
When I learned from Cindy that the deadline for potention SCC members to register P&F was coming in the next few days, I phoned the 100 SPUSA members who had received the letter and urged them to go to the post office and re-register P&F. Many said they would support you in this way. Soltysik was also given this information several days before the deadline.
Then Soltysik and his girlfriend Lynn had a drunken tyrade at one of our meetings, yelling and screaming abuse at you and at me and then Soltysik dumped me. Everything I was working on came to a grinding halt, including ballot access and the P&F nomination. After all the hard work I had done for you, you did nothing to protect me from your bullying campaign manager.
You attempt to blame the “youth” who are running your campaign for your failure to get the P&F nomination. I am 56 years of age. Obviously your “youth” needed help from someone like me who has years of experience in building successful entities but you allowed them to dump me. The truth is that your campaign manager, his girlfriend and everyone else on your campaign are just plain lazy. Your treasurer has missed 2 deadlines for filing legally required reports with the FEC. They didn’t even bother to get on the P&F SCC so they could vote for you. Yet, here I am a non-citizen who managed to became a voting delegate.
Good luck Stewart.
We both the truth.
Response to Marilyn Peters
by Mimi Soltysik
(No verified email address)
12 Aug 2012
Generally we spend some time and effort in responding to feedback like Marilyn's to ensure that perception does not create reality. Given the tone that Marilyn has taken, we feel that readers will reasonably be able to see motive in her response.
One thing we would like to establish. Marilyn mentions that she had successfully run the Campaign for a small period of time. What she fails to mention is that she was somehow, perhaps remarkably, to create an environment where nearly every member of the Alexander/Mendoza 2012 Campaign had considered quitting had she continued in her position.
In addition, the Alexander/Mendoza Campaign was able to run and eventually see the appointment of a Central Committee member under the same bylaws that allowed Marilyn the appointment. (A bylaw allowing non-citizens and those under 18 to run for Central Committee.)
Marilyn and others may have attended SP of CA meetings outlining the requirements necessary to run for Peace and Freedom Central Committee. What she does not mention is the fact that, in order to run for Peace and Freedom Party Central Committee, one needed to be a registered Peace and Freedom Party voter no later than February 2011. The Socialist Party USA's CA chapter was established on June 25th of 2011, and the overwhelming majority of Socialist Party USA members had not been registered Peace and Freedom prior to February 2011. Much effort was placed in the early part of 2011 to establish 1. a Los Angeles and Riverside Local of the Socialist Party in CA and 2. creating a foundation for growth in CA. We achieved those objectives and have since seen the addition of a Bay Area Local with Ventura and Orange Counties at the ready to charter.
Marilyn can choose to present herself publicly any way she sees fit. If that happens to include insults (as inane and untrue as they might be), that's her choice. Anyone who has worked closely with the folks in the SPUSA affiliated with the Alexander/Mendoza Campaign knows that malaise has not been a problem.
As stated from the beginning, this would be a Campaign intended to spread the message of socialism. This is a Campaign that enjoys working with another, and despite its lack of experience, is doing its best to provide the SPUSA with an effort that Party members will be pleased with.
All the best,
Mimi Soltysik
Response to Mimi Soltysik
by Dave Kadlecek
dkadlecek (nospam) igc.org (verified)
13 Aug 2012
Modified: 03:51:13 PM
Mimi Soltysik is wrong in his claim that California election laws prevented the Socialist Party USA from running candidates for Peace and Freedom Party Central Committees to vote for Stewart Alexander.
I wasn't involved in any of the discussions last year among Marilyn Peters, Mimi Soltysik, Frank Boeheim and others in the Peace and Freedom Party and/or the Socialist Party USA, so I can't say who knew what when and who was told what.
However, I can say that the restrictions in the California Elections Code would not have prevented supporters of the Socialist Party USA who weren't already Peace and Freedom Party registrants before June 2011 from running for P&F Central Committees to be able to vote for Stewart Alexander at the August 2012 convention.
There are two restrictions on candidates for P&F Central Committees whose names are to appear on the primary election ballot (or be declared elected by county election officials without the race actually being on the ballot). One is that the candidate can't have been registered in another ballot-qualified party in California for 12 months before filing a declaration of candidacy, and the candidate must have been registered in the Peace and Freedom Party for 3 months before filing a declaration of candidacy. The deadline for filing the declaration of candidacy (at the end, not the beginning, of the filing process, with a deadline this year of March 9th). Thus prospective candidates for P&F Central Committees had to have been registered P&F by 9 December 2011 and not have been registered Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, American Independent or Americans Elect at any time on or after 9 March 2011. They did not have to have been registered Peace and Freedom since February of 2011.
Further, even if a prospective Central Committees candidate had been ineligible to appear on the ballot, he or she could have run as a write-in simply by getting 25 signatures of P&F registrants in the relevant jurisdiction (county, county supervisorial district, or Assembly district, depending on the county) asking that the primary election for Central Committees not be cancelled to allow for write-in candidates (and then getting nominated as a write-in by getting nominating signatures during an eight-week period in the spring).
Getting the needed signatures wouldn't have been a trivial task, but it wasn't something that would have been horrendously difficult for anyone who had more than half a clue regarding election procedures.
To Dave
by Mimi Soltysik
(No verified email address)
13 Aug 2012
Modified: 07:23:46 PM
Dave,
We took a stack of forms from SPUSA members to the voter registration office, and of that stack, very few (perhaps 2) met the requirements you outlined. We also ran a few candidates as write-ins, collecting the requisite signatures necessary for ballot eligibility.
I will repeat once more as I have many times elsewhere. We entered the Peace and Freedom Party Convention on the back of a newly formed chapter of the SPUSA, one that we worked very hard to build. Our expectations on winning the nomination were minimal. I do not believe that Stewart's decision is based at all in the fact that he and Alex did not win the nomination, nor have I seen him state as much.
Our focus in early 2011 throughout the bulk of the 2011 year was on chartering a CA chapter of the SPUSA, establishing locals, hosting the the SPUSA National Convention (which we did), and providing resources for those interested in building the Party throughout the state. Regardless what anyone might believe, there was also a considerable effort to run delegates for the PFP Convention. As I mentioned in my earlier paragraph, that did not happen, and with the rebuilding of the SPUSA in CA as context, we were simply not at a position at the moment where winning the Convention on the basis of delegate count was a remote possibility at best.
In any case, Stewart has made a personal choice and we will continue our efforts to spread the message of socialism.
Mimi
I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts.
*********
U.S. Socialist Stewart Alexander Leaves the PFP
by Stewart Alexander
08 Aug 2012
Open Letter to the Peace and Freedom Party State Executive Committee
I am formally resigning my position of State Central Committee member with the Peace and Freedom Party.
I have met many wonderful and dedicated activists throughout my experience with the Peace and Freedom Party, and hope to maintain many of those friendships in the upcoming years.
While my position with regard to this past weekend's PFP Convention may be unpopular, I feel obliged to express the motivation behind my resignation. My commitment to the Peace and Freedom Party extends as far as the Party's commitment to socialism.
While the Nader nomination of 2008 may have been difficult to accept considering the fact that Nader was not a socialist candidate, I was willing to reconcile the choice believing that the nomination would heavily contribute to a substantial increase in new registered Peace and Freedom Party voters. When the registrations failed to meet what I considered to be a worthwhile sacrifice after the Nader nomination, I began to place a progressively greater hope that in 2012, the Party would make the nomination of a socialist candidate a priority.
Some might say if that was a priority, why didn't you do more to secure delegates to win the nomination, therefore ensuring the nomination of a socialist candidate? That's a valid question that I am happy to address.
We began the effort to reorganize the Socialist Party in California, which had been dormant for roughly a decade, in December of 2010. At the time, we had a very small handful of youngsters tasked with the challenge. The group marched forward, eventually establishing a Local in Los Angeles in February of 2011. Finally, on June 25th of 2011, the Socialist Party USA chartered the state of California, and we began to put our focus on the next year's election. The reality for me was, the overwhelming majority of the SPUSA membership in California had only joined the Party subsequent to February 2011, and very few had registered to the Peace and Freedom Party at the time.
This group in California, largely youngsters, fresh out of high school (and some still in high school) were just beginning their foray into the fight for socialism. Do I criticize them for not having been registered to vote Peace and Freedom Party prior to February of 2011? I do not. Was there encouragement provided to register Peace and Freedom Party after joining the Socialist Party USA? You bet, and many have, believing that Peace and Freedom Party was a party committed to socialism. Do I criticize them for their place on the learning curve with regard to electoral politics? No. I have tried to provide support and encouragement and assistance in their path toward establishing an active Socialist Party USA presence in California.
Knowing that I was able to play a vital role in where the SPUSA now stands in CA is something that I take great pride. (And for the record and for those who like to compare the number of registered Peace and Freedom Party voters versus the number of Socialist Party USA members, the SPUSA is a membership organization and does not measure its success in terms of registered voters. In 2010, Dan LaBotz of the Socialist Party USA ran for Senate in Ohio and received over 25,000 votes. Are all of those voters dues-paying members of the SPUSA? They are not.
In addition, a spirited effort was made to run a small slate of write-in candidates to serve as delegates for my campaign during the PFP Convention. Ultimately, that effort was unsuccessful, but I admired the effort and sacrifice made to go through the process required to run as write-ins during the California primary.
So I just want to clear the air on the issue of effort with regard to delegates. Had the SPUSA been one year earlier in reorganizing California, the situation may have been a bit different. Levying blame at the feet of those in California working on my campaign is not only inappropriate, in my opinion, but irresponsible if we place any premium on encouraging our youth to carry the torch in the fight for socialism.
Considering what we had to work with in California and the commitment to the Peace and Freedom Party over the years, the Alexander/Mendoza Campaign thought that making an appeal to the undecided Peace and Freedom Party delegates was a reasonable direction to travel. I am hopeful that many were aware of the fact that, in the numerous media opportunities I have had during my campaign; I have always done whatever I could to promote the Peace and Freedom Party, regardless of where my interview was being held.
I recently took a trip to the Socialist Party USA's National Organizing Conference (NOC) in Memphis, TN, where I explained my history with both Peace and Freedom Party and the Socialist Party USA to a group of nearly 100 activists who convened for the session. I felt some confidence that my history and loyalty to the Peace and Freedom Party, coupled with my commitment to socialism, would yield some measure of support to fill the gap created by the youth of the SPUSA. Never in a million years would I have expected what I witnessed during the Peace and Freedom Convention. To be frank, I am sorry that the youngsters, Alex Mendoza and the FSP Campaign endured the actions of a Party I so proudly supported for the last 14 years.
I have had time to reflect since the Convention, and while I have many questions: Where was the Q&A period for Roseanne Barr? Where was the skepticism that putting our faith that Barr would be able to deliver the voter registrations that Nader wasn't able to accomplish? Where was the concern that a Party that labels itself a socialist party on its website might nominate a candidate who just months ago claimed that she favored Regulated Capitalism? My prevailing feelings are of sorrow. Sorrow for those within and without the Peace and Freedom Party who put their trust and faith into those who could contribute to providing a socialist alternative in California, many of who have reached out to the campaign in the past few days; sorrow and frustration when I think about my loyalty to the Peace and Freedom Party. Sorrow and frustration at the complete lack of support that the socialist candidates received in the way of delegate votes at the Convention.
As I always have, I will continue my fight to build a better future for the working class. I will continue to cherish the time I spend educating young people on the value of socialism. I can only hope to inspire them as they inspire me.
Comradely,
Stewart Alexander
Socialist Party USA Presidential Candidate
Response to Stewart Alexander
by Cat Woods
10 Aug 2012
This letter is a response to Stewart Alexander's resignation letter posted here:
http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/215652/index.php
Stewart,
Are we supposed to feel sorry for you? You basically call Roseanne Barr a liar -- assuming that she is not really a socialist because she hasn't publicly called herself that as long as you. You talk as if you're being so noble in not blaming your *supporters* for not getting you the nomination, because of course you must have deserved it -- after all, you met Kevin Akin a long time ago.
Stewart, I never had anything against you (until now), but you lost this nomination *yourself*. If *any* of the other candidates had talked up the Peace & Freedom Party and pledged to make the CA voter registration drive a priority, Roseanne Barr & Cindy Sheehan would not have had a chance of winning the nomination. They ran ZERO people for delegate. You guys had committed delegates. Roseanne knew no one in the party; you had the long-time loyalty of many party members.
But none of you did. You took that loyalty for granted. You say yourself that the Socialist Party doesn't care that much about voter registration. Well, members of the PFP *care* whether we fall off the ballot in 2014.
Before Roseanne came along, I was just *bored* with the Presidential race. I even wondered whether I could get myself to attend the convention; what was the point? None of you were saying anything about the PFP or saving our ballot line. Every time I've heard you speak, you ramble on and on about how you met Kevin at a cafe years ago, blah blah blah. Occasional passion, but no focus, no preparation. This is supposed to convince us to nominate you for President? I'm sure you're capable of better, but you don't bring it when you speak publicly. Or at least none of the times I've heard you. From what I've heard from others, your "I've known Kevin a long time" speech has been a standard of yours for quite a while now.
About Nader in 2008, no he does not call himself a socialist, but he *did* help the party. He campaigned with our candidates so that they spoke about socialism to audiences of many hundreds instead of a couple dozen. (I was one of those whose path to socialism began with hearing Marsha Feinland's speech about nationalizing the banks since we already paid for them with the Wall Street bailout -- at a Nader event.) He had the Peace & Freedom Party logo on campaign literature which *actually* reached lots of *actual* people. He provided offices from which the PFP ran all its campaigns. The voter registration issue was not the same in 2008. The Top Two primary didn't pass until 2010. *That* is why we're in danger of falling off the ballot. You didn't know that? Do you care about *this* party (the PFP) or not?
Face it, Stewart: you thought you had this nomination in the bag and took your support for granted. I'm not sure why you were so surprised. If you'd called delegates, you'd have known you didn't have it in the bag. I certainly knew you weren't going to win it, and I only called a fraction of the delegates. My main fear was a complete breakdown where Roseanne got eliminated early and no one got a majority. I knew she was the "consensus" candidate if she could make it to the later rounds. I knew she had tons of later round support from your and Durham's supporters. You apparently didn't even bother to find that out.
Yeah, you shouldn't blame your own supporters. And it's completely pathetic that you're trying to blame the party for nominating someone who immediately grasped that this party was in danger and offered to help us, who immediately started putting the Peace & Freedom Party name into the *national* media, and who jumped at the opportunity to "come out" as a socialist and promote socialism. Almost as if she believed in socialism *more* than these people whining about not getting a nomination that they didn't bother to win.
The PFP is a multi-tendency party. You therefore do not get to define Roseanne and Cindy's socialism out of existence simply because you've called yourself a socialist longer and met Kevin Akin so many years ago.
The SP attends meetings of the National Organizing Committee. The hopes behind that committee include a strong hope among many of creating a *JOINT* national nominating process by 2016. My passion is to create a truly democratic process -- a direct national primary with ranked voting and one person one vote. But really it's no hope at all if the SP can't even accept when it loses the CA ballot line fair and square. An essential requirement of democracy is being willing to accept loss in order to have a fair process.
The person at a disadvantage here was Roseanne -- she didn't know the party's culture or the inner workings of our nomination process, she had no delegates, her celebrity was counted as a strike *against* her by a lot of party members, and she only had 3 weeks to win them over. But she brought it big time and won. Man up and deal with it.
-Cat Woods
Tell the Truth Stewart
by Marilyn Peters
sewing (nospam) marilynpeters.com (unverified)
10 Aug 2012
Tell the truth Stewart. I joined your campaign and ran the operations (successfully) for 6 weeks at the end of 2011. You allowed your campaign manager Mimi Soltysik (who did nothing to progress the campaign) to fire me when he became jealous of the work I was doing and the advances I was making in your campaign.
In early December I sent a letter signed by you to all SPUSA CA registrants asking for their help in joining the State Central Committee (SCC) of the Peace and Freedom Party. Both Cindy Henderson and Frank Boeheim of P&F attended an SPUSA meeting to teach Soltysik and others the importance of, and how to become SCC members. Frank even left one page of easy instructions for members to follow.
When I learned from Cindy that the deadline for potention SCC members to register P&F was coming in the next few days, I phoned the 100 SPUSA members who had received the letter and urged them to go to the post office and re-register P&F. Many said they would support you in this way. Soltysik was also given this information several days before the deadline.
Then Soltysik and his girlfriend Lynn had a drunken tyrade at one of our meetings, yelling and screaming abuse at you and at me and then Soltysik dumped me. Everything I was working on came to a grinding halt, including ballot access and the P&F nomination. After all the hard work I had done for you, you did nothing to protect me from your bullying campaign manager.
You attempt to blame the “youth” who are running your campaign for your failure to get the P&F nomination. I am 56 years of age. Obviously your “youth” needed help from someone like me who has years of experience in building successful entities but you allowed them to dump me. The truth is that your campaign manager, his girlfriend and everyone else on your campaign are just plain lazy. Your treasurer has missed 2 deadlines for filing legally required reports with the FEC. They didn’t even bother to get on the P&F SCC so they could vote for you. Yet, here I am a non-citizen who managed to became a voting delegate.
Good luck Stewart.
We both the truth.
Response to Marilyn Peters
by Mimi Soltysik
(No verified email address)
12 Aug 2012
Generally we spend some time and effort in responding to feedback like Marilyn's to ensure that perception does not create reality. Given the tone that Marilyn has taken, we feel that readers will reasonably be able to see motive in her response.
One thing we would like to establish. Marilyn mentions that she had successfully run the Campaign for a small period of time. What she fails to mention is that she was somehow, perhaps remarkably, to create an environment where nearly every member of the Alexander/Mendoza 2012 Campaign had considered quitting had she continued in her position.
In addition, the Alexander/Mendoza Campaign was able to run and eventually see the appointment of a Central Committee member under the same bylaws that allowed Marilyn the appointment. (A bylaw allowing non-citizens and those under 18 to run for Central Committee.)
Marilyn and others may have attended SP of CA meetings outlining the requirements necessary to run for Peace and Freedom Central Committee. What she does not mention is the fact that, in order to run for Peace and Freedom Party Central Committee, one needed to be a registered Peace and Freedom Party voter no later than February 2011. The Socialist Party USA's CA chapter was established on June 25th of 2011, and the overwhelming majority of Socialist Party USA members had not been registered Peace and Freedom prior to February 2011. Much effort was placed in the early part of 2011 to establish 1. a Los Angeles and Riverside Local of the Socialist Party in CA and 2. creating a foundation for growth in CA. We achieved those objectives and have since seen the addition of a Bay Area Local with Ventura and Orange Counties at the ready to charter.
Marilyn can choose to present herself publicly any way she sees fit. If that happens to include insults (as inane and untrue as they might be), that's her choice. Anyone who has worked closely with the folks in the SPUSA affiliated with the Alexander/Mendoza Campaign knows that malaise has not been a problem.
As stated from the beginning, this would be a Campaign intended to spread the message of socialism. This is a Campaign that enjoys working with another, and despite its lack of experience, is doing its best to provide the SPUSA with an effort that Party members will be pleased with.
All the best,
Mimi Soltysik
Response to Mimi Soltysik
by Dave Kadlecek
dkadlecek (nospam) igc.org (verified)
13 Aug 2012
Modified: 03:51:13 PM
Mimi Soltysik is wrong in his claim that California election laws prevented the Socialist Party USA from running candidates for Peace and Freedom Party Central Committees to vote for Stewart Alexander.
I wasn't involved in any of the discussions last year among Marilyn Peters, Mimi Soltysik, Frank Boeheim and others in the Peace and Freedom Party and/or the Socialist Party USA, so I can't say who knew what when and who was told what.
However, I can say that the restrictions in the California Elections Code would not have prevented supporters of the Socialist Party USA who weren't already Peace and Freedom Party registrants before June 2011 from running for P&F Central Committees to be able to vote for Stewart Alexander at the August 2012 convention.
There are two restrictions on candidates for P&F Central Committees whose names are to appear on the primary election ballot (or be declared elected by county election officials without the race actually being on the ballot). One is that the candidate can't have been registered in another ballot-qualified party in California for 12 months before filing a declaration of candidacy, and the candidate must have been registered in the Peace and Freedom Party for 3 months before filing a declaration of candidacy. The deadline for filing the declaration of candidacy (at the end, not the beginning, of the filing process, with a deadline this year of March 9th). Thus prospective candidates for P&F Central Committees had to have been registered P&F by 9 December 2011 and not have been registered Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, American Independent or Americans Elect at any time on or after 9 March 2011. They did not have to have been registered Peace and Freedom since February of 2011.
Further, even if a prospective Central Committees candidate had been ineligible to appear on the ballot, he or she could have run as a write-in simply by getting 25 signatures of P&F registrants in the relevant jurisdiction (county, county supervisorial district, or Assembly district, depending on the county) asking that the primary election for Central Committees not be cancelled to allow for write-in candidates (and then getting nominated as a write-in by getting nominating signatures during an eight-week period in the spring).
Getting the needed signatures wouldn't have been a trivial task, but it wasn't something that would have been horrendously difficult for anyone who had more than half a clue regarding election procedures.
To Dave
by Mimi Soltysik
(No verified email address)
13 Aug 2012
Modified: 07:23:46 PM
Dave,
We took a stack of forms from SPUSA members to the voter registration office, and of that stack, very few (perhaps 2) met the requirements you outlined. We also ran a few candidates as write-ins, collecting the requisite signatures necessary for ballot eligibility.
I will repeat once more as I have many times elsewhere. We entered the Peace and Freedom Party Convention on the back of a newly formed chapter of the SPUSA, one that we worked very hard to build. Our expectations on winning the nomination were minimal. I do not believe that Stewart's decision is based at all in the fact that he and Alex did not win the nomination, nor have I seen him state as much.
Our focus in early 2011 throughout the bulk of the 2011 year was on chartering a CA chapter of the SPUSA, establishing locals, hosting the the SPUSA National Convention (which we did), and providing resources for those interested in building the Party throughout the state. Regardless what anyone might believe, there was also a considerable effort to run delegates for the PFP Convention. As I mentioned in my earlier paragraph, that did not happen, and with the rebuilding of the SPUSA in CA as context, we were simply not at a position at the moment where winning the Convention on the basis of delegate count was a remote possibility at best.
In any case, Stewart has made a personal choice and we will continue our efforts to spread the message of socialism.
Mimi
Paul Ryan's Socially Destructive Agenda by Stephen Lendman
13 Aug 2012
Paul Ryan's Socially Destructive Agenda by Stephen Lendman
Ryan and other Republican House Budget Committee members call it "The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal."
Key is gutting vital programs millions of Americans rely on. Ryan wants Medicare privatized as well as Medicaid, food stamps, and and other entitlement programs ended.
Later, he wants Social Security privatized en route to ending it altogether.
Medicaid is welfare for low-income beneficiaries. Washington and states co-fund it. It's managed at the state level.
Social Security and Medicare are insurance programs, not entitlements. Worker-employer payroll tax deductions fund them. They're contractual federal obligations to eligible recipients. Gutting them is irresponsible and socially destructive. Like Republicans, Obama and most Democrats are committed to doing it.
Social security provides vital retirement, disability, survivorship, and death benefits. It's America's most effective poverty reduction program. It's worked remarkably well since inception.
It's the debt, stupid, America's "fiscal cliff," they claim. Gutting social programs assures unrestricted military spending, maintaining tax cuts for rich elites, cutting amounts corporations pay, and sustaining handouts to bankers and other corporate favorites.
It's not going bankrupt. When properly administered, it's sound and secure. It needs only modest adjustments at times to assure it.
Medicare is America's largest health insurance program. Millions of seniors, disabled people under age 65, and other eligible recipients rely on it.
Ryan wants social spending cut to 1949 levels. Around $5 trillion is proposed for starters over the next decade. Doing so will create jobs and promote growth, he claims. His budget balancing plan falls on the backs of ordinary people.
His program assures America's resources go to rich elites, bankers, war profiteers, and other corporate favorites.
"Prioritize national security by preventing deep, indiscriminate cuts to defense," he says.
Repeal Obamacare. "Advance bipartisan solutions that take power away from government bureaucrats and put patients in control."
Last March, the House adopted a budget resolution. It adopted much of what Ryan proposed. Ten Republicans opposed him. They want bigger cuts. Democrats endorse slightly less austere ones than Ryan. America's poor, disadvantaged, and moderate income earners are largely shut out of his plan.
In 2011, he proposed eliminating Medicare altogether. It passed the House but not the Senate.
Ryan claims his plan is responsible deficit cutting. The late Bob Chapman disagreed. He envisioned no change in out-of-control spending. The deficit will accelerate, not shrink, he explained.
Ryan's plan reshuffles the deck chairs. Most of what's cut is redirected to America's wealthy and corporate favorites. Lawmakers know exactly what they're doing, said Chapman. The nation is headed for Banana Republic status, he explained.
He saw no reality checking, no restraint, no attempt to stop deficit hemorrhaging, and no control over America's war machine. He called forced austerity a formula for "economic chaos."
Criminals are running the country. Annual $1 - 2 trillion deficits will persist for years. Debt amounts are so great, they won't be paid. Limits will be raised. Social spending cuts will grow until America's safety net is entirely gutted.
Gradualism is how he'll do it. A bipartisan majority agrees. Ryan's plan follows recommendations from Obama's two deficit cutting commissions. Simpson/Bowles and Dominici/Rivlin proposed "restoring America's future" by destroying it for ordinary households hit hardest.
Instead of stimulus when it's most needed, they want America's poor, disadvantaged, and others of limited means bearing the burden of America's war machine and letting super-rich elites get richer. Greater inequality and poverty are assured.
Their ideal society is no fit place to live in. Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" wants America returned to 19th century harshness. His entire agenda reflects reactionary extremism. Legislation he proposes is corporate friendly.
Agribusiness is favored over small farmers. Free trade is unfair. Education plans want public schools privatized. Everything government does, business does better, he believes. Energy policy supports dangerous nuclear technology and drill baby drill.
Environmental concerns are subordinated to profits. Healthcare proposals favor the best money can buy for those who can afford it. Homeland Security is about keeping America safe by militarizing it. War on terror strategy hypes fear to enlist support for Pentagon and homeland priorities.
Immigration plans call for keeping out and removing millions not wanted. Tax policy makes ordinary people bear the burden for maximum business and super-rich benefits.
Ryan's position on these and other issues cynically supports the top 1% at the expense of everyone else. He represents Wisconsin's 1st congressional district. Elected in November 1998, he's in his 7th term in Congress.
He chairs the House Budget Committee. He's one of three Young Guns Program co-founders. It recruits hardline candidates for Congress. Romney chose Ryan as his running mate partner. They call themselves "America's Comeback Team."
"Paul is a man of tremendous character," Romney said. He's "the right man to lead America back to prosperity and greatness." He manipulated Tea Party anger into budget priorities.
He's wealthy and doesn't care. He's ranked America's 124th richest House representative. He's worth an estimated $3.2 million.
He's ideologically far-right. He's an economic warrior representing wealth and power. He and Romney are two sides of the same coin. Democrats hardly differ. They're in lockstep on issues mattering most.
Ryan is more hard right than most ideological extremists. He favors two tax brackets - 25 and 10%. He wants corporate taxes cut from 35 - 25% or lower. Ideally he'd like them eliminated altogether along with others on capital gains, dividends, interest, and estates.
He deplores social spending. He calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme. His job creation ideas assures destroying millions of them. He supports socialism for the rich and free market capitalism for working folks.
No corporation left behind is policy. No social program too many destroyed permits it. Bankers and other other business predators love Ryan. He's their kind of guy. Romney/Ryan is their ticket.
They're as comfortable with Obama. He gave them everything they want and then some. Everything isn't enough. They want more. Stealing it from ordinary folks is how. Romney's on board to do it. So is Ryan.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
See also:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com
Paul Ryan's Socially Destructive Agenda by Stephen Lendman
Ryan and other Republican House Budget Committee members call it "The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal."
Key is gutting vital programs millions of Americans rely on. Ryan wants Medicare privatized as well as Medicaid, food stamps, and and other entitlement programs ended.
Later, he wants Social Security privatized en route to ending it altogether.
Medicaid is welfare for low-income beneficiaries. Washington and states co-fund it. It's managed at the state level.
Social Security and Medicare are insurance programs, not entitlements. Worker-employer payroll tax deductions fund them. They're contractual federal obligations to eligible recipients. Gutting them is irresponsible and socially destructive. Like Republicans, Obama and most Democrats are committed to doing it.
Social security provides vital retirement, disability, survivorship, and death benefits. It's America's most effective poverty reduction program. It's worked remarkably well since inception.
It's the debt, stupid, America's "fiscal cliff," they claim. Gutting social programs assures unrestricted military spending, maintaining tax cuts for rich elites, cutting amounts corporations pay, and sustaining handouts to bankers and other corporate favorites.
It's not going bankrupt. When properly administered, it's sound and secure. It needs only modest adjustments at times to assure it.
Medicare is America's largest health insurance program. Millions of seniors, disabled people under age 65, and other eligible recipients rely on it.
Ryan wants social spending cut to 1949 levels. Around $5 trillion is proposed for starters over the next decade. Doing so will create jobs and promote growth, he claims. His budget balancing plan falls on the backs of ordinary people.
His program assures America's resources go to rich elites, bankers, war profiteers, and other corporate favorites.
"Prioritize national security by preventing deep, indiscriminate cuts to defense," he says.
Repeal Obamacare. "Advance bipartisan solutions that take power away from government bureaucrats and put patients in control."
Last March, the House adopted a budget resolution. It adopted much of what Ryan proposed. Ten Republicans opposed him. They want bigger cuts. Democrats endorse slightly less austere ones than Ryan. America's poor, disadvantaged, and moderate income earners are largely shut out of his plan.
In 2011, he proposed eliminating Medicare altogether. It passed the House but not the Senate.
Ryan claims his plan is responsible deficit cutting. The late Bob Chapman disagreed. He envisioned no change in out-of-control spending. The deficit will accelerate, not shrink, he explained.
Ryan's plan reshuffles the deck chairs. Most of what's cut is redirected to America's wealthy and corporate favorites. Lawmakers know exactly what they're doing, said Chapman. The nation is headed for Banana Republic status, he explained.
He saw no reality checking, no restraint, no attempt to stop deficit hemorrhaging, and no control over America's war machine. He called forced austerity a formula for "economic chaos."
Criminals are running the country. Annual $1 - 2 trillion deficits will persist for years. Debt amounts are so great, they won't be paid. Limits will be raised. Social spending cuts will grow until America's safety net is entirely gutted.
Gradualism is how he'll do it. A bipartisan majority agrees. Ryan's plan follows recommendations from Obama's two deficit cutting commissions. Simpson/Bowles and Dominici/Rivlin proposed "restoring America's future" by destroying it for ordinary households hit hardest.
Instead of stimulus when it's most needed, they want America's poor, disadvantaged, and others of limited means bearing the burden of America's war machine and letting super-rich elites get richer. Greater inequality and poverty are assured.
Their ideal society is no fit place to live in. Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" wants America returned to 19th century harshness. His entire agenda reflects reactionary extremism. Legislation he proposes is corporate friendly.
Agribusiness is favored over small farmers. Free trade is unfair. Education plans want public schools privatized. Everything government does, business does better, he believes. Energy policy supports dangerous nuclear technology and drill baby drill.
Environmental concerns are subordinated to profits. Healthcare proposals favor the best money can buy for those who can afford it. Homeland Security is about keeping America safe by militarizing it. War on terror strategy hypes fear to enlist support for Pentagon and homeland priorities.
Immigration plans call for keeping out and removing millions not wanted. Tax policy makes ordinary people bear the burden for maximum business and super-rich benefits.
Ryan's position on these and other issues cynically supports the top 1% at the expense of everyone else. He represents Wisconsin's 1st congressional district. Elected in November 1998, he's in his 7th term in Congress.
He chairs the House Budget Committee. He's one of three Young Guns Program co-founders. It recruits hardline candidates for Congress. Romney chose Ryan as his running mate partner. They call themselves "America's Comeback Team."
"Paul is a man of tremendous character," Romney said. He's "the right man to lead America back to prosperity and greatness." He manipulated Tea Party anger into budget priorities.
He's wealthy and doesn't care. He's ranked America's 124th richest House representative. He's worth an estimated $3.2 million.
He's ideologically far-right. He's an economic warrior representing wealth and power. He and Romney are two sides of the same coin. Democrats hardly differ. They're in lockstep on issues mattering most.
Ryan is more hard right than most ideological extremists. He favors two tax brackets - 25 and 10%. He wants corporate taxes cut from 35 - 25% or lower. Ideally he'd like them eliminated altogether along with others on capital gains, dividends, interest, and estates.
He deplores social spending. He calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme. His job creation ideas assures destroying millions of them. He supports socialism for the rich and free market capitalism for working folks.
No corporation left behind is policy. No social program too many destroyed permits it. Bankers and other other business predators love Ryan. He's their kind of guy. Romney/Ryan is their ticket.
They're as comfortable with Obama. He gave them everything they want and then some. Everything isn't enough. They want more. Stealing it from ordinary folks is how. Romney's on board to do it. So is Ryan.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
See also:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
From The Pen Of Peter Paul Markin- Looking For The Heart Of Saturday Night, Christ Any Night- The Songs of Tom Waits
From The Pen Of Peter Paul Markin- Looking For The Heart Of Saturday Night, Christ Any Night- The Songs of Tom Waits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVE72Ae82Tw
Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of Tom Waits performing Yap Harburg’s Brother, Can You Spare A Dime?
If, as I do, every once in a while as least from a comfortable from a distance you need to hear about boozers, losers, dopesters, hipsters, fallen sisters, midnight sifters, grifters, drifters, the driftless, small-time grafters, hoboes, bums, tramps, the fallen, those who want to fall, Spanish Johnnies, stale cigarette butts, whiskey-soaked barroom floors, loners, the lonely, sad sacks, the sad and others at the margins of society then this is your stop. Tom Waitsis an acquired taste, but one well worth acquiring as he storms heaven looking for busted black-hearted angels, for girls with Monroe hips, for the desperate out in forsaken woods who need to hold to something, and for all the misbegotten.
Tom Waits gives voice in song, a big task, to the characters that peopled Nelson Algren’s novels (The Last Carousel, Neon Wilderness, Walk on the Wild Side, and The Man with the Golden Arm). In short, these are the people who do not make revolutions, far from it, but they surely desperately could use one. If, additionally, you need a primordial voice and occasional dissonant instrumentation to round out the picture go no further. Finally, if you need someone who “feels your pain” for his characters you are home. And that, my friends, is definitely a political statement. Keep looking for the heart of Saturday night, Brother.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVE72Ae82Tw
Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of Tom Waits performing Yap Harburg’s Brother, Can You Spare A Dime?
If, as I do, every once in a while as least from a comfortable from a distance you need to hear about boozers, losers, dopesters, hipsters, fallen sisters, midnight sifters, grifters, drifters, the driftless, small-time grafters, hoboes, bums, tramps, the fallen, those who want to fall, Spanish Johnnies, stale cigarette butts, whiskey-soaked barroom floors, loners, the lonely, sad sacks, the sad and others at the margins of society then this is your stop. Tom Waitsis an acquired taste, but one well worth acquiring as he storms heaven looking for busted black-hearted angels, for girls with Monroe hips, for the desperate out in forsaken woods who need to hold to something, and for all the misbegotten.
Tom Waits gives voice in song, a big task, to the characters that peopled Nelson Algren’s novels (The Last Carousel, Neon Wilderness, Walk on the Wild Side, and The Man with the Golden Arm). In short, these are the people who do not make revolutions, far from it, but they surely desperately could use one. If, additionally, you need a primordial voice and occasional dissonant instrumentation to round out the picture go no further. Finally, if you need someone who “feels your pain” for his characters you are home. And that, my friends, is definitely a political statement. Keep looking for the heart of Saturday night, Brother.
In Boston-Black August-SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE THE STRUGGLE AGAINST WAR AND RACISM
In Boston-Black August-SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE THE STRUGGLE AGAINST WAR AND RACISM
August 23rd, 6:3O-8pm
Grove Hall Library
Jazz Lounge
FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, CHILD CARE PROVIDED
With the recent police violence in Anaheim, the murder of Trayvon Martin, mass unemployment and the continued existence of a racist criminal justice system, we are calling on the community to come together to discuss a socialist alternative to this system of violence. Malcolm X once said that "you can't have capitalism without racism"; this meeting, free and open to the public, will explore this theme and much more.
Eljeer Hawkins is an author who has covered various topics, from the legacy of the Black Freedom Movement to last year's Georgia prisoners' strike. Eljeer has spoken at many colleges and community centers throughout the country about the necessity of building a movement that unites working people to challenge the capitalist system and all its ills. Eljeer is a founding member of Youth Against Poverty and Racism in Harlem and Socialist Alternative.
For more Information call: 774 454 9060 or email: Boston@socialistalternative.org
August 23rd, 6:3O-8pm
Grove Hall Library
Jazz Lounge
FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, CHILD CARE PROVIDED
With the recent police violence in Anaheim, the murder of Trayvon Martin, mass unemployment and the continued existence of a racist criminal justice system, we are calling on the community to come together to discuss a socialist alternative to this system of violence. Malcolm X once said that "you can't have capitalism without racism"; this meeting, free and open to the public, will explore this theme and much more.
Eljeer Hawkins is an author who has covered various topics, from the legacy of the Black Freedom Movement to last year's Georgia prisoners' strike. Eljeer has spoken at many colleges and community centers throughout the country about the necessity of building a movement that unites working people to challenge the capitalist system and all its ills. Eljeer is a founding member of Youth Against Poverty and Racism in Harlem and Socialist Alternative.
For more Information call: 774 454 9060 or email: Boston@socialistalternative.org
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
In Honor Of The “Old Man”- On The 72nd Anniversary Of The Death Of Leon Trotsky
Markin comment:
Every year at this time we honor the memory of the great Russian revolutionary leader, Leon Trotsky, a man who not only was able theoretically to articulate the arc of the Russian Revolution of 1917 (the theory of permanent revolution) but personally led the defend of that revolution against world imperialism and its internal Russian White Guard agents. Oh yes, and also wrote a million pro-communist articles, did a little turn at literary criticism, acted in various Soviet official capacities, led the Communist International, led the opposition first in Russia and then internationally to the Stalinist degeneration of that revolution, and created a new revolutionary international (the Fourth International) to rally the demoralized international working class movement in the face of Hitlerite reaction. To speak nothing of hunting, fishing, raising rabbits, collecting cactii and chasing Frida Kahlo around Mexico (oops, on that last one). In short, as I have characterized him before, the closest that this sorry old world has come to producing a complete communist man within the borders of bourgeois society (except that last thing, that skirt-chasing thing, although maybe not). All honor to his memory. Forward to new Octobers!
Usually on this anniversary I place a selection of Trotsky’s writings on various subjects in this space. This year, having found a site that has material related to his family life, the effect of his murder on that family, and other more personal details of his life I am placing that material here in his honor. The forward to new Octobers still goes, though.
*********
Every year at this time we honor the memory of the great Russian revolutionary leader, Leon Trotsky, a man who not only was able theoretically to articulate the arc of the Russian Revolution of 1917 (the theory of permanent revolution) but personally led the defend of that revolution against world imperialism and its internal Russian White Guard agents. Oh yes, and also wrote a million pro-communist articles, did a little turn at literary criticism, acted in various Soviet official capacities, led the Communist International, led the opposition first in Russia and then internationally to the Stalinist degeneration of that revolution, and created a new revolutionary international (the Fourth International) to rally the demoralized international working class movement in the face of Hitlerite reaction. To speak nothing of hunting, fishing, raising rabbits, collecting cactii and chasing Frida Kahlo around Mexico (oops, on that last one). In short, as I have characterized him before, the closest that this sorry old world has come to producing a complete communist man within the borders of bourgeois society (except that last thing, that skirt-chasing thing, although maybe not). All honor to his memory. Forward to new Octobers!
Usually on this anniversary I place a selection of Trotsky’s writings on various subjects in this space. This year, having found a site that has material related to his family life, the effect of his murder on that family, and other more personal details of his life I am placing that material here in his honor. The forward to new Octobers still goes, though.
*********
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)